Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive738

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Reintroduction of copyvio[edit]

Resolved

Bopstar01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has reintroduced copyright material into an article here after being warned here. Editors contributions have been adding copyright violations [1] [2] [3] [4] and four other edits. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious copyvios can be reported to AIV in the future, provided they have been adequately warned. —Dark 08:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

98.103.186.3[edit]

Resolved: No. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Err...yes --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I get this (my) address blocked? It seems other students are primarily using it for vandalism. 98.103.186.3 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't block accounts upon request. If the vandalism through this IP becomes a problem, we'll take the appropriate action. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, other than this edit, and the one immediately preceeding, which reverted some vandalism, I can't see a single good edit, going back forever. All the rest are juvie variants on penis vandalism. As this is a static school IP, I have blocked for a year. If the teachers ever want to use it, they can get the technician to email OTRS --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ha, suicide by cop? Drmies (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
YMMV, but when I was an admin we did serve schoolblocks on the request of school officials. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkAlexisGabriel and socks redux[edit]

MarkAlexisGabriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and associated IP socks 76.109.99.165 (talk · contribs) and 65.34.131.50 (talk · contribs) have returned to their favourite passtime of edit-warring at Jessica Lange. Please see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel. A few preventative blocks are requested. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I requested a protect of that page last evening, which appears to have been done. Calabe1992 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Calabe. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive)[edit]

This has veered into the realm of nonsense posts, possibly for filibustering. Any editor who has a problem with the RS/N closure needs to follow the dispute resolution process, as no admin has seen fit to take action in nearly a week. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

RS/N discussions occur under a culture of limited discussions soliciting outside involvement. As a long term RS/N editor, I have taken to closing discussions early that do not fit within the RS/N culture or mission, or where IDHT behaviour is occurring. I recently closed such a discussion. The closure was reverted, and then another editor reverted back to my close. One user is unhappy with this closure. Please review my closure (as stated in the diff) in the context of this evidence for the closure:

Diff notes:

I have notified WT:RS/N; and the user who expressed concern (and reverted my closure), and the user who reverted back to my closure on their talk pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why some editors are annoyed if the issue hasn't been resolved, but personally I think it was the correct call in the end. If the editors want impartial assistance then they need to respect the spirit of the board; there is no way I would read through that mountain of crap just to help them out. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I also think it was correct to close this. The underlying aim appeared to be to find a hospitable page on which to argue out the editorial policies of a publisher: such discussions could not have answered the specific issue that was raised. Andrew Dalby 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments per RS Notice Board action[edit]

I assume Fifelfoo acted in good faith. However, his action in closing a NB discussion was ill considered and inappropriate:

General:

There is no standard on NB which allows for an editor to randomly close a discussion, warn other editors, to make judgements about sources under discussion, and/or to make comments and judgments about sources not under discussion, for example (Anderson and Taylor-see closing statements). [5]. The NB discussion was closed after less than a day and a half.

Specifically:

  • Fifelfoo's close was based on the misassumption that, "I am closing this as the discussion is moving towards the exclusion of RS/N editors..." Granateple is not an involved editor.
  • Graneteple and 7 uninvolved editors (LeadSongDog, Granateple, Yobol, RexxS, Andrew Dalby, David Eppstein, Short Brigade Harvester Boris), with occasional comments by 2 involved editors (Fladrif, Littleolive Oil) made pertinent comments per the specific question posed which was based in the reliability of the publisher, whether a vanity press, and open access publication. The discussion was appropriately online with the issues on the source.
  • Tag teaming assumption is based I presume on the idea that Graneteple was an involved editor. He's not. And lining up two editor comments and assuming they are tag teaming is highly presumptuous and in this case dead wrong.
  • I did not forum shop as Fifelfoo accused me of. LeadSongDog suggested moving a more general discussion here to the RS Notice Board here which I did.

My concern:

It was inappropriate to publicly criticize an uninvolved editor, Granateple, for commenting, and especially to issue reminders in the manner of an arbitration. This:

-discourages good-faith participation at a noticeboard

-discourages use of noticeboards

-discourages participation by an uninvolved editor such as Granateple

That said, I assume Filelfoo acted in good faith with the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. I believe closing of NB postings needs further discussion. I've opened a discussion here (olive (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

I think Filelfoo's problem was mostly the way in which the discussion was conducted. The purpose of the board is to get outside objective opinion, so when the discussion is taken over by the involved editors and made inaccessible to impartial editors it ceases to be productive. If the issue still needs to be resolved, you should restart the discussion but limit yourself to stipulating your opinion on the matter, and the opposing editor can do the same, and then let uninvolved editors judge for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
To clarify: The discussion was in the hands almost exclusively if uninvolved editors. Fifelfoo assumed one of the uninvolved editors was involved which was not the case. He in good part based his close on that misassumption.(olive (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC))
  • I rely on my impression of tag teaming between you and Granateple; Granateple's gross over contribution to discussion; and the "uninvolved" editors wandering straight back to the topic of the general discussion of the reliability of open access journals. (See diffs above). In particular your attempts to control the discussion (again, diffs above) indicated a stewed discussion excluding outside editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is absurd. You are accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy to skew a discussion. That's ridiculous. Attempt to exclude outside editors? They were all outside editors with two exceptions, Olive an Fladrif, Please feel free to accuse Short Brigade Harvester Boris and others of being part of some "stewed" discussion. And control the discussion? You're grasping at straws. My intent was to prevent an escalation of a few angry posts. I made very few posts. My real concern here is that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern.(olive (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC))
Please do not misread my comments, in particular, I am not "accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy," I have accused your behaviour and the behaviour of another editor as constituting "tag teaming" and supplied diffs. I have suggested that the discussion wandered off into general discussion and supplied diffs. Your ownership and battleground behaviour excludes other editors—RS/N editors do not need to be invited by an involved party into a discussion on the noticeboard they frequent, and supplied diffs. As you may note from the extensive list of diffs, Short Brigade Harvester Boris' contributions were not contributive to the poorly constructed discussion. "that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern." do you have any evidence for this, or would you like to make accusations without demonstration? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to prove something. You have made assumptions and then found diffs to prove your case. I've never met or worked with Granateple. I came to a NB in good faith to deal with a troublesome source, to make sure that whatever was done with the source was compliant. The discussion was civil and helpful with many good comments. I question your closing of that discussion after a day and a half, and I'm telling you your comments about what went on are misguided. I am, as I said concerned because you made some massive misassumptions, closed a case based on those assumptions and warned an editor in the manner of an arb which can only serve to chill the NB environment. I have nothing more to say. (olive (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Awesome![edit]

