Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive770

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

The Toven[edit]

The blocking will continue until clue improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 25 September 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.

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but the user The Toven has lashed out at two editors, Sionk and Snowysusan, and made accusations at WikiProject San Diego after attempting to create autobiographical articles about his band and albums using the Articles for Creation process and has referred to previous attempts at creating similar articles in mainspace that date back five years. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any immediate administrative action needed here. The Toven (talk · contribs) and/or 72.214.60.108 (talk · contribs) do need some assistance with understanding the notability guidelines, but that's assistance that any user can provide, not just admins. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what some of us have been trying to do. Our reward has been an increasing level of abuse.[2] The user needs to be warned not to attack other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have 'awarded' the user with a level 4im personal attack warning. He has also 'lashed out' at myself on Sionk's talkpage. This kind of behaviour from any editor is not acceptable. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible socking threat: [3]. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have been dealing with The Toven as well on my talk page. He has not quit since the warning from Osarius... The Toven is also unsigning his posts, as seen [[4]]. Wywin (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, seen enough. Blocked indef for disruptive editing, and he appears to be only here to create promotional articles about topics he has some relation to. The Toven can be unblocked anytime he gains some WP:CLUE about the correct way to edit Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 25 September 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.

List of programs broadcast by Fox[edit]

WP:ANEW is thataway.
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.

Hi everyone. There is currently a content dispute and edit warring at List of programs broadcast by Fox regarding the recent expanision of its content for FL status. I actually added lots of details there for FL per WP:FL?, and Vjmlhds has reverted those many times, and I have also reverted back slumberous times. He say that no other "list of programs" articles has those details, (those are regular List-class article, not FLs, so there not really "model articles"). He/she also stated that "it's a matter of article format. There are pages for the history of the networks, and pages like this that are strictly lists. What you're doing is gunking up the works needlessly by adding WP:CRUFT", disagree, take a look at every list at WP:FL, which contains some details. WP:CRUFT doesn't apply in this very case. Earlier today, Davejohnsan requested full page protection for now for us to solve the dispute, but it isn't working. I strongly believe this information is required per the above, and edit summaries at the Fox programs list edit history. Where should we go from here? Thanks so much! TBrandley 00:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, both of you stopping the 8RR edit war immediately would be a good start. Dayewalker (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but this has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as it better works there, another user is also there. Regards, TBrandley 01:25, 26 September 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.

Moving a page to a salted name 2[edit]

A salted battery. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 25 September 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.

It happened again! I just did an early close at Talk:Die Young (Ke$ha song), but Die Young (Kesha song) is salted. Almost like it's not a good idea to salt articles that will almost certainly be created at some point. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted three times, so I reported the matter to the person who performed the most recent deletion. See User_talk:Reaper_Eternal#Die_Young_(Kesha_song) Digifiend (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Moved. Thanks for helping out at RM, BDD. Jenks24 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 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.

Does it bother anyone else that (a) this article is eligible for speedy deletion, as it is essentially the same as the article deleted at an AFD 10 days ago, and (b) the current article violates copyright, because it is clearly based on the now deleted article that used to be at that title? Sometimes pages are salted for a reason, and it's worth asking the admin who salted it and waiting for their reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the old versions, so at least there's not a copyright violation anymore. A G4 deletion would make sense, but I don't have the energy to argue with the people who've recreated the page at least 5 times after it was deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry Floq. I generally do check these things and I had meant to in this case, but I got in a rush about something IRL and got distracted. Apologies. If you or anyone else thinks it's G4-able, go for it. Jenks24 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry Jenks24, my snark is directed at you and BDD and Digifiend when it should be directed at the people who've recreated the article 5 times with no consequences. I'm not going to G4 it myself, because I won't be online much longer to face the inevitable disagreement with a G4, probably along the lines of "the single is [supposedly] going to released tomorrow", and "the third sentence is different so it isn't exactly the same", and "there's another source now, so do another AFD". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
If you're ever willing to try and talk some sense into people at WT:CSD, please do; god knows we could use it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the single is mentioned both at the article on her and the discography one, may be next time turn it in to a protected redirect to one of these? Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I originally asked for the article titles to be salted when I proposed the second(?) speedy, because (as already pointed out above) someone tried to recreate the article several times within quick succession after the conclusion of the AfD. They then vandalised the Black Sabbath Die Young article in another attempt. The Kesha article was based on Twitter announcements and a general statement by Kesha at a red carpet event. Whether its a redirect or something else, IMO it definitely needs protecting for now. From what I've sen from my watchlist the title has been salted for 2 months, which seems not unreasonable. Sionk (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It is now protected as a redirect for two months. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why the talk page was completely deleted? That's vandalism you know. Digifiend (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it? dangerouspanda 09:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No, talk pages for deleted articles can be deleted at any time per WP:CSD#G8 - "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page." However, if there's important discussion in the talk page you want to access, an admin (or friendly panda) may be able to get it back for you. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Triggercon[edit]

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

Resolved

This user seems to be posing as an administrator by issuing tags or messages that makes it appear the user has been blocked, when in fact, they have not (as far as I can tell, anyway) (e.g. [5] [6] [7] [8]). This is obviously inappropriate and disruptive behavior, particularly for new users. Can an administrator please take care of this? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Triggercon is a two-day-old account. Obviously not an admin. It seems to be an SPA where the SP is to claim different users are "blocked" without warning and without any authority to implement a block or ban. Almost every edit from Triggercon over the last two days has been disruptive. His edits need to be reverted immediately (especially those that are clearly in breach of WP:NEWCOMER, where he has posted on new user talk pages) and a block, in my opinion, is absolutely in order. Crazy stuff. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Blocked by User:Boing! said Zebedee. --Rschen7754 06:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Nicely done. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 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.

Disruptive editing by User:TheRealCrews[edit]

TheRealCrews blocked as a sock of ThunderousMastering, directed to pursue usual unblock with COI conditions. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 26 September 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.

User:The Real Crews submitted an article to AfC which I declined last week because it did not have sources to prove the claims in the article or the subject's notability. TRC denied anything was amiss with their article, reverted my action and, subsequently this week, moved the draft article to mainspace unchanged - see Jamey Harrow.

Because the article claimed the subject had won multiple awards, but provided no proof, today I nominated the article for an Afd discussion. TRC removed the AfD template from the article and, in apparent retribution, PROD'd [9] an article, ROA (artist) I had written for deletion. As is my right, I removed the template [10] because it seemed obviously disruptive action on their part.

TRC has now added an AfD template [11] to the same article, but not launched an AfD (I'm guessing as they are a new editor they don't understand the process). I can't remove the template myself, though it seems to be serving no purpose. NB the other party has subsequently completed the WP:POINT-ey AfD nomination.

TRC has removed the AfD from Jamey Harrow twice [12] [13] and I've subsequently replace it twice and warned them [14] [15] not to repeat their action.

