Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Vandalism and BLP vio's by User:Charaba[edit]

Initially this started on the BLP about Cashis. Charaba was adding back in BLP violating info to the article about a feud between 2 living subjects that was controversial and not documented by reliable sources. I discussed this last year at BLPN [1]. I removed it several times, listing the BLP vio in the edit summary. Warnings about it were given to Charaba [2] and [3]. Charaba has continued to put this info back and begun vandalizing my talk page [4], [5], [6]. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • His response to the notice was "shut up snitch". [8]. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked until he can convince an admin he can behave like a grownup. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP[edit]

Resolved: Semi'd for 2 weeks by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and yours truly. Tim Song (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT the place to post this but my requests at WP:RFPP are being ignored once again for some strange reason. I'm asking for eyes on a problem and requesting semi-protection on the major articles affected by the incessant socking of User:Ragusino's variable IP (186.105.124.70 & similar). In case there are doubts as to his identity (even though most involved admins are aware of it), one can easily note his frequent trademark WP:OUTING attempts against me included in his edit-summaries [10].

The socking has increased in frequency lately (several times a day) in a group of articles I've listed at WP:RFPP [11], that much is obvious from their respective edit histories. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Axmann8 impostor returning?[edit]

Resolved: Pages protected

92.2.178.82 (talk · contribs)
92.16.201.80 (talk · contribs)>br> Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

In the last few days, at least 2 UK-based IP's have been working to tag certain users as socks of other users, and most suspiciously, to remove the impostor socks from Axmann8's various impostor accounts. This was brought to my attention by the user TFOWR.

My guess is that it's the impostor himself (Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) would be a good guess), trying to take away "credit" for the socks and also to preserve them for "historical" reasons. He admits to being on a dynamic IP. It could also be Axmann8 himself, although he's based in Indiana and as far as I know whenever he actually socked it was traceable to Indiana, and he didn't use plays on his regular username. Two different bad apples, basically.

The reason I'm bringing this here is to ask what to do. Should the various pages he's touched (now all reverted) be semi-protected? Or is he technically correct in making at least some of the changes he's doing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did we get CUs on the prior sockpuppeteers to compare the IP ranges with?
I spotted TFOWRs note on your talk page and looked at the first IP they mentioned; I am concerned by not entire convinced based on behavioral analysis.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It could be someone else altogether, impostoring an impostor. And, no, the checkusers ignored my pleas to "look outside the box" on this thing last summer, so we don't know where all those Axmann8 impostors came from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the assumption at the time was that it was another banned ID (Pioneercourthouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) but it doesn't matter all that much; I just wondered what we should do, if anything, with the pages the IP is messing with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to just protect the user pages at least; does that make sense? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protecting both the talk and the user pages would fend off IP's, who ought not be messing with those pages anyway. If I were an admin, I would walk through the "contributions" of those two IP's and semi the ones they've touched. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Except I would still like to know, socks' egotism aside, whether the changes being made were appropriate to make. The one thing the checkuser did last summer was to determine they were NOT socks of Axmann8, yet these various pages still say they are. That's the mistake the IP was trying to "correct". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If an identifiable real life named person gets indeffed and wants to have their record clear and properly tagged to avoid mistaken connection with other abusers, that's one thing.
We owe these pseudonyms no extra courtesy. Indeffed users coming back and editing around the edges like this aren't helping the encyclopedia or themselves at all. Even if we have some wrong info, they're wasting our time and disrupting things. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In that case, semi-protection should be fine. They are also, unfortunately, on my watch list again now. >:( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I semi'ed all that needs it; if I missed something, let me know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you hit the ones he touched except for User talk:Max Antean and a couple of actual legitimate edits. I'm calling it done. Thank you for your help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg L[edit]

Greg L made several comments at the reliable sources noticeboard that I viewed as defamatory statements about John Sugg, a journalist and living person whose article was being discussed as a source. The relevant quotes from Greg L are:

  • "Sugg… has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions..."
  • "...Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction)..."
  • "I’ve struck and corrected my post, which still shows that Sugg is an idiot."

I asked the editor to strike or refactor their comments, both on the noticeboard itself, as well as on the user's talk page. The user replied with a lengthy essay about why they felt justified in their comments. Rather than derail that discussion, I thought I'd bring up the issue here. I'm not seeking any sort of punitive action against Greg L, but I believe calling someone "an idiot" is a violation of WP:BLP—even when done at RSN. Greg L suggested I contact an uninvolved administrator if I wanted his comments modified, which is why I'm here. ← George talk 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If an administrator does decide to refactor Greg L's comments, please also correct the spelling of Sugg as Slugg. ← George talk 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the expression of opinion ventured across the BLP expressable line; the opinion, however, seems reasonable. Expression bad, opinion ok, requested refactor. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out to George the nom, and he acknowledged elsewhere, his post here failed to reflect this P.S. that Greg L had left at the RSN. Greg L's post squarely addressed the nom's issue, 51 minutes prior to this AN/I being opened. This AN/I is needless wikidrama -- as to Greg L (though not as to the remaining three of us).
It also strikes me as odd that such great sensitivity and concern is being directed at of all things this particular alleged crossing of the line. While the nom (and, admittedly, most others at that discussion) have evidenced complete insensitivity to the instances raised much earlier in the very same discussion of BLPs (supported only by a non-RS) stating that individuals have suggested that others be killed, be shot, that they were incited to kill someone by living person X, and that have contained all manner of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. I encouraged the editors in that discussion to delete those references. Yet George, rather than address those far more serious references by removing them from those BLPs, chose to raise this issue -- first at the RSN, and now here.
Perhaps it is as Bertrand Russell says: "Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
An offer to correct a post which is never acted upon isn't useful. Ignoring an administrator's request is likewise non-productive. To the best of my knowledge, I never "suggested that others be killed, be shot..." or any of the other things you listed, and I can't really understand what that sentence means, so maybe you could clarify, or leave me out of the group that shows "complete insensitivity" to whatever you're talking about. ← George talk 08:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And, since there are especially restrictive requirements on putting posts in user-talk space, I corrected George’s comments and the thread title on my talk page (here) in order to not mention Sugg by name there. Curiously, George elected to not adhere to this counsel and did so again. I am accordingly deleting that thread in its entirety. Please try to ensure that controversial discussions of Sugg are limited to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such material must be strictly limited. I also corrected my “Slugg” spelling, which was entirely unintentional. Sorry for that. Greg L (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations: Epeefleche, John Z, and Annoynmous[edit]

The underlying problem here is Epeefleche's original post, which manages to seriously defame both Emerson and Sugg. Epeefleche said, and Greg L repeated that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."
Neither Sugg nor Emerson said nor did anything so dangerous or crazy. This is not at all what Sugg says in his FAIR article. What Sugg said was that Emerson helped push a phony Pakistani defector's made-up story that "Pakistan was planning nuclear first strike on India." Very, very different.John Z (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
If that is true, then I would say “the proper response to bad speech is better speech.” I just repeated there what Epee wrote. If that point-of-fact is not true—or has been stretched beyond all comprehension so it isn’t a fair characterization of the facts, then please state as much there. What I wrote there was what I believed to be the truth of the matter at that time. If what is clearly my opinion there at Reliable Sources Noticeboard *truly* meets Wikipedia’s criteria for “defamation”, then I should think that in order to protect Sugg’s fine, fine reputation, there would exist a clear imperative to expediently remove the defamatory opinion. Accordingly, I hereby give my permission to any uninvolved Admin who finds my posts to be defamatory (and clearly not a simple matter of opinion that has an unfortunate tone) to delete any and all of my offending statements by deleting the offending post in its entirety. I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia can not have “clearly defamatory” information on its pages, even on RSN; I’m just not clearly seeing it yet and so will yield to wiser uninvolved admins. Greg L (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd note that the offending phrase goes back at least to Annoynmous's first edit here, and earlier, as he says he was restoring material, and that I and other editors pressed save in the Emerson article when it contained this phrase.John Z (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@JohnZ:

  1. I am a living person.
  2. Next time you disparage me with a contentious and untrue "fact", if it is in a conversation that I am not party to, I would appreciate you letting me know. You failed to do so here.
  3. Your above statement as to me is not only contentious, as you well know (if you've read the sentence in full, that you quoted somehow only in part) it is completely untrue.
  4. You untruthfully state that my post seriously defames both (your shocked emphasis) Emerson and Sugg.
  5. You untruthfully state that I said that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India...."
  6. As you know, if you've read the sentence in question in full, what my sentence really says is that (quoting just a few more words from the sentence):

"Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras [those being the 5 paras that Annoynmous had inserted, and which I was seeking to delete, are: 1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."