I think it's awesome that a civil single-purpose POV pusher can try to push a vanity published journal article into a wikipedia article where they have a massive conflict of interest, then, once totally uninvolved editors realize that the journal article is crap argue for pages and pages about how everyone is just behaving oh-so-terribly, and nothing is done to stop them! That's AWESOME! We should DEFINITELY have more of that! Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While my personal opinion of Hindawi is that it's not in the same rank as the really top-notch journals (and I'm annoyed at getting spam from them), casting Hindawi as a vanity press is going too far. The editorial board for their journal in my field includes a number of highly regarded researchers, some whom I know well personally. (If you want to check for yourself see [6] and do a Google Scholar search for e.g., Guy Brasseur or Klaus Dethloff.) They wouldn't be on the board if there were shenanigans going on; these are people with established reputations to uphold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Stating that one journal is a vanity published does not mean the publisher is a vanity publisher. If you have any reason to believe that the "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" (ironically named almost identically to Nutrition and Metabolism, wonder why!) is a reliable source, that can be discussed at RSN. It might be - I don't really care or know. What I do know is that anyone who finds an article in "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" and thinks it's a good source for Wikipedia was either furtively directed their by someone who is an expert in the field as their meatpuppet, is an expert themselves, has a massive conflict of interest, or is googling for dollars. If olive is an expert, she'd know how to find the OTHER side of the arguemnt (you know, the one that the experts believe in). If she's googling for dollars, then she needs to be topic banned. If she's being directed by someone, perhaps the meatpuppetry needs to end. Of course, we know the answer is that she has a massive conflict of interest, but dare we say what it is? No, we'll be wikilawyered with OUTING OUTING OUTING all day. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
What is amazing here, is that an editor can attack another editor on an admin Notice Board and no one says anything. That seems a conspicuously strange and ironic event. (olive (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC))
Hipocrite - tone it down. I also strongly advise you strike some of your more accusatory comments above.
olive - If you've got a problem with how admins are reacting to a situation, there are FAR better ways to bring it to our attention.
Now this case requires a bit of examination before a newcomer can meaningfully weigh in, and I'm sure all parties would prefer a measured response rather than a kneejerk one. In the interim, both sides should focus on presenting the core elements of the dispute without descending into incivility. Manning (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not been uncivil and I have been treated to Hipocrite's foul comments both here and on the RS NB talk page. My sense was to stay out of this after I did present the core element of my concerns, but this foul comment has been siting here for a good part of the day. Normally I would apologize for any kind of forceful language . Tt's not my style but in this case. No. I'm fed up with being bullied. Hipocrite has not been part of this discussion. His purpose seems to be simply to attack and bully. Thanks for your comment, I will take it to heart.(olive (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Note: Olive has been topic banned by arbcom in the past for WP:TE and POV pushing on Transcendental Meditation and it was pointed out in the AE report that she has a conflict of interest, so there is merit to what Hipocrite is saying. Noformation Talk 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no merit to bullying. NoFormation. One of the reasons poisoning the well is frowned on is that first , one has to be very careful to get the facts straight, and second one can be lacking in the understanding and nuances of some environments. Editors who edit in contentious areas can be set upon by all manner of those wishing they would disappear. What counts is that the arbitration committee has never sanctioned me for anything. (olive (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC))
User:Noformation - I'm not disputing (or endorsing) any of Hipocrite's claims, just asking that they be toned down a bit.
::olive - you WERE put under Arbcom sanctions by an Arbcom clerk, in accordance with the discretionary sanctions ruling handed down by Arbcom. (For the record I note that those sanctions have long since expired). These are considered equivalent to direct action by Arbcom, so you will achieve nothing by disputing that fact. Manning (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Manning I was referring specifically to the TM arbitration, where I was not sanctioned in any way, nor warned...and NW did not act as a arbitration clerk. Noformation has some of his information wrong and given what has gone on in this thread I'm reaching my limit on false accusations. I would request that you do not accuse me of being untruthful which is not the case.(olive (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC))
You were topic banned by arbcom, I didn't say that it was during the initial TM case so congrats, strawman successfully torn down. How can you state that NW wasn't acting as an arbclerk? What does this even mean? He's an arbclerk, he banned you, he logged your ban at the TM log of blocks and bans. You cannot separate NW's position as an arbiter from his actions in an administrative role and your attempts to do so come off as wikilawyering.
What does it matter when it happened anyway? The fact of the matter is that you were topic banned for bad editing practices and pushing your POV. Further, you were also sanctioned with a 1RR restriction as arbcom believed that you, Timidguy and Edith Sirius Lee tag team reverted edits in order to keep your POV in. You then tried to wikilawyer yourself out of the ban by claiming that you weren't properly notified about discretionary sanctions, and your appeal was denied. This was what, a year ago? And it seems as though you're still pushing your POV. The first three results searching for "User:Littleolive_oil prefix:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement" are the three AE incidents with which Olive was involved (though these do not contain the topic ban, which can be found here). Noformation Talk 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am telling you what I said and what I meant. You can make out of that what you want to, but none of that is true to what I said or meant. Wikipedia is one dimensional. There is no way of explaining the multi dimensional environments which accompany what you think you see. I shouldn't have tried to given what has gone on here. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

I will continue a little bit because of the strange incident with the excommunication. I meditate very seldom.
I think this journal is tolerably reliable and okay, and that it suits the topic, which is limited and doesn’t belong to larger journals. Preliminary findings suggests that relaxation might cause a drop in blood pressure. Not very remarkable, and why should it not be mentioned on Wikipedia? We are not talking about the “Hypertension” article. On the 17th of February 1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because he dared to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Universe is infinite, with an unlimited number of stars.
But the sheeps need a shepherd. Every movement, when it becomes messianic, has its purists and priests, more catholic than the Pope. Take a look at the reputation of Hindawi, and the editorial board of the journal in question. What do we tell the researcher and professors on that board, many from reputed universities around the world? What do we tell Cindy Davis, now at the National Cancer Institute? What do we tell assistant professor M. Shauwkat Razzaque at Harvard? What do we tell Professor Dr. med. Hans Konrad Biesalski at Universität Hohenheim in Germany? This editorial board consist of more than 40 respected researchers, and they also have some self-respect. To say that Hindawi or their journals are unreliable, that is not in accordance with a scientific outlook, as I perceive it.
I hope you admin folks will read through the discussion (rather lengthy) on WP:RS, and judge fairly regarding this unexpected excommunication. Granateple (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This board is for discussing behavioral issues not content. Further, RS/N has already dealt with the source; it's time to drop this. Noformation Talk 02:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine anyone? 67.119.12.141 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly --Guerillero | My Talk 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Second trip to ANI[edit]

I have restored this thread from the archive. A user asked ANI to review his closure of an RS/N discussion, and the closure has not yet been reviewed. Granateple (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No objections from uninvolved editors and at least a couple supports is generally what you would expect from something like this. Consensus looks pretty clear that the closure was appropriate. Noformation Talk 08:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Granateple is an uninvolved editor and he objects. I'd really like to get some facts straight here. I assume that on an Admin NB the desire is to have an admin make a judgement, however I'm not clear on that. For myself I don't care one way or the other. This was a simple NB discussion on a source that spun out of control and became nasty. I don't really need more of that. I do respect another editor's request, though.(olive (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
Granateble is obviously involved, he was part of the RS/N discussion. One of the diffs mentioned by the OP belongs to him. How can you say he's not involved? Noformation Talk 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Granateple was not an "involved" editor in the original discussion on the NB and he objected to the NB closure. He is asking here that that decision/closure be scrutinized. I assume now you mean by uninvolved that the editor was not a participant at all in the original RS/NB content before commenting here. That wasn't clear to me in your post. Any editor has a right to ask for clarification. I have to say NoInfo that your attitude towards me an editor you have never actually worked with is pretty darn aggressive.(olive (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
olive: It doesn’t matter how many times you say that you don’t know me. It will not help. And if I were involved, would it have mattered? Perhaps I am mad or a TM guru, or both, does it really matter?
We were discussing a review and the reliability of a source.
A RS/N closure is brought before ANI for review, by the user who did the closure. I expect this will be done. Granateple (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally, if an admin does not weigh in before a thread is automatically archived, it can be considered that there was nothing requiring admin intervention. If it were serious enough to need intervention, they would have. Give it time and, if it winds up getting archived again, it's de facto not an admin issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It was a free, natural evolving and democratic discussion. “User Granateple is reminded that contributing too much to a discussion damages the quality of that discussion”. That was a part of the closure summary, just after they realized that the academic publisher in question was reputable and reliable. If this is not an ANI issue, could you please advice me whom to contact? Do Wikipedia perhaps have a shrink for these totalitarian chickens? Granateple (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; also, WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger, on WP:NOTDEMOCRACY I can read that ”…method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion”. A discussion was closed on RS/N. What is more civil, to close a free discussion or to label the phenomenon? I look forward to your answer. Granateple (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, consider this a warning: calling other editors "totalitarian chickens" is a personal attack. Don't do it.
Second, what exactly are you asking for? The discussion was closed on RS/N with a resolution. No admin has seen an error there, nor felt the need to reopen it. There's really no recourse beyond that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It's at least a more creative insult. And amazingly enough, I found an example.[7] The internet has everything! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
HandThatFeeds: the user who closed the discussion brought the closure before ANI for review. You told me yesterday that this is de facto not an admin issue, and by that I presume you probably are of the opinion that this is de facto not an admin issue. Which forum on Wikipedia can be contacted regarding this incident? I and the user:olive have not received an apology. Granateple (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There's really nothing to be done. If you really want, you could open a Request for Arbitration but, based on what's been presented here, they'll reject it as unnecessary. And there is no requirement for you to receive an apology. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not as experienced as you on Wikipedia, and also not as clairvoyant. Thank you for your suggestion. I will consider arb enforcement, and I am hoping for a larger community input regarding this. Granateple (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Olive's gratuitious post at the article talkpage [8] from earlier today strongly suggests that she simply will not accept the consensus of uninvolved editor comment at RSN if it conflicts with her own position:There is a standard for WP:MEDRS compliant sources on Wikipedia. There is not a separate standard for TM articles. A NB is usually a fair way to get editor input, but editor input does not trump WP:MEDRS Fladrif (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've posted [9].
As it happens, through a noticeboard is not the court of final appeal for content matters, (that's the role of an rfc), the interpretation of MEDRES depends on the consensus, and the place where the consensus is formed is on RSN. We rightly have n separate noticeboard for MEDRES because of the very close relationship of the problems involved. Even actual policies need interpretation, and the community as a whole is the only body competent to interpret on content. MEDRES is a guideline, not policy, and is therefore specifically open to exceptions and interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Update. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and a strange thing just happened.
I got a notice on my talkpage that user:Fifelfoo had reported me to something called “Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement”, and I was invited to give a statement.
When I did, an automatic machinery took over, closed the case, and sent me a message on my talkpage signed user:WGFinley.
I am now part of the TM Movement. LOL
Is this serious? Is this how Wikipedia works? I refuse to believe it. Granateple (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Believe it or not, yes, this is how Wikipedia works. You have misunderstood a few things.
Fiflefoo was notifying you that someone brought up your name atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Admin WGFinley then notified you that articles about Transcendental Meditation movement are under community sanctions, which means editing of those pages has specific rules due to problems in the past. I suggest you read the links WGFinley provided on your Talk page, so you can learn more about how this works before you do something that gets you blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Statement and Speech by his highness Granateple from Norway, father and mother, and aunt to the Transcendental Meditation movement.
Dear fellow Wikipedians, let us first meditate together, so that our blood pressure might drop a little bit. For this occasion I have cut my beard with 2 inches, and it is now only 54 inches long.
Who are you, if not for me? Who am I, if not for you? If not now, when? If not here, where?
Let us feel united with the Transcendental. Who is the Transcendental or where is it? It is high up in the sky and under your feet, it is in your computer and on Wikipedia. You can’t see it, only feel it. Thus spoke Granateple.
Until very recently, I thought of myself as a rational guy with scientific leanings, but not any longer. After Wikipedia (with the help of “Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement”) appointed me a TM master, I now see things much clearer. The mysteries of the Transcendental is not for the faint-hearted. Try to embrace it, it will enlighten your Spirit. Thus spoke Granateple.
Until yesterday my heroes were Democritus, Lucretius, Voltaire, Darwin and the Second law of thermodynamics. Not any longer. My heroes now are a couple of editors, great thinkers in their own right, and I am sure that future generations will find their names and deeds inscribed with gold in the Annals of Wikipedia.
Where are we TM gurus? We are everywhere. During the McCarthy era in your country, when accusations and paranoia reigned supreme, a good citizen saw many Communists. A dedicated citizen spotted many more. A fanatical anti-communist saw a hell of a lot of them. They where everywhere. We TM masters, we are also everywhere. Some of us even assume a disguise; we are clean-shaven. Thus spoke Granateple.
But all of the above is not true. I am sane and I have a certain interest in science. My areas of expertise is cellular biology, phytochemistry and medicine. I became a Wikipedian when I realized that the “health section” in the Pomegranate article was outdated. But on Wikipedia it is Anathema to report the scientific findings regarding the Pomegranate. I does not help that the Journal of Urology, the Official Journal of the American Urological Association, report the findings (clinical trials).
I have now made up my mind. It can’t hurt to let ArbCom have a preliminary look at the two strange incidents: the closure of a free and open discussion on RS/N, and now my imaginary connection with TM.
But maybe you will have my account blocked or deleted before that time, HandThatFeeds? Your blatant machiavellianism impresses me. It really does. Don’t you realize that it is detrimental to the community and Wikipedia? Send my regards. Granateple (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that you're new, Granateple, so I should ask that you read up on WP:NCR. It's a fairly quick read and should be relevant to your current situation. Maybe it will help a little. If not, maybe it will at least be a bit amusing. :) -- Atama 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive Editor - Previously posted in error at Wikiquette assistance[edit]