Obviously because it seems the editor is being uncooperative and claiming 'ownership' of their article [16] [17] [18], it might not solve matters for me to deal with the sittuation as a personal tit-for-tat, so I'd appreciate secondary help or advice. Thanks. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sionk (talk) was asked twice prior to this event not to edit the page in question and allow someone with an understanding of the subject. Deletion tags were taken down on his part on pages he had created as well therefore he is guilty of the same infraction. Deletion tags on my end were taken down due to reviewers previous vandalism of the page. They have been now left alone and the case has been stated. The page in question did not need to be changed as all guidelines had been met and the requested citations had been added however the reviewer refused to acknowledge them. The sources were updated contrary to the statement above I would also appreciate some secondary advice. --TheRealCrews (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Please re-read the AfD template from the top of the Jamey Harrow article, especially the part which says this notice must not be removed. In addition, you might want to re-read the PROD template, which allows that template to be removed at will. Please note that, when YOU add an AfD template to an article, you MUST complete the process to nominate the article for deletion, explaining why you think the article should be deleted. In addition, please read WP:POINT. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You also falsely claimed that the article was "Accepted" when you moved it from AfC into article space. In addition, the article at AfC was initially created by User:ThunderousMastering, which not only is a COI violation, but a violation of Username because of the promotional nature of the name. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:ThunderousMastering Has been told not to edit further on their talk page, tagging the article accepted when moving it was the wrong thing to do, my apologies. I stand by my statement that :Sionk (talk) nominated the article for deletion because his review was discredited due to the vandalism on my page and all the complaints on his talk page about his reviewing. --TheRealCrews (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Please indent your comments so that the discussion is easier to follow. I've corrected the indenting above. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. Sionk asked you to not remove the tags and said you were welcome to participate in the discussion. You cannot pick and choose who edits which articles. There is no concept of ownership on Wikipedia. A live article can be edited by whomever has a contribution to make, or in some cases, a claim to dispute. This is not the first time an editor has felt passionately about an article that has been nominated for deletion. It happens often. If the article is deleted and you wish for it to be recreated, build it in a sandbox and find reliable sources. Until then, participate with other articles. Find a project you're interested in. 68.200.150.22 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh good another unsigned in user who shows up to defend Sionk, amazing the article was up for review for weeks and nothing but you guys just come out of the woodwork to support him within only a few hours. Thanks for your input possible Sock of Sionk (talk) --TheRealCrews (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhps the anon should have linked to WP:OWN and WP:DELETE, so you can see that these are two official site policies, not just something someone felt like saying to piss you off. You don't have to like it, but you are not free to disregard it if you wish to participate in editing here. DMacks (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems WP:AGF needs to be linked, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Just when you bring up AGF....Connormah (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Wearing my SPI clerk hat, I've deleted that SPI case per our usual practice with bad faith SPIs, and, wearing my admin hat, I've closed the retaliatory AFD as speedy keep, per WP:SK #2b. It's a more interesting question whether a block is needed here, or perhaps TRC will take the hint... T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing this guy harasses me, you ignore every insult and accusation towards me but then delete all my concerns which were ALL valid. The fact that no admins or reviewers on this website seem to want to help at all is ridiculous. --TheRealCrews (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TRC, it is of course possible that you're right and that Wikipedia is a failsite full of idiots ready to vandalise and insult the work of folks like yourself. However another possibility is that the reason you are feeling ganged up on is because you are the one out of step. This isn't necessarily your fault; why should it be OK to remove a PROD notice and not an AfD one? Why shouldn't things you personally know to be true be included in an article? As a newcomer you're not to know the answers to these questions. The unfortunate fact is that the size and prominence of Wikipedia mean there are some rules about what is and isn't OK, and to a necomer they seem pretty arbitrary. However they have grown up for a reason and there's no bucking them; if you don't like them, you'll need to find somewhere else to post your information. If you don't understand them but would like to figure them out that's another matter - any of us here will gladly explain how they work. But carrying on ignoring them after you've been told about them is not going to get the result you hope for. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
TRC, what the various people here want to do is for you to slow it down and get familiar with the various policies that have been linked to. There is a veritable alphabet soup of pages that we tend to throw at each other and those of us who have been here a while generally know the most important ones. However, new editors, like yourself, who jump into the deep end often get tangled by the spaghetti like mess and end up being wound up and frustrated by the whole kerfuffle. As it is, I have no horse in this race so I'm suggesting that you ask that the article be usefied, which is have it transferred to your userspace, so you can work on it there and get to grips with things like notability and reliable sourcing. Check for wikiprojects that your article may be relevant to and seek advice on what to do if you get stuck. I think this is less disruptive editing so much as it's a first time article submitter getting buried under the morass that is wikipedia's policies. Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I tried to approach TRC on his talkpage about this, encouraging him to consider sandboxing the article and to work on other articles and join a project to get a better feel of how things can be done. I don't think I was heard. I did tell him that I observed his combative nature could be problematic and lead to restrictions on his editing if he continued, going so far as to clarify it was not a threat, but an observation. I don't believe the advice given is sinking in, or being acknowledged. There may be a wp:competence issue. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly the author(s) of the article is/are also the subject, which would explain why they are taking the issue as a personal insult. That's the perils of writing about things that are too close! I can't think of any other explanation why they refuse to listen to any advice or contrary opinion from anyone. The continual personal goading is quite distressing too! That'll teach me not to work at AfC when there's an 1100 backlog of frustrated new editors, eh!! Sionk (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well guess what. I ran a check on User:ThunderousMastering and it turns out he's also editing as User:TheRealCrews. ThunderousMastering was indeff'd for the username violation (its Jamie Harrow's company) at 17.00 yesterday, but prior to that had edited alongside TheRealCrews. I have indeff'd TheRealCrews as a sock account because of that (otherwise I would have treated it as a rename as he had been asked previously to rename the account). If Jamie Harrow wants to edit Wikipedia on any subject other than himself, and agrees not to sock, I would not be opposed to an unblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 26 September 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.

Oops- I spelled the name wrong[edit]

Resolved
page moved Mdann52 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin)
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 made an article about Slobodan Martinovic. Problem is, I spelled his name wrong. It ends with a ć, not a c. Can someone change that? Legolover26 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Article moved to Slobodan Martinović - please use WP:RM in future, or feel free to move it yourself as uncontroversial. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know that what I was requesting consisted of a move, and I thought it had to be done by admins. I must be a noob. Wait a minute. I've been here for a year. That can't be. Oh, well. I have a lot to learn. There is so much stuff on Wikipedia that it takes more than 11 years to fugure it all out. Legolover26 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 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.

Not that I necessarily care all that much, but I thought the practice here was to NOT use diacritical marks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a whole new can of worms. However, at least people are using RMs &c these days and asking the community for a move, which is a great improvement on the recent diacritical move-wars, and reduces the amount of diacritical-drama which appears here on AN/I. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've always used diacritical marks with no issues. GiantSnowman 10:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07[edit]

Blocked 48 hours by Rschen7754. Mdann52 (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has taken upon himself to move Turkey to Europe without consensus. To that end he is edit-warring across many articles changing Turkey's diplomatic missions to Europe instead of Asia. I think a preventative block is warranted for this user until he understands that he cannot edit-war on such a massive scale. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good thing. Looking into this. --Rschen7754 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Blocking for 48 hours; I thought about warning but [19] is pretty telling. --Rschen7754 06:49, 26 September 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.

{{Post-close comment}}, as appears fashionable these days. It might possibly appear that a few of this new editor's WP:USERBOX-s may in some ways be construed as "I am here to pick fights". I would venture to suggest a contention that there may be a plausible chance of a possibly less than favourable outcome in this particular circumstance.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Puppet?[edit]

Sock blocked. Future sockpuppet investigations belong at WP:SPI.
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.

[20], likely puppet of Bisexual Warrior, who is another puppet. Insomesia (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway... - The Bushranger One ping only 16:28, 26 September 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.

