Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive663

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

Noticeboard archives



The above article has recently had a weasel words template removed three times by two editors. I would appreciate any input from any independent editors here whether the template is justified. I would also welcome any comments on the talk pages from such editors about the addition and removal of the template, and the reasons given on the talk page and in the edit summaries for both. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have already advised John Carter about repeatedly adding this template with a 3RR warning here. The latest reversion is likely to be a WP:SOCK here. Ovadyah (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
ROFLOL indeed that John is surely a sock.[sarcasm] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
User:John notified The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is to acknowledge that I, as well as John, am aware of the ridiculous allegation made above. If other editors are so incapable of reviewing editor's history as to make this allegation, or are unaware that John is actually a fairly common name, even though it actually isn't mine, they might want to review just how common the name is. As I've said elsewhere, my birth name is Arthur, Dudley Moore jokes and all, which is why I went for the more common one of a fictional character I like. I do wish some of the more recent comments made regarding this article weren't quite so similar to the drunken statements in the Moore movie, but it is good to have a laugh once in a while. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dammit. Every time I get a decent sock account going I get busted like this. Oh well. Seriously, does somebody with CU access want to assure Ovadyah that John Carter and I are not socks? --John (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have already apologized for this mistake on John's talk page, so let's get back to the issue at hand. Ovadyah (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"Get your ass back to Mars!" HalfShadow 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Without reading Professor Pine's essay ("The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source") myself, I cannot be sure if he quotes or refers to other historians/academicians/scholars within it. On the face of it (and with no direct quotes from the material to support the implied 'more than one' of the word 'some'), it seems to me that the phrase 'some scholars argue' is only referring to the Professor. Since this section of the article is referring to the history of the article's subject and history is usually taken to mean a record or consideration of events (either written or oral), then why can't the writer who has this particular opinion be mentioned by name in the article? After all, other writers and historians are mentioned within the article by name including Justin Martyr, Origen and Epiphanius of Salamis. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, but I was mistaken about which incidence of the text "some scholars argue" was being discussed in this AN/I. I was referring to "Some scholars argue that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad around the year 1000" (in the seventh paragraph of the History section) not the 'A majority of scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem church"/"Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader after Jesus' death rather than Peter." (in the second paragraph of the James vs. Paul section). Sorry for my confusion, but, in my the moment there are seven incidents of the text 'some scholars' in the article including two other paragraphs that start with 'Some scholars argue'. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to remedy the problem by removing the ambiguous "some scholars" and explicitly identifying the five scholars that hold this majority view. Thus the original point of the "weasel words" tag is moot. Ovadyah (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
And in the process you added material, specifically including a prejudicial statement of "most" scholars, which I believe cannot be justified by policies or guidelines, and have made several comments on the page, none of which seem to actually directly respond to the points raised, and some of which seem to specifically imply that for whatever reason you are not obligated to do so. I am specifically requesting any and all editors who see this thread respond on the article talk page regarding the points raised there. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out previously on the talk page, you were requested by the mediator to come up with sources (even one) that contradicted this view, and you either refused or could not. Therefore, it represents the majority view of the scholars who have studied this problem, until you can produce an even larger list of scholars that advocate an opposing view. Ovadyah (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
For fracks sake, this isn't rocket science. Ovadyah, this dispute can easily be resolved by fixing the wording. You recently changed "Some scholars argue" to "A majority of scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church...argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." If you don't have a single reliable sources that says this explicitly, then we can't use it. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
We are attempting to resolve this. I still don't see why saying "Some scholars" followed immediately by references naming those scholars is inadequate. Ovadyah (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the "majority of scholars" claim and explicitly named the reliable sources that advocate this view. I have also pointed out on the talk page that no editors have come forward with reliable sources advocating an opposing view. Any such alternative views will be incorporated into the article, as long as they are properly sourced. I assume that is a more acceptable solution than John Carter's previous approach of blanking the entire section and locking the article. Ovadyah (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving noticeboard comments[edit]

Resolved: A tentative mutual agreement (of sorts) seems to have been reached, no administrative action required. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, this is petty, but it is annoying, and this is the first time I've encountered a situation like this. I read WP:TALK as prohibiting an editor moving talk page (or noticeboard) comments as here.[1], especially when done two more times.[2] [3] I was responding to Hobit, not to Jack Sebastian, and this totally changes my meaning. I think the usual practice is to leave comments alone in such situations. If I'm correct, can someone please move it back and advice Jack Sebastian of the protocol on this? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A background note on this: This issue started as a content dispute at The Circus (film) and has turned into an edit war on several fronts with these 2 editors reverting each other several times in several minutes on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard as well as each other's talk pages. Since tensions seem to be running higher by the second between these two, asking them to temporarily refrain from contact between each other may be a good idea. Not to mention that the edit war at the noticeboard is one of the lamest I've seen in a while. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll admit to the "lame," part, but the reversions commenced when my comment was moved. That's the totality of the edit warring, and I self-reverted my last reversion, so as to bring it here. Rest assured I have no interest in interacting with said user. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I am the editor in question (watchlisted the reporting user, and not notified, as per guidelines). I did indeed moved ScottyBerg's comments - which (s)he shoe-horned in the middle of my reply to another user - to after mine, following chronological order. ScottyBerg's doing so altered the meaning of my comments, making it seem as if I were replying to SB and not another user. I only moved the comment - which the user indirectly admits are out of order by indenting as if it were after mine. I changed no text or meaning of the post at all. The user has reverted this show-horning back in three times, at which point I was about to report them for 3RR (the user self-reverted their fourth revert), and saw this in their contributions.
Despite my reservations with the user (based upon comments made by himher to other users), I made several attempts to advise the user how to better use our indenting format and identification of reply posts. ScottyBerg has - since my first comment to the user back in November, removed my posts without response. His behavior in article discussion is both attack-y and sullen in nature. I therefore suggested that the user consult with an admin to get some advice. I guess the user thinks the best defense is a good offense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Addressing the original complaint here, I think ScottyBerg is technically in the wrong here as his initial comment was placed out-of-order with the series of talkpage comments. ScottyBerg, why didn't you place this comment after Jack Sebastian's comment where it would usually go? NickCT (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(non-admin commment) On the particular point in question I agree with ScottyBerg that comments on a talk page should not be moved like this as it's against WP:TALK and my udnerstanding off how talk pages work so I've reverted the edit and put the comment back where it was originally left. Dpmuk (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think placing comments out of strict chronological order is not unusual on talk pages. I was responding specifically to Hobit's point on BRD, and was trying, in fact, to avoid interacting with Jack Sebastian given the aggressive tone of his posts. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Dpmuk, I would point out that it was my post that was moved in the first place - a post wherein I was explicitly responding to another user's comments. If dor example, I had wanted to reply to a post out of order, I would have identified the target of my reply, and put it at the end, which is what we all do here. Why does ScottyBerg not have to follow the same guidelines that the rest of us do? Being a relatively new user only excuses so much, esp. when they are repeatedly advised on how to better accomplish simple tasks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also of the impression that posting out of order is not exactly uncomment on talk pages. If a thread gets long it's awkward for everyone involved if a direct reply to a comment is much further down the page (see also my comments at User:Jack Sebastian). But to a large extent that's irrelevant - WP:TALK makes it clear you should not move other people's comments if it changes there meaning. Your move clearly did this as it made it look like they were replying to you rather than Hobbit. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I would also point out that your post was not "moved" - they merely inserted a comment in a place to make it clear who they were replying to, which is normal practice. By keeping the indentation somewhat sensible they also ensured it stayed clear who you were replying to. Dpmuk (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (2x) I would just point out that how I just handled my previous post - identifying the target of the post in the beginning of my response as well as noting such in the edit summary - is not only the accepted format we all use, but simply polite.
Re: Scotty's defense of stating he was avoiding my "aggressive tone", I would imagine that sticking his posts before mine, disconnecting my conversation doesn't seem - on its face - the best way to avoid confrontation. I'm trying to AGF here, but that doesn't ring true. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dpmuk, I agree that inserting comments is not out of order per se, but I would suggest you look at the inserting post edit again. Note that my comment was specifically to another editor. By inserting their comment in between them more than twelve hours after the post, ScottyBerg made it seem like I was replying to them instead of the original target. I would submit that the user did so to accomplish precisely that, and to initiate a confrontation. Why didn't the user simply state in their post - again, 12 hours after the fact - by simply identifying who they were replying to? Why did they feel the burning need to interrupt a discussion I was having with another user? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Copied from your talk page - "I completely disagree - by making sure their reply was indented enough they made it clear that your reply wasn't to them but rather to Hobbit. As such I don't think they violated WP:TALK as it was still clear who you replied to and so it didn't change the meaning of what you wrote. Your change changed who it appear they replied to and so did change the meaning of what they wrote which is in violation of WP:TALK." Dpmuk (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{Just for clarity's sake, these are your comments on my talk page, not mine}. I appreciate your efforts to resolve the problem, but I still don't think I did anything wrong here. I am understand WP:TALK, but I'd warrant that WP:REFACTOR is more on point here. The user did it to disrupt a conversation I was having with someone else, and then fought to preserve that little 'f.u.' that excluded me from my own conversation. Again, the user is tryingt o reframe the issue. You've proposed a solution which would satisfy me, as it follows TALK, but I don't think they will accept it, as it undoes their action. Give it a whirl. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Gah, this conversation is now all over the place. Personally I wouldn't have had a problem with your refactoring if you'd done it in such a way it still made it clear they were replying to Hobbit - it's that change that I think violated WP:TALK not the fact that you refactored, and it's also because of that change in meaning that I reverted. Hopefully they're go with my suggestion and we can move on from there. Dpmuk (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, it never occurred to me to add anything to their post (like "To Hobit" or the like), because that would be in violation of both TALK and REFACTOR. All I sought to do was to preserve conversational and chronological flow. That is what keeps the conversations from being "all over the place". Also, waiting more than a moment between replies avoids a lot of edit conflicts. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
More misunderstaning - my comment about discussion all over the place was about the discussion about what to do. I wasn't saying that you should have added anything to their post (as I'd agree that wouldn't be right) - merely indented it appropriately (which I believe would have been acceptable). Oh well - definitely off to bed now. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not this shit again. Jack, read between the lines: when an editor like yourself did this to me many, many times in the past, I asked that editor to stop and they did not, and it led to the same complaint that ScottyBerg is making here, as you may or may not be aware. Let's just put an end to this here and now, ok? There is no need to keep upsetting people by moving their comments. In the future, please don't touch comments made by other editors unless you have permission from the original editor to do so. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I don't appreciate your tone, Viriditas; I don't know you, haven't interacted with you, and don't care about what sorts of interactions you may have had with others in the past. My comments were the ones moved mid-conversation, so I moved them to preserve chronological order. I have no idea why you think I do this a lot, because I quite simply don't. I made every attempt to bring the user up to speed on what they were doing (and should be doing instead). Each time, they ignored the request and continued edit-warring.
Looking over your own history and block log, I can see that you have plenty of history with edit-warring. Maybe, instead of cussing me out, your time would be better spent mentoring ScottyBerg on some of the hard lessons you have learned, so he can avoid them. Thanks for the left-handed advice, but no thanks. Your hard lessons don't really interest me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You most certainly do know me, and you've certainly interacted with me in the past, and the poor editing behavior you've shown with ScottyBerg is the same you've shown with me under your other account, so you can stop with the charade. I have no interest in "outing" you, so keep playing your games as you please, but the irony of noting my "history and block log" doesn't go unnoticed; after all, that's the only reason you created this account, to start "fresh" and clean. Don't bother responding, because I have no interest in helping you dig a deeper hole. Leopard, spots, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hard telling who you're talking about, but you and others here are absolutely right that the editor Jack should not be messing with other users' comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll say it again: I was only preserving my own comments, which were shoe-horned out by another user. Sure, could I have instead gne to an admin and complained about it? In hindsight, I guess I should have, instead of going back and forth on it. It takes two to edit-war,a nd I should have known better.
And Viriditas, all I can say is: wow, that's some pretty ugly behavior and bad faith. I have no idea what or who you are talking about and I don't really want to. You are clearly confusing me with someone else you've had some trouble with. Yes, I had a prior account but I retired it in good stead - neither you nor anyone else had anything to do with my departure. Since you seem unable to extend AGF, and have apparently popped in to simply take a cheap shot and make baseless accusations, we don't ever need to interact again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This conversation seems to be getting out of hand. I think we should probably just say that ScottyBerg injected his comments in an unusual but perhaps not unreasonable manner, Jack Sebastian then inappropriately moved those comments. Both editors should just be asked to be more careful and considerate in future, and we can avoid AE. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess when someone moves your comments around, you aren't supposed to move them back. Thanks for the new ruling. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
SB was replying to the same editor you were replying to, and what you call "shoehorning" is a common practice on talk pages to make it clear who one is responding to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've marked this thread as resolved since there seems to be no requirement for administrative action. General conduct discussions should be taken elsewhere. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[edit]