Hiding text pasted from Wikiquette. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am being publically accused by this editor on the talk page of "meatpuppetry", and I have done nothing of the kind. This editor is now threatening me as follows: "Any further attempts to tamper with this page through a mendacious and systematic process will result in me submitting yet another easily proven entry on your to an administrator and a resulting permanent ban."

[I request administrator assistance. I know that I am partially at fault for responding and reacting to uncivil behavior, and have been uncivil myself. However, my behavior may not rise to the level of abuse that I've experienced. Consequently, I'm bringing the entire discussion to this venue for review. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)]

After spending a considerable amount of time researching and finding proper citations, and working with other (more reasonable) editors trying to improve the article, it seems we had reached a consensus - only to be completely reverted by this editor. Based upon past discussions with him, it appears he has a COI, and has consistently attempted to remove or disrupt any negative information on the agency.

As an editor with a couple hundred edits to my credit, Wiki doesn't pay us enough to have to endure this kind of abuse.

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is a contentious article, and Computer Guy 2 was blocked for sockpuppetry on January 14, 2012, for 3 days. Computer Guy 2 also reported AceD at WP:SPI, and the closing admin note stated, in part: "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." ([10]).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was blocked - for stupidity in trying to change my identity. In all fairness, you should have pointed out that AceD was warned for Edit Warring against this editor and warned for using multiple accounts in August, 2011. Nevertheless, Bbb23, I thought we worked together pretty well to hammer out a reasonable section - which has now been deleted. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the link to the SPI report has the "warning" you refer to, but it's a bit more innocuous than that. HelloAnnyong said only that he warned AceD about being sure to log in and that he thought that AceD's edit was accidental while logged out. As for you and me, quite honestly, I found you difficult to work "with", but certainly not enough to complain about your conduct. The section in the article you're referring to is messy, and I haven't paid a lot of attention to what's going on since I did a bit of work on the article, mainly because I felt that to do so I'd have to go through it line by line, source by source, and I haven't had the time. However, at a glance, it looked like it wasn't the entire section that was at issue, but that numbered list of agents. To the extent that AceD is trying to eliminate the list and incorporate it into the text, I would - and normally Wikipedia also would - favor that kind of presentation. In any event, this report you've brought is more about the comments made by AceD than by the content war that triggered them, and I must say that his comments are a bit over the top - it's not clear to me that either of you is handling the article neutrally, or each other in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Both of you have a singular interest in the article and in related articles, which often doesn't bode well for neutral editing or calm tempers.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the referenced warning, I simply repeated the heading posted by HelloAnnyong on AceD's Talk Page, "Warning on multiple accounts". Just for the record, there is no "content war" on my part. I simply posted current, cited and verified information, along with other editors, directly pertaining to the heading and removed unverified material. Months ago, when it was clear that no progress was being made in discussion with AceD, I just dropped it and walked away. Since then, I've given considerable thought to this whole process, and personally resolved to be a better editor by not responding to flame-baiting, goading, personal attacks and other forms of incivility. While I do have a narrow spectrum of interest, it certainly isn't singular, and I've posted to a number of articles. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Some comments as an uninvolved editor: It's clear that there is a long standing conflict between you both (Computer Guy 2 and AceD). The comments by AceD are indeed over the top. And I can't be the only admin who is profoundly irritated by editors proclaiming "You will be blocked when I report you" and the like. Being treated like a compliant standby doesn't dispose me to look favorably upon the wielder's viewpont. It's also clear that you both have strong opinions on the subject and that this may be affecting your respective abilities to work together on this article. I have noticed a clear pattern in both of your talk page edits of 1) discussing the topic beyond what is necessary to improve the article and 2) disrespectful commentary on each other. I urge you both to evaluate your approach to editing and to talk page discussions and to think about what your goals are here. You will not convince each other of your respective points of view. The article will not look the way you would prefer and will probably appear biased to you. But, if you keep your conversations concise, the focus always on the article text itself and not the ATF generally, and have as a main goal finding a wording and form that is mutually acceptable and conforms to verifiability and neutral point of view, you can get through it. Computer Guy 2, it seems like you've already done this to some degree and kudos for that, sincerely. Danger High voltage! 07:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite tired of arguing with you about this, that much is true. As far as the content resolution side of it, you and you alone keep promoting this anti-ATF agenda dispite numerous editors on the talk page fundamentally disagreeing with the section you alone are responsible for, it is that simple.

Beyond that, it is beyond debate that you have engaged in meatpuppetry. You have now twice referred to (here, and on the talk page) the "numerous editors" that you "built a consensus with" as support for your point of view, without acknowledging that these "numerous editors" are friends of yours from an anti-ATF message board where you posted this article and asked for support. Not the first time you have done so, either. Subsequently, multiple people registered for the first time for an account and promoted your same point of view to reach your idea of a "consensus". I haven't reported you yet, because I have strong suspicion that such an act will get you permanently banned so close on the heels of your latest sockpuppetry ban, but will certainly do so today if you persist in this action and vitrol. Beyond that, I think the true consensus regarding the content speaks for itself, and I am done with it.AceD (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


With the exception of 9 early postings, AceD has occupied nearly all his time on Wikipedia reverting the undersigned's edits and engaging in personal attacks on the undersigned. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AceD) To be fair, there was a short period of rational, almost cordial discussion. The AceD account was created on 5 Feb 2006, posted one edit, and was silent for over 5 years. AceD began using the account again on 9 August 2011, made 8 minor posts, then exclusively began reverting the undersigned's edits, edit warring and making personal attacks. He made no posts to any other subject area. When confronted with the evidence, AceD responded that he had "forgotten" about the account and had been previously posting under various IP addresses. Wikipedia specifically forbids this practice; "Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users."