To borrow your characterization: "Very, very different."
7. I'm more than a little miffed at your easy-to-catch error, at your defaming me, and at your doing it without even tendering me the slight courtesy of a note that you were doing it. Is everyone looking for a bona fide BLP violation? Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a winner.
8. Given that you are a NPOV editor, and your comments here were made in good faith, I look forward to you making this same accusation at the AN/I that is open with regard to the disruptive editing of your colleague Annoynmous. Accusing him, as passionately as you accused me, of the same defamation.
9. Of course, if you were a POV editor, I imagine we would not see you making the same passionate charge against your colleague at his AN/I. I assume good faith, however, and look forward to our seeing your post there.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I screwed up badly. There were so many he said, she saids involved that again, I screwed up badly in saying who was saying who had said what.John Z (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking again at this interminable thread, I note that you did, as far as I can see, accidentally, and in good faith, like everyone else here, indicate that you believed Sugg had definitely said #1. Not just that the 5 paras said Sugg said #1. Later on in the thread: "Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). " Has anyone kept things entirely straight in their head and in their posts here? ;-) John Z (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The context makes absolutely clear that what I was writing was "as presented in the 5 paras". It follows that in the string. One doesn't repeat every caveat, etc in these strings -- just as one doesn't write out the name of FAIR each time.
And, as you know, you were quoting the very sentence where I made it clear that I was referring to those 5 paras. Not some later sentence you're now trying to make a silk purse out of.
It doesn't explain your failure to notify me. It doesn't explain you quoting a misleading, limited portion of the sentence. It doesn't explain you defaming me.
And it doesn't explain why I haven't yet seen your damning post at your colleague's AN/I. Which I hope to see shortly. I'm quite annoyed -- I thought, whatever our different points of view at times, that you were above all this. It's not cricket.
I'm frankly disgusted by the duplicity here -- crying that these people you've not dealt with are being defamed --- while actually you are defaming me, with whom you are dealing -- you fail to notify me == and you still haven't stepped up to level the same charge, with the same passion, against your colleague, at the AN/I where his similar misconduct is being considered.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche, I have apologized above. It is quite clear that in the later post you referred to the "5 paras" but you then quite explicitly made the same mistake many others did: You said Sugg said: #1 Emerson was involved in a plot... No, one does absolutely always repeat necessary caveats, because if one doesn't one makes improper accusations. In this matter of 'He said she said X said Y said', if one omits one of the saids one gets an entirely different meaning. Before you responded, I accused Annoynmous (see below) and myself of making the same error in article space. What else should I criticize Annoynmous for? I explained my own actions above and on your talk page: I screwed up badly. I'll say it again: I screwed up badly.John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sense I've been brought into this discussion, I would like know when I ever defamed anyone. I think I once called Emerson an Idiot, which I acknowledge was wrong. I used that phrase because I was frankly very upset at Greg L's insulting tone and in the heat of the moment I used language I shouldn't have. I will say for my part that depsite my profound disagreement with epeefleche on many things, I don't remeber him ever using POV language of the kind Greg L is accused of. However, I think he's overeacting here somewhat. John Z said he was sorry, except it and let's move on. annoynmous 05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Annoynmous: Oops again: I cited your edit here, which is a bit ambiguous, but the problem phrase really was in the next edit by yet another editor here, and that phrasing remained in many subsequent edits. I don't think anyone acted in bad faith, just a broken telephone resulted in article edits desired by no one, that defamed both Emerson and Sugg, which people then took on faith and used as the basis of unfortunate statements. What a mess!John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
@Annon: The defamation that you engaged in (by inserting the language into the BLP Emerson article; repeatedly) was the precise defamation that John Z mistakenly accused me of above.
I imagine that the following statements that you made constitute BLP violations as well -- your saying at the RSN that it seems a fellow editor “has proved once again that he knows nothing about nothing", and “apparently operates under the rationale of "I don't like you, your not allowing my bias to reign on wikipedia, how can I get you banned" (when nobody mentioned a ban, or that they dislike you), that a fellow editor thinks he owns Wikipedia, that a fellow editor hasn’t “contributed anything worthwhile to this discussion", and that a fellow editor has “whined”. I note that you followed all that with the statement: “I believe in civility”.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I never inserted POV language into the article. All I did was add Suggs criticism of Emerson and his opinion of him. The quotes about TWA and the first WTC attack are not denied by Emerson. He merely says that many others made the same mistake. I agree that the pakistani thing shouldn't be in until a more reliable source is found, but I don't see what's wrong with the rest of it.
Greg L never threatened to ban me? So I supposed I was just dreaming comments like this:
If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner
Your telling me that's not a threat of a ban?
My language above was born out of frustration with Greg L's attitude. I'm sorry if I speak the truth, but the fact is he didn't contribute anything to the article and spent most of his time on the page insulting me. There's no rule that says I have to sit back take abuse. annoynmous 08:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
@Epee et al: Epeefleche, we all did end up making these defamatory statements, you and Greg L were probably the last in the broken telephone. I again apologize for saying that your RSN post started it, which is quite untrue. Annoynmous wrote something confusing, another editor was confused and reworded it badly to say something quite unintended, you tried to eliminate it and many other things, and other people, including Annoynmous and me, not seeing that precise problem, reverted to the clearly BLP violating, original to Wikipedia, wording. This wording was eventually taken as fact, as what Sugg said Emerson said, by everyone at RSN, and this thread got started when Greg noticed how crazy the statement attributed to Sugg was but took it as factual, and derided Sugg. Again, a mess. I hope this might explain a little, to each other, Annoynmous, Greg's, mine, etc less than perfectly thoughtful statements. Good night to all.John Z (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice, thoughtful summary. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am once again reminded of the extreme importance of going to the source to see about what is and is not “factual.” So I read Sugg’s “Steven Emerson's Crusade” article in FAIR. Clever guy. He hides his accusations behind the apron strings of questions: Did self-styled anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson help push the world toward nuclear war? Indeed, inquiring minds want to know. The FAIR article in question is an op-ed piece by an author whose, uhm… *suggestions* are, uhm… *novel* and have dubious uhm… *truthiness* in my opinion. Whereas Sugg might be an exceedingly fine author, and might have some exceedingly good works out there, in my oh-so exceedingly humble opinion, “Steven Emerson's Crusade” isn’t one of his better works. It was arguably a defamatory, POV-pushing piece, his writings on Emerson were the subject of a defamation lawsuit, and the article has absolutely no business being used in citations in Wikipedia’s BLPs—IMOSEHO.

    I could not possibly agree more with Jimbo when he wrote (∆ here): "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. The first five words in Jimbo’s post—the quoted part—was in reference to a post from Annoynmous (∆ here). Yeah, I’d say Jimbo’s common-sense assessment of the matter is something I entirely agree with; we need to go with other reliable sources and not mention Sugg’s piece at all. This is all a big do-da about reliable sources. Sugg’s op-ed piece, while having a message point some find welcome and refreshing, has no business being used as a citation on Wikipedia—IMOSEHO. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that I've accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article. Enough Independent sources have been found to confirm most of the things in Suggs article. I think Sugg does a wonderful job of bringing together various statements by Emerson and showing how wrong he was on a great many issues. Contrary to Greg L's assertion, I feel Sugg hides his argument behind nothing but facts.
I feel that some time in the future that it should be put back in, because whatever you may think of Sugg, you have to admit that the lawsuit was a significant episode in Emersons life. He spent nearly 4 years on it only to suddenly drop it in 2003. If you ask Sugg he say's Emerson dropped it because the Judge told him he didn't have any evidence to prove he was defamed whereas Emerson say's he felt that in the post 9-11 environment that the lawsuit was no longer important.
It should be stated exactly what the lawsuit was about, Emerson was actually sueing two people. One was an AP reporter who accused him trying to pass off a paper he wrote as an FBI report. The suit against Sugg was based on an article Sugg wrote in 98 accusing Emerson of making up the death threat against him. As I've said before, it's significant that Emerson dropped both suits. No defamtion against him was ever proved. annoynmous 12:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As Jimbo rightly pointed out (greeen, {xt} text, above), the argument that “No defamtion against him was ever proved” is rather shocking and has no merit whatsoever when evaluating whether that particular article from Sugg is a Wikipedia-style WP:Reliable source. Repeating the point does not help much. I am, however, pleased to see that you’ve “accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article.” Doesn’t that mean we’re done here? Greg L (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and as I pointed out it did have merit as an argument because Jimbo was referencing the fact of the lawsuit for it not being an RS and I was pointing out the simple fact that the suit was dropped. However, I've given up for know because I've decided I need a break from this nonsense. I may return to this article sometime in the future to make the case that it should be included. I feel many people are falsely claiming that Jimbo gave the final word on this when in fact his words were fairly ambiguous. For know I need a wikibreak and will return when I have the strength and spirit to argue. annoynmous 11:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
So let’s conclude this[edit]
  • John Z, in his 09:16, 4 May 2010 post, above, did a good job summarizing the Keystone Cops comedy wherein everyone here fell victim to a train of misunderstandings. Jimbo weighed in with a textbook example of his figurehead, royal leadership and removed something attributed to that particular article by Sugg. And now annoynmous has “accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article” (12:07, 5 May 2010 post). I think we’re done here, are we not? Greg L (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    Did you ever strike or refactor the defamatory comments you made in this discussion about Sugg? That was, after all, why I brought this case here in the first place, and the suggestion given to you by the uninvolved administrator you requested. ← George talk 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • If this is about “getting your way” or “getting me to show contrition” or something, please advise. Because if your concern is only to protect Sugg’s reputation from defamation, I’ve already provided a perfectly good remedy, above. I think it’s pretty clear here and elsewhere that my comments were my opinion and were well-intentioned at the time (but parts were in error). Moreover, I already stipulated that if an uninvolved admin finds that Sugg’s fine fine reputation is truly being defamed by my opinions, said uninvolved admin may strike my entire post containing the defamatory material; I have no problem with that whatsoever. That is how we protect Sugg from real defamation—if it exists. My running back and changing things to your liking (see WP:IDON'TLIKEIT) isn’t on my to-do list, George. I imagine that you might feel the same way if our positions were reversed, right?