AntiSemitic IP vandal: [[4]]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

31 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've reverted all the vandalism, but a second pair of eyes mightn't be a bad idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a banned user, ThomasK/Thomaskh -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ThomasK/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thomaskh/Archive. The correct ranges to block are and, although I don't see any of his contribs on the 93.82 range this year; I haven't seen any of those IPs assigned to him since November. His editing style is distinctive: antisemitic, right-wing, "death to xxx" (where "xxx"=Wikipedia, Jews, admins, some misspelling of my name ...), and full of shouting and personal attacks. He doesn't like me very much since I figured out who he was. I was wondering why he'd been quiet -- he may have created sockpuppets after the last rangeblocks expired. Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Return of Hullaballoo again[edit]

It seems Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) will not let go of me. More recently, he has undone several bold edits of mine which redirected unsourced BLPs of individual members of Smash Mouth — edits that I doubt anyone else would argue are in the wrong, as they seem to fall in line with WP:BAND. His edit summary called my edits "undiscussed, indiscriminate, inappropriate". The last time I tried to talk to him, I felt that I was civil enough, but he plowed right through my discussion with an edit summary calling my comments "paranoid, incompetent and inaccurate". The most recent discussion on his talk page is KWW warning him not to violate WP:CIVIL. I filed an RFC about a month ago but all we did was talk in circles and go absolutely nowhere. His edit summaries towards other users show that he is just as incivil to everyone else, although I still seem to be one of his primary targets of incivility.

My point is: Hullaballoo has gotten away scot-free with blatant WP:CIVIL violations way too many times. Everyone keeps dropping him friendly warnings not to act incivilly, and he blatantly shuns them and goes back to his same shenanigans. I don't know why he's apparently got carte blanche now, but it MUST stop now. I think it's reached the point where a block is in order, but either way, We MUST find a way to stop his gross misbehavior. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this doesn't fall under WP:BRD.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Because every time I try to talk to him on his talk page, he just wipes out my discussion and calls me paranoid. I can't invoke BRD if he won't follow through on the D part. The issue is far beyond BRD anyway — it's not just his blind reversions of my edits, but also his outright refusal to change his behavior after umpteen warnings and his hostile attitude towards other users in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If you discuss it on the article talk page he can't wipe it out. You call it a blind reversion, but it looks thought out to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've notified him since you didn't. I see no benefit to a block in this situation, his comments are blunt but not egregious. He has the right to remove what he wants on his own talk page, and it would be better to discuss it in a more appropriate place anyway. Trebor (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
How about the fact that he's been doing this to me, on and off, for two years? Repeatedly calling an editor "paranoid and inaccurate" isn't an ad hominem attack to you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The examples that TPH provided don't cause me much concern: typical editing disagreement. I was concerned by this edit, which does cross WP:CIVIL.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time I try to talk on his talk page, no matter how nice I am, he blindly reverts me and calls me incompetent/inaccurate/paranoid. Every time. If that's not repeated, blunt attacking of an editor I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Then focus on that, and provide us with a list of diffs. His reverts of your redirects aren't going to lead to any clear-cut consensus.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just stop commenting on his page. He obviously doesn't want you there, and any discussion of the page redirects and other edits should take place on the talk pages of the article, anyway. I'm not really concerned about HW's blanking of his talk page from you, but if he can't actually discuss things on the correct page, that would be another matter. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'd be happy enough to just start blocking every editor that starts the "stay off my talk page" garbage. It's a sign of a refusal to participate in mature discussion, and is generally a very accurate pointer as to where the real problem in an interaction lies.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well right or wrong I'd advise against that without community backing.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not normally a great sign, but we give users free reign to manage their userpages how they want. A refusal to discuss on his userpage is not the same as a refusal to discuss; obviously if he edit warred without being willing to discuss it anywhere, that would be blockable. Trebor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen him discuss any of his reversions anywhere. Check his talk page; there are several cases where he pruned references, including such reliable sources as the New York Times, without explaining why besides "they're not reliable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry: I'm well aware of the distinction between "things I'd like to do" and "things I'm permitted to do". That said, user pages are a fine place to discuss things, and forcing all discussion to article talk pages isn't a reasonable strategy when you are questioning behaviour that spans multiple articles.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Unwelcome and rude (admittedly, he's right on this one)
  • Unwelcome and unwelcome — he told me "read the edit summaries" which in no way explained how he thought the sources in question were acceptable
  • paranoid ranting
  • Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
  • unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
  • unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
  • unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
  • Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
  • "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" after someone politely asked him to archive his ginormous talk page; the same editor tried to instigate an unrelated discussion about IMDb but HW bulldozed their edits and called the user rude.
  • "Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)