Before changing to the AceD name, he posted almost identical edits as 71.226.23.207 (13 July 2011 - 23 August 2011) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.226.23.207), beginning his postings by reverting the undersigned's edits. Just prior to 71.226.23.207, another ID (71.203.85.14) was used to post nearly identical edits and engaged in vandalism (17 March 2011 - 30 March 2011). When other editors were critical of 71.203.85.14 failing to sign his posts, he responded, "I don't sign things because I do not yet know how." How many other IP addresses were used by AceD is anybody's guess. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with some of the less involved editors that both of you are taking it too far. If you have suspicions of sockpuppetry or other policy violations, report it at the appropriate place and it will be addressed. Instead, both of you seem to be throwing the accusations out there to try to win the argument over the content of the article, which basically just annoys other people and accomplishes nothing. If your suspicions are justified, this conflict could be over tomorrow thanks to banning, or otherwise those accusations can at least be put aside and everyone can focus on improving the article. Since you specifically mentioned article content above, I'll just say that I'm generally closer to AceD's opinions in terms of article content. You obviously have strong feelings about the ATF and its actions, which is fine and maybe even admirable, but doesn't always lead to a better encyclopedia article. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way. AceD's sockpuppetry was previously addressed in a complaint, however HelloAnnyong was unable to make the connection between the various IP addresses and AceD. My background in other articles is irrelevant to this issue. I repeat the earlier quote, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." The topic of this request for assistance is personal attacks on the undersigned. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to revisit a 6 month old complaint you made where the investigation found there was no wrongdoing on my part and that you were warned for superficially trying to carry out an edit war. Especially since you are the only sockpuppet in this conversation, and are even now continuing to engage in similar behavior.
For the record, I have exclusively used only one username- not three like yourself- on wikipedia. Before that username I exclusively used a single IP address at a given time. I have never presented myself as different entities in the same conversation, unlike what you have done on multiple occassions. And never will. But I can't fail to see the irony of being consistently accused of sockpuppetry by someone who has been banned from editing this article for months on end and is within two weeks of coming off a ban for multiple sockpuppets.
Further, to Hazydan's point- this is no attempt by me to "win" an argument or debate on this issue. Indeed, I do not see a present issue as over the past year not a single individual (outside of the meatpuppets that registered yesterday) have supported Computer Guy's well documented attempts to enumerate each and every issue with ATF. Numerous people, in various different venues, have explained that the section is unbalanced, redundant, uncalled for and/or crass NPOV.
Now back to you, Computer Guy/Ike/Solo I Fatty- your history DOES matter. Even a cursory glance at your history shows that EVERYBODY seemingly has a problem with you. Even the people who do "work" with you subsequently explain the difficulty in dealing with you. This is very telling. I can honestly say that you are the ONLY person I have EVER had an issue with on wikipedia. You mention that most of my posts have been edits on your material, and in some way try to cast that in a negative light. However, by your own admission now, you recognize that the very same material you blasephemy me for editing did not belong in the first place and you, as the original editor, were wrong for posting? How in ANY way is that an indictment on my history?AceD (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, "The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way." Now, we have yet another personal attack. I have no intention of responding to flame-baiting. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Query: how is a mutual focus on each other's editing history and behavior helping improve Wikipedia? Are you closer to finding a resolution to any disputes over content than you were yesterday? Danger High voltage! 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Answer. My purpose in bringing this situation to Wikiquette assistance is to clearly demonstrate the personal attacks upon the undersigned. AceD's continued speculation on my off-site identity is a clear and flagrant violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's threat to continue disrupting my work on Wikipedia is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's continued personal attacks upon the undersigned on this page consist of prima facie evidence of Wikipedia:Harassment. Further, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....whether any such information is accurate or not." Other editors have engaged in Wikihounding and continuing the personal attacks. None of these violations contribute to constructive editing nor finding any resolution. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Again, yet another bait and switch on your part....and another outright lie. Please read these policies you so flippantly throw out. "Personal information" is defined by wikipedia policy as "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other personal contact information". Kindly link where any of these items have been posted by this user or any other. You won't though, because you can't. I didn't respond to you last comment, because there was nothing to respond to. Just leave it alone. You have made your "point", and repeatedly changing the issues that you have with me literally from post to post is only going to provide the opposite effect that you intend.AceD (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wiki-policy isn't a legal code. Repeatedly referring and linking to to a user's undisclosed off-wiki identity may be seen as harassment, regardless of whether that specific type of information is listed in policy. I see that you have not responded or apparently listened to either of my comments. What exactly do you hope to accomplish here? Danger High voltage! 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
First, I have "listened" to your advice. I do not see the need to verbalize my acknowledgment, though maybe that was an error. However, the essence of your advice has been received and acted on- I am not posting anymore in the article, not engaging with Computer Guy, etc. I didn't even respond to his penultimate comment earlier today, but I did feel his most recent remark and false accusations merited a defense, without overly vindictive personal remarks or verbal comments that expanded the scope of the discussion beyond a defense. I was done with the "content" some time ago, as I also mentioned earlier. When viewed through the prism that I am not the reason that we are here and did not initiate this action, I can only say that I can truly answer your question "what do you hope to accomplish here" with...Nothing.
Beyond that, there is no "repeated" action here- I posted the complaint and have been done with it. Computer Guy 2 is the only one bringing it up now. And the "off-wiki" identity isn't "undisclosed", in fact Computer Guy 2 is who disclosed that previously unknown website to this editor and into one of our previous discussions, while acknowledging his postings here there.
Now, I will certainly be done with this issue....if allowed to be. And truly, thanks for the advice.AceD (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Both of you should really pay attention to Danger and Hazydan and just stop. Rehashing the bad blood, fighting about the content of the article - none of that will accomplish anything. Computer Guy 2, I suggest you end this topic. AceD, I suggest you be a little less strident in your language; regardless of whether you think it's supportable, it's not constructive. Both of you should pay more attention to the good of the encyclopedia rather than your own viewpoints. And if you can't edit the article neutrally, then don't edit it at all. Edit other articles you don't feel strongly about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Nobody Ent 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems I [originally] posted this on the wrong assistance page (Wikiquette assistance). I was looking for administrator intervention rather than any rehashing of bad blood. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, CG2 has copied all of the above posts from WP:WQA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved Editor I saw this at WQA. I strongly suggest both of you (CG2 and AceD) drop it. The fact that you didn't get any sanctions applied at WQA and now pasted practically all of this into the ANI page instead of providing a link demonstrates not an attempt to resolve the problem, but to continue being disruptive and levying accusations of misbehavior at each other. I am willing to apply liberal usage of oily fish to communicate the point that you need to find something besides antagonizing each other on the site. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As you can see from reading the history, that's the same advice given to CG2 and AceD by several editors (including me). Frankly, I don't understand what CG2 expects to accomplish here (other than his stated request for sanctions).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I will certainly heed this advice and abide by it. In truth, I have acted less than civily in the past with regards to the complainant but can honestly say I have limited my recent history (outside of reinitating a previously unrelated to me sockpuppet investigation that merited action) with him to defending myself in the multiple venues he chooses to vent against me, unprovoked. Whatever the respective culpability between our two parties, however, I will resolve to leave the issue alone even if continually baited. I hope better and more objective editors can continue the content editing over the contentious material, as it has certainly needed attention. Thanks for your time.AceD (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I was involved in the WQA thread and saw no grounds for admin action. If another admin disagrees though, by all means take it. Danger High voltage! 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mraandthebigbrother[edit]

Could an admin please deal with User:Mraandthebigbrother, who seems to revert stuff he doesn't like with a "fuck you" in the edit summary. Maitch (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The editor concern appears to have been abusive in three edit summaries today, but I don't see any pattern of previous misconduct. I have posted a level-1 NPA warning with an addendum about use of edit summaries.
    That warning could have been given by any editor, including the OP ... and per the notice at the top of this page "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". That prior discussion was not done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I know, I could have done it myself, but I usually loose my temper in these situations, so I try to stay away. --Maitch (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's just keep an eye on this guy.--v/r - TP 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It looks to me like he is not a native English speaker [11], so perhaps he is unaware of how his tone is received? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • First I am from Chinese Wikipedia, and my English Quality is OK, so I doing this (editing those Simpsons Articles) for quallity (See Theleftorium's Talk Page). And I really been mad at the time of editing by other stuff like Undo Edits that I feel not very good on Chinese Wikipedia and talk to its editor. At editing Politically Inept, with Homer Simpson , I don't attack at Maitch but I claim what I said and what Maitch think (what he think is "off") is wrong. Sorry for any convience Caused. And I have no connection with Mr.misterismysister. --Mraandthebigbrother (talkcontribs) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review restart[edit]

Resolved

On Talk:Rani Mukerji/GA1, someone said they would review it, and then said they could not. Could you remove the page but keep the article in the GA review queue? BollyJeff || talk 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Only a note to say that this is the admin noticeboard, for getting admins to help with incidents, but anybody can be involved with GA reviews and not only administrators. For your query, somebody else will use the same page when they come to review it. Rcsprinter (message) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize that anyone can do GA review, but they may not think to review this one since it seems to be under review already; in fact it is sitting idle. There is a note on the page asking for an admin to help; since that was not happening I posted here. BollyJeff || talk 20:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I deleted it. I think the bot that updates the status of GA nominations automatically marks it as already under review if the page exists, so the page needs to not be there for the status to be set right by the bot. Either way it's no trouble for the person who actually reviews it to recreate the page. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the GAReview (in double brackets) manually, because the note was still there saying it was under review, but the bot put it right back. Maybe I'll have to review it myself. BollyJeff || talk 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it by replacing the GAN template, but now it says I nominated it...if someone can fix that particular quirk I think it'll be back the way it should be. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, got it fixed. It should go back the way it was now. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, BollyJeff || talk 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation request[edit]