    But, tell you what: If you’re so concerned about protecting Sugg from defamation, you have my permission to go back and add the following text after each comment that offends your sensibilities: (IMHO, ‘cause I might be wrong). Remember, admins may delete my entire post; you may only add the parentheticals. This alternative remedy will ensure Sugg’s fine fine reputation is not sullied in the court of world opinion due to Greg L™©® expressing his opinion of the guy in the ever-important discussions that occur here on these remote backwaters of the cyber-universe. Greg L (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

    This case was opened to remove an instance of defamation. If you choose to not refactor your comments, after an administrator advised you to, that's your choice. If administrators choose to act in response to your inaction, that's their choice. Your offer to allow administrators to edit your text for you is empty and meaningless, as they can do that without your permission. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has to do with bad reasons to support deletion of articles, not reasons to remove defamation. If the roles were reversed, I wouldn't have defamed Sugg in the first place, and I would have stricken any of my comments others felt were defamatory upon being notified. I'll leave it up to the administrators. ← George talk 08:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As I wrote above, you have my permission to fix whatever concerns you. You could have done so already in less time than it took you to write the above paragraph. Methinks thou doth protest too much now. Greg L (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    To be clear, I don't think having myself add a note that your comment is your own opinion eliminates the instances of defamation. But I'm sure you knew this, or you wouldn't have only offered that an administrator could strike your comments and not myself. However, if you'd like me to strike the offending phrases for you (and I'm talking strictly about the handful of defamatory phrases I identified earlier, not your entire comments), I'd be happy to oblige. ← George talk 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't it time you just backed off, George, instead of trying to drag this on and on? Stellarkid (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    Did you miss the part above where I said I leave it up to the administrators judgement? ← George talk 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I do hope this is the last time I have to state the obvious here. “Defamation” is a negative statement that is “expressly stated or implied to be factual”. Any common-sense reading of that thread on the Reliable Sources noticeboard shows editors were expressing their opinions of Sugg and/or his article. Accordingly, appending (IMHO, ‘cause I might be wrong) after each opinion of mine that offends your sensibilities and deep appreciation of the law and Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines will perfectly establish that the words are opinion—not fact—and leave intact the sufficiently clear meanings that no one should construe me as an admirer of Sugg or that particular piece. Don’t sign your edits; let them look like they are part of my original post.

    If you continue to decline to go and fix (with the text shown in {{xt}}-style, above) what you consider to be defamatory (in light of the fact that you are no stranger to correcting all sorts of material on Wikipedia that you feel needs improvement), then that is your choice.

    In my oh-so exceedingly humble opinion, so declining to fix (by appending advisos that these are opinions) what you profess to truly be defamation would demonstrate that you are more interested in digging out a WIN™®© here (forcing me do something) than in actually redressing “defamation”—IMHO. Truth be told, this do-dah is just a residual snot ball on the upper lip of fighters after a big battle over POV-pushing on terrorism-related stuff. Like Stellarkid wrote, it’s time to stop dragging this out. It’s time to move on to the next instance of Wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


    P.S. When I mentioned “terrorism-related,” above, I should have written “terrorism / freedom fighter-related”.DISCLAIMER Greg L (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

    As I said, I don't believe a third person annotating your comments alleviates the infraction, and I recognize a red herring when I see one. If I wrote that someone was stating their opinion when they made a defamatory statement, then they're immune to lawsuit for defamation? Of course not. I have no idea why you insist on belaboring the point on your distaste for Sugg, but I also don't particularly care. And as I said, I don't care if you remove the defamatory statements, or if an administrator does, though I would hope that someone does. If an administrator agrees with the one who advised you to revise the statement, and chooses to take action on the matter, great. If not, this discussion will get closed and the defamatory comment will stand. Your refusal to remove the offending statements, combined with your sarcastic, uncivil tone is more than enough for me, thanks. ← George talk 05:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this conversation is ignoring (again) the far more serious infractions I mentioned above. As to Greg L, I think it is has past the point of diminishing returns -- but I encourage editors to address those highly inflammatory comments at the BLPs indicated. I also remain concerned about Anon having inserted that defamatory information, as well as the defamatory information John Z highlighted for us, repeatedly in articles via reverts of my deletions of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Pointy campaign of questionable CSD nominations[edit]

User:69.232.193.24 made 7 CSD nominations today, all of them coincidentally were books that were written by conservative authors and criticized liberals. He used the G11 (spam) rationale for all of them. Most of these books were NY Times bestsellers. All but 1 were written by unquestionably notable authors. At least 2 had already survived AfD's. Now he has begun going to biographies and adding that people are Jewish. [12], [13], [14], [15]. I know about AGF, but I've read WP:DUCK too and this is looking more WP:POINTy than helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Request Meatpuppet block.[edit]

Resolved: Welcome to Sockopedia. Closing this down as nothing is going to happen anyway other then generate more troll attention.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago I opened a sock puppetry cae on three editors. User:Rogueslade, User:Mandoman89 User:Biohazard388. In the end they weren't proved to be socks and myself and a few other editors expressed concern that these were meatpuppets and got dragged through a bullshit ani. Well I still think they are meatpuppets and I take comments olike this to be proof [[17]]. That message was posted on all the mentioned accounts. Can we please block the perpatrators? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tempting. However, the comment from the sockpuppet User:Teenage Martyr just shows that Dalejenkins likes deleting Star Wars and Lady GaGa articles, not that those three accounts are connected to each other or to Dalejenkins. Being an SPA at a single AfD is not in itself a blockable action, is it? If they proceed to vote stack on other AfDs or discussions or tag-team on edit articles I will happily wield the banhammer. Fences&Windows 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As I just mentioned on my talk page, User:Teenage Martyr is GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs), who has been jerking us around again especially over at SPI the last week or so. Let's keep it over there so as not to feed the trolls. –MuZemike 16:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
{ec}And you find it merely coincidental that this happened this way? I don't, not even close, you have a known sosck tauinting the community with his new additions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My concerns about the above three editors were not resolved, but I guess that's not shocking since at least one invited us to "check my IP" almost immediately. All three brand new editors knew exactly how things work on wikipedia, and Boba Phat was a marginal and weak article to mount a deletion vendetta against. I've leave it to others to determine whether any block is appropriate.--Milowent (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This report is nothing but a lot of bad faith with no evidence to support that assumption. Just because a sock of Dalejenkins congratulated them doesn't mean that the the accounts are socks or that they are meatpuppets. There is no evidence what's so ever to connect the four together. The SPI turned up negative and I believe we owe it to Rogueslade, Mandoman89, and Biohazard388 that they are who they say they are. —Farix (t | c) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not buying it either. Just because a CheckUser result showed different IP addresses to be in use does not mean that the accounts aren't sockpuppets or even meatpuppets. Without going into the specifics for reasons of WP:BEANS, it is absolutely trivial for someone to defeat CU if they understand how it works. It would also make sense that he could swap IPs at will (and swap back) due to how many broadband ISPs today implement sticky dynamic IP addresses. Let's also not forget the power of the almighty cantenna... Moreover, given the third comment in this edit [18] "Check IP Addresses if proof is needed." it is obvious that this individual set out from the beginning to beat CU. This isn't the type of behaviour exhibited by a new editor or someone who just registered an account.
Usually accounts such as these would have already been blocked per WP:DUCK as being sockpuppets based solely on behavioural characteristics. [19] [20] [21] The behaviour of all 3 accounts is identical and matches the behaviour of Dalejenkins.
The account creation dates are also quite telling. Biohazard388 was created on 9 June 2006 [22] and never used until 26 April 2010 [23] when it initiated the AfD in question. This date closely matches the account creation dates for Dalejenkins (11 May 2006) [24] and Bravedog (4 August 2006). [25] Rogueslade was created on 22:53, 26 April 2010 [26] followed by Mandoman89 on 21:34, 27 April 2010 [27] during the AfD which follows similar patterns of confirmed Dalejenkins sockpuppets. The wording in the first comment in this edit "I fail to see how this being my first action as a member can be used to call the move's validity into question." [28] appears to have also been carefully chosen instead of saying something along the lines of "I'm a brand new editor and just signed up". --Tothwolf (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, this is becoming ridiculous. This is extreme bad-faith towards myself and the other users being accused. As I Have Stated Before in this previous ANI report, I have been involved in other Wikimedia projects in the past, and am currently an administrator on a privately operated wiki platform. Also, the policies, guidelines, and templates are FREELY available to any Wikipedia user. Is it hard to believe that I, a person fluent in Wiki coding, can sit down for an hour and read through Wikipedia's rules and policies, and review the templates for an action and then implement them? That is, after all, what they are there for: to help users understand and use the tools that are built into Wikipedia's framework, both as a software tool, and as a community through it's policies? Is it also hard to believe that I know that the Wiki software logs IP addresses, and that I can simply say "review my IP address" to have myself vindicated? I can understand a preliminary case based on my account being inactive for a good long time, but to go so far as to nearly derail an AfD and create two ANI postings on the topic... it is starting to seem like a few select users are being overly suspicious of a newbie to the community who happens to know what they're doing, and how to read, and it's starting to disappointment greatly that these select users in this open community cannot just hang up the towel when the proof they were looking for doesn't exist. I am not a sockpuppet, and I'm not a meatpuppet. I've never heard of DaleJenkins before this, and these users that are accusing me of this are only giving Wikipedia a bad name in my book. I saw an article I didn't agree with. I signed into an account which I've had created for a while and have never used. I read the "how to" articles and start an AfD, and these few select users attack me relentlessly, along with other users who I can only presume are innocent, too. Today I started to contribute more to the community, as I'm trying to move up in the Wikipedia community a bit, but this newest accusation is really making me feel as if this community is just a bunch of paranoid biggots that have nothing better to do than bash a newbie. I call bad-faith. Actually, let me make that "Extremely Bad-Faith". I suggest these users review the WP:AGF article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohazard388 (talkcontribs) 23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Guys, Biohazard388 is likely telling the truth, so stop assuming bad faith. Biohazard388, please list your usernames on other Wikis or consider a unified login to help put this drama to rest, as there is no way to be completely sure that what you are saying is fact. In the end people, stop attacking others just because they just happen to pop up at an AFD. Coincidence is always a possibility on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I seem to be guilty of the same things as Biohazard; having basic intelligence. Of course my response to such an accusation would be to say go ahead and check my IP address. I assume that your checkuser software gives a general physical location of the IP address, state at least, perhaps city as well? If this is the case, I'm content to let the administrators in charge of those checks to indicate what state I'm in, based on my IP, and I'm willing to bet that the other accused individuals would allow the same thing. After all, given the widespread use of Wikipedia, I assume that the odds of the other accused parties being in the same state are low. Furthermore, after seeing the provided 'evidence' I chose to run through the history of my talk page. This Teenage Martyr and VaginicaWestwood strike me as deliberate attempts to frame me, and I would assume the other users as well. Knowing that the entire site is monitored by the admins, not to mention assuming that my detractors would be likely to 'watch' my talkpage, both comments were clearly an attempt to throw further suspicion onto me. These ongoing accusations are insulting, to say the least. Hopefully, as time wears on and both myself and the other editors make disparate additions, this ridiculous defamation will stop. That's assuming I even bother to make further contributions, as these assaults are starting to make me rethink whether it's even worth the effort. Rogueslade (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see any blockable actions here. That you were able to find evidence of them discussing matters right on Wikipedia actually weakens the case for meatpuppetry. If they were conspiring in the "real world" it would likely be invisible on-wiki to hide this fact. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