Complex copyright/user issue[edit]

BLOCKED & DELETED
usernames blocked, articles deleted Nobody Ent 15:16, 26 September 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 took a look at AFD this morning and saw a couple of article on gangs in Calgary (FOB vs. FOBK Gang War and Calgary's Gang War Revenge). These were obviously copied from elsewhere, and I was able to find sources for both. These articles were almost entirely the work of User:NewsCanadaInc, who also worked on The Babez Crew. This article was also edited by User:CreativeCanadaCorp, who worked on almost nothing else, and also by an IP in Calgary.

I'm having a hard time working out what to do here. NewsCanada bills itself as a source of "copyright-free articles" but I have doubts that they could be used on our terms; I was unable to find a specific "Creative Canada" except for a nonworking website. As they stand, the articles mostly have serious tone and POV issues, and I question whether NewsCanada, if it prove to be the actual source of these articles, would prove to be a reliable source by our standards. Ordinarily this would go to several different noticeboards, but it seems to me that it needs to be dealt with as a single issue, so I've put it here. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Username blocks need to be issued for one thing. Blackmane (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've closed the AFD's for FOB vs. FOBK Gang War and Calgary's Gang War Revenge and deleted the articles as unambiguous copyright violations. The general topic of gang activity in Calgary seems notable and interesting, but that is another matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:53, 26 September 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.

Death Threat[edit]

BLOCKED & REV DELETED
account blocked, edits reverted & deleted Nobody Ent 14:45, 26 September 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.

Hope this is the right place. Just received this after removing attacks that 89.168.178.195 left on Talk:Jerusalem with these edits. SassyLilNugget (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP after a (possibly unrelated) report at AIV, but I saw the above threat in the contribution history. SassyLilNugget, if you are at all concerned, please contact emergency@wikimedia.org as well as posting here. The IP geolocates to Birmingham, UK, if that eases your mind at all. Yunshui  12:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it does ease my mind. I will keep it in mind to email if this ever happens again. Thanks again for the quick resolution, SassyLilNugget (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yuk. I've Revision Deleted the edits to Talk:Jerusalem and to your talkpage. No need to keep them around. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Elen; should have thought to do that myself. Yunshui  13:20, 26 September 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:GregJackP and possible canvassing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list[edit]

GregJackP has quite legitimately posted at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list, asking for help in improving the article Censorship in Islamic societies, which is currently subject to an AfD discussion. However, the posting also stated that "In addition, there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship. There is currently an RfC, so imput on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved". [21] This appeared to me to be canvassing, in that it was improperly asking for support for a particular position at the RfC, and accordingly I commented on this in the thread. [22]. In reply GregJackP wrote that "... if you feel it was canvasing, file a complaint. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, as these type of unfounded accusations have been addressed over and over again. Guess what - it's not canvassing". [23] Since I'm not interested in 'guessing' whether it was canvassing or not, I'll ask the question here: was it canvassing, and if so, what action (if any) should be taken about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The tone of his proclamation at ARS was definitely not neutral. (Disclosure: I !voted to delete that article.) Tijfo098 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • What tone are you reading into this? Seems neutral to me. And work was being done on the article, but edit warring kept going on, and it is now locked from future editing. Dream Focus 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding what is going on with article content, that wasn't the issue. As I said, posting at ARS asking for help including an article is legitimate - but canvassing for support at an RfC isn't. How can a request for input at an RfC (which is beyond the ARS remit) which states that "there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship" be neutral? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Asking for help at ARS with improving the article to save from deletion = fine. Suggesting that editors of a certain persuasion weigh in on an RfC related to that = definitely not fine, in exactly the same way it would be if the target was an AfD instead of an RfC. Being incivil to someone pointing that issue out = simply compounding the problematic behaviour. GrepJackP has some explaining to do here. Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't have the ability to pull diffs effectively right now (I'm on my phone), but will respond more fully later. In brief, I asked for help in saving an article at ARS, and worded it neutrally, including all the factors involved. As to asking editors of a certain persuation? I think that it is fairly clear that I'm a deletionist - yet I'm on ARS all the time, as are others who are deletionists. Not all of those who are at ARS are of a single viewpoint. In addition, the article was at AFD at the same time, and in the past posting a notice at ARS has been held to not be canvassing. Perhaps I was a tad incivil, but it is really irritating to be accused of canvassing everytime something is posted to ARS. GregJackP Boomer! 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As recently as June of this year, there was an RfC about ARS and canvassing [24]. The RfC came to two conclusion that really relevant here, 1) that "The project is designed to improve articles, not participate in AfDs, and members who forget this should be reminded;" and 2) that "Editors who believe that the group has bias are welcome to join it to make it more neutral." The "canvassing issue was found not to be a problem when neutrally phrased notices were used.
The issue has come up numerous time, every time someone makes an ARS notification. It is time for that to end, and users should assume good faith instead of immediately crying out "canvassing" instead of assuming good faith and believing that the other party believes that the article can be saved.
I'm a deletionist, and the people at ARS know that. Its not a secret, I've joked with some of them about being deletionist. That doesn't mean that articles that are viable to the project don't need to be saved, and I've done my share of that too. This is one of those cases, where the article can be saved. There are plenty of good references, but they keep getting deleted from the article by Roscelese [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. That was 7 reverts in 3 days, and one of the reasons that I went to ARS, hoping to find a way to save the article. I haven't dealt with WP:COATRACK issues much, and I needed help, not in !votes (it was about 50-50 on the AFD, and RFC was about 24 hrs old (and hadn't yet posted to the RFC pages). I needed help in how to get the material from the various academic sources into the article so that Roscelese could not make the "coatrack" argument. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If the "help" you were seeking is "help me find an innovative way of putting the irrelevant information into the article since I wasn't able to do it on my own" rather than "help me understand why my understanding of policy was incorrect before so I can edit better in the future," you are doing it wronb. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope, it was asking for help on how to deal with an editor that doesn't follow policy, not on what the policy is. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
As a sidenote, how should one deal with such blatant disregard of discussion? I know that she has had these issues in the past, [32], but she is clearly not open to any discussion on the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Whine, whine, whine. A click of the mouse will show that you didn't have consensus for any of your edits, so what could you possibly hope to gain from making yourself into an innocent victim? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is consensus. Clear consensus on not requiring academic sources, clear consensus that the word "censorship" does not have to appear in the source as long as it is clear from the context, and consensus on the amended definition. In addition, there was absolutely no consensus for your repeatedly removing sourced material, nor for your edit warring. Finally, on the AfD, it is even, and the arguments of the Keep !votes are much stronger than the weak arguments on the delete side. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
A 'consensus' to ignore policy is meaningless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Since there wasn't a consensus to "ignore policy" I have no idea what you're talking about. Rocselese was the one that suggested only "academic" sources be used, consensus (and policy) states that only reliable sources are needed. There is no policy that a specified word has to be in the source, despite what she claimed. Consensus of the community agreed. Finally, there are numerous articles and projects that use working definitions, and no policy either for or against that. The community came to a consensus what definition should be used in this article, after compromise (i.e., it wasn't the original one proposed, but was modified to obtain consensus). GregJackP Boomer! 03:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, here's the text in full:

The only unstated (but easily inferrable) info is that the "delete COATRACK" AfD !votes were made by those arguing (there and in the RfC) that material not classifiable as censorship had been added. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Doesn't seem luike egregrious canvassing to me, the wording about "overly narrow definition" I think could well simply be an unconscious failure to be completely neutral. I would be happy to assume good faith here and simply let GregJackP know that the wording is not sufficiently neutrally worded and that we expect future notices to be more neutral. The fact that he didn't himself agf with Andy is a problem but also not meriting more than an admonition to communicate in a collegiate spirit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I can see how "overly narrow definition" could be seen as not completely neutral, and I will strive to be more careful about my choice of words in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think WP:Canvass should be redefined as an essay, an advice to follow, rather than an official guideline to punish people for posting messages. This harms collaboration. We must encourage all types of communication in the project, not discourage them. I know, this is a highly unpopular idea, but you do not want to control and censor communications in collaborative projects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh no, censorship! God, it's just everywhere! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While I'm involved in this article already and thus already know what edits GregJackP is trying to solicit with this posting, I still don't see how, looking with an eye that attempts to be objective, it isn't canvassing. ARS, per its mission statement, aims to acknowledge and address deletion rationales, but GregJackP's statement asks ARS contributors to deny that delete !voters have valid points (as well as to support his position in the RFC). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Where did I ask anyone to "deny" anything? Or to support my position? I asked for help on saving an article that deserves to be here, and for "input." I know those guys well enough that if they don't agree, they'll say so (usually because I'm on the delete side of the argument). GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GregJackP overstepped the bounds of neutral article alerts in trying to get the ARS regulars to accept his viewpoint of the article before they even saw it. Thus his notice was canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This isn't the first issue of canvassing of the board by GregJackP [33]. If you post on ARS when there is an AfD in progress, you can almost guarantee a flow of uninformed inclusionists will vote. A great example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection: " Keep This guy created a lot of notable math/science things. Many scholars do cite this." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection have to do with me? Never saw it or posted about it. Look, I understand that, just like you did in the Baggett case, want to just jump up and down and say "canvassing" - except that the article was improved dramatically since it went to ARS. It now has 16 sources, thanks to myself and 3 editors from ARS that added material to the article. Look at the edit history at the article. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The advection and many other AFDs shows that there are editors who will go to AfDs and can be almost guaranteed to vote keep if you add a topic to the list at ARS, even if it involves them making arguments that they know to be false or which are plainly silly. You didn't add the notification that it had been listed at ARS either. A number of squadron members appeared at the AfD following the canvass, including Dream Focus and Warden came and voted keep. ARS contains a smaller core who advocate keeping articles at all costs and who fear the mythical editors who want to delete everything [34][35], even hypothesing secret cabals: "Originally the people were able to band together and drive away those that would seek to bring only destruction and misery. Then one day an organized cabal of deletionists did appear, and begin writing up guidelines, to give them excuse to eliminate things they didn't like." It's clear from your wording here that you are canvassing for keep votes: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Censorship_in_Islamic_societies IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This was indeed clearly canvassing. A recurring problem at the ARS list, e.g. "notices" like "Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar. Articles about Gibraltar are currently in the firing line and this is the first that I've come across. I pounced on it immediately following the similar case of Hotel Bristol which was recently Kept at AFD. Warden (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)" (Emphasis in original). Bolding "kept", and claiming that an AFD on an article about the general issue of hotels being named Bristol throughout the world is similar or relevant to an article about one specific such hotel? Yeah, totally neutral. Notices like this one start off with some minor editing advice, and then go on to issue an AfD advice. Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So? AfD are listed a number of places, such as WP:MILHIST - is that canvassing too? I watch the ARS - and a lot of time will go to the article, look at it, and !vote delete. GregJackP Boomer! 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a common misunderstanding that canvassing must have the desired effect to be actualy considered "canvassing". And I said a recurring problem, not that every single post (or perhaps even a majority of them) at that list are canvassers, or that all people using it are consistently voting keep. Providing evidence of ARS list notices that were neutral, or ARS members agreeing to delete an article at AfD, don't negate that some notices (like the one under discussion, or the other examples given) may be intended to canvass. Fram (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GregJackP misrepresenting sources?[edit]

See these examples by Binksternet. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true, see my response here. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"It is extremely clear from the context of the article", i.e you are inferring it and doing original research. For example, you are saying that "limitations on the freedom of speech" is censorship. I don't think limits on free speech are necessarily censorship; for example stopping speech which involves defamation or libel issues would not be censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Not according to the policy, which states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Each of the sources independently state the exact material cited.
"demonstrated the censorship effect of Islamic blasphemy laws with the arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons in Sudan." was cited by Graham, L. Bennett (2009). "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?". Emory International Law Review (Emory University) 23: 69. The source text stated:
  1. "Language amounting to hate speech or incitement to violence is considered dangerous to the wellbeing of society and is therefore restricted. But there is a very high threshold for what amounts to censorable speech." and then started giving a series of examples.
  2. Example 3 was Gibbons, stating: "She complied with the wish of her students to name the bear Muhammad only to find herself behind bars for defaming the Prophet Muhammad."
This is out of one source, not multiple sources like stated in the WP:SYNTH policy.
The second source likewise was cited to support the exact material cited.
"She was arrested by 'men with big beards ... saying they wanted to kill her'" was cited by Belknap, Allison G. (2010). "Defamation of Religions: A Vague and Overbroad Theory that Threatens Basic Human Rights". Brigham Young University Law Review (Brigham Young University) 2010: 635. which stated: "British School teacher, Gillian Gibbons, was arrested by "men with big beards … saying they wanted to kill her" and imprisoned..."
"Only the intervention of the British government prevented harsher punishment." cited by both, with Belknap stating: "Within a month, she had been sentenced to prison but granted a presidential pardon, largely due to the intervention of two British Muslim parliamentarians." and Graham stating: "It was only after the British government intervened that Gibbons was freed and deported from Sudan."
Unless you can show that I took material from more than one source and merged it together, it is neither SYNTH nor OR. Each source independently supports the statements that they are cited for, again, clearly, from the articles. Try reading the actual policy. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think Synthesis is the limit of original research you are mistaken. You are taking material, and linking it to an article based on your own pre-conceived notions rather than anything very explicit in the text to link it. That is the definition of original research. It should say something along the lines of "There are many examples of censorship in islamic countries. One example of censorship is ..." but it doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this not OR, not WP:SYN and not misrepresentation of sources, as I tried to explain here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Some people have trouble with basic logic, I fear. All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X. In this particular case, censorship is a limit on freedom of expression, but not all ways to limit the freedom of expression are imposed through censorship. Our article on censorship doesn't say that killing someone for what they said is censorship; the words "kill" or "murder" don't even appear in that article. If a source says that some act (like a murder) was done with the intent to curtail/violate the freedom of expression, it doesn't follow that we can call it censorship at the drop of a hat. To do so is extremely silly, devaluing the more gruesome ways in which human rights can be violated (including freedom of expression), and is simply WP:OR as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
And where exactly did I link "kill" or "murder" to anything? As I noted below, you need to point to something specific in the policy that I allegedly violated. Someone pointed to SYNTH, it was clearly not SYNTH, anymore that shark attacks in the Red Sea are SYNTH. GregJackP Boomer! 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Your whole response is original research on your part. You are justifying inclusion of material by doing research to link it to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
You're making a conclusory statement without supporting it with policy. Exactly what part of the policy are you claiming I violated? The only specific area that anyone pointed out was SYNTH, which I addressed above, and which was just as clearly not violated. I can make all sort of conclusory statements, but without both evidence to support it and a specific part of the policy that was allegedly violated, it means nothing. Point me to exactly what part of the policy you believe I violated, and I'll address it. I've also noted that the original comment, that I misrepresented the source, seems to have gone away, perhaps due to the fact the sources support the material they were cited to. GregJackP Boomer! 11:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I said original research, SYNTH is just a paragraph of that. Read the lead of WP:NOR: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. If you can't show by the source alone that it's relevant without looking at other sources, you are engaging in original research. IRWolfie- (talk)
"If you can't show by the source alone that it's relevant without looking at other sources, you are engaging in original research." Shakes head. What do you think I just outlined above? One source, Graham, supports what I put in the article. Both for the exact comments and censorship. One source. The other source provided a quote and backed up (i.e. was a second reference) another statement. What part of this are you having problems with? I could have supported the paragraph in the article with Graham alone. That's not original research. GregJackP Boomer! 21:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere?[edit]