This is a job for (the) Dispute Reolution ManBoard, not AN/I. The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm inviting administrators to mediate the following discussion taking place on Talk:Anti-Defamation League. The debate is about properly sourced material being removed under different charges. All material had as references reliable sources. These are the edits arousing controversy:[12][13] Arguments from both sides have been laid out on the Talk Page, and no consensus has emerged. Please, weigh in on the discussion. These are the users I've been debating with:

Guinsberg (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong page. You don't need admins for a content dispute, and I would expecy Jayjg to be contributing as an editor, not an admin. Try one of the steps in Dispute resolution - third opinion, DR noticeboard, mediation, RfC.
DRN is probably the way to go here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Mr. Curious Man ban proposal[edit]

Community unanimously voted to ban user:Mr. Curious Man and its reincarnations. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mr. Curious Man (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Curious Man. After multiple previous socks (most recent was yesterday), the user has come back again with yet another IP. Refusing to stop socking, and I'm hereby proposing a full ban. Calabe1992 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: Master is under the hardest possible block short of a global lock. Only would make rolling back this guy easier.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Ditto. Wifione Message 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Why shouldn't we? He is very problematic, and if he refuses to stop socking, there is no point opposing a ban. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - not just a formality (since I know somebody will make that argument), a community ban requires community consensus to overturn (vs. a "de facto ban" from indeffing). That said, I agree that this calls for a Cban. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - per this and many others. Doc talk 06:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support In a way, it wouldn't make much difference, as I regularly block (if no other admin beats me to it) and revert anyway. However, it would be nice to have it as an official ban, so that there is no ambiguity about it. The user has repeatedly been invited to agree to edit within policies and guidelines, after which an unblock request could be considered, but he/she has made it abundantly clear that he/she has no wish to cooperate, and has repeatedly stated the intention of socking indefinitely. We are beyond the stage where there is any reasonable purpose in holding back from a ban. (For what it's worth, I have a list of 48 IPs and 7 accounts used by this person, with no guarantee that the list is complete. The first trolling and other disruptive editing that I know of from this person was in April 2011, continuing since then up to now.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Update: Following further investigation, the totals now stand at 52 certain IPs, together with several other possible ones, and 9 certain accounts, together with one possible one. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If I recall correctly, this user also undertook a directed harassment campaign against another editor, just to put the cherry on top. Danger High voltage! 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The user has made harassment campaigns against more than one other editor. The longest running one has been active from time to time from April 2011 to January 2012 on Wikipedia, and both the harasser and the victim have indicated that this is a part of a campaign of harassment that started on another site. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Persistent sockpuppetry, repeated declarations of intent to continue socking. Enough already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support although I do believe this is a formality. Noone would even consider unblocking or overturning such a block, I see no reason why we can't treat him like any other career vandal. —Dark 12:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The history of overlapping sock accounts clearly demonstrates the editor has planned from the beginning to be disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is an obvious ban that needs to be done given the disruptive editing, harassment and numerous socking attempts. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Even though someone will almost certainly come along, tell us we're wasting our time because "he's de facto banned and we can just tag him banned and forget about it". Never mind that the ban policy is now in permanent limbo as a result of this de facto nonsense. - Burpelson AFB 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It is worth noting that a de facto ban has nothing close to the enforcement power of a community- or Arbitration-enacted ban, since reverting a de facto banned user's edits is subject to WP:3RR and de facto banned users' socks tend to get prioritized lower than a codified banned user's unless they've made a reputation for themselves (Case in point: [CENSORED PER WP:DENY], who got [it]self banned at ED for pulling the same crap). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think at this point we've established enough consensus in 24h, requesting close. Calabe1992 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Article created on en.wiki that forces to tr.wiki[edit]

Resolved

While on NPP I noticed that Mgc92 (talk · contribs) created an article at tr:In Bruges. Clicking on that link will take you to the Turkish Wikipedia. I tried putting a {{noredirect}} tag around the title in my sandbox, but clicking the link still takes me to Turkish Wikipedia. I finally was able to see the page this user created by looking at contribution history and clicking on diffs/permalinks ([14]). It appears that the user was trying to take some of the material from the In Bruges article and translate it into Turkish ([15]) and possibly copy it to the tr.wiki page. The question I have is is this page appropriate to keep on English Wikipedia? Note that I am not accusing Mgc92 (talk · contribs), whose only en.wiki contributions are to this page, of any wrongdoing or bad faith. I am just perplexed at this technicality that I've never come across before. I'm willing to guess that s/he created the page, made a couple of edits to it, and is no longer able to access the page for the same reason I can't access it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That is a serious software bug. I wonder how he was able to create that page. Give me a few minutes to see if I can somehow move that page to an accessible location. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Can't move it, can't delete it, can't even nuke it. Let me try some other things. It's clear the page isn't needed here, since it's just a stripped-down foreign language copy of In Bruges, which would be an A10 speedy delete. 28bytes (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Will not rollback either, getting a Turkish message that I'm guessing is telling me I don't have rollback there. Calabe1992 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Can't even edit it - trying to do so takes me to the Turkish edit form. Oh my. WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take this over to WP:VPT. I may have to file a bugzilla report for this. I can't figure out any way to move or delete this page, and the software shouldn't have allowed it to have been created in the first place. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Amazing. I tried deleting through API, but doesn't work either. I could edit it though. Amalthea 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, it's gone. I /could/ delete it via API if I used the page id instead of the title. Should still be brought to bugzilla though! Will you do the honors, 28bytes? Amalthea 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This might be pushing WP:BEANS, but should someone tell the user to please not do that again? Calabe1992 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt they meant to do it in the first place. 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, will do. Thanks for getting it deleted! 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
bugzilla:34128 submitted. 28bytes (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Amalthea, I know Graham87 (talk · contribs) used a similar trick in the past. You might want to confer with him and document it somewhere for the future. MBisanz talk 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I did? Can you remember which page that was? The only deletion trick that I remember doing was a history merge of the "Apple" page, and that was basically just watchful waiting. I've used the API before, but not for editing or deleting pages. Or are you thinking of this undeletion that I did with the help of a sysadmin? Graham87 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A script to delete a page by id would be easy, but the bug that allowed creating the page in the first place has already fixed, so hopefully we won't need that anymore.
I can't really think of a place where folks would intuitively look for such documentation anyway, a quick post to WP:VPT should always be easiest -- someone there will quickly try the same things I did. :)
Amalthea 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Satinmaster[edit]

I would think that a block of some reasonable duration is in order for this SPA who, despite repeated warnings over first editwarring[16], then outing[17], and finally personal attacks, persists in asserting that experienced, uninvolved editors (as well as some involved editors) who disagree with his or her, are pursuing an "Islamophobic agenda". The editor has been warned at the article talkpage, RSN, and the editor's talkpage, but pointedly reposts the same attacks. A SPA vigorously defending a diploma mill is pretty routine on Wikipedia, but this is over the top.

Diffs: [18][19][20][21][22]

Warnings:[23][24][25][26]

Notice to User: [27]

Fladrif (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got to admire persistence. More of the same, now on an Admin's talkpage, even after getting notice of this ANI.[28] Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • On my talk page, Satinmaster asked "Why do you keep accusing me of working for euclid?" Actually, I don't believe I've ever accused that user of working for Euclid -- and, in fact, my interaction with this user has been relatively limited. I will, however, say that this user is a WP:SPA focused on promoting EUCLID (university), by embellishing that article with content that appears positive but is fundamentally meaningless, by discrediting entities that have published negative information about EUCLID (some diffs of edits against Oregon Office of Degree Authorization: [29], [30], [31]; Satinmaster's accusations against Accredibase are largely at Wikipedia:RSN#"cannot_guarantee_the_accuracy_of_the_information"), by accusing anyone who reverts his/her work of being an Islamophobe, and by hinting at the identity of various IPs who have reverted or disagreed with Satinmaster. All in all, Satinmaster is disrupting Wikipedia with these behaviors. It's time for a final warning that additional disruption will lead to a long block. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Court found 'Oregon Office of Degree Authorization' violated constitutional rights[edit]