....Or an attempt to taunt the community..... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we lay off the bad faith accusation now or does an admin need to start handing out block to Bucket and co.? —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes this is clearly a bad faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia....Get real Farix. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Hell and Co. All three voted on that Afd, when they recieved notice of this report, they all commented minutes after each other (same on the SPI). They were created in 2006, same time as Dalejenkins and his army. This is a good faith accusation in an attempt to protect Wikipedia. Might I suggest a CheckUser finds any relationship between each other (such as ISP, location etc). I thought this would be helpful. 92.40.48.173 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Georgie! –MuZemike 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
TheFarix is to consider himself uw-npa'd for his comment above, particularly given his replies to my attempt to discuss [29] it with him. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is grossly unfair to give me an NPA warning for something that is clearly not a personal attack while Bucket, you and others get off without one for the continued accusations of bad faith on Rogueslade, Mandoman89, and Biohazard388. —Farix (t | c) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like hubris, where is the flood of people that agree with you? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Irony is seeing the same handful of editors repeatedly scramble over each others' shoulders in an attempt to declare another group as meatpuppets. If I were one of the editors involved in the dreadful wikilawyering on that TfD (which ended up pretty clear-cut) then I'd be keeping pretty quiet right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The behavioral evidence is there. All three are related in some way. It's possible this Dalejenkins guy is using a different IP range to avoid detection. DF76 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we get a CU here? They're surely able to turn up with something here, I'm certain. –MuZemike 09:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The CU would have picked it up on the latest Dalejenkins SPI. They are related as of behavourial evidence. Plus, Biohazard didn't give any links to other Wikis where he is an admin which strengthens the case for meat/sockpuppetry. Dr Mikomi (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biohazard388 should pick up something. Feel free to leave evidence. Dr Mikomi (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my late response. I haven't been following this page very closely. I run [this Wiki] for the Mandalorian Mercs Costume Club. It is one of only three costume clubs licensed by the owners of the Star Wars Franchise, the other two being the 501st Legion, and the Rebel Legion. I am the Communications XO for the group, and my responsibilities cover the Wiki, as well as maintaining other major site functions. My username there is Biohazard. Please also take a look at my edits. I have been active in other articles here on Wikipedia, and not just the aforementioned AfD. I signed in to create the AfD after receiving a message on the Mercs Forum from Boba Phat himself. After reviewing his wiki, I found it unsatisfactory for Wikipedia and signed in to see what I could do. After research, I began the AfD because the article did not meet several quality standards, notability standards, etc... and I think it important to note that over 70% of voters agreed with me, and so did the Admin's that took the article down. I have since been involved in several other articles, mostly grammatical editing, as well as marking sentences and sections of some articles with the Citation Needed mark. Once again, sorry for my late response. Please feel free to contact me on the Mercs, or through Wikipedia.Biohazard388 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruption from OttomanJackson[edit]

In the past month, OttomanJackson (talk · contribs) has been nothing but disruptive. Their talk page reflects this. They continue to upload images with copyright issues, create articles on non-notable subjects, un-redirect articles that fail WP:NMUSIC, create AFDs on clearly notable subjects to prove a point, edit war/revert against established consensus, and ignore all advice from every user that has adviced them. After receiving a final warning, they were brought to ANI a few days ago. The issue was believed to have been resolved after they received two admonishments. However, this user has continued to be a pest, by un-redirecting song articles that fail WP:NMUSIC. Pyrrhus16 19:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

He's been doing this for the last six days. I don't know whether he wants to make a point or is just ignoring the editors or have told him, but he's acting in contrary to WP:NMUSIC and is editing in a disruptive manner. This seems to suggest he doesn't get it. Also, this edit, are we sure about WP:NMUSIC failing here? Just to double check on that one example. The rest, I agree. Needs strict admonishment or a block. SGGH ping! 19:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)`
A while ago I found a source around the background and story of this song, I will try to find it. Morphine is notable, and a great song. Listen to it and Money. Morhpine is a start class article, so can you at leats giv it a chance at AfD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OttomanJackson (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not notable. It was never released as a single, never charted and did not have any impact on the music world. Whether it sounds good or not is irrelevant. Pyrrhus16 19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The quality of the song is irrelevant. It has to demonstrate why it deserves a separate article. The fact that it's a Michael Jackson song doesn't automatically qualify, because that's his notability, not the songs. SGGH ping! 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have warned OttomanJackson that any further disruptive or pointy editing will result in a block. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 19:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More disruptive creations. Can an admin deal with this POV redirect, please? Pyrrhus16 21:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Pyrrhus16 21:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think he's learning. I deleted Michael Jackson is awesome! as a nonsensical redirect and left him another warning, however I did not block as to be fair the specifics of Caknuck's warn regarding WP:NMUSIC. I did, however, give him a very clear warning about editing in general. SGGH ping! 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Now using their IP to add a second vote to a deletion discussion. See here for clear evidence as to OttomanJackson and 24.15.54.202 (talk · contribs) being the same person. Pyrrhus16 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked OttomanJackson and the associated IP address for 1 week. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 22:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Good call. I know there is only one Jackson I miss. :( SGGH ping! 15:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Muhammad cartoon image[edit]

Resolved: Understandable action, no admin action required. Most editors here off to get torches and pitchforks and march on Castle Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TheDJ deleted File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png with the comment: "Delete, because we now account for cultural sensitivities. This can be undeleted when we have a content rating system."

As far as I can tell, this measure to censor Wikipedia was unilaterally taken without discussion. I saw nothing in the file's talk page about deleting the image, and I'm pretty sure we haven't started censoring Wikipedia all of a sudden. If I'm correct about this being a unilateral action, then I propose the following:

  1. Restore the image
  2. Desysop User:TheDJ for a gross abuse of authority

If I'm mistaken, please accept my apology and kindly point me toward the relevant discussion. Rklawton (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's a blue link, so it has not been deleted... – ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
He reverted himself: "15:08, 7 May 2010 TheDJ (talk | contribs | block) restored "File:Jyllands-Petc" ‎ (95 revisions restored: perhaps being pointy isn't a good idea.)" Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and continue the discussion. Shii (tock) 21:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a great move, given recent events on Commons. Rodhullandemu 21:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say that the original delete was a Bold step too far, but self-reverting indicates they concluded that as well.
No administrator action required at this step; there is no emergency, this was not "abuse" in the first place, though it was arguably a mistake (that they self-corrected). I don't think that an admin conduct RFC is required but you can file one in the usual place if you think so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion or other editing related to the article by TheDJ. I would like to hear what made them do this. I don't think that's too much to ask.--Atlan (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I got a little bit pissed about the american-centric overprotective hypocritical and FOXNews driven bullshit that was being stated on the foundation mailinglist and Commons. Sorry. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fox news driven? What does that have to do with the Mohammed image? Seriously, did I miss something? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fox news ran a story on us which contained some highly misleading statements about what kind of images used to exist on Commons before today. (In some ways, I think we were better off PR-wise before, since now people can spread all sorts of rumors that we can't disprove. But hopefully this will die down soon.) Soap 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with that FNC story, which was spawned by Larry Sanger. I fail to see how the porn complaint is a Mohammed complaint. To me, it looks more like the upper echelon (ie Jimbo) finally started paying attention to what was going on with images. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain that? I completely fail to recognize what you are talking about. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The only other things I can see that he's deleted (look here) are a bunch of files which are hosted on commons, too, so the local copy was deleted as unnecessary (CSD F8). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales has unilaterally rewritten policy to censor Commons along his viewpoint, and it has caused several Commons users and admins to bail on that project as a result. Resolute 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, he's reminded people that the project scope does not include being the world's leading free porn host. Commons still is not censored, neither is Wikipedia, in both places we apply sound editorial judgement in the context of the overall mission which is to inform and educate not to host any and all crap just because there is no hard and fast rule that lists every type of crap you should not host. We're supposed to apply Clue. Over time the Commons scope has drifted, Jimbo has given it a kick back in the right direction. Good for him. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What he says and what he does are different things. His indiscriminate deletions have gone beyond dumping 300 random images of penises where we don't need them. He's deleted illustrations and artwork that were in use on articles based on his personal views of what constitutes pornography. Classic censorship. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would be in support of a megalomaniac. Birds of a feather... Resolute 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No, that didn't sound like an insult....There is an actual issue here, beyond the "nobody censors us" POV. We supposedly want this to be an encyclopedia and we hope that someday it will get some level academic acceptance, don't we? How can we expect a school to take us seriously and not outright block Wikipedia if we are hosting tons of pics that really don't have any educational value? You can have an article about masturbation without showing a pic some guy took of his girlfriend with a GI Joe shoved up her snatch. The 2257 issue is a real one and I don't see where Wikipedia should be exempted from it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You should try reading the linked discussions on the village pumps. Sufficed to say that your assumptions are not in line with what is actually happening, being deleted, and debated. Resolute 22:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I read the discussions. I'm not sure how we got from Mohammed to that, but I still read them before I commented. Perhaps you should AGF a little. If you stopped to pay attention, nobody in this discussion mentioned the 2257 issue. Where the hell do you think I was reminded of that? Yeah, one of the threads you linked. I didn't make any assumptions, I simplified it. Maybe instead of worrying about what you think I didn't do (and actually did)....oh forget it, you won't bother. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It is very simple. In many schools around the world, that is objectionable content. Wether YOU like that or not. As such the material is as far as I am concerned in the same boat. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You may have read the discussions, but you obviously failed to understand them. The community isn't upset over the 2257 issue. It is upset over Jimbo deleting artwork and illustrations, neither of which 2257 applies to, I believe, because of his personal opinion of what constitutes porn. If all he did was delete the "pic some guy took of his girlfriend with a GI Joe shoved up her snatch" there is a good bet not many people would care. Resolute 06:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No Resolute, I didn't fail to understand anything. I know he deleted other stuff. Just because he deleted some things that are questionable (as to his reasoning) doesn't mean that all of his actions need to be condemned. Some seem to be taking this "all or nothing" position where they are pissed about the idea of anything being "censored". Yes, it looks to me like he went too far on some things, but some seem to take the position that nothing should ever be "censored" and I can't say that I agree with that either. But I don't think your condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with you is productive either. Thus far, you've responded to me twice, first telling me that I didn't read the other discussion (which you should have realized that I had), then telling me I'm just not smart enough to understand. You're 0 for 2. Want to go for a 3rd strike? 09:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not what's happening. What's happening is that Jimbo is deleting things like 19th-century artwork and illustrations of bondage techniques, because they happen to have sexual content or themes. If he'd stuck to the penis pictures and low-quality porn, there would be far less of a shitstorm going on. --Carnildo (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he restored it at a different time: "21:08, 7 May 2010 TheDJ (talk | contribs) restored "File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png" ‎ (95 revisions restored: perhaps being pointy isn't a good idea.)" But maybe I'm confusing it with another file. ALI nom nom 21:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your local time.--Atlan (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It is? Oh, I thought I was using UTC... nevermind. Sorry. ALI nom nom 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just received an e-mail complaining that this user has recently deleted at least one other image within the past few days against consensus. This bears further investigation. Rklawton (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? It looks like most everything that's been recently deleted by TheDJ was because it was already on Commons. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The only other things I can see that he's deleted (look here) are a bunch of files which are hosted on commons, too, so the local copy was deleted as unnecessary (CSD F8). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll follow up later this evening. Real-life just got in the way. The file the user complained as deleted he says was titled "Sex intercourse.jpg" with three rounds of "Keep" and was allegedly deleted 2 days ago. I did a quick check and couldn't find anything, but I won't have time to dig into it for a few more hours (at least). Rklawton (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
commons:File:Sex intercourse.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sex_intercourse.jpg. Deleted per Jimbo's new Commons is not a porn host, and within the part of his stated policies that I agree with and can live with. The actions of Jimbo have since that deletion far exceeded his initial requests and I no longer support him in his actions and have retired from Commons. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say Wikipedia should keep its Kama Sutra article if it values its credibility, but since Jimbo's just gonna gut it anyways we might as well get rid of it.Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 01:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all and User:TheDJ for addressing my concerns. I consider my particular concern satisfactorily resolved, and see no further action in this particular matter necessary. With regard to Jimbo, FNC, and censorship, I'll read through the various threads and pick up the matter again in the appropriate location. Thanks to all those who helped bring me up to speed. Rklawton (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with removing cruft from wikipedia and I figure Jimbo's judgment is better than that of the average cruft-hoarder, so I'm usually happy when he deletes stuff. But I've been annoyed for a while that the supposedly fundamental "right to fork" (if you don't like how WP does things, make your own) has been broken for years. While we are finally able to get meta history dumps of enwiki text after a multi-year interruption, there has not been a dump of enwiki or commons images since 2007 (it was 217GB then according to m:dumps). ANI isn't the place for a long philosophical diatribe but people interested in WP censorship and privacy issues might keep this dump problem in mind. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I find it funny that Larry Sanger filed the complaint first, then FNC covered it and made it's own inquiries. But some seem to keep putting forth the notion that this was all dreamed up by FNC. Few want to mention that one of Wikipedia's co-founders is the source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:JzG[edit]

Resolved: No admin action needed here. Pcap ping 15:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:JzG made an outrageous statement on this noticeboard here, implying either that Plaid Cymru supporters were terrorists or that Plaid Cymru itself had links to a terrorist organisation. Now that the UK general election is over and no further damage to the electoral system can be done, I highlight this here. I made several attempts requesting User:JzG withdraw his statement or explain it away here, here , here, here and here, before being uncivil in frustration, for which I have no excuse and I apologise. Each attempt was met with stonewalling and no substantive explanation has been made to date. To link a legitimate (and, I may add, traditionally pacifist) political party with a terrorist organisation with no evidence or sources the day before a UK general election at which that party had candidates standing was, at best, a grave error of judgement. To maintain that viewpoint when challenged compounded the error. The only (partial) explanation given by User:JzG was that the article on Meibion Glyndŵr doesn't describe them as a terrorist organisation diff. However, as pointed out to him this RS calls them terrorists and the article is in the Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom. Any damage done to the the party's electoral prospects cannot now be repaired. The damage to the party's reputation, however, can be recovered by User:JzG striking though his comments and making a full apology. It should be made clear to User:JzG that such disgraceful statements will not be tolerated. Daicaregos (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't read that as "implying either that Plaid Cymru supporters were terrorists or that Plaid Cymru itself had links to a terrorist organisation" at all; I read it as saying that while they have very different means, those who used to support Meibion Glyndŵr are more likely to support Plaid than any of the English parties. I can't see how that can seriously be disputed; it's no more an attack than "those who supported the National Front in England in the 1970s were more likely to go on to support the Conservatives in the 1980s" is an attack on Margaret Thatcher. – iridescent 15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh FFS, drop the stick already. I do not accept your interpretation of what I said, and your vastly inflated hyperbolic description of it has no basis in reality. The idea that any remark made by any person on Wikipedia might materially affect the outcome of the election is risible. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • JzG's remark wasn't the happiest of comments, but it does not warrant administrator action. AGK 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with Guy's remark, and your suggestion that it could have "damaged" the UK electoral system is ridiculous. ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say that if that were the implication JzG intended, it's just a statement of his political opinion, which isn't really something to bring to ANI. People say all sorts of controversial things when stating their opinions, especially politically; they even have them in userboxes, like being in support of Israel or Palestine's right to "defend itself", implying the other side are the terrorists. You're allowed to say stuff like that here. It's understandable that it makes you angry, I've gotten angry at people's opinions before too, but I can't rightly complain about it being said. The only reason JzG might want to strike the statement would be if it had an unintended implication, but in that case it should be of his own volition, and no admin action would be required. Equazcion (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated uploading of copyrighted material[edit]