And most recently, I politely asked him yet again to discuss his reversal of my redirect, and he very falsely accused me of "harassment". That one is the last straw. Admittedly I'd been rude to him before, but even when I'm civil, he makes the falsest accusation I've ever seen in the five years I've been here. My last edit was in no way harassment, and he has no right to make such a bald-faced lie and get away with it! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Here is some proof that he almost never discusses any changes made to an article, and is in general very rude when he does:
  • 1.) One of my first run-ins with HW and his refusal to discuss beyond laconic circular-logic arguments was at this AFD. He argued that because it was an "Album released last week by notable group" that it was automatically notable, and pointed to listings at and that were nothing more than track listings. When I pointed out that the "sources" were only directory listings and that the label's page didn't even mention the article, his response assumed bad faith in my source-finding abilities.
  • 1b.) In between those two sections, you'll find him being just as curt and circular-logical about his blunt removal of generally valid references from countless other articles.
  • 2.)Another time, I asked how he thought that the meager sources in the Jerome Vered article were insufficient. At the AFD, he called my comments "inaccurate" when I told him that I didn't think the trivial mentions in Google Books were enough, and refused to elaborate on his talk page.
  • 3.)The last time I saw him discuss content on a talk page, he replied to me calling a source unreliable. I said that the author "doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility" and he redacted it as a WP:BLP violation and usage of "weasel words" when it clearly wasn't. I told him that his edit summaries were vague and didn't properly explain why he thought the source was reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've warned HW that I will block him for refusing to discuss edits. I see that TPH has reinstalled the redirects that HW refused to discuss, and I'm not going to take action now. If he edit wars and won't discuss, I'll take action then, and I will monitor this problem.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • As an aside, I reinstated the redirects and discussed on the talk page why I think they should stay redirects. (And as an other aside, it also irks me that HW has gotten away with a 465 KB talk page and outright refuses to archive it.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe that there's an active proposal to give a limit to unarchived talk pages. DGG is another "offender", but I'm not about to block him for it... It is probably about time that Hullaballoo was placed under some editing restrictions, he's been repeatedly uncivil and often edit wars and refuses to discuss edits. Can we formulate some requirements that would keep his excesses in check? Fences&Windows 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • (ec)There's a fair bit of dickery going about through all these diffs...some of which, as you have noted, involve some snippish comments of your own...but I don't think AN/I is flexible enough to deal with this sort of thing, though it would be nice for a change if it would. If you're upto the Byzantine challenge, and RFC/U along the lines of what had to finally be done with Colonel Warden recently may be the way to go. If not, then try leaving all of the discussion attempts off his talk page and on the appropriate article talk pages. If he ignores the discussion attempts there and still reverts out of hand, then that would likely gain some traction here. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I already filed an RFC/U and it went absolutely nowhere. There was lots of discussion, but nothing came of it at all. I don't think another RFC/U would help, especially since the last one was about a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it obtained the necessary traction: if HW refuses to discuss an edit again, he will be blocked until he agrees to discuss edits. Does anyone really think more should happen at this moment?—Kww(talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Hm, I had no recollection of RFCU #1, and I even commented there; maybe this is a good day to quit drinking. Well, if a bright-line "one more and he's toast" comes out of this now, then that sounds good. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree w/the above comment to the effect that if HB does not wish to discuss the matter on his talk page, that is within his rights, and I would in that situation suggest article page discussion be initiated.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • True enough, but here he is describing a request on his talk page to discuss it at the article talk page as "unwanted harassment". That's refusing to discuss it anywhere.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The problem is that Wolfowitz won't interact with Hammer, he just reverts his actions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Um, if you read the link, you may have noticed that an interaction ban would prevent HW from reverting TPH's edits... T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am goddamn sick and tired of being treated like dirt here. In the last two years I've made about thirty thousand edits, none using automated tools or scripts, concentrating on BLP and copyright policy enforcement, two areas that are among the highest priorities, as established both by on-Wikipedia consensus and by Wikimedia Foundation action. These are pretty much thankless jobs these days, as my repeatedly vandalized user page and talk page evidence. Yet obviously this counts for nothing, and that quite a few people are never going to give me a fair shake because I became an involuntary Wikipedia Review poster child as a victim of admin abuse over an incident where no less than Jimmy Wales eventually weighed in support of me and the admin who blocked me, for an edit made by another user, stomped off Wikipedia in the face of criticism. It's evident that a double standard is being applied here.
With regard to some of the specific points made:

  • TenPoundHammer claims that he filed an RFC/U against me recently, but that it "went nowhere." That's hardly accurate. The RFC, which wasn't ever even properly certified, ended up with four users endorsing TPH's position generally, five endorsing mine generally, and a dozen or so rejecting most of TPH's claims particularly those relating to stalking and harassment, but finding some of my AFD comments too harsh, in particular my comment that when TPH says he can't find sources on a subject, it's because he hasn't bothered to look for them. (I didn't participate in the RFC precisely because it was never properly certified, so the community's rejection of TPHs accusations was based only on his presentation of his case, underlining just how unfounded the accusations were.) I think my comment is accurate and within the general range of comments accepted at AFDs, but I've respected the expressed opinion of the community and have not since used that formulation. TPH does not respect the community's determination and has repeated, here and elsewhere, the accusations rejected, by a wide margin, by the community in the RFC. The RFC, focusing on my responses to TPH's AFD nominations, reflects a pretty strong community consensus that TPH's deletion proposals are too often destructive. As one admin noted in a lengthy ANI discussion regarding TPH only a few days ago, "I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. . . . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't." [5]
  • It is absolutely false that I "refuse to discuss edits." My talk page shows scores of discussions, and my contribution list shundreds of talk page discussions. What I won't do is waste my time responding to uncivil, peremptory comments that aren't made with any intent to engage in an encyclopedia-building process, but to make editing unpleasant for an editor who's disagreed with the commenter. Comments like these, from TPH:
    "Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived?" [6]
    "oh so now you're being a douche too? let's just have a big douche parade across his talkpage" (edit summary) [7]
    "and you wonder why I'm never fucking polite to you" (edit summary) [8]
    "why are you only ever this big a douche to me?" (edit summary) [9]
    "So in other words, what we have is an editor being a single-minded, bullheaded, tendentious douchebag and no one can be bothered to do anything about it." (under the heading "Wolfowitz") [10]
    "fine, Hullaballoo Doucheowitz... if you insist on undoing every damn edit I make. Undo this. I dare you." (edit summary) [11]
    "What the hell is your problem? You're labeling ALL my edits as disruptive. Whatever happened to good faith, hmm?" [
    "What the hell is your problem? Every time I make a nomination you're here to bitch about it." [12]
    "You just have a grudge and a half against me don't you? I looked and didn't see anything that said "Emmy". Clearly my google-fu is abysmal." [13]
    "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer." [14]
    "*Seriously man, do you have some sort of agenda against me? It seems like no matter what I do, you're there to undo it. And answer me already. WHAT NEEDS DISCUSSION" [16]
    "Are you gonna answer me or what?" [17]
    "*Great. So you're bulldozing all my edits AND giving me the silent treatment. Way to be civil." [18] (Note that the last five comments were posted over a 45-minute period.)
I made repeated attempts to dialogue with TPH over at least a year. Note the extended discussion in this AFD, for example. After a long period, TPH dropped any vestige of rational conversation and shifted to summary invective. As I recall, the shift came in mid-September, after I posted a comment/warning on his talk page regarding disruptive editing practices -- in that case, reinstating about two dozen disputed redirects, marking the edits as minor, and using edit summaries suggesting he was reverting vandalism. His accusations and nasty talk page posts began almost immediately afterwards.
  • A substantial portion of TPH's editing, particularly as related to deletion/removal of content, is incompetent, well beyond the point of being disruptive. This is behavior which actively damages the encyclopedia, impairs its value to users, and drives good faith contributors away. TPH admits regularly that his ability to use Google as a search engine is deficient (his own descriptions of his competency level include "abysmal" and "I still suck". Yet he continues to make AFD nominations and create redirects, despite his awareness that his basis for doing so is unreliable. Just yesterday, taking one of the articles which provoked his post here to this AFD, only to have it snow-kept within an hour, shortly after he withdrew another AFD, where he'd claimed no sources "seem to exist", only to be quickly overwhelmed by proof otherwise (leading to his admission "Clearly I still suck at using Google, I would think a reasonable, constructive editor, conscious that his analyses were regularly misleading/inaccrate, would stop employing those analyses until they figured out what was going wrong. TPH doesn't. Two other examples are instructive: TPH nominated Jordyn Shellhart for deletion, saying that "Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources." [19] Yet the Google News search results [20] actually turn up several dozen news hits, some trivial, but many substantial, including full profiles, and showing that the article subject received national press attention for her televised performance of the national anthem at an NFL game. Only today, TPH unlinked the term "sheoque" from an article on Irish mythology [21], claiming "google doesn't know what a sheoque is." However, a basic Google search [22] immediately turns up relevant hits at the top of the search results, as well as, further in what appears to be detailed commentary by Yeats. Nor are the problems limited to Google use. In this AFD TPH claimed "I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations" for the article subject, although all he needed to do was click the appropriate link in the (already wikilinked) article on the award. Here he insists hat an album was released on a "non-notable label," even though the label had an article soundly establishing notability. And here TPH argued that HBO was a "redlinked network," on which no further comment should be necessary. This is highly disruptive behavior, and there's fundamentally no other way to refer to it other than variations on "incompetent." Or worse.
  • TPH regularly refuses to engage in discussion after I have responded to his attacks. For example, the first time TPH raised similar matters at AN/I, he refused to provide any substantive response to my reply (reproduced below). Instead, he forum shops, abandons discussions when they don't immediately produce the results he wants, then renews them in hopes of finding a more receptive audience. It's not a coincidence that his attacks on me closely follow significant complaints being made regarding his editing practices; he's trying to divert attention from his repeated and very serious misbehavior, pointing to the alleged venial sins of the Big Bad Wolfowitz because I'm not a very popular guy with a bunch of admins. TPH has never responded in any way to my previoys response, which bears repeating here:
I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original).
In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww. [23] TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions.
TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his being bitchy. [24]
TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users.
With regard to the particular matters TPH raises:
  • My comments in the Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue [25]. It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label,"[26] precisely the standard he rejects here.
  • The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection.
  • The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer."[27] Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article.

TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in [Atlantic Records discography RFD], where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects.[28] In [recent AFD], I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified.