Ah yes, 'Orlady', the wiki editor who thinks the fact that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization being found by a court of law to to have violated the constitutional rights of a non-accredited degree holder, should not be included in the ODA article. But I get accused of being disruptive. LOL . Satinmaster (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you must be confusing me with someone else. I basically ignored the innuendo that you posted on the article talk page, although I did add a lot of content to the article in response to the campaign to declare the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization to be non-notable. (On second thought, maybe I did respond when you posted that comment somewhere else -- you've been engaging in a bit of forum-shopping, so it's hard to keep track of the various different places that the same discussion might have been started.) It was another who user who responded when you posted a similar complaint at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. I did look at the court decision (which is, by the way, a primary source, making it questionable as a source for Wikipedia) and did not find it to be of sufficient consequence to bother mentioning in the article -- which might explain why there doesn't seem to be any secondary-source documentation of the court case. --Orlady (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure Orlady, that if it was a court document saying something bad about a school it would be "worth mentioning". LOL Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the comment on your user page: "I no longer wish to contribute. No point. To many idiots with agendas and a keyboard." A promise to stop editing and keeping that promise might close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Shalom Bbb23, That was before I realized what was really going on here. So I am morally obliged to continue. Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Enlighten the board. Please. What is it precisely that you "realized was really going on here"? Don't be shy. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
SPAs with WP:TRUTH agendas are always like that Fladrif. - Burpelson AFB 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it funny that this user starts every sentence with "Shalom" whilst s/he continues to claim there is an anti Islamic agenda in relation to Euclid? Am I the only one getting confused? 2.96.245.231 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
In itself there's no reason why a Jewish person or someone else we would expect to use shalom can't be concerned by Islamophobia to the extent of seeing it in places where it doesn't exist. However [32] does make me wonder of the user. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the "Shaloms" are Satinmaster's way of saying "If you disagree with me, you must be a Jew.". Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, sockpuppet of Rlevse[edit]

Resolved: There's a right way, and a wrong way to return after RTV. this was the wrong one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In the last few weeks, User:PumpkinSky has made numerous personal attacks against me - so many that other people openly wondered where the animosity was coming from. But there's more - he's also been adding tons of copyvios. Well, it turns out that Pumpkinsky is, in fact, a sockpuppet of disgraced ex-arbitrator user:Rlevse (violating Rlevese's claims of right to vanish). When Amalthea confronted Pumpkinsky about this, Pumpinsky admitted he was Rlevese and claimed he was leaving the project.

I have tagged Pumpkinsky, but not blocked him. (I'll let someone else do the honors). Meanwhile, people should be on the lookout for any more sockpuppets of his that happen to get registered in the next few days. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should self revert tagging the page until something more official occurs, like an actual block. My76Strat (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with tagging the account. The sock account needs to be blocked and the Rlevese main account needs to be tagged as a sockpuppeteer and blocked. Anything less is going to be seen as blatant bias. - Burpelson AFB 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've switched the tag to a more appropriate one until a block is enacted, or whatever. Calabe1992 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Disgraced or not, Rlevse is not a banned editor. Is there an allegation he's using more than one account at the moment? 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that he abused WP:RTV. I don't know if this is possible, but if so, I think his account should be renamed from Vanished User back to Rlevse. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And abused of it in order to specifically revisit old grudges (his disgrace via the defeatured Grace Sherwood, revisited in his attacks on Raul654 and FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the Rlevse account is already blocked. Do the bureaucrats and/or ArbCom need to be notified? --Rschen7754 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, they have most certainly been made aware. Raul654 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like Amalthea or another checkuser to comment here before anyone does anything drastic. Rlevse may be back, or Pumpinsky may be falsely claiming to Amalthea that he is Rlevse for whatever reason. Any action taken on the Rlevse account (e.g. renaming) should only happen if the first case is true. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Background:Rlevse was extremely active at DYK, which came under fire (um, from me) in October 2010 for extreme repeat instances of copyvio. This culminated in October 2010 with Rlevse's Halloween WP:TFA revealed to be a copyvio (Grace Sherwood). He stepped down as an arb over that, and then exercised RTV. Now he's back, going after FAC, and committing and passing copyvio at DYK, with them turning the same blind eye they turned back in 2010. But specifically, he is violating RTV to revisit his old grudge on Raul and FAC.Let me know if diffs are needed-- this is all pretty well known stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just picked up on this. Rlevse vanished, not blocked or banned, and although he disappeared following issues around plagiarism/close paraphrasing, I don't think he *would* have been blocked, as it wasn't copy-pasting-half-a-website or passing off ripped-off piccies as one's own work, it was a sentence or two, albeit in a lot of articles :( Which would mean he couldn't WP:CLEANSTART, and anyway I think his style is so characteristic that he'd get spotted fairly fast, but there is nothing to stop him coming back. The prescribed course when a vanished user comes back is supposed to be to reinstate the vanished account. Tagging the new one as the old one is also OK (as far as I can see) but there's no need for a block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(tons of edit conflicts) He exercised RTV. That means you leave permanently, not "rename my account to hide my history and then I'll come back with a new account to resume editing". If he's not blocked already he ought to be blocked. He exercised RTV, then came back with a sock to resume engaging in old grudges. This is just as bad as circumventing a block. - Burpelson AFB 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Account is blocked because he was editing from it - which vanished users are not supposed to do. If Pumpkinsky is also generating copyvios, lets focus on that. If he's come back to do it again, then I suspect the community will have an opinion on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That (EotR) is an incorrect description of his copyvio, and users who continue copyvio and don't help clean it up are blocked. OK, so how many arbs are behind or aware of this and any other RTV or CLEANSTART accounts affecting FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (many edit conflicts) Actually just for clarity, he vanished, his old username isn't currently registered and his vanished account was blocked. [33]Moe ε 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So he is circumventing a block. The userpage is protected or something so can someone plase add the puppeteer tag? - Burpelson AFB 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 4) It's only a block from the standpoint that vanished users cannot be editing. It's not a true block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
How about someone make a checkuser verification before this conversation continues along the lines that they are affiliated. My76Strat (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Amalthea is a checkuser (see User talk:Amalthea). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes but I've seen no indication that tools were actually used. My76Strat (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This user must remain blocked. He caused all manner of damage to the project and, once made aware of it, exercised RTV. He then came back and resumed damaging the project, now without any excuse that he may not have been fully aware of what he was doing. This is precisely what blocking is for, and this is how blocks should be applied to this project. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. As to the attacks and disruption at FAC, too much to diff-- I sorta think everyone is aware of it by now, but diffs can be easily offered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More background: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1. Also, since October 2010, we've been quite aggressive at FAC about monitoring for copyvio, so Rlevse joined in a mere handful of editors calling for FA leadership to be thrown out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a general request could everyone just slow down a couple notches and think rather than just shooting from the hip? Everyone seems to be responding based on gut reactions rather than coherent, well-developed thoughts. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
speak for yourself, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've said nothing on the matter and have no intent to at this point. By the way, that indent may have looked like I was replying to you specifically but that wasn't my intention, it was more a general comment to everyone. Need another cookie? Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I know Grace Sherwood was a fiasco, but editors who get blocked for copyvio are the ones who copypasta entire websites, rip off photos etc. This was a sentence here, two sentences there, close paraphrasing way too much. Yes, it was a huge issue for FA, I'm not denying that, and I'm not supporting a vanished user coming back and repeating problematic behaviour, but.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And to my knowledge, you are still wrong. Considering where the arbs' credibility is on this matter, and that as far as I know you weren't an arb then, pls reflect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not coming at this as an Arb Sandy. I used to work a bit in CCI, and I've blocked a good few copyright violators. All I'm saying is that the ones that get blocked are attempting to pass off the contents of entire websites as their own work, and hiding it by not citing the copysource. It appears Rlevse had great difficulty rendering his cited sources using his own words, which is a major problem for someone trying to write an FA, and a problem for the pedia, I'm not denying that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I have seen I agree with that: In my estimation the improper paraphrasing is caused by carelessness, not malice or intent to disrupt. Obviously a huge problem if done on this scale, but since it was a first offense back then the editor was not blocked: a block would not have been preventative. That part really is normal. Amalthea 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
To the degree that an editor who generated copyvios is unwilling to help clean them up, I have to agree with SandyGeorgia; if Rlevse has returned to editing, he needs to lend a hand to the cleanup effort (and obviously not create any more). Other editors have been required to actively help clean up copyright messes and the ones who don't aren't allowed to continue editing. For consistency's sake I think we need to approach this the same way, assuming the identity is confirmed. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
My point was only that at the time when Rlevse vanished back in 2010, the account was not blocked for copyright violations (edit: or plagiarism/close paraphrasing -- I'm in no position to judge whether any of this actually is a copyright violation.). He could have un-vanished and, yes, would have been expected to help with the cleanup. The situation is of course different now, and I'm expecting that this thread will at some point make that quite explicit. Amalthea 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Provided the two users are the same, I would support a block for flat out disruption, ignoring the sockpuppetry issues. --Rschen7754 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Just to clear up a point, which the conversation above seems to be confused about. Usually we do not permanently block an account if the person does not help clean up a copyright violation mess they have created. You only have to spend a short time at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Open investigations to see how unusual it is for a perpetrator to help clean up their mess. Not long ago a well known and prolific editor was temporarily blocked for hindering the clean-up process, but because there was no evidence s/he had been involved in adding any copyrighted material since the start of the investigations, the block was lifted once it was clear the person would no longer hinder the process.