Huligan0 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading close paraphrase copyrighted material into Great Globe after multiple warnings. Compare the added text with the source. I am aware that the text is not a word-for-word copy, but a derivative work is still a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear VernoWhitney, you have repeatedly destroyed this article. www.isleofpurbeck.com/durlston.html states: The Globe was constructed from Portland stone in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887, for George Burt. Burt was Mowlems nephew and one-time partner. It is popular belief that the construction was in London/Greenwich because there were not sufficiently skillful craftsmen locally. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is of 15 sections.
I write facts: The Globe was constructed from Portland stone in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. It was erected by W.M. Hardy in the park upon a platform cut into the solid rock during the same year. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is made up of 15 sections of stone and joined together with granite dowels. Its position on the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.
Then I rewrote it to: The Globe was constructed of Portland stone. It was made in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887. It was brought to Swanage by sea and was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform chopped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.
Again I rewrote it to: The Great Globe is made of Portland stone. It was constructed in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich during 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. The Globe was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform chopped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, it weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.
These are facts (!!!) not copies. Please do not get on my nerves. Thanks --Huligan0 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether these are copyvios or not I suggest you reign in your attitude, Huligan. SGGH ping! 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy[edit]

This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI.MuZemike 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mood Indigo (culfest)[edit]

Mood Indigo (culfest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be in the grip of a sustained PR campaign. I have rolled back to the last version before a couple of SPAs took on the task of inserting every weasel word in existence, I am sure this will not be allowed to stand. They have contacted OTRS saying it's "really important" that their changes are not reverted, I have asked why. Something tells me that it will be really important to sales, not to Wikipedia's mission. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bombay studant festival all cited to primary citations, it at least is not hurting anything or any one and is likely very important article of you are a Mumbai student. As it was it was clear advertising, needs a decent write, looks like a pretty notable-ish event, lots of videos on Utube.Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Good heavens. That article has one whole reference? And oh, look. It's to the festival's own website. What a lot of nonsense. We ought to empty this article of text and start from scratch. Maybe then we'll get something close to encyclopedic. AGK 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is "culfest" really a word? I've never seen it before. It makes me snigger since "cul" is french slang for "butt". 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Puppetmaster User:Sorrywrongnumber again[edit]

I've filed another SPI about this persistent blocked and vandalizing editor. I note it here, because Sorrywrongnumber's past M.O. has been to come here and post a complaint about how I am harrassing them (the "new" editor, that is) before they fortuitously discover that I supposedly have a conflict of interest and blah blah blah blah blah. It's all documented here. SWN's last socking activity was six days ago, on May 2.[30][31] I have notified User:Sorrywrongnumber of this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CU confirms the new sock and finds a couple of sleepers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment related to Whittemore Peterson Institute and chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

TerryE (talk · contribs) has a content disagreement related to the work of the Whittemore Peterson Institute and their published statements of a possible relationship between chronic fatigue syndrome and xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. This is a valid (if somewhat one-sided) controversy in the real world, and it is perfectly normal to find it spilling over into our articles here. What is not normal, however, is that instead of following the community's preferred track of discussion at the article talkpage followed by requests for outside involvement and eventual consensus, TerryE has filed an accusation of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon involving Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs), RetroS1mone (talk · contribs), and MiRroar (talk · contribs). This is harassment, plain and simple; I have edited at some of the related articles and will not be acting administratively beyond requesting this review. All four users have been notified. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-ordinated conspiracy against people they disagree on topics. I will not edit Wikipedia again b/c of their harassment. They are a cabal and also socks or meats.
User:TerryE less then 100 edits before November 2009 then almost 1500 edits about CFS. Co-ordinates w Ward20 and Sam Weller and Tekaphor to attack people like me and KCCO, it is most from what this person does, they do not make additions to encyclopedia just deleting and attacking. TerryE is planning attacks on KCCO and me, many months writing algorithms and investigating people on the internet [32]. I am sorry but it is a very hateful to do these things.
User:Tekaphor from 2006 has 1000 edits all on CFS and related article. Co-ordinates RfC against me with RobinHood70 in summer 2009. When I give up on August 2009 b/c this harassment Tekaphor goes away and does not edit for two months, mission accomplished?? After February 2 2010, no edits until Co-ordination of sock attack on me and KCCO starts and Tekaphor edits. It does not work, Tek edits two more weeks and does not come back until May 5 after I also come back and reverts my edits four hours after my last edit, attacks me again at Sock investigation.
User:RobinHood70 had about 200 edits about CFS and other things before summer 2009 then 2000 edits most on CFS. Used most summer 2009 to ban me from Wiki like TerryE did to KCCO later. Has 4 edits in January 2010, 4 edits on Februay 5th, does not edit for two weeks. Then he is suddenly on Wikipedia again for edit the SPI attack at KCCO and I TWO HOURS after Ward20 puts it up. He edtis every day until the sockpuppet case is closed with "CU evidence is iffy at best" and then he goes away for weeks. He has only nine article edits until April 29 and then he is suddenly there again to revert my edits.
Most of these edits were in response to disputes with RetroS1mone. During periods where she was not active, my editing patterns returned to normal and were not overly CFS-related. While I continue to monitor some articles, I have largely left the project precisely due to this kind of incident as my recent edit history will show (a few wiki-gnome edits and yes, reversions of RS's edits, many of which labelled things as "bs" and reverted hundreds of edits in one go). I would appreciate if my name were left out of any ANI or similar forums unless there is significant cause to bring it up. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Jagra created 21 May 2007 two days from TerryE, just like TerryE over 1500 edits about CFS. Co-ordinates RfC against me in summer 2009 and leaves for two months just like Tekaphor when I take my break starting August 2009.
User:Sam Weller First 100 edits in 2 years on homeopathy, CFS, and a biography he is very interested on, Martin J. Walker then almost 1000 edits in 1 year about CFS. Tries to destroy me and ban me and also when I am away six months he co-ordinates the February Sock investigation with Ward20 and TerryE, when it does not work he leaves Wikipedia, end of February.
User:StevieNic is away from Wikipedia 3 weeks, returns May 3 to vote against my article for deletion of David Sheffield Bell recruited with TerryE and Ward20.
Pls stop these people and do not let them destroy more editors. RetroS1mone talk 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that RetroS1imone is leaving over this. But given that the checkuser clerk endorsed, it's hard for me to characterize this as harassment.--Chaser (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerks endorse to filter out obviously bogus cases. The community restricts checkuser access (for good reasons, IMHO) to only a very few users, making it valuable to spread the workload that does not require the tool. You are free to your own opinion, of course, but that entire filing reads to me like a particularly vicious attack by someone not particularly interested in a neutral encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I stand corrected regarding the role of checkuser clerks.--Chaser (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The clerk in this case User:Kevin Rutherford is a new trainee, and should not have endorsed that CU. Don't use it as evidence for anything. Auntie E. (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TerryE has not filed three accusations of sockpuppetry against User:Keepcalmandcarryon. The first was filed by User:Immortale, over what I have no idea. The second was filed by myself User:Ward20 strictly on the basis of edit patterns, and it came back "Possible same geographic area with user agent overlap. Meat puppets certainly plausible." I was looking over the third investigation filed by User:TerryE to form my own conclusions, when I saw there was a discussion here. I have also edited the related articles and there certainly have been RFC's on the content for dispute resolution. When I look at the timelines of the editing patterns of User:Keepcalmandcarryon, User:RetroS1mone, and User:MiRroar that User:TerryE has presented I believe there may be cause to suspect a connection between the three accounts. I don't understand why there is a problem with an investigation if there isn't a connection as User:Keepcalmandcarryon has stated.