In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example:

  • TPH nominated Trey Bruce for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point.
  • TPH redirected Robb Royer to Bread (band), asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song.[29] This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action.
  • Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of CSI, including "A Bullet Runs Through It" (Edgar Award nominee)[30]; "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee)[31]; "Gum Drops" (Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list) [32]; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee)[33]; and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.[34]

TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example:

  • Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary [35]
  • Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus [36]
  • Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty [37]
  • Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects [38]
  • Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur [39]
  • Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [
  • Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries [40]
  • Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries [41]
  • With regard to certain claims of edit warring: WP:BLP and WP:BRD are inconsistent. But BLP is an important policy with strong consensus support, while BRD is an essay. BLP calls for certain classes of material to be removed "without discussion" or "without waiting for discussion"; such material is not to be restored without achieving consensus for its restoration. Similar standards apply to nonfree content. In both cases, enforcing the relevant policies is exempt from the edit warring limits. There are editors who do not agree with the current policies, and believe that BRD principles are more important. But policy says otherwise, and criticizing or threatening to sanction any editor acting under those policies is not appropriate.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it beyond sickening that Hullaballoo has been allowed to continue his "editing" practice of constant haraassment and stalking of productive editors. Dozens of editors have been driven off this project because of the actions of this one non-productive editor. I find it laughable that he seems to be proud of his "edits" which consist of NOTHING but harrassing other editors. Hullaballoo is a huge negative to this project, and that the community tolerates this sort of destructive behavior has caused me to leave Wikipedia permantly. And in contrast to Hullaballoo, I have actually contributed something here-- including starting over 600 articles, not one of which has been deleted yet, in spite of efforts by biased trolls such as Hullaballoo. An editor as arrogant, this destructive, and totally non-productive should be banned without question. Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hullabaloo, I have no concept of what you are talking about with the Wikipedia Review stuff. That's probably good, and I will specifically not research it so that I remain ignorant. I haven't threatened you with a block for following WP:BLP or our copyright policies, I've threatened you with a block for not discussing your edits. I can promise you that if you removed material repeatedly based on WP:BLP, you could get blocked for refusing to discuss why you believed the material violated WP:BLP. Similarly with our copyright policies. Both of them encourage boldness, and both of them encourage to act before talking, but neither of them discourage talking after acting. If you are going to edit, you must be willing to discuss the edits. With everyone. You can move the discussion from your talk page to notice boards, to article talk pages, Wikiproject talk pages, AFDs, many places, but you cannot refuse to talk.

No one believes TPH to be an angel. He's been blocked recently, and I think it's pretty likely he's going to see more of them in the future, for precisely the reasons you point out. That doesn't excuse your behaviour, and, if you keep going the way you are going, I think it is pretty likely that you are going to see multiple blocks in your future as well.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And I want to point out that this is not between TPH and Hullaballoo. This is between every editor who has a difference with Hullaballoo's edits. To my knowledge, during my almost 5 years here I never edit-warred with another editor. If I had a difference, we discussed and compromised. Hullaballoo CONSTANTLY refused to do this, always citing his interpretation of the rule-of-the-day or some other discussion to which he vaguely referred. He ALWAYS turned editing into a game of "Chicken"-- who will get blocked for reverting beyond 3RR?-- and he has stated that he believes he has the right to exceed this point. I've found putting together diffs showing Hullaballoo's bullying behavior not only time-consuming, but absolutely futile. Some of them can be seen at: . Dekkappai (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
May I point out that the people decrying HW here are the same ones' who did so on the recent RfC/U on HW. That didn't get the result they wanted, so they're back again for another bite of the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the same ones. That invalidates their concerns somehow? 'If at first you don't succeed' seems to be apposite here. Here is another collection of half-truths and lies from an editor with a deserved reputation for arrogance and bullying. If he's not going to be banned then Wolfowitz must be continually watched and challenged at every turn for the common good. -- (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It just might be an indication that HW's "sins" are not perceived as such by the wider community, perhaps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If non-stop edit-warring is not perceived as a "sin" by the wider community of this project, then it ought to be pointed out to any newcomer here that this is not a project interested in collaborative editing, but rather a site for power-gaming, posturing, and schoolyard bullying. As a matter of fact, due to the wider community's tolerance for this sort of behavior, that is exactly the conclusion I have come to after wasting several years here attempting to actually contribute sourced content. Hullaballoo's continued ability to thumb his nose at collaborative editing with impunity is just one of the indications that this is in fact what goes on here. Dekkappai (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Since HW's block log shows a single 48-hour block two years ago for "disruptive editing", you might want to consider that your perception of his behavior as "non-stop edit-warring" might be somewhat distorted. It would be quite unusual for an editor to behave in the way that you characterize HW's actions, and not be caught at it by an admin and blocked, or reported for it to 3RR and be blocked. Since that hasn't happened, perhaps your characterization is something of an overstatement? I'm not saying that HW is a saint, and I'm certain there are aspects of his editing style that could use some adjustment – editors that I respect very much agreed with some of the statements about his behavior that were posted on the RfC/U – but I do think that it may be the case that some editors are a bit oversensitive when it comes to HW, and overreact to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As long as the subject of my previous block is under discussion, let me republish a comment Jimbo Wales made about that dispute: The user in question was engaging in perfectly appropriate blanking of a serious BLP violation. To call someone a "spammer" is a very serious personal attack, remember WP:NPA, and he was using a (misspelling) of the real name of a known critic. The block in this case should have been handed out to [the editor whose comment I removed] for violation of policy, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz could possibly have been thanked for right action.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) [42] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
And despite my own serial vulgarity and incivility, my block log shows only one such-- and that from an Admin with whom I was in dispute for restoring a !vote of mine which he had removed. In my experience with Hullaballoo, not ONCE has he been reverted without immediately instigating an edit-war despite my sometimes BEGGING him to discuss his concerns. I've seen him remove good content from articles not under my watch go unchallenged. Why? Because no one cares about those articles. And, since the "wider community" is supposedly involved here, and in light of Hullaballoo's self-righteous bragging about 30,000 edits over two years, not one of which added content, I'll point out that in just a few months, at another project, I've made nearly half that number of edits, and added sourced content with the vast majority of them. Some of these individual edits are of the size of this. Since the "wider community" apparently values non-contributors such as Hullaballoo, and would probably vote to delete that list I've started-- just one of hundreds of other such articles started & planned, and, yes, ENCYCLOPEDIC, despite what the "wider community" here says-- I can only believe that my characterization of this project as one for trolling alone is accurate. I don't wish to be incivil to you, Ken, but I just need to express the disgust for WP that the tolerance of behavior such as Hullaballoo's-- and a few other such Wiki-bullies-- has given me. I wish that this sort of behavior-- and the loss of good contributors and content resulting from it-- were of more concern to the "wider community". Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Since Dekkappai is casting aspersions on the admin who blocked him, I'll point out that that admin initiated an ANI discussion on the matter, and the propriety of the block was overwhelmingly (~80%) supported [43]. And Dekkappai also knows that my supposedly improper edit warring was legitimate BLP policy enforcement, since he participated in a 3RR complaint regarding the same issue -- use of porn marketing/advertising copy as a BLP source -- previously [44] (BLP trumps everything regarding notability here. You should know that, DF. No blocks here - AMIB was absolutely correct - even if he's ultimately wrong, he was right to flag a possible problem. Black Kite 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The blocking Admin was in conflict-of-interest, and blocked me for restoring a !vote which he deleted. Because he is one of the leading drama-queens here he has a large peanut-gallery which supports his every move. And Man in Black was a troll who was eventually de-sysopped for trolling. You lie, of course, about using porn marketing/advertising copy as a BLP source. But I do appreciate your attempt to discuss the matter now, two years too late. Have I told you to rot in hell recently? Dekkappai (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is helping himself here. Dekkapai, you know that most people agreed that the images and content you were adding to the Japanese starlet videos was inappropriate: trying to argue that HW was behaving inappropriately over that is a losing battle. Even if he was, it's a losing battle. HW, trying to act as if you are a completely innocent, aggrieved party is also a non-starter. As for Beyond My Ken's position, no, HW doesn't have an extensive block record. Continued refusal to discuss edits will probably change that.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@Kww: As I noted above, I don't think HW is a saint, and your advice to him to discuss his edits is good. My point was merely that a number of editors are presenting his editing behavior as being egregiously bad, but the available evidence doesn't support that contention, leaving the possibility that this complaint is largely overstated. I also don't see anything else for admins to do here: you've warned him to participate in discussions or face being blocked, what else is there for an admin to do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there isn't much to do at this point. Be nice if everyone would just back away from the argument, do a quick self-examination, and get back to editing.—Kww(talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Kww, the Japanese starlet-image thing was just one of the straws breaking this camel's back. In fact, years ago, when I added them, those images were appropriate according to policy here. I carefully followed policy as it was in place at the time of their uploads. Policy was changed and hours of work was lost. Once that decision was made, I discussed, I lost, and I abided by "consensus". Hullaballoo mis-characterizes sources for plot-summaries as sources for biographical material so that he can remove information on a subject for which he has a clear bias. (With TPH's deletions on popular music, Hullaballoo is an ultra-inclusionist, yet with anything faintly erotic, he is completely the opposite.) This is what pisses me off here: In spite of pages and pages of "Rules" there ARE no rules here. Anyone can do whatever the hell s/he wants, so long as they have enough allies to make a "rule" out of it. I blame whoever is in charge here-- Jimbo?-- for this situation. I am very good at following rules and procedures, but there are none here. It's a constant flux according to what editor or group of editors has the upper hand at any one moment. If what Hullaballoo is doing were set in stone by an actual authority here, and I'd read it when I first came here, I'd have had no problem. Dekkappai (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't deny that I've been rude to Hullaballoo many times in the past. That's no reason for him to continue to be rude to me. As I pointed out, I've finally dropped the rudeness with him, and yet he still insists on calling me "paranoid" again and again and refusing to discuss anything with me or anyone else. (At least he hasn't gone on another redirect-bulldozing spree... yet.) Several other users have testified that HW is outright rude and bullheaded, and is a repeated BLP blanker. And the only thing I don't have an answer for yet is... why has he not been blocked yet? As I said earlier, maybe a temp block would be a wakeup call for him, as it was for me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"I've finally dropped the rudeness"? TPH, you called him a "total douche" less than a week ago. And you're posting diffs from November here to try to get him blocked for civility? Seriously, you've got no business complaining about his use of "paranoid" and "unwelcome" until you start showing a little restraint in your word choices yourself. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer, you probably need to drop this before the boomerang strikes. Those diffs HW gathered above don't place you in a good light, especially incivility, failure to research deletion nominations, repeated fait accompli redirects on notable topics etc. Motes, planks, etc. Fences&Windows 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fences and windows. It seems that neither side's hands are clean. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy[edit]