Unfortunately as can be see from the investigations many editors caught persistently breaching copyright first of all deny it, then plead ignorance, and then, despite the initiation of an investigation, they continue to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia. To protect the project from further harm, it is those editors who are indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's be sure it's him before we do anything[edit]

It should go without saying that any editor can claim to be someone else. Some editors are better at such things than others, but we should eliminate that possibility first. 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the conversation I had it is very unlikely that he was pretending to be Rlevse, and that wouldn't have really made sense in the context. IP also matches older information that I can find, and FWIW, the latest mail I sent was CCed to Rleves' old address. I have no doubt whatsoever. Amalthea 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've sent the person I know is Rlevse a text message and will call him later this evening. MBisanz talk 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder who leaked Arbcom-L to Wikipedia Review! Wait, no I don't. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If this is Rlevse, it may not be the first time he's broken RTV: PumpkinSky started editing just two days after BarkingMoon quit last July. That may be worth revisiting. Geometry guy 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
FWIW: Rlevse strongly denied to be BarkingMoon. I myself am convinced that they are the same though, there are way to many similarities to explain it away.
A cursory look through the articles created by BarkingMoon did not raise red flags, but that's not really my specialty: I agree that a closer look would not hurt -- but not on ANI. Beyond that, I don't think that anything needs or should be done. Amalthea 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I mainly wanted to draw it to checkuser attention: the BarkingMoon account is blocked, but by user request, and is not tagged. An example of a point of contact revealed by this new information is the Noel_F._Parrish article. There may also be a pattern of behavior here. Geometry guy 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the original barkingmoon SPI. Raul654 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Alas, that one ended inconclusively. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It may be more accurate to say that it ended with Arbcom intervention: I have asked for clarification about this here. Geometry guy 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And I have not yet received a satisfactory answer, 3 hours later. Geometry guy 02:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this is absolutely not the first time Rlevse has come back after his RTV. About a week after he left, he created another account. A firestorm ensued, and he left after a day or two. I am wracking my brain but I cannot remember the name of that account. (Someone help me here) Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought he came back and started editing with the vanished account, caused a firestorm and that's why it's blocked.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe Elen is correct. He left after a lynch mob on AN/I, initiated right to vanish and then made a few edits after vanishing. Which resulted in a major firestorm. I don't recall any other incidents. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I find your account to be blatantly wrong, I was there minute by minute, but I'll leave it to others to read the link of the entire incident I've posted here. The minute his copyvio was discovered, he left-- there was no "lynch mob" at that point. The anger came later, when he continued editing after having exercised his right to vanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
All this happened while I was going through one of my periods of "underground" editing (I embark on these periodically). I consider Rlevse to be a friend, and so naturally my first inclination is to support someone I respected. However it is easy enough to review the evidence, and Sandy's assessment is, unfortunately, painfully accurate. Manning (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there any possible relationship with the recently blocked User:PumknPi? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he's a sock of User:TungstenCarbide, a serial socker and all around troll, which would fit with PumknPi's edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Scuse me...need to go and whack someone upside the head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Duly whacked [34]. He's definitely TungstenCarbide. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
In the fiasco surrounding the Grace Sherwood article what was ignored in favour of a mob like lynching was that Rlevese had asked for editor help on that article citing his own weakness in writing, and that as Elen said the sections which were too close to source text where sentences not pages which an editor was trying to hide. Clearly there was no malice involved.There are few articles on Wikipedia where one cannot dig up sentences that are close to the source text. There was and still is no established line where text automatically is judged to be too close to the source. Holding one editor to a standard that is difficult for most editors on Wikipedia is unfair. And I'll add that after the first incident with Rlevse I found numerous instances of the same kind of writing concerns that Rlevse had been attacked for in articles, and some of the writers were those who had attacked Rlevse. Perhaps More of Elen's calm and reasonable behaviour would be useful on the this thread, rather than another ugly lynching?(olive (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC))
He couldn't write well so he plagiarized in order to get ten FAs? How is that anyone's fault but his own? Also, lynching kills people. ANI does not. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Lynching, bullshit. Rlevse has close to 100,000 edits, and during that time couldn't learn a simple thing like proper paraphrasing? And then comes back, a couple of times, doing the same shit? They should have used their time off-wiki at a community college, re-taking freshman comp. Olive, have you even looked at this, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky? If you're looking to do a nice thing for them, you might get started on that list. There's a couple hundred more to go. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What's more strange is that someone could make 100,000 edits before anyone else noticed the problem. Thankfully SOPA didn't pass. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it was quite common place then, before the Plagiarism Dispatch was written, and if you'll read the description of the entire incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, you'll find it was a systemic problem at DYK. Worse-- still is. Rlevse came back there to continue more of same, and it still wasn't detected, and there have been multiple serial copyright violators at the top of DYK for years. Was always a problem, still is, what is shocking about this case is that Rlevse came back to continue more of same even after being discovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
If Rlevese/Pumpkin Sky struggles writing articles without plagiarising, then they shouldn't be writing at all. Good intentions don't outweigh the disruption caused. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So after an editor has a certain edit number its not called lynching. I wonder how many editors on this page could stand the same scrutiny. Wikipedia is full of this kind of writing, full of it , and its tolerated and rewarded. I'm not saying its the best way to write, its not, but don't kid yourselves that this one editor has crossed some clearly identifiable line behind which we all stand, and he does not. Get real guys. Any editor here want to have all of their edits combed through? I won't cmt further.(olive (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC))
You're welcome to trawl though mine; I don't think I've "offended"! Pesky (talkstalk!) 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
In four years on Wikipedia this is the most offensive statement I've ever seen. You just compared a difference of opinion on Wikipedia with the brutal terroristic murders of tens of thousands of African-Americans and the destruction of their families through rape and other forms of violence. And on the first day of Black History Month. (shakes head) --NellieBly (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It's called lynching when a mob drags you from your home or a jail cell where you are awaiting trial and beats you, hangs you, burns your corpse, then takes souvenirs from your clothes, and possibly body parts. It's some serious shit. ANI is a circus for children. Here I am, natch. Copyvio and plagiarism are problems, and perhaps pervasive problems, but serious editors should recognize plagiarism and copyvio, learn how NOT to do it, then not do it--and quite possibly help undo the copyvio they've done. None of what Rlevse or PumpknSky have done in this realm is respectable in any way. Rlevse quit when his copyvio was brought to light. Now he's used a sockpuppet to harass editors at FAC and sound like a dimwitted adolescent. What is there we should be mindful of in this instance? --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Why would we selectively take this term literally on an encyclopedia that includes terms like cherry-picking, WP:DUCK and we could go on?...TSK....(olive (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC))
We might selectively perceive its casual usage, unlike that of ducks and cherries, as belittling something we don't wish to belittle. For similar reasons a lot of people dislike casual hyperbolic usage of Fascist (epithet) or Feminazi. The difference is that lynching and fascism and Nazis stand for something atrocious, while ducks and cherries don't. I don't mind being called a duck or someone who picks cherries. I do mind being called a Nazi or someone who is part of a lynch mob. Now, you can call me PC for pointing this out, that won't offend me at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


I was friends with Rlevse, and also hold Raul and Sandy Georgia in high regard. What follows may imply my support towards RLevse, and that is not my intent - I am just trying to present his claimed position, (which has been absent thus far). So here's a diff of his farewell statement, posted by SirFozzie on his behalf back in Nov 2010. Make of it what you will. Manning (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's what I make of it. All true, but then he came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio, and back to FAC to beat on the very people who instituted checks for copyvio, making it harder to get an FA. And this goes to what Oliveoil is saying above-- sure, probably few have a stellar record. In the early days of my editing (2006 to 2007), I thought it was ok to cut-and-paste from public domain, and I thought it was OK to almost directly translate foreign (non-English) sources. Then the Plagiarism Dispatch was written mid-2009 -- by the way, well before Rlevse's 2010 copyvio was discovered-- and a whole lot of us learned we'd been doing it wrong for a long time. So, bottom line-- once you are educated (and Rlevse was), do you try to clean up after yourself, or do you come back under multiple other accounts to 1) defend ongoing coyvio at DYK, and 2) continue creating copyvio yourself? He didn't help-- he continued same. Endorse indef block, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely wish I had some basis on which to disagree with you, Sandy. I'm so saddened by the whole affair. Manning (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, can you back up you claim that Rlevse "came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio"? Cause I see no indication that's true. Amalthea 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor phrasing on my past, because Rlevse defended copyvio, and PumpkinSky blamed "the FA crowd" for increased copyvio checks: more concise phrasing to put those two together would be "came back to DYK to continue defending the status quo" (which was and remains little checking for copyvio, and was what Rlevse did); see for example, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 76#Reflections of a long-time user. And generally note that Pumpkin appeared there to keep pushing things along, which lowered the chance of getting regulars to take copyvio seriously, even after a year and a half since the Rlevse Halloween debacle (which was not a few phrases as stated here several times). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky blocked[edit]