As far as User:RetroS1mone's allegations please look at her contributions and edit summaries the last three days after her AFD's for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sheffield Bell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Fennell (2nd nomination) were not successful. Ward20 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RetroS1mone misrepresents the consensus of several editors as some kind of unprovoked persecution. The activity that R describes above is merely the independent response of several different editors who have all been targeted by R's false accusations and problematic editing over the course of roughly 18(?) months. See the previous RfC and its talkpage. Those issues were never resolved, they just went dormant when R disappeared for a while. But now R is back with all the same accusations, attitude and tendentious editing which led to the RfC in the first place, as Ward20 highlights. Nothing has changed despite all the chances and warnings, with [33][34][35][36][37][38] as recent examples of failed "advice".
As for my frequent disappearance from Wikipedia, I regularly take unannounced wiki-breaks from editing, especially after dealing with the extra work R produces, so what? I monitor the CFS articles but most of the time I am either unable to contribute or reluctant to do so. You can be sure that when one of the reasons I do not contribute more consistently (ie R's history of reverting my edits without due cause) shows up mutilating the articles and ranting about conspiracies I will be doing what I can to resolve it. - Tekaphor (TALK) 06:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a comment directed at anyone in this thread, but people do coordinate off-site - especially it seems patient support groups - to get their spin into our medical articles. It didn't take long to find this (for some reason only accessible via Google cache). Conspiracies aren't always products of the imagination. EyeSerenetalk 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My first direct involvement with RetroS1mone was when she deleted one of talk page posts[39]. I have always tried to observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and related policies when dealing with other editors, RetroS1mone included. I am open about who I am and what my background and interests are. I agree that I only started to get actively involved in WP in November last year when I felt that another editor was misrepresenting the RS/MEDRS on a few articles. I kind of get sucked in and went through a learning curve as I learnt the WP policies and guidelines (as most editors do; a few like RetroS1mone seem to be able to appear out of nowhere and start editing as WP experts from day 1). If you notice my posting rates on the VirtualBox forums fell off at the same time as I ramped up on WP. I am trying to use standard WP processes within their guidelines. If I have breached any guidelines then no doubt I will be informed on the SPI. If RetroS1mone has any other specific claims of infringement on my part then I will happily answer them.
Picking up EyeSerene's comments. I have made clear on many occasions including on my user page that I am not involved in this forum or others like it. Quite frankly, I find such external topics a pain in a**e as people come blundering in with lots of emotion and reluctance to read the rules and follow them. I only just recently got into an edit exchange on another article where I was attacked by a couple of such posters for defending another editor who has a content viewpoint a lot more similar to RetroS1mone than mine. There are two main reasons why the majority of editors working with you on a page tend to edit against you: yes, there is the conspiracy theory; but the obvious one is that you don't edit within the WP guidelines and antagonise everyone else. -- TerryE (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
First I'd like to say that I'm sorry that RetroS1mone decided to quit wikipedia but I do understand why. Did this edior lose their temper at time, yes they did. English is not their first language but even that was brought into doubt against this editor. If you look at the history of this users talk page, you will see the kind of mean and nasty harassments they had to endure. I used to have Chronic fatigue syndrome on my watch list. Things there got so bad that I and at least one other editor took it off our watch list. The problems that I speak about go back to when User:Guido den Broeder was a main advocate and editor of these articles. He is now permanently banned by the arbitration committee after they gave him an opportunity to return from a community ban which lasted maybe a week. Surprisingly, some of the editors above appeared to take up the cause that Guido was pushing for. I will not name names, period. I just know that this article and articles connected to it is full of advocates who have this disease and a strong POV about how it should be presented. S1mone had her/his ideas of what should be in the article. S/he may have been rude at times with claiming a conspiracy theory but then again there were websites shown where editors were actually talking about how the article should look and also Guido had emailed some of the editors. (Some of the editors were ethical enough to say they received emails from him. I believe this was announced on the CFS article but I'm not sure) I think that there is a clear group of advocates working these articles which needs to be stopped. As for the comments above about the SPI investigations, I believe if you check them out your will see that Keepcalmandcarryon and S1mone admitted to knowing each other, even that they worked in the same place. The last time S1monoe left there were joyful editors. I think it's sad when an editor leaves because of harrassment issues. Maybe all the editors involved in this should be checked out for their own behaviors. I know that I got told off the last time I stood up for S1mone and I hope there is not a repeat of this. I apologized the last time because I didn't want to get into a fight with anyone. I still don't. I just feel that I should say something since S1mone is now gone. I also think that maybe MastCell should be told about this thread since he commented on the latest SPI case. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
EyeSerene is correct: sometimes a conspiracy is a conspiracy. I don't agree with User:RetroS1mone that all of these editors are sockpuppets, but at least some of them have clearly coordinated with each other on- and off-Wikipedia to influence article content, stack votes and harass other editors. And then, of course, there are the coordinated SPIs (yes, Ward20 technically filed the first one, but only after consulting with "Weller", TerryE and others). It's simply amazing that some of these editors have devoted weeks and months of their lives to harassing me because of content disputes on two Wikipedia articles.
From personal experience, here's a bit of what one can expect if one is perceived as standing in the way of the "inner circle" of CFS activists:
  1. Harassment on Wikipedia
  2. Harassment by email
  3. Discussion of one's identity on the internet
  4. Implicit and explicit legal threats
  5. Complaints to one's employer and/or colleagues demanding silencing and/or dismissal
Unfortunately, it's not for nothing that these activists have been termed "The terrorists of health". I don't know if TerryE has been involved in all of these activities, and I don't really care. What's apparent to me, though, is that TerryE and others have figured out who I am, and considering what they (or like-minded editors) did in the past to User:Jfdwolff, I'm not at all comfortable with that. In the hopes that they will leave me alone, at least in my personal life, I'm going to emulate CrohnieGal and take Whittemore Peterson Institute and [[XMRV] off of my watchlist and leave the controversy to others. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This is no surprise, there are some very militant and opinionated people in the CFS community. Article probation might well be the best solution, as it is for a number of intractable real-world disputes. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Geez, you'd think at some point they'd grow tired of it. (waits for groans from the audience) HalfShadow 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Guy/HalfShadow, yes there are some militant people in the CFS community, but I think we are discussing me here. I've got so tired of this accusation that I've even put a specific statement on this point in my user page[40]. Yes, I have exchanged emails with Keepcalmandcarryon, when I was trying to reach out to reconcile our positions and I have offered to make the entire threat public if K wishes. I also take it that the legal threat relates to this, which was a joke and dismissed as such by the administrators. I haven't discussed K's identity on the internet (and by that I think you mean the public forums): heck, it now looks like I didn't even get K's gender right. I certainly haven't complained to his employers. The only reference between K and me on external posts that I can think of was when K outed me for posting a technical comment on another site.
What the debate on the XMRV and WPI articles is and always has been about is whether the content is suitably underpinned by appropriate WP:RS and WP:MEDRS within WP policies and guidelines, and how we editors should conform to WP:ETIQ in our dealings with each other. Please look at the discussion threads before condemning me. -- TerryE (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, TerryE, it's not all about you. As I stated above, the incessant harassment of editors who present reliable sources that are in disagreement with the convictions of ME activists has been a constant on Wikipedia for many years. As I also stated, I believe you've had a role in this, but I don't know the full extent of your involvement. In any case, the harassment of me and others has gone well beyond your Wikipedia e-mails and well beyond your thinly veiled "joke" about Harvey Whittemore suing me.
Whatever your role in the wider harassment, surely you can't believe that devoting several months to questionable "analyses" of other editors' editing patterns, with the goal of banning them from Wikipedia simply because you have a content dispute with them, is in any way constructive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read though TerryE's analysis fully, but, correlation does not imply causation. In addition, the specific test he's using is his own; I can't find an analysis of it in the statistical literature. Non-parametric factor analysis, which is what he seems to be attempting to do, is known to be questionable, at best. (Furthermore, the K-S test is inherently non-parametric; calling something non-parametric K-S is a best, redundant. What he's done appears to be a time-series parametric version of K-S. However, it may just detect people in the same time zone, rather than actual correlation.)
I'm afraid that I've, also, edited CFS from time to time, so I will not take administrative action here. However, if the statistics is found to be original, and targeted to produce his desired findings, TerryE should be banned from Wikipedia, and his edits reverted, even if supported by other editors.
Perhaps we do need to go straight to ArbCom. This is a conduct issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The specific analysis at User:TerryE/Supplemental SPI analysis would likely produce a positive if (1) U and D work at the same place; (2) U posts from work and D from home, and (3) there is a holiday sometime during the period, or they work on the same project which is running long, irregular, hours.
  • (3) is needed to break up the periodicity which Terry seems to be testing for.
  • (1) may not be needed if (3) includes a holiday.
I did not intend to imply that Terry developed this statistical method to produce a "positive" result, although How to Lie with Statistics did come to mind. It may be that he developed the method in order to formalize his suspicions. However, the method does seem faulty. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If people are editing in such a way as to coordinate their actions, I think we normally treat this in a similar way to sockpuppettry.. To quote WP:SOCK, "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity". 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC) This was DGG (talk · contribs).[41]

(outdent) Since this has come here I think administrators should investigate the active editors there and if they are behaving as socks or meat puppets then sanctions need to be handed out. This behavior has gone on for way too long. Just my opinion, have a good night, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DGGs sentiments, though I suspect that I am the object of these comments in this case. I have really been amazed by this response. As I said in the SPI, I took this step reluctantly -- and in retrospect perhaps hastily, but there was only one name on this -- mine. I have been labelled many ways, for example the originator of this ANI implied that I was supporting fringe[42] theories -- what fringe? Where are the diffs which support this unfounded hearsay? The source of this claim was a debate relating to a paper published in Science and co-authored by domain experts in the NCI and Cleveland Clinic who have very recently publicly supported the integrity of this work. Science -- fringe? NCI -- fringe? I am not trying to oversell anything, just ensure that article content sensibly reflects the RS and MEDRS, though I do object when editors accuse reputable authors of incompetent science.
If some of the other editors on these pages have a common ground, then in my view it is that they object to slash and burn tactics which cut across sound RS and MEDRS based content and that can undo weeks of careful negotiated work with a 15 min edit. As I have said to K many times: it's not our job to interpret the sources, but to report them in an unbiased way and to wait for the science. Within the next year or so the scientific process itself will be the true judge. I don't know which way the coin will land, but whichever way it lands, then I will willingly accept this, because if I do have a bias, it is my faith in the scientific method.
As to my statistical analysis, I really value critique from editors who have read my analysis and have some understanding how to use this class of non-parametric test. Yes, there are weaknesses in this approach. One commenter cited data dredging. I've posted the code. Look at it; run it yourself. Is this data dredging? Throwing the dice 260 times and looking for odd patterns amongst these is an example of data dredging. Wondering whether the dice is loaded because you didn't get a single six in 260 throws isn't. I now realise that it was a mistake to ask this type of question in the first place. -- TerryE (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop playing the "ME activist" stereotype card