Could an admin please look at the edit summaries in Talk:Jenny McCarthy for RevDel? And keep an eye on that article, considering her part in the Andrew Wakefield debacle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin deleted two edit summaries and revision text--Tznkai (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much, it will need watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
...And the article has been semiprotected for a couple of weeks; that ought to get us past the largest part of the noise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I also use revdel on some article edits. Fences&Windows 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

CrazyMartini and CoolMartini[edit]

Resolved: Block lifted by blocking admin User:Fox. Fut.Perf. 19:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

CrazyMartini (talk · contribs) (previously Greek And Proud (talk · contribs)) was subject to a block as per the Macedonia ArbCom resolution as he broke edit restrictions laid out in his indef block. He was then blocked indefinitely per claims the account was compromised. Last week (Jan 4) he created the new account CoolMartini (talk · contribs) (with a note on the userpage as to his true identity) and created one page (Himara revolt). My question is; is the new account allowed in good faith, or should it (remain) blocked as block evasion?  狐 FOX  15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There were two concurrent measures: a two-week sanction under ARBMAC for disruptive editing (for edits which C.*M said had been made by somebody else from his account), and a technical indef block because of the allegedly compromised account. He's now sat out the two weeks, and the "gothacked" block should not prevent him from creating a new account, so I guess this ought to be accepted as legitimate. Fut.Perf. 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll lift the block (and, obviously, if this turns sour again, we'll cross that bridge when we reach it).  狐 FOX  17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Fut.. this is legitimate indeed and the user should be unblocked. What's not stated here is that his ARBMAC block in Dec. was obviously imposed by mistake [[45]] because his restriction were lifted due to harmonious editing (from 2 September [[46]]).Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, the block was valid at the time. He wasn't blocked for breaking the 1RR parole that had been imposed earlier (and lifted); he was blocked for general disruptive editing after previous Arbmac-related warnings. No other active restriction was required for doing that. Fut.Perf. 15:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with FutureP if the "gothacked" was a real "gothacked". Given the user's past and the fact that he claimed that someone had hacked his account after getting blocked I'm not so sure about the legitimacy of Coolmartini.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the user's past? To be precise 'harmounious editting' sounds fine to me. I also have to note that CrazyMartini was bitten from his very start by Zjarri. Fortunately he was unblocked when things settled.Alexikoua (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I reported a possible sock that turned out to be him. I didn't know that CrazyMartini was Greek and Proud.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
In general before reporting someone we should check his userpage, where he clearly stated his identity. Alexikoua (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as CoolMartini makes it clear on his userpage that it is an alternate account of CrazyMartini, there is no sockpuppetry or block evasion, so he should be unblocked. CM served the two week block for disruptive editing, thus there is no reason he should still be blocked. Athenean (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree ; the only block still in effect is the one due to the account being compromised; it seems logical that such a block would be against the account rather than the user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that User:Fox has unblocked the new account. Fut.Perf. 18:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


New user account User:BaldB0T592 created yesterday, only actions so far were to add fake copyvio notices to their own user and talk pages today, which I have removed. The notices claimed the pages were copyvios of the "Go Fuck Yourself" page at [47]. That doesn't exactly sound like the typical actions of a genuine new user, so I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone recognizes anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And now I've had my User page attacked with the same copyvio notice - [48] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked. Thanks for highlighting this. I note his edit summaries included a fake shortcut to Autofellatio. Clearly not someone new to Wikipedia or someone we want editing. Adambro (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaron fitch[edit]

Resolved: Article deleted, editor seems to have stopped editing Rehevkor 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar problem with this article, created completely by new user Mrstoddart6989 (talk · contribs), might also violate personality rights of the subject of the article. --Túrelio (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite clearly a simple hoax in my eyes. Rehevkor 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged it as such, and nominated for speedy deletion. GiantSnowman 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Which he has removed.. twice now. Rehevkor 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Article deleted by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fraud accusation and legal threat from user Frankkfong[edit]

User Frankkfong (talk · contribs) accused me of fraud and made this legal threat on my talk page for having removed new content per possible wp:COI and wp:NOR at article Calvin cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user seems to have no idea about how Wikipedia works although some of the policies were explained and (i.m.o.) sufficient pointers were provided, both on his and on my talk page. I suggested twice ([49], [50]) to propose the edit on the article talk page, but it looks like the user does not intend to do this. Not knowing what to do with this threat, I wonder whether I should just ignore it and remove part of the section from my talk page?

User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I left Prof. Fong a note which might or might not help. A little Googling shows that he was in a complicated dispute with Purdue University in the 1980's, that I'm too bleary to read right now, but it does sound like we have to be careful about COI edits and off-wiki battles that he might be fighting. (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, he does seem to be quite capable of reading the wikipedia policies carefully if he is pointed to them. He has some points about the fact that the COI policy does not necessarily mean that he he is not allowed to contribute that bear consideration and response. As to the possibility of a legal threat being leveled here, I would imagine that pointing him to the appropriate guideline will inform him sufficiently and that he will act in accordance with the guideline. If I have a chance, I will leave it for him myself. We all at some point knew little of how wikipedia works; it is not intuitive, and certainly our legal threats policy is not something we can expect people to anticipate unless it is brought to their attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned NLT. Did you see what I left him? Was it ok? (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Editing User DVdm's actions and my inquiries are as found at Message from Frankkfong and Reply to DVdm's Response. The underlying fraud issues are found at The Calvin Cycle Website. Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception, made possible by omitting Melvin Calvin, Francis K. Fong and their co-workers' original papers. It was shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission. In anticipation of his seeking your acquiescence to "ignore it and remove part of it," hours ago I emailed myself DVdm's User Page for incorporation in a report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Director Bobby Hunt, Executive Division of IRS, and Dr. France Cordova, Member, National Science Board, c/o NSF General Counsel Lawrence Rudolph. Respectfully submitted, Francis K. Fong Frankkfong (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The intervening messages above (and the one below) came in as I was saving mine, creating edit conflicts. I have no intention of taking legal action, but would suggest that you do not acquiesce to DVdm's intention to "ignore it and remove part of it." I'm in a meeting, but will respond to all the messages and notify DVdm of the above and other responses on his User Page at a later hour. Frankkfong (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is it "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission"? We require evidence of allegations of this nature. Please see Help:Diff if you are unfamiliar with the process of linking to specific actions on Wikipedia. Without evidence, our policy requires you to assume that User:DVdm and other users are operating with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The note that left you at DVdm's talk page includes a little more detail on Wikipedia's purpose and several other points related to your notes there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Prof. Fong, I'm confident that DVdm didn't intentionally misuse any WP policies. He may have made a mistake with them but in any case, a lot of subjective judgment is involved in handling such things. Also, when he mentioned removing part of it, I read that as meaning he wanted to focus on the article issue rather than raising a fuss because you had (maybe inadvertantly) broken the NLT policy. Note that "removing" something via normal editing doesn't make it unavailable. It's just like editing an article. You can still see the old versions, including "removed" material, by clicking the history tab at the top of the page, and people do that all the time. So he was't trying to cover anything up. (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: with "removing part of it", I meant indeed removing the part of the message containing the legal threat from my user talkpage. I know that I can and may do that at will, but I was wondering whether I should do that. Thanks Anon67 and others for looking into this. DVdm (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Calvin_cycle#Fong_papers asking for uninvolved biology editors to look over Prof. Fong's addition and use any appropriate material from it in the article. My guess is some parts of it are usable but other parts not. The stuff from scientific journals directly about the Calvin cycle is probably fine. The stuff about the Purdue dispute really needs independent secondary sourcing, not a blog belonging to an involved party. I'm not able to look for that right now but I might try a Google Scholar search sometime later. (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Legal threats are absolutely forbidden. Why is this Carl LaFong Frankk Fong still being allowed to edit? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Because he has clarfied that he is not going to take any legal action in the above post.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The legal threat is still sitting there on the OP's talk page. He needs to go to that page and retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He is a new user with what is apparently a valid concern and who is currently in a meeting - I think it is ok to give a little leeway. I am definitely not going to take administrative action as long as his retraction of the threat here at ANI stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He may be 100 percent right from a factual standpoint, but that does not matter. Legal threats are forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The above comment by Frankkfong regarding saving DVdm's page for forwarding to government authorities (including those related to scientific-fraud investigation and taxes) is also IMO well into the realm of WP:NLT chilling effect. Those groups have no sway over WP content and are not being indicated as reliable sources on the content. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. He should be blocked immediately until or if he retracts anything that looks like a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a brief response to ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC). I'm on a short break from the meeting, which may go on for some time. And then I'll need time to digest the input. I have no intentions of taking legal action as stated in the above post. Thanks for your sharing with me an apparently valid concern involving possibly the single most important chemical reaction on earth. Your article on the Calvin cycle was based on one, and only one, paper published in a reputable research journal, Ref. 1 Bassham, Benson and Calvin (1950), which Calvin et al in all of their subsequent publications had refuted. Frankkfong (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As the above editor refuses to fully retract his various legal threats, he should be indef'd immediately, pending an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception. — No it wasn't. Wikipedia didn't exist in 1989. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown, in 1989, by the National Science Foundation to be deception.

. The representation that wikipedia shows of the cycle was shown to be incorrect back in 1989. (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admin. ·Maunus·ƛ·, I have now reviewed the above contributions, including the one left on Mr. Editing User DVdm's User Page by Anon67. (I have yet to read the "new messages" on my own User's Page.) Having also read, for the first time, wp:NLT, my initial reaction is that, within the meaning of wp:NLT, I never did make a threat of legal action. The sentence, which Editing User DVdm sought to delete, appears to be more in line with that part of the wp:NLT having to do with its provision:

"A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly."