As enjoyable as all of this has been, is this going anywhere? It seems to me to be a content and sources issue now, neither of which belong on this board. I've only seen a few admins comment (during the first half), and I've taken all of their comments to heart. If this is nothing other than spurious allegations and a gripe session, might I suggest that it is time to close this? GregJackP Boomer! 11:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to archive before he posts another similar complaint about another editor here [36]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Andy has identified an issue with ARS with canvassing by Greg and others, an issue a number of other editors have also noticed, and for some reason you wish to archive it rather than look at it? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at this already and do not see any reasons for sanctions. I hold a general view about such requests that they should never be posted on ANI. I think WP:Canvass should be redefined as an essay, an advice to follow, rather than an official guideline to punish people for posting such messages. We must encourage all types of communication in the project, not discourage them. These messages get more people involved in improvement of articles and commenting about them. The more the better. As about AfDs and RfC, they suppose to be closed by a closing administrator based on merit of the argument, not based on the head count. So I do not see any problem. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
So your argument that the thread should be closed wasn't based on what the guideline says, but on what you think it should say? Fine - then argue for it to be changed somewhere else - but meanwhile the guideline stays, and your opinion is irrelevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No. His original statement was not neutral only in the sense that he wants the article be improved and saved (rather than advocating any specific position on the RfC). This is something expected by default at the article rescue noticeboard, not canvassing My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
"there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship". If he argues that it is 'overly narrow' he is canvassing for that position, end of story. And he has no business whatsoever canvassing for an RfC at an unrelated noticeboard. Frankly, I can see no legitimate purpose in even mentioning the RfC, and am thinking about proposing a fixed format for ARS noticeboard postings to prevent such misuse. If the noticeboard is to serve its legitimate purpose, all that is needed is for the article name to be listed, together with a simple neutral request for those interested to consider whether they can improve the article, if they consider it is a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There is no need to go into details at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but that statement is contrary to common practices, and I fundamentally disagree. You want this discussion closed because, even though you agree it is canvassing, you think canvassing should be encouraged. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is the essence of your argument : "If you post on ARS when there is an AfD in progress, you can almost guarantee a flow of uninformed inclusionists will vote". Yes, this might be frequently the case. But the bulk of ARS postings happens during AfD discussions. So, we basically have two choices: (a) to close ARS down, and (b) to allow people post to ARS during AfD discussions. Solution (a) was discussed some time ago on ANI and received no support/consensus. So, practically speaking, we can only follow (b). If not, one should post a big banner on the ARS: telling Posting articles on ARS during AfD discussions is prohibited (if we had WP:Consensus that such postings are indeed prohibited). But until we have the banner on the ARS, such ANI requests and discussions will look very much like block-shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
How many times to you have to be told this?' It wasn't posting at the ARS noticeboard that was canvassing, it was advocating a position at the RfC. The ARS noticeboard isn't a remotely appropriate place to be doing such a thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in the diff above GregJackP said: "There is currently an RfC, so input on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved." Of course the overall purpose of posting anything on ARS is to save an article. So what? He did not suggest anything specific to tell on the RfC, and if you look at the actual RFC [37], I do not see anything terribly wrong there. And that's why you started this whole ANI tread? My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit is still bullshit, no matter how many times you repeat it. A statement that something is an "overly narrow definition" isn't neutral. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

More on Sharyl Attkisson[edit]

LT-ing IPs rangeblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 26 September 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.

The article on Sharyl Attkisson has been a recurrent item on ANI. I stumbled upon it here a few weeks ago in the last time it was brought here regarding more legal threats by someone from the subject's employer, CBS News.

Numerous blocks have been issued to the ip-hopping editor(s) after numerous legal threats have been made and my most recent attempt to inform the editor of how to resolve issues like this was met with news of the impending expose story on Wikipedia. Given the circumstances, I'd like additional eyes on this, please. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the complaint is legitimate to the extent that the article's sourcing should be improved. There does seem to be a reliance on blogs for criticism of her reporting on vaccine safety. There are reliable sources critical of Atkisson's reporting - for example, Paul Offit's book Deadly Choices describes Atkisson's links to the anti-vaccine movement and suggests that these links color her reporting. I don't have my copy of Autism's False Prophets handy, but it may be worth reviewing as well.

Mostly, though, we combat ignorance about vaccines by providing solid scientific information in our articles on vaccines, not by using blogs to slag the biographies of reporters viewed as anti-vaccine. I'm not personally willing to touch this article, because I'm allergic to litigious people (and there appears to be one on the talkpage) and because my personal view of the subject's scientific journalism is profoundly negative and would probably color my editing. So I'm just saying, is all. MastCell Talk 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure Offit can be considered impartial when it comes to Attkisson. They have a fair amount of history. Salzburg is actually a more credible source in this instance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Dr. Offit is not a wise sourcing choice since he already had to revise the aforementioned book once after a libel charge and paid a settlement, and was also the subject of a major retraction of false statements he made about Attkisson in the Orange County Register. Also, what is the justification for cherry picking one story from thousands of subjects and then including only disparaging opinion blogs as sources, which are unreliable sources under BLP, and also failing to balance that with the many reliable and positive cites on the same vaccine stories (including New England Journal of Medicine and other cites offered up by the subject) as well representing the greater body of work? Clearly the editors here have a specific one-sided agenda and it makes everyone look a bit silly to advance it in such an obvious, unfair fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.247.118 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you that we should not be citing blogs in the biography, least of all for disparaging comments. MastCell Talk 19:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This seems like a classic ignore all rules situation. We have several medical experts saying Attkisson filed reports that promote discredited claims about vaccines and autism. That they raised their objections in blogs does not change the fact that they can be taken as reliable sources for noting their position on her reporting given their experience with medicine, including one who is directly experienced with viral infections. Her bio is filled with positive commentary with just that one sentence noting criticism so it is not like this is an attack page or undue weight.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats continue[edit]

I'm going to step away from this article since the IP has concluded that I'm not neutral (having never edited the article). However, there are continued assertions of "libel" from CBS IPs [38] being posted to the talk page that probably should be dealt with. Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear-cut case to me. a13ean (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I blocked two ranges: 170.20.11.0/27 and 170.20.240.0/20. Hopefully that'll put an end to it.--v/r - TP 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The rangeblock apparantly missed 170.20.247.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is commenting in the section above. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That was before the rangeblock.--v/r - TP 20:49, 26 September 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.

DRN issue[edit]

Waveclaira indeffed for probable sock puppetry and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=514614430&oldid=514613948

i believe this is a fair and reliable conclusion based on the wiki guidelines. if you dont agree, ok. if you agree, then --

this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=514614655&oldid=514614524 is more of a very minor annoyance than anything and even though it is just a bother im still posting it anyhow because i feel it is harassing. please review my conclusion and make your neutral comments based on that.