I've blocked the PumpkinSky account indefinitely after realizing it had not already been done. I'm watching PumpkinSky's user page. There seems to be some confusion: a sock template was placed on that page and removed twice despite a confirmed checkuser. If it happens again, I'm going to protect the user page. As for this thread, I'm not sure what more can be said here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the best. Not much more can be done in this thread. Hopefully he realises that if he wants to come back and edit, he has to deal with the backstory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm staying totally out of the issues with PumpkinSky's battles with admins, as I respect him but I also respect many of you, (Sandy, for example, was at one time very kind in defending me when I had a major problem with a now-blocked user) but I was working closely with PumpkinSky on an article where he was a useful and gracious editor and feel someone needs to make some statement in his defense. I have spent hours and hours on the article myself, and now will probably have to purchase a hardcopy book to verify every last bit of his work and I am not happy about it because I suspect that it will be, at most, another Grace Sherwood situation where one or two sentences here or there might be a little close, but not a mass plagiarism issue. Seems most of this fuss is over personality issues, not content. I AM concerned about the level of vitriol here over the copyvio issues, because we now have about 800 articles to look at, mostly for what will mostly be minor edits and vandal reverts, with possibly be too-close paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is a fine line on very short start class articles, particularly when there isn't a lot of source material. And that was a lot of what PumpkinSky was working on. As for Rlevse, I have no clue if they are the same person, but Rlevse was an admin who also helped me deal with the same individual Sandy helped me face, so I also considered him a kind and helpful person. I was sad to see him go and remember thinking the Grace Sherwood dogpile was a bit over the top when the problem was only a few sentences in one paragraph, which probably should have been quickly fixed (before the article hit the main page, agreed) and then move on. Seems to me that personality issues are getting in the way and minor sins are viewed through a lens clouded by other concerns. As for not writing at all, it is important to remember that in some fields of writing, scientific discussion or law for example, close paraphrasing is practically required so as to keep precision in nuance and interpretation -- getting too creative changes the meaning. So I have some sympathy for stuff getting cranked out that comes a bit close to the source. It's like WP:BEANS -- once a concept is in your head, it is a bit of a challenge to put aside a concept and be completely original. So my take is that I'd like people to separate the content from the contributor: PSky may have been wiser to have avoided engaging with admins on admin issues, I won't comment there because I've not been following the drama boards. But the content sins are, as far as I can tell, misdemeanors at most, and mostly less than that. I will admit that PSky bailed fast rather than defend his work, and that was the same pattern as Rlevse, but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters. So I just hope everyone tones down the rhetoric. I'd like to see these users -- whether one person or two -- return, as they were tackling things that needed to be done. I for one am going over the CCI stuff and trying to at least check off the low-hanging fruit. I'd also be willing to help these users if they return by being a second set of eyes. Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Given all the personal attacks directed at me from his pumpkinsky sockpuppet, I for one have no intention of toning down my commentary on him. Nor do I have any desire to see him return. He should have the good grace to never darken our door again.
And for any checkusers reading this, please make a note of any IP data used by Pumpkinsky, because if he stays true to his pattern, he'll be registering another sockpuppet very soon. (If he hasn't done so already). Raul654 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems quite likely even to me. Camp Disappointment. Google "Rlevse Montana". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ha ... for example:

I lived in Montana too, blacks were about 0.1% of the population there. Indians and Hispanics are far more common in that part of the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I also "hear" where Montana's coming from, but no ... after all the attacks directed at FAC and Raul over the last months, this reaction is justified. It wasn't "just" copyvio that brought us to here-- it was coming back under a new account to visit huge amounts of disruption upon FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Montanabw for a humane and perceptive comment, "but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters."(olive (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC))


1. Seemed like the dude was doing good work on the Yogo Gulch article. At least trying.

2. The Grace Sherwood concern was vastly overblown. Especially the ZOMFG on the main page concern. Lots of articles get more traffic than a main page article just from Googling in and the vast amount of our content is not accessed through the main page. The main page of the NYT it is not! Isolated sentence level too-close copying exists (at least in history) in every popular and well contributed to article (every major element, country, etc.) The lack of perspective on a too close para (even just by Wiki standards, not real world liability or the like) and confounding it with blatant or large scale copying is a real problem. The genuine plagiarizer has a pattern and does it a lot and in stretches. Some of the parsing being done on phrases at Wiki would get laughed at by an IP lawyer or an academic review board.

3. I'm concerned that copyvio is becoming on more weapon to use in feuds. (We already see this some with some of the Wiki rules and policies.) This is especially concerning since it is a perversion of what should be very much a content thing and not connected to squabbles of factions. I have personally seen this used this way twice recently. Both times very sketchy, too. I think concern of a single, nonremarkable fact in an article missing a references (in the Fae RFC) is similar.

4. Thinking that Raul does not do much as FA leader or that the position should be elected is not a personal attack. It actually shows a lack of perspective and analytics to confound the two.

5. The Pumpkiner dude's not perfect (like I want a more detailed map of the Yogo Gulch damnit, not that little red county!), but he is probably just bailing from the embarrassment more than anything.

TCO (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah 100% TCO: all style "dude", no substance. Reminds me of, now who? Geometry guy 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If Rlevse wanted to return to Wikipedia after claiming to have left, he should have just taken the Elen-approved route - just claim that, even though he used it for years, he just realised his Rlevse account contains his first name somewhere. This lucky quirk of fate can then be used to set up a new account that openly claims to be a WP:CLEANSTART, but which can hide behind WP:OUTING if it's ever asked if it used to be Rlevse. This method of switchover takes two minutes, and allows immediate resumption of high level editing. If he'd done it this way, he could go right back to his old topic areas and activities no matter what record he had there as Rlevse, and in situations like this nobody would be getting away with pulling up old evidence based on the Rlevse history, they'd be getting told by Elen to compile whole new dossiers based solely on the new suit, or shut the hell up. That's of course the best benefit, but even better than just skulking back and hoping no-one notices, this method even allows the resumption of whatever wiki-friendships Rlevse had in place, right in plain sight as if it was all perfectly normal and allowed. Imagine the possibilities. It cannot be countered by anyone, for the experienced user of this con-trick there are easy plays available against anyone. So there you have it Rlevse, 100% satisfaction guaranteed or your money back, just ask User:Mo ainm for further advice if you can't pick it up from these instructions. Tora Bora Mora (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear, as if this topic wasn't already "entertaining" enough - now, a newly registered user pops up and posts the above and another post at Arbcomm. The post here reminds me of those who post how-to-make-a-bomb instructions on the Internet. Of course, I have no idea whether the instructions here would work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is turning into "Ducks Unlimited" in more than one way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, after the original departure of Rlevse issues about his activities on Wikipedia were discovered which were perhaps much more serious than the plagiarism. At the time it seemed more fitting to let the negative stuff stay hidden since he had left and didn't appear likely to return. If he has returned then he needs to address his past errors.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has categorised the recent activity at FA as "disruption". Since that word has such negative connotations here at Wikipedia, I would like to point out that what actually happened was there was an RFC which called the current leadership into question and proposed possible elections for those positions. Sure, the current leadership at FA would find such an event "disruptive" in the more usual sense of the word, as it interrupted their normal routine and challenged the status quo. But I can assure you that none of us did so with any intent to destroy FA or the work they do. And just because the proposal is going to fail does not mean that the RFC was a waste of time, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect I disagree; it seems to me to have been a complete waste of time, although the revelation about Pumpkin Sky is elucidating...Modernist (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It's possible to "call the current leadership into question" without inaccurate overly personalized stirring-the-pot statements, verging on personal attacks, most certainly a failure to AGF, which those doing the "calling into question" engaged in frequently. They also consistently fail to provide diffs or answer direct queries, but that's already been pointed out many times. Here is Pumpkin's involvement (as a returning user breaching CLEANSTART, grinding an ax against Raul and FAC, clearly disruptive):
Perchance, with the hindsight of 20–20 and knowing know that there was motive, you (Diannaa) will go back and answer the multitude of queries you chose to ignore throughout the runup to the RFC. Apparently I wasn't the only person using the word "disruption"; some outside observors also found the runup "disruptive". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree - lots of unanswered questions...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Missed this:
Alarbus (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Entertaining as all this has been, somebody close and hat this. The account has been blocked. It's over. If Rlevse wants to come back after exercising courtesy RTV, there is a process which he is certainly experienced enough to follow. All the issues, real or imagined, about whether he should be permitted to return and on what terms can be hashed out then. This hardly seems the time or place. Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232[edit]

Per WP:CBAN, moved here