A legal problem such as defamation may have its roots in common law. In the instant case, the problem, DVdm's alleged conduct of fraud, i.e., misusing WP policies in furtherance of the "deception" - as described above by (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC) - on the other hand, appears to have its origins in the statutory provisions I cited. Moreover, in defining the "legal problem" pursuant to wp:NLT, not only I have twice affirmed that I have no plans in taking legal action, I made abundantly clear in the message to Mr. Editing User DVdm that I, individually, do not have standing in pressing a legal action in the "legal problem" I reported, in compliance with wp"NLT. If this interpretation of wp:NLT is incorrect, please let me know. Otherwise, upon further discussion in this forum, "the problem," if it exists, should be "acted on quickly" pursuant to wp:NLT. In further support, the messages immediately preceding this one by (Uncle G talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) and (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC), bring in focus the issue of "deception" germane to the subject matter on fraud, i.e., "the problem" at hand. I note, in particular, the important message posted above by Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC), which I reproduce verbatim below:

"Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV." (link provided)

To that end, I thank you for not acquiescing to Mr. Editing User DVdm's request to remove that part of my message, which proved to be offensive to him. I believe it's important to keep the integrity of this entire proceeding. Finally, this is going a lot slower than I had anticipated. I am a new member of a community which has a vast following. I pledge to act within the confines of its policies. These I have to learn before I set in writing each and every one of my findings of fact and concolusions of law - all within the meaning of wp:NLT. As a result, I am falling behind in my regularly scheduled work, which I'll need to attend to. After that, I will devote fulltime, hopefully no later than 6 p.m. this evening, to answering each and every one of the valuable contributions shown hereinabove. At that time, I shall anticipate making a showing of my finding of fact - Mr. Editing User DVdm's practice of fraud in furtherance of Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle, more than a decade after the National Science Foundation's finding in 1989 of its being a "product of deception" - in order for you to act on the problem in compliance with wp:NLT. Respectfully submitted, Frankkfong (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Understood. To make what you say above abundantly clear to all who read only the mention that troubles Baseball B, and not your above clarifications, you might consider placing the following around the phrase in question, which will add a "strike through" to the phrase and not leave any doubt or room for misinterpretation of your intentions ... Baseball can correct me if that is not what he is seeking ... :<s> (before, and) </s> after.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • He's wikilawyering over the wording of NLT; but the point of NLT is not about specific wording, it's about intimidation. If the admins won't block someone who's making legal threats, the best the victim of those threats can do is to stand up to that user and not be intimidated; to treat anything of that nature as what it really is: bluster and hot air. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • BaseballBugs, with all due respect, stop harping on that. Admins have looked, reviewed, and said their is no legal threat. Especially since he has stated twice now that he isn't threatening. Continuing to harp on that point makes you look shrill and here not to solve problems but to inflate them. Frankkfong is new, sees an issue with an article and is working through the process. He is obviously new to the world of Wikipedia and is going through the maze of policies, procedures, and "legal" wonkery that has been setup. (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • Thanks for your comments. I always pay close attention to the advice of drive-bys. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
        • News flash: El K'Fong has been indef'd for making legal threats. Should I wait for the IP's apology, or should I go ahead and do the dance now? ") ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not so sure we should take this lightly. He makes many highly inflammatory accusations on his website, including against the NSF for an alleged murder plot, and he claims to be acting under the aegis of the US Treasury to uncover "fraud" relating to the Calvin Cycle (with no real evidence of this being shown). His own work has been cited a handful of times, and his position is not accepted by any independent reliable sources. Even if he just stays the right side of "no legal threats, accusing Wikipedia editors of perpetrating fraud violates "no personal attacks". If he intends to continue trying to insert his unsupported fringe view into articles, he will need to be blocked for tendentious editing. Fences&Windows 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Per Fences & Windows, I don't think we can use anything from Dr. Fong's website regarding the various off-wiki disputes he's been in, without enough secondary sourcing independent from the subject to establish notability for the issue as well as substantiate the claims. That includes the letter from the NSF official claiming (if I understand it) that the original Calvin paper from 1950 involved a deception. The letter would be an unpublished primary source that we have to be very careful about. However, Fong and Butcher's 1988 paper was in a legitimate biochemistry journal and is cited by Portis and Perry's historical survey that Fences & Windows found, so I don't have a problem adding a cite to that paper to the appropriate article. I don't know enough biology/chemistry to have any idea whether Calvin cycle is the right article for it, but it sounds plausible.

          Dr. Fong seems to show a rather serious misunderstanding of why DVdm wanted to remove that text, though. It was because the text could be read as a threat, which would have resulted in immediately blocking Dr. Fong from editing, making it impossible for us to discuss the Calvin Cycle issue with him further. DVdm instead proposed to treat the text as an error by someone unfamiliar with WP policies, and remove it so that discussion could continue. In other words, it was for Dr. Fong's benefit, not DVdm's. Dr. Fong, can you understand that please?

          Anyway, I currently don't feel intimidated. If we can resolve this issue by adding a cite to the 1988 Fong and Butcher paper and moving on, I'm ok with that. We'd have to use Portis and Perry's evaluation of the paper, rather than our own or Dr. Fong's. (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

        • Update: Fences and Windows found a fulltext pdf of the Portis and Perry survey so I added a cite to the Calvin Cycle article.[51] People can find their way to the Fong & Butcher paper (and various other references) through it, and that seems about as good as we can hope for without vastly expanding the article. After looking at the number references in the survey, I now think singling out one of the less prominent ones in the WP article would create undue weight. The P&P article is online and pretty readable as such things go, so from my point of view this is a satisfactory solution. (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin. ·Maunus·ƛ·, I address this to you, because I am working on responding to each and every one of the above comments. Here I respond in haste to Fences, who may have identified himself as being responsible for the original legal problem, that of fraud. I submit that if, on my website: 1. I did not accuse NSF of murdering Don MacLauchlan, vice president of Carbon Reduction, sponsor for my NSF Proposal No. 8822928; 2. I showed evidence of my Sec. 7623 contract with Treasury under a directive by Director Bobby Hunt, IRS EXEC, authorizing me to detect the Calvin cycle fraud; 3. I showed proof that the Calvin cycle is a fraud, the result of a work of fiction published in the July 4, 1955 issue of Chem. & Eng. News; and 4. Ref. 1 of your article on the Calvin cycle, Bassham and Calvin (1950), was refuted by all of Calvin et al's subsequent papers, beginning with Calvin and Massani (1952) and ending with Calvin and Pon (1955), all of which have been omitted from your article by Fences, in light of his sponsorship of the Wikipedia article absent the entire body of the relevent literature; then Fences will have created a new legal problem, that of slander, which you should act upon immediately. Please note that, contrary to Fences' assertion, an accusation of fraud, or slander, is not a violation of wp:Personal Attack, if it's true. Frankkfong (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Note. I have moved ([52], [53]) the entire conversation on my talk page to Frankkfong's talk page, with italicised and parenthesised signatures. Please continue any discussion over there or here. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, am I to understand Fong is involved in legal disputes of-wiki in relation to the Calvin Cylce? This is not entirely clear, but if it is true he should be topic banned from that subject here on the Wiki due to a conflict of interest and under the spirit of NLT --Errant (chat!) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Errant, I believe from reading the comments by other editors, admins had already ruled that there is no violation of wp:NLT. Even Fences conceded above that I am on the "right side" of wp:NLT. The entire page here is on correcting the Calvin cycle article, including the lengthy comment above by Anon67. Frankkfong (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This page is not for content disputes; this page is for administrative action. You need to discuss the content at the article's talk page. But you absolutely must stop implying illegal activity (fraud, which I presume you actually mean "libel") on the part of other Wikipedia editors, and you must stop lodging unsubstantiated accusations against them: "all of which have been omitted from your article by Fences". Here is the history of that article. User:Fences and windows has never edited it. Similarly, you have yet to substantiate where it is "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission". It most definitely is a violation of our policy against personal attacks to lodge "[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Frankkfong, I was referring to your disputes regarding the Calvin Cycle outside of wikipedia. It is my understanding from reading all the material that you are engaged in legal actions and/or extreme dispute over this topic; as such it seems inappropriate for you to be editing those topics. --Errant (chat!) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Errant and Moonriddengirl, Errant's reference to "legal disputes et etc." reminds me of the suggestion by Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC), to submit a forthcoming update to make "abundantly clear" of my clarifications on using wp:NLT to report a "legal problem." There is no "legal dispute" outside of wikipedia. Fong and Butcher (1988) is in support of the missing references to Calvin et al's original papers, which in turn underscore NSF's finding. Please read the above comments on the National Science Foundation's finding of the Calvin cycle as a fraud. Our immediate concern is how to correct the Calvin cycle article with all the missing references to Calvin's original papers in order for biologist Fences to maintain the status quo of the Calvin cycle fraud. Moonriddengirl, please await my showing of proof in support of my report of the legal problem of fraud pursuant to wp:NLT. Frankkfong (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read this entire dispute and I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing information from the article constitutes "fraud". As far as I know, Wikipedia is not legally obligated for its articles to be accurate (Biographies of Living Persons is an entirely different matter, on the other hand). If there is a content dispute about the article, move it to the talk page of the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Y2kcrazyjoker4, Moonriddengirl's comment above provides the key to my report of the "legal issue" of fraud pursuant to wp:NLT. He wrote: "User:Fences and windows has never edited it," i.e., Wikipedia's Calvin cycle article with the missing references to the entire body of literature, in furtherance of the Calvin cycle fraud. He [Fences and windows] specializes in deleting articles for inaccuracies and other faults, and knew, or should have known, that the Calvin cycle should have been deleted, or at the very least heavily edited. Here let me call time out. I request that you await my presentation in response to your statement, "I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing information from the article constitutes 'fraud.'" Frankkfong (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No one here is trying to perpetuate fraud, so please stop with these accusations. We just wish that the reports you wish to use as citations were independently published and covered by other sources. Just because something is true does not mean it is necessarily verifiable or a reliable source (see WP:RS, WP:V). That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in this entire dispute. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Please be courteous enough to honor my call for time out. It's appropriate for you to say, "I am not trying to perpetrate fraud." But you are not qualified to speak for the whole world, "No one is trying to perpetrate fraud." You and Moonriddengirl repeatedly attempt to prevent me from reporting, pursuant to wp:NLT, the legal problems of fraud and slander (libel). I will not allow myself to command you to stop doing that (unlike your and Moonriddengirl's somewhat uncouth habit for saying things, like, "YOU MUST NOT ***."); but you and Moonriddengirl are obstructing the proceedings of this admnistrative action and wasting everybody's time and resources. So may I respectfully request, again: please give me time, so I can respond to your statement, "I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing informatino from the article constitutes 'fraud.'" Frankkfong (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find my method of speaking uncouth. Please understand that I am warning you. I am an administrator, as many of the people who respond at this board are, and I will have no choice but to enact administrative action by blocking your account if you continue making unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing by contributors to Wikipedia. I asked you to substantiate your first allegations at 14:14, 4 January 2011; it is over 48 hours later, and you have yet to do so. You compound this by adding new allegations about yet another contributor. You need to muster your evidence before making your allegations, not make them and then indicate that evidence will at some point be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Fong, I don't see anything that we can possibly cite for "the National Science Foundation's finding in 1989" that something was a product of deception. You've posted a private letter from some NSF person whose import (to me) is pretty unclear, and which in any case doesn't come anywhere near the level of verifiability for us to use it in an article. Your issue of "how to correct the Calvin cycle article with all the missing references to Calvin's original papers in order for biologist Fences to maintain the status quo of the Calvin cycle fraud" presupposes there was such a fraud. Obviously we cannot make such a claim without (typo fixed) a published wp:reliable source, meaning something like a scientific journal article or a press release from the NSF, not somebody's website or a private letter in their possession. Fences and Windows found a rather nice historical overview of the subject, that cites your 1988 paper, and it doesn't say anything about a fraud. The article now cites the historical overview. If you've got a different interpretation of history that you want us to cite, you're going to have to get it published in a refereed journal before we can cite it. Actual scientific fraud of the type you describe is quite rare and we need solid documentation (WP:REDFLAG) before we can write about it. See our article about the Schön scandal as an example. Your allegations will need a comparable level of sourcing. (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I doubt Wikipedia can easily correct the Calvin cycle article without my help; and honestly I suggest that you do correct it with or without me. I heed your warning; but you just minutes ago disclosed Fences and windows' role. I'd always suspected someone other than DBdm must be behind the fraud problem. Your request of 14:14, 4 January 2011 was subsequently supplanted by demands for blocking me pursuant to wp:NLT. Having cleared that up, only last evening I saw the suggestion byEpeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC) to make "abundantly clear" my clarifications, which of course, you as administrator already understood. Now only minutes ago, you disclosed the origins for Fences and windows' fantastic accusations of my alleging murder on the part of the NSF, and of not showing evidence of my contract with Treasury under Section 7623: Biologist (administrator also?) Fences and windows fraudulently left standing with all the missing references, so your Calvin cycle page can be presented to the world as true and tried. My reporting the legal problem of fraud based on your disclosure is procedurally proper pursuant to wp:NLT. So please do not, again, warn me, especially when you are a WP administrator who ought to know better than preventing me from reporting to the other administrators the significance of your disclosure. So once again, please, try to refrain from your sense of self-importance, and honor my call for time out. And I'll have my account of your disclosure explained before the other administrators, on or before 5:00 pm this afternoon. (We're on NY time.) Frankkfong (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC) (talk), Thanks for you input. Mrs. Fong read your comments and thought highly of your resonable approach toward reaching an understanding. I'll have all of your questions answered, I hope, in the time-frame above stated, provided that you keep Moonriddengirl under control. Frankkfong (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Fong, Moonriddengirl's warning is entirely valid, you're operating at the fringes of NLT whenever you insinuate any type of legal impropriety on the part of Wikipedia editors, who are doing their best to keep WP's articles properly cited and accurate. You have since disregarded Moonriddengirl's warning and made a new unsubstantiated allegation that Fences and Windows committed fraud. That is completely inappropriate. Re Fences and Windows' mentioning your allegation of a murder plot: I think s/he means this (2nd paragraph). (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