Waveclaira (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"in this case, it seemed really clear. maybe the opener had a misunderstanding, but i dont think the opener of this case should continue editing wikipedia." - very bad conclusion to a content dispute. The formatting is way off, and it doesn't seem like you understand how DRN works (arbitrators!?) Sure, Amadscientist may have been blunt, but it doesn't strike me as rude. Also, you need to notify Amadscientist per instructions at the top of the page. --Rschen7754 08:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
ok so you have a problem with SubSeven who said "If the arbitrator can figure out" -- you dont sound neutral at all
"you need to notify Amadscientist per instructions at the top of the page" -- already did that right after posting this, you dont seen to know what you're doing, especially considering this is the ANI, that's far worse.
"very bad conclusion to a content dispute" -- ok, the entire piece is the conclusion, and that part was what i thought a solution was -- you selectively picking is pretty meaningless. hopefully i can get some intelligent neutral comments, because right now, i really really hate you, mainly for your complete lack of responsibility in the problem i brought up about the person i felt was harassing me. if not, then ok. i'll just see that's how you people are. Waveclaira (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what harassment is; he would have to follow you around to unrelated topics in order for it to be harassment. Look, it seems that all you want is a "neutral" editor to back you up; please read WP:IDHT, because that's what this is starting to sound like. Good luck. --Rschen7754 09:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying "I really really hate you" is not a good way to get people to have empathy for your argument. I don't want to be picking up toys later. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Waveclaira, I've actually left you messages on your talk page and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before seeing this. There is a very disturbing pattern, and an unusual one for a "new" user, enough to warrant a closer look as a majority of your edits seem very confrontational in tone, to say the least. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


(edit conflict)In relation to the DRN post you linked to;
    • Firstly, dismissing a report on WP:DRN as silliness is entirely the wrong way to help the editors resolve their issue. Your conclusion and close of the post was entirely inappropriate, since by closing it, you are assuming that your conclusion is correct and there is no need for the opinions of other DRN volunteers.
    • Secondly, Arbitrator has a very specific meaning on wikipedia and you are not an arbitrator, mediator perhaps but not Arbitrator, but this a relatively minor detail.
    • Thirdly, although you removed your statement, telling someone that they should not be editing Wikipedia is a flagrant assumption of bad faith.
More generally,
    • Please sign your posts appropriately
    • Please work on appropriate punctuation, responding to people with improper capitalisation and punctuation gives the impression that you are not taking their dispute seriously.
    • Read WP:HARASS as Amadscientist was most definitely not harassing you and their revert of your close was entirely appropriate. Harassment is the sustained following by one editor of another editor's edits, usually followed by regular reversions. I see you and Amadscientist butted heads a few times on [talk page] where, to be brutally honest, your attitude was basically combatative. You had some misunderstandings about how to go about making major edits in the way you did, were pointed in the direction of how to gain consensus for your edits but instead rebuffed Amadscientist and Johnathanfu's advice with your own interpretation of consensus.
    • In general, you might want to read up on more policy pages before continuing your editing, particularly WP:CONSENSUS, which seems to be one that you're having most trouble with. In total good faith, I assume you have been around the block as an IP or what not, but your contribs tell me that you've been delving in areas that most new editors would not approach. You've been here barely a month and yet you're doing FA reviews, GA nominations, DRN and making major changes to policy pages. That's not saying you can't edit in those areas but in general only very experienced editors or admins would do anything there and definitely by diving in head first. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've spent about two hours looking into this, well I did get sidetracked repeatedly, but clearly you did not follow some basic required practices:

  1. Before you make sweeping pronouncements investigate the matter, read all about it: edit history, relevant policy, talk about the policy and how it is applied, etc. This can take hours for an experienced user; for a new user such as you, considerably longer and will involved asking more questions than making pronouncements.
  2. Be patient with other new, inexperienced, or uninformed editors. Don't dismiss people as "silly", or in any other derogatory way. Don't pronounce someone else as being unfit to edit. We, the community, do that, but only when experience shows that it is impossible for them to edit constructively.
  3. Be bold after you're informed and prepared, not before.

So, looking at your edit history, it looks like you're trying real hard, but perhaps running the wrong way on this particular football field. Take a deep breath and start over, do a bit of editing, become more familiar with our policies and how they are applied in practice, and become a trusted productive editor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Being bold after being informed and prepared isn't being bold. The key to being bold is to only make a particular edit once, and then immediately back down and start discussing. Nobody Ent 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, some mechanism to attract the attention of interested parties must be employed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:45, 26 September 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:Kendrick7 - Faliure to abide by AfD v2[edit]

I'd like to continue the topic of this thread. It all stems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney's tax returns. Basically, after the Afd was closed, Kendrick tried to add some of the content of the article to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, was reverted, and then recreated the deleted article. It was protected as a redirect, I gave him a final warning about edit warring, and he went on wikibreak. He returned a couple days ago to recreate the article at a slightly different name Tax returns of Mitt Romney, which I deleted as a G4 and warned him to stop again. (The edit history of the two tax return articles was deleted before the final re-protection.) He then returned to try to re-add the whole article to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, I reverted, and he is now edit warring to keep it there, and accusing me of vandalism. I think he should be blocked, preferably until after the election, to prevent further disruption. In order to avoid any appearance of involved administrative action, I'll ask for someone else to block him. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've reverted Kendrick once already, so I can't do it, but I support the block. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • These people are just vandals, who do not respect WP:ENC. Our fundamental purpose as an encyclopedia is to inform our readers and let them be the judge of what information we put in our readers hands. Vandals disagree with that and only want to promote ignorance. How very clever that they have shown up here to support each other! -- Kendrick7talk 03:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • He's been blocked thanks to TParis. I was just about to take him to 3RRNB and hadn't seen this thread yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
...And per WP:ENC: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ANARCHY". When we make a decision, we expect people to stick by it, or argue against it in the proper manner, not ignore it. (And before you ask, I wasn't involved in the decision, and were I to express my personal opinion of Mitt Romney, or his politics, I'd probably be in trouble once again for use of profanities on Wikipedia... ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, plenty of articles are deleted and then re-created via the proper channel. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This article falls under general sanctions. TParis is watching some of these.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
03:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, he's broken 3rr and edit warred to add vandalism warning templates to other editors... could someone block him now? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And TParis has blocked him, looks like the problem is solved. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, blocked. I skipped the procedural step of warning the user about the article probation. If some other administrator feels this isn't an appropriate application of WP:IAR, they are welcome to accept the unblock request but I strongly suggest a topic ban.--v/r - TP 04:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused here. Creating a new article to replace a deleted one is obviously problematic, but an AfD does not declare that the content can't be added to another article, only that it doesn't warrant a separate article. So why were you edit-warring on this? —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff
 
04:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't preclude a merge, but discussion should take place. That content needed to be trimmed drastically before going into the main article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if you check the archives, he had tried to add this to the main article in the past but couldn't get consensus. At that point it's disruptive to continually re-add it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • He's up to his third unblock request with largely the same exact text. Anyone want to do the honors? --Jayron32 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the content dispute, dumping the whole lot in (presumably - I can't see the deleted article) with an edit summary of "restore content per WP:PRESERVE" and then describing subsequent deletions as "vandalism" isn't remotely in accord with WP:BRD. And unless I'm mistaken, a proper merge would involve the edit history of the material too, for copyright reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I believe a merge of history requires an admin function. A proper merge would at least need to attribute the originating article in the edit summary with a direct link: "Content added/merged from Originating article". If this is not done a dummy edit can fulfill this requirement or just adding {{Copied}} to the talkpage of the article that had content merged "into" and then filling out the fields. Merging of content does not require discussion and can be boldly done...but then it can also be reverted and discussion begun if there is objection, which is why a proposal is suggested for more controversial articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Although...if the article being "merged" was already deleted it can't be attributed in the manners mentioned as the history is gone as well so it would need the history merged in this case, but needs an admin to do it. At any rate this seems to be the final end to this situation I hope. I remember when that article was recreated...made my head explode.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(Completely unrelated to the merits of this matter) It's probably not a good idea to history merge in such a case since that makes a real mess in tracking attribution (try wikiblame when content keeps radically changing; ouch). If content is merged from a deleted article and there is some reason that the page can't be restored and kept as a redirect, it can be moved to talk space and referenced that way. For instance, if you want to merge "Fie" to "Fee", you can move Fie to Talk:Fee/Fie (has to be talk subspace to avoid it being stumbled upon by "random page"). Then your edit summary for the merge can link to Talk:Fee/Fie. There's no rule that says that the content must stay in mainspace. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? Thanks for the info. I don't think we are aware of this at WP:WPMERGE.