A small radical fringe element amongst a wider more reasonable community is often alluded to by Wikipedians. I'm not involved in whatever personal life issues with supposed ME activists that K claims to have, so I can't really comment on that. But the unacceptable recurring theme in so many of the disputes I've been involved in has been use of the "ME activist/cabal/mafia" caricature, used to shrug off my edits and arguments, cast doubt on me, and poison any further discussion. The editorial problems I have with R and to a much lesser extent K have already been outlined elsewhere but I want to address this ME activist cabal strawman and red herring because it has gone on long enough. The evidence presented above and elsewhere for my involvement in or the existence of any "cabal" is rather dubious and paranoid:

  • In early 2008 the CFS article was split into several subarticles, per consensus. I supported the split. A harmless project page was created to facilitate the process, but I was not involved editorially. By late 2008 R had major editing disputes with Guido den Broeder who was later banned. Guido used to mention some of the alleged cabal members including me on his userpage as Wikipedians he respected. We did not necessarily agree on CFS issues. R however suspected a cabal, and from then on basically any disagreement with R's POV was further evidence of a cabal. The false accusations and the strawmanning of my opinions became routine when there were disputes over the wording and weight given to various aspects of the psychological factors/treatments for CFS. I was a main contributor in the dispute at that stage. It's all in the archives.
  • K makes much out of a more recent comment where Terry implies there is an "inner circle" he was not part of. I'm guessing Terry meant the main editors since he didn't edit much back then, and I'm one of the main editors? On the XMRV/WPI articles, I had minimal involvement there and it was the other alleged ME mobsters who added the majority of the XMRV negative studies. So there's no pro XMRV/WPI cabal either.
  • At the CFS talkpage recently one or two anonymous editors turned up out of the blue possibly from a CFS forum and promoted a particular paper. I didn't bother to get involved. However, their arguments or actions were ironically shut down with the help of, wait for it ... -drumroll- ... Wikipedia's own resident alleged ME mafia mobsters Ward20 and TerryE!

Out of the millions of English speakers in the world who may be interested in CFS only a small handful edit at Wikipedia on the CFS pages. The conspiracy theories about me and a "ME activist cabal" that I'm allegedly involved with have been refuted over and over but the false accusations just keep coming regardless of the evidence. When the slightest indication of consensus is misconstrued as cabalistic and instant suspicion is thrown onto anyone who disagrees with you, beware of confirmation bias creep or soon you may be seeing ME cabals everywhere! Why not try comparing what "ME activists/militants" allegedly believe with what the CFS article actually is, you'll see that the idea of a ME activist cabal in control of the CFS articles is humorous enough to put on that Wikipedia list of fake/joke cabals, and I have already done so a few months ago.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 10:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the SPI mentioned above was closed with not actions. Just thought this should be part of the record here and also that editors should be aware. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've actually left all of the CFS pages alone for a good long while and the only reason is the acrimonious atmosphere. There is an immense amount of research done on CFS, it is a constantly expanding field, but also one prone to wild proclamations, exaggerated claims of success, criticism, etiology, treatment, etc. The involvement of a lot of single purpose accounts who have dedicated, strong points of view does not help. Given the enormous number of resources available (pubmed shows 5,000 research articles and over 1,000 review articles), there is no reason for this page so be so daunting to try to edit. Editors coming to the page a priori certain they know what causes CFS and how to treat it (from either the biological or psychological side of things) is the biggest detriment to neutral, dedicated editors coming to the page for the long-term work of establishing a neutral version. The page needs a) a mediator who understands that the field is inchoate, lacks answers, and full of controversy and b) a set of editors who are willing to either be polite, or respond only to the mediator rather than slinging mud at each other.
The page can, and should, be solved with sources. There is no need for it to be an ongoing, aggravating POV battle - editors need to realize there are multiple perspectives, none have come to dominate the field, and they're going to see neutral discussions of theories they don't like on the page.
Like a lot of the uninvolved editors, I'm certainly willing to comment. I am unwilling to step into that minefield. Perhaps arbcom should become involved, but the situation, as is, is borderline intolerable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to second WLU's comments. I think a mediator would do an immense amount of good for the CFS article and related articles, since biased edits from both/all sides would effectively be nullified. (I'm assuming the article would be locked to non-admins in this instance; otherwise, it would be less effective.) It could perhaps also provide someone who more closely monitors the behaviours of the editors involved, allowing those behaviours to be addressed before they get out of hand, as well as providing a more neutral third party to give a viewpoint on things if they do escalate. I think the bulk of editors currently on these articles can and do work well together regardless of their personal opinions or biases, but when the more extreme opinions and/or actions come to the fore, it naturally makes everyone look more polarized than they truly are, similar to what's described at WP:TINC ("If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one.") By setting controls on these actions, I would like to think that it would moderate the impression by some that there really is some sort of cabal here and allow us all to return to productive editing. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree a neutral mediator that has no preconceived ideals on these articles but a good basis in enforcing policy would be beneficial. Ward20 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Bern[edit]

I'm sure those of you who have been around awhile remember this page. Well, "activity" has picked up again on this page and I think it's worth keeping an eye on. Multiple IP's attempting to re-insert the same POV material. Several of those IP's 66.99.0.150 (talk · contribs) and 64.107.0.167 (talk · contribs) have attempted to hijack my account by requesting password reminders. -Drdisque (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked Drdisque to forward the password reminders to confirm the IPs. I blocked 66.99.0.150 just now. The other IP, 64.107.0.167, made a password request for his Commons account, but it's been blocked locally anyway. If you want to show this thread to a commons admin, be my guest.--Chaser (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

JzG and Sarah Thomson (politician)[edit]

Resolved: Article to be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician). –xenotalk 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

JzG deleted this article Sarah Thomson (politician) apparently without so much as a prod or speedy delete tag. This despite the fact that the candidate has significant media coverage. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the present case, admins need not wait for a speedy deletion tag to be placed if they feel it meets the speedy deletion criteria. If you disagree with the deletion, why didn't you taken this up with Jzg directly?xenotalk 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You honestly think that would have made a difference? Be in Nepean (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct. It became clear from emails to OTRS that the article (on a political candidate with zero chance of election) exists solely as part of her campaign marketing. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • She's also a magazine publisher and is getting significant media coverage. Rather than make a unilateral decision you should have put it to an AFD or at least prodded. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Two inactionable threads in a day. My, tonight seems to be Guy's lucky night. Nepean: he shouldn't have taken this to AFD because that's not how we do things around here. I'm sure, though, that if you took the matter up with JzG directly, he would be more accommodating to your request than if you ran straight to ANI to tattle on him (though I guess it's too late for that). AGK 20:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • AGK, the candidate has received significant, neutral coverage so she meets the notability requirements you cite. Therefore, he should have taken it to AFD. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Not to mention, since the question of the article's existence is being discussed here, you should wait til people here are convinced the deletion was inappropriate before attempting to recreate it yet again. Equazcion (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the article, AFD wasn't needed. JzG acted appropriately. - Josette (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV would be the right place for this discussion, wouldn't it?--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's back… – iridescent 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And it's tagged. HalfShadow 20:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And it's gone. Goodnes, I'm getting pixelated. HalfShadow 20:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And it's back. Equazcion (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi. Nepean? Over here. *waves hand* Post that again and I'll request the page be salted. HalfShadow 20:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there some pressing reason this can't go to AFD? She seems to satisfy WP:GNG. –xenotalk 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I did advise him to DRV but perhaps my message was a bit minimalist! SGGH ping! 20:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
DRV isn't well-suited to determine if the article meets WP:GNG, for numerous reasons - not the least of which would be the fact that it would remain redlinked during the discussion... –xenotalk 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone want to view the article talk and see if we need an AfD in the end? SGGH ping! 21:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Imo, we do: I've declined the latest speedy deletion tag. –xenotalk 21:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
JzG mentioned something about OTRS emails. If there's good evidence that the article is being created as a campaign tactic, I'd say an AFD would only help them misuse Wikipedia by calling attention to the candidate. Equazcion (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not with her campaign. I'm not even going to vote for her (I'm supporting Pantalone) but I recognize that she is considered a mainstream candidate and is not being lumped in by the media with the fringe. She's being invited to mayoral debates for instance (and with 20+ candidates only the "major" candidates are being invited). Be in Nepean (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm don't have access to OTRS so I can't comment on the specifics of the ticket. However, if the article is written in a suitably neutral manner and meets WP:GNG, it doesn't matter if someone in an OTRS ticket thinks it was posted to further her campaign. –xenotalk 21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's quite possible a campaign worker with one of her opponents filed the OTRS ticket in order to make mischief. Have you considered that? Be in Nepean (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's also possible that the OTRS ticket was filed by her or one of her campaign workers ie "HOW DARE YOU DELETE OUR ARTICLE". Maybe a cartooney threat was thrown in for good measure. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely as the article was first deleted by JzG as a result of the OTRS ticket, not the other way around. Be in Nepean (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm also a bit suspicious since this supposedly new user seems excessively familiar with the lingo (prods, speedy delete tag, AFD, etc). Just putting that out there. Equazcion (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
But yes I agree, if it meets notability guidelines it can stay no matter what the motivation for creation was. I just want to be sure a speedy isn't applicable first. Equazcion (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been here for two months, so not that new, and I did take the opportunity to read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy today after seeing that the article disappeared. Be in Nepean (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm using two computers in the same office and started a second account on the second computer because I couldn't remember the passwor