FKF block[edit]

I just blocked him indefinitely for disruptive editing, including the attacks above ("fraudulently left standing", "refrain from your sense of self-importance", "keep MRG under control"). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but it seems unavoidable. Whatever justification he may feel he has, he seems unable to avoid the battlefield approach and efforts to explain our behavioral policies seem to have failed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder if people like this have any sense of reading comprehension whatsoever. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Being directly accused of perpetrating a fraud on an article I've not edited before is quite something! I think I added some categories... Fences&Windows 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sarek. I think we had exhausted useful discussion, so that was a good time to stop. (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, you made a stellar effort, 67... :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Did he also keep you under control? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
        • LOL! I don't know if that's possible. I'm a wild one, me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree. But it did have right from the start all of the signs of a person who was going to be a net negative and nothing but a time sink.

        For reference, those signs are: Behaving as if everyone else were just one single amalgamated person. Treating the last person to speak as The Enemy (a corollary of the preceding — note the shift from DVdm to Fences and Windows to Moonriddengirl). A Great Wrong to be righted. Completely off-the-wall legal ideas (e.g. that volunteers from all over the world writing a free encyclopaedia as a hobby are, by some mysterious means, engaging in tax fraud). No demonstrable ability to write encyclopaedically. (This edit to article space is over 50% unencyclopaedic personal editorialization.)

        It's a pattern that I'm sure many people have seen all too many times before. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Y2kcrazyjoker4: Frankly, I personally suffered from rather serious reading comprehension in this case, which was the reason why I came here: (1) to get some understanding about what this thing on my talk page actually meant, and (2) to find out what I was supposed to do about it, if anything. I have read through this entire thread many times now, and I still have no clue — and I think I don't even wanna have one anymore.

Anyway, I whish to thank all admins and "passersby" for helping finding out and trying to clarify. I still somehow wonder whether there's anything I did that I should not have done, and/or whether there was something I failed to do that I should have done. Cheers to all and thanks again. DVdm (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I doubt it; I think Uncle G is on to something above. We have to try, but sometimes there really is no effective approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I too agree that you made a stellar effort, and have absolutely nothing to reproach yourself about. I browsed through the report of his court case against Purdue University - worrying reading. The judge's comments are right in line with comments above. VinculumMan (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, we aren't Usenet, where there really isn't any mechanism for this. We've just demonstrated ours. We show people out of the door. The best thing to do now is to go on about our normal business of writing an encyclopaedia. So: Anyone new have an opinion to add about kitchen utensil or The Lord of the Rings (pinball)? Uncle G (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dala11a continuing to include WP:OR in cannabis-related articles[edit]

User:Dala11a has repeatedly [54][55][56][57][58][59] tried to insert original research that contradicts multiple academic sources into the article War on Drugs, in spite of being told not to do so by multiple editors.

He has reverted my latest removal of his OR as "vandalism", and I don't feel like getting into an edit war with him. (I would also ask that someone explain to him not to throw around the term "vandalism" lightly, as some people would consider it a personal attack) Wikipedia sourcing policies have been explained to him enough times by now, that I don't feel that it's plausible to claim that he doesn't know what he's doing. I'd also note that, judging from the looks of his talk page, his editing history seems to be generally problematic, especially in cannabis-related articles. His edit history shows that he tends to focus almost exclusively on this topic, and is including the same type of OR across a variety of articles (e.g. hemp, Marijuana Tax Act, Jack Herer, etc.)

If someone else can step in at this point and make him stop, I would appreciate it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any egregious NPOV violations. The writing could be improved, but he is including reliable sources to back up everything he's adding to the article. He even added a few sentences which show that hemp is not a good substitute source of paper when compared to well-managed forests. If he were truly trying to push a pro-marijuana POV, he probably would have left that part out. SnottyWong confabulate 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that there was a WP:NPOV issue, nor did I say that he's "trying to push a pro-Marijuana POV". I'm saying that it's a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:RS issue.
Dala11a is taking sources (many of which fail WP:RS, such as primary documents written by Anslinger) that aren't talking about Hearst, etc. at all, and using them to imply that the academic sources regarding Hearst are wrong (using phrases like "In reality...", "The last claim is in clear conflict with...", "This theory is contradicted by...", etc., followed by claims backed by original research from historical economic data.) But none of the sources actually make the claim citing them -- i.e. that they contradict the previous theory. None of the sources cited even mention Hearst, so we shouldn't be saying the Hearst theory is "contradicted by [insert original research]". To quote WP:OR:
"[Original research] also includes analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by or detailed within the sources."
We've got reliable scholarly sources making a claim, and then original research from historical economic data being cited as a "refutation" -- a claim which none of the sources make themselves. This is the essence of WP:SYNTH, and is unacceptable. (It also happens to be a logically faulty conclusion, but that's not what I'm concerned about here.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, someone doing original research involving cannabis! But am I the only one who would expect him to be mellow & laid-back? Maybe the best solution is no more munchies for this editor until he lays off the original research -- even if that is a buzzkill. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
He's doing this across a wide variety of articles. I'd recommend that someone try to get through to him that this sort of thing is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and insist that he stop. I've tried, and failed. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AkankshaG COI and sockpuppetry[edit]

Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...

AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.

Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt [60], in an attempt to influence a AfD. [61] Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.