Perhaps we should reconsider the definition of "vandalism" to what it actually means: Any edit in which another user disagrees with. --MuZemike 07:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism is a social construction. Try adding something serious to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a current definition. Nobody Ent 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibility of a Topic Ban?[edit]

Ok. A long term, prolific editor has now been indefinitely blocked. I do not at all dispute the need for what happened, but would like to put out feelers for an alternative solution that has a better likelihood of keeping this editor than the current state of affairs.

So, while not quite yet officially proposing a topic ban, I would like to see opinions on whether people think one would be appropriate here. As part of enacting a ban, the block length would be reduced. *Some* time should be served, but I'm thinking less than the original 3 months.

As for the topic ban itself, I'm thinking either just the topic of Romney, or the 2012 election, or US politics overall.

Anyway, does anyone else think that this is worth trying, or is this a lost cause? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

After a lot of problems in his earlier career, he did seem to have calmed down/got the policies - until Mitt Romney came along. I'm reasonably sure if he offered to stay away from articles about the gentleman, he could come back, but he needs to get back into the 'wikipedia Editor, knows the rules' frame of mind, and out of the 'crusader for the truth, rules are the devil's invention' frame of mind inspired by Mr Romney. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with Elen on this. If the user is inspired to ignore behavioral rules regarding a certain topic, but not with others, I see no problem with allowing them back so long as they never touch that topic. If Kendrick is capable of working within Wikipedia's behavioral standards in most areas of Wikipedia excepting American politics, I would be fine with him doing so. Since it seems American politics is the area which inspires him to go off the deep end, just let him edit articles about particle physics or pokemon or heraldry or whatever the heck else doesn't turn him into a Campaigner for The Truth. --Jayron32 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me...offer the topic ban as a condition of the unblock. I'd hate to lose a long term editor like that for something as stupid as politics. It probably wouldn't hurt to wait a day or so for things to cool off, though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I support the offer of a topic ban as one term of unblock...but the editor really does need to create a proper unblock request as three improper requests were made that wasted the time of others starting out as: (1)"this is plainly ridiculous", (2)"This is a joke" and (3)"That is all nonsense" [39]. There really does need to be a show of good faith before unblock, but I do support the rescue of this editor if it can be done.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban sounds fine by me. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Works for me, too. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is just one of those "it had to happen" kinda things; using the project to further personal political beliefs needs to be squashed and squashed hard. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • A topic ban seems like a minimum requirement for unblock, but seeing as, in his last unblock request, he said "I will revert vandalism until my dying breath" (where "vandalism" apparently means anything he disagrees with) then we need to see a major change of attitude too - a topic ban won't work while he's in that kind of mood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest that a topic ban would remove any motivation for him to return. The concern is edit-warring, so restricting him to 1RR within the topic would be sufficient. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I will revert vandalism until my dying breath. is a pretty dramatic statement. Either that needs clarification and withdrawing, as well as a primer on what is and isn't "vandalism", or waiting until that last breath before returning. It is pretty hard to see eye to eye with someone who is standing on a soap box, after all. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 06:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support a full topic ban, broadly construed, but he should remain blocked for, say, 2 weeks? 1 month? to allow him to calm down and re-consider his behaviour and attitude. GiantSnowman 09:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • My position would be that a topic ban might be appropriate...but not a change in block, rather leaving at indef until he can provide assurances that he won't let his anti-collaborative attitude spread elsewhere, and only then unblocking w/topic ban. This is, I believe, not his first time in the paddywagon for similar issues, after all. Or, instead of a topic ban, ISS's suggestion [40] would work. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support an early unblock, but preferably after the elections. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The only condition under which I'd consider an unblock is in conjunction with a topic ban, broadly construed, on US politics. If he agreed to such a topic ban, I'd support an immediate unblock.This is not the first time that he has run afoul of policies, guidelines, and simple common sense on political topics, and his tendentious unblock requests indicate that he simply does not get the concept of consensus, which is a prerequisite for collaborative editing. In response to User:StillStanding-247, if a topic ban removes any motivation for him to return, then he is another agenda-driven individual who doesn't have any place here. There are a fair number of editors listed at WP:RESTRICT who manage to productively edit outside of areas in which they have been topic-banned; most of those who can't are not a net loss to Wikipedia. I'd like to see Kendrick7 join the ranks of those who can edit Wikipedia in areas in which they are not disruptive. Horologium (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal threat by 24.32.196.211[edit]

Attacking IP sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:27, 26 September 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.

Hi, after issuing a warning to this IP editor, the text was replaced with this personal attack/threat: [41] This user's activity has been documented in full at User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?. Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the ip's edit as degrading and grossly offensive. Administrators may continue to view it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Charming. The brother signs his expletives with a chi rho. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 27 September 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.

Category bombing by ‎Hmains[edit]

NO ADMIN ACTION
Discussion underway on appropriate forum Nobody Ent 11:00, 27 September 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 and several other editors have extensively edited articles for New Jersey high schools, subcategorizing all high schools into separate categories for public and private high schools for each of the 21 counties in the state. Each of the 21 subcategories for public high schools, such as Category:Public high schools in Morris County, New Jersey, have Category:Public high schools in New Jersey as a parent. User:Hmains has repeatedly attempted to add Category:Public high schools in New Jersey to articles that have already been sub-categorized, edits that are both needless and in violation of WP:CAT. After having this issue explained numerous times on his talk page (see here in September and here in July among many others), Hmains has repeatedly refused to address the issues raised and has gone to category bomb the hundreds of articles in question. After the needlessly added categories were removed and after discussing this again on his talk page, Hmains stated that he would find consensus elsewhere (as none exists to support his point) and is on another category bombing run as I write. This abuse of editing to pump up his edit count for no reason and to impose his point of view should result in his AWB privileges being removed, at a minimum, to prevent further such abuses of process. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Interested parties can read the discussion and will see the misunderstandings written above. Since this is a content dispute, I opened a content discusison at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sadly, Hmains seems to be seeking a fig leaf for his abuse of AWB, needlessly editing several hundred articles and edit warring over the existence of a category that is already in the article. This had been explained to Hmains several times in the past few months, only to be ignored each time. After a rather clear explanation of why these categories were not needed, Hmains proceeded to abuse AWB again to add the same needless categories to hundreds upon hundreds of articles. There are several editors working on expanding articles and refining categorization for all high schools in New Jersey. All such articles have already been placed into a county-level category with Category:Public high schools in New Jersey as a parent, but Hmains has persistently refused to acknowledge that this category structure has already addressed the issue he seeks to solve by lumping 350-400 articles in a category that has already been painstaking subcategorized. His WP:OWN issues with imposing his category structure on every article for every public high school in the 3,113 counties in the United States seems to be at the heart of the problem. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • After opening up Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Schools_categorization, consensus seems rather clear that there is no need to add these diffused categories back into the parent. Yet Hmains has resumed adding to the hundreds of categories he needlessly added in his edit war after they were removed, after this ANI was started and after the issue he opened at WP:SCHOOLS has rather clear consensus in conflict with his actions. Immediate action is needed here. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking Hmains to clarify. In the meantime, let's dial down the rhetoric, please. - jc37 04:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have a decent idea about this now.
Hmains was working on categories related to schools by state.
When he got to New Jersey, unlike the others, New jersey has some schools further diffused (subcatted) "by county".
But following the same pattern he had been following on the other 49 states, Hmains placed the schools in the parent cat (which would appear "un-diffused" to an observer).
After that, there was "interaction" through edit warring, then by confrontation on Hmains's talk page. Hmains attempted to get a WP:3PO by starting a discussion at the related WikiProject (discussion ongoing there).
This just appears to be a misunderstanding. Nothing here for AN/I to do at this point. I've already spoken with Hmains. And I'll merely remind alansohn that positive constructive posts may lead to better understanding than adversarial ones. The phrase to keep in mind would be "request for clarification". (And opening the AN/EW right after opening the thread here could be seen as borderline Forum shopping.)
I think that, unless something new arises, this thread can be closed at this point. - jc37 06:29, 27 September 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.