The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The author of the photos has been named in conjunction with the license of the photo. To oversight the name would be a violation of that license. Phearson (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
1. This isn't outing as all of this evidence comes directly from Wikipedia 2. I say AkankshaG needs an indef block as a promotion-only account. He has been confirmed by checkuser evidence as having used sock puppets in the AfD, and its likely there are meatpuppets there as well. The other recent AfD of one of his articles (also, in my opinion, a puff piece) likewise had a ton of spa's flock to keep the article. I can attest to the fact that Vector Marketing hires individuals to up its "net presence". These guys just basically go around the web and insert friendly comments about the organization everytime somebody high on google's search ranks starts to complain about the company. The promotional intent of AkankashaG's edits is a major cause for concern, but the behaviour during his AfDs is beyond the pale. Anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not only Vector Marketing. A quick search of some of these companies shows that they allegedly maybe engaging in unsavory activities, whilst remaining under the radar of authorities. Whenever exposed online, astroturfing trolls attempt to spin, whilst personally attacking the the complainant. I was subjected to such attack on wikipedia awhile ago [62] Phearson (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


A formal SPI case has confirmed Alison's findings. Though Chase is requesting a more experienced checker to look at the other socks surrounding the AfD's, as these are more likely Meat-Puppets. I was wondering if the community was fine in looking into these, as they may not be Specific to AkankshaG. I'd recommend it because of WP:DUCK. Phearson (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef. Ban Proposal[edit]

I personally would like AkankshaG to respond to the accusations here and SPI, but in the meantime, I like to propose that she be blocked indefinably until she is able. Phearson (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear; that's going in my permanent file. An indefinable block. HalfShadow 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doc talk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Would a Ban appropriate in this situation? She did sock. Phearson (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That wouldn't necessarily justify a ban. My point is this: a block and a ban are two different things. Are you asking for an indefinite block or a formal community ban? There is a huge difference between the two. Doc talk 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing again, I go with Formal Ban (sorry for the runaround, this is a first for me). Phearson (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
NP :> I would think an indefinite block would be easier to obtain than a community ban, but I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time. Doc talk 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a banning offense, but I do think a block is in order. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that blocks can be imposed by community !vote, or I've never encountered it anyway. It would set a troubling precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Reblocks can (it happened not long ago), but I'm also a bit leery of what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The community can only impose a block if some admin is willing to implement it, so a "community-imposed" block is no different from any other: an admin has examined the evidence, and used their judgment before blocking. That said, I have no opinion on the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have only checked the vector marketing article so far, and I see both the insertion of excess promotional material, and the insertion of way overbalanced derogatory material, along with the removal of what seem to me usable sources. It's important to keep balance. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
We can discuss that specifically on the article. To sum up, AkankshaG should be banned, articles created/edited should be placed under scrutiny or deleted, and deal with a bunch of obvious issues in the wake. Phearson (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose ban. That's way too harsh. Just block them and move on - Alison 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Anyone else? Phearson (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING[edit]

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [ this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

As to the attempted WP:OUTING by Phearson, I’ve hesitated to respond to any of the allegations, as our policy recommends that you not respond to these allegations at all. I had hoped that someone with WP:Oversight would suppress these edits. Apparently that’s not happening, so I’ll respond now: I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove your theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

As to sanfernandocourt, I do have a connection to that editor, which I explained offline to an oversight admin, and that editor is now blocked. Beyond that, I’m not willing to say publicly, because in light of the aggressive stalking exhibited recently, I am concerned for my personal safety and the safety of that editor, and hope that you will respect that. Incidentally, User:Sanfernandocourt removed the offending vote in the Afd, and incredibly, User:Phearson/Cutno put it back in! I have no connection to sherry84, brittponsett, alharismagee, or thekohser.

Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


I will respond to these accusations in the order given.

1. AkankshaG and I are indeed in a editing dispute at Vector Marketing. However, this is an issue that needs more discussion between us at the article talk page, which we had very little of before I discovered a wider issue that extends beyond that article. I'm not saying this to avoid the issue, but it is true. If AkankshaG is not blocked after this ANI discussion. I will continue working with AkankshaG on that page, though I admit its not going very well for the both of us.
2. I did attend the unpaid training provided by Vector in which I was instructed I was to be an "independent contractor" however, I did not continue the training after researching this company, nor did I sign anything that would make me an "Independent Contractor" or an employee of any sort. I will be willing to discuss this If editors like to examine any COI issues.
3. It is fact that I did have the name Cutno, however, after reading policy, I understood that slanted views are not welcome on Wikipedia. I have changed my name to reflect this change and have done very little editing to Vector Marketing since. In my opinion, I have become a reformed vandal.
4. Claims of "Fierce and protracted battle" is exaggerated. I have never really been in a real dispute with another editor except perhaps a minor discussion with User:Satori Son over a blog at a related article, but this was before I started reading policy. Feel free to look over my history, you will see mostly removals of unsourced claims & content.
5. The "no response" after saying that she would fix the article to make similar to Apple Inc was a "Lets see if she'll present anything for discussion". I also tagged the article appropriately to encourage any on lookers to see what was going on and to comment in preparation, of coarse the article was instead completely replaced without consensus, and thats where our dispute began. In hindsight, I should of encouraged her to keep the regular editors informed on the talk page, but also, she was creating the article in a sandbox which she didn't tell anyone about, nor ask anybody to come look at and comment.
6. During the time of our disagreement, I looked through her editing history and found COI with evidence on wikipedia itself and other websites regarding unrelated articles. Issues that I believed needed attention of the community VIA ANI. I did respect her request that she would be back soon after the New Year, and decided to confront directly and wait for a response after she got back (this is related to the outing issue, which I will address in my next point) before doing the ANI. I also sent email to an administrator to discuss my concerns. While waiting, a confirmation of a sock puppet was revealed by User:Alison [63] Which stated and I quote, "I got the roommate excuse via email. So I've left the other account alone for the moment and will defer to the community for whatever should be done, but the main account has been socking and votestacking at AfD. There may also be other accounts - I need to check further" and was confirmed formally by SPI [64]. I would like to point out that I contacted another editor to do the SPI, fearing that I would be accused of wp:hounding but since it was taking too long, and at the advice of the emailed admin. I went ahead and did it myself. And I also started the ANI because through the sock, it was assumed that AkankshaG had returned.
7. I do not dispute the direct violation of WP:OUTING. I want to apologize to AkankshaG and the Wikipedia community for a serious violation of policy. I will accept a reasonable punishment imposed if other editors believe I need it. However, I would like to point out indirectly and without linking directly, that some of AkankshaG's photos' licenses for her version of Vector Marketing contain the author's name, and that name is linked to Ciplex, an article created by AkankshaG herself. The source of the photograph was uploaded to mywikibiz, and then almost immediately uploaded to Wikipedia. Check the dates of photographs on both sites for confirmation. I have also taken screen shots, so there will be no evidence tampering.
8. I think that "Stalking" is an overstatement. Any person using the Internet, using their RL name on a public website is subjected to have their information viewed by the general public. I also like to say that I have no intent of making contact with this individual in RL or electronically ever (with the exception that AkankshaG may be this individual on WP). As for the "fear of safety for both her and the mywikibiz editor", this is nothing but a smokescreen to avoid the issues that I have brought up. As stated in #7, I standby the accusation that they are the one same individual. And now Finally...
9. I would like to make it clear that I am not out to attack User:AkankshaG personally over an editing dispute. Infact, I would have never pursued the COI issues on Articles related to Ciplex if there WAS NO ISSUE. Given Akanksha's behavior at the AfD and what I have bought forward to the community. It is very clear what is going on, and that AkankshaG is attempting a Smokescreen maneuver, in order to discredit me and throw out the ANI. At this point, I rest my case. Phearson (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (CUT)

  • Relisted - Can we please get an uninvolved Admin. here? Phearson (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've read through this all, and I'm confused. What exactly is the desired response here? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is indeed a tough nut to crack. From what I think I'm reading, User:Phearson is on a vengeful spree and was asking for a ban against User:AkankshaG, which was ignored per being silly. No actual action against anyone seems to have been taken. There are copyright issues, however, that is not directly related to whether either user should receive a block or no, so all of that discussion is moot. There's an outing issue, which has been also rendered moot. There remain COIN and neutrality concerns being taken up at the Vector Marketing article, though things there seem to have calmed down.
Assuming the copyright issues have/are dealt with in the appropriate place, and neither user goes on a massive puffery spree at the article again, I personally don't see the need for any further action, nor do I think there's anything that's happening at present that would make a preventative block necessary. Tstorm(talk) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
When I asked for a ban, I didn't realize that there were two separate methods (Blocks and Bans). But this ANI was originally regarding the editor with Ciplex COI and and the Socking at CJ Environmental's AfD. If Admins feel that no action should be taken, then fine. However, I don't feel that my concerns were entirely addressed here (particularly the socking), though I do thank the acknowledgement by people here that there is indeed puffery afoot. I also will keep my own editing in check. After all, I did like the new style presented by AkankshaG and I will be working with this editor on that if she returns. Phearson (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I know this is kind of a dull conclusion to things, but the issues remaining appear to be out of the scope of ANI and are left for their respective noticeboards. If you have specific concerns with the results of the SPI, etc., you should probably head there for discussion and/or ask the posting admin there if you have additional concerns. Hopefully the oddities are over and you can both return to a semi-peaceful existence of working on the original article. Blocks are really never meant to be given for "misc wrongdoings", are never for "punishment" and are used exclusively to prevent further disruption to the project. Tstorm(talk) 00:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Eritrea POV warrior[edit]

User:, also operating as User:, keeps changing sourced figures regarding the proportion of different religions in Eritrea. He does not present a new source, and he keeps the old reference footnote, which contains figures different from his. His edits are not exactly vandalism and there is no 3RR violation yet. He has already been warned under one of his IPs by another user, to no avail. Since I'm not particularly interested in the topic and don't want to keep watch over all Eritrean-related pages, I hope an administrator will grant him the attention he needs.-- (