Vandalism-only account - User:CaRl CoSmOs[edit]

Deleted, creator warned, AfD closed. --John (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A new account, User:CaRl CoSmOs, was created earlier today and immediately created the obvious hoax article Durka Durkastan. The account's only edits since have been to 3RR remove AfD and hoax tags.

"Durka Durkastan" is a fictional country mentioned in the movie Team America: World Police. The article, however, is presented as if the country is a real place with a non-fiction history. For reference, the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durka Durkastan.

The speedy tag {{db-hoax}} was not used - I suppose someone could argue that the fictional place (having appeared in the movie) might justify an article. But as a claim the country actually exists, the article is a hoax and User:CaRl CoSmOs is clearly here to be disruptive.

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I need admin assistance please[edit]

NO ACTION TAKEN
No obvious link, please go to WP:SSP. Mdann52 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

Who is awake that may help?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So, what terrible ordeal lies ahead of us, poor European time-zone dwellers? Fut.Perf. 08:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I be in California. Give me just a sec.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A lot of people - is there some reason you can't just post what you want? WilyD 08:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a sec to get it all together:

This IP began editing shortley after user:Waveclaira was blocked yesterday[42] for DR/N disruption and has just filed a DR/N [43] over a talkpage dispute they intitiated by adding a template on a BLP subject. The DR/N filing was malformed and as I was fixing it I noticed the the timestamp on the first edit. But another oddity is that they have somehow (I don't know the intricacies off hand) began a userpage [44] that is not a registered account. Yet, they filed the DR/N under the IP and listed themselves as Col Mumtaz Khan. They have requested help from an admin: User:Seraphimblade who has yet to reply. The talkpage shows they were or are at least representing themselves as another IP: [45] which first posted on the talkpage there on 20:48, 26 September 2012. Here is the talpage discussion:[46]. This may seem or even be nothing....but there are too many oddities for me not to bring this up now immediately.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm seeing the link between the Waveclaira (talk · contribs) account and the 39.54.* IPs. Is there a similarity of editing patterns, beyond the temporal coincidence? Apart from that, the only thing I'm seeing is an anon editor with a good-faith concern (justified or not) about self-promotional editing, who has not yet figured out some of the technicalities. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. 08:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The link is the DR/N filing and seeming to "misunderstand" policy and or guidelines in a similar manner. I make no accusation but perhaps this is not something I should be bringing up here. It was suggested to me by User:Dennis Brown to be sure and request admin help when these situations appear immediatly, but this may not be the proper venue. I am simply giving a heads up to a situation I see as being far to similar and follows a pattern of another SP. I do aplogise if I have used the wrong place to bring this up. Thank you and Happy editing. At least I attempted. If there is nothing then there is no harm no foul.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
That's my assessment too. If you think it's a problematic socking, maybe try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, but I don't see anything obvious. WilyD 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Waveclaira never edited in the rather discrete area of interest the ip has edited and commented on. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:34, 27 September 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.

Just blocked an IP for repeated antisemitic edits; but since the most recent attacks were in part on me, taking it here for comment[edit]

IP blocked indef by Orangemike, reduced to 1 year (typical maximum for IPs) by Stephan Schulz. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 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.

User:2.121.227.96 has a consistent history of obsession with Jews and Judaism, along with the more unsavory versions of neo-Paganism and related racial issues. The IP uses all the code words: "cosmopolitan" vs. "folkish"; "certain Ashkenazi Jews"; "far-left/Marxist"; changing "Jewish" to "ancient Israelite"; etc. He has now twice posted a screed at Talk: American Third Position Party implying that criticisms of that party are the fault of Jews and their supporters ("philosemites"). I have blocked him, but want other eyes on this to make sure that I have not over-reacted to this particular flavor of hate, since I'm one of the "philosemitic far-left cranks" he attacked (the other was User:Baseball Bugs, and "Baseball Bugs appears to be Jewish"). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Block is perfectly fine and appropriate. Volunteer Marek  13:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks perfectly fine to me. And since he decided to throw some religious hate in your direction before being blocked, bringing it here was a good idea so there is no confusion as to your reasons, which are well founded. The hateful POV spewing from this IP makes the case pretty simple. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) A lengthy block is certainly appropriate, but indefinite? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think a good point is raised—I would agree that indefinite block is not called for. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
If it was a reg'ed user, there would be no question that indef was appropriate. Since it is a static IP, one year (the longest I've ever "indef'ed" an IP) might be better, but if the same person started editing afterwards with any kind of edit good or bad, I would reup the block. The idea is that the editor should be gone for indef, even if we decide to block the IP for less due to technical considerations. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, I hadn't noticed it was indef - it should probably be reduced to 1 year. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Good block. There is no magic time after which an anti-semitic racist suddenly reforms and will become a productive editor. If it happens (fat chance, but one never knows), it happens after an indefinite time, nicely matching the block. For technical reasons it should be changed to one year. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
...and so done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 27 September 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.

Continuous Vandalism[edit]

There's a continuous vandalism at the page Nanorobotics by different IPs, but from the same location, which I've found to be Madison Metropolitan School District, WI, US. Here are the diffs:

[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

The Net Range I found to be 199.197.64.0 - 199.197.127.255

Here's a reference: [54]

I will now notify only the 199.197.127.110 IP and tag with the ANI notice on that IP as well.

I will also revert the changes.

Charon77 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You can request page protection here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
Thanks for responding. The vandalism has stopped, for now. But I'm more concern on the IPs, rather than the page. Charon77 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
If it continues passed that one article, WP:AIV and request a range block. If it is only one or two articles, protection is the preferred method, which prevents other people on those IPs from getting blocked except as a last resort. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A friendly word[edit]

Philip Cross advised to pursue matter offline to avoid outing. Nobody Ent 20:44, 27 September 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.

Could an admin have a friendly word with User:Zrdragon12 and User:Philip Cross please ? They appear to be having some interaction problems resulting in edit warring across multiple articles (see editor interaction report). I don't know the background but this caught my attention because the latest article is Jonathan Cook, a BLP covered by WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions. The editors are probably not aware of the ARBPIA restrictions. It's not a great place to have a personal dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can have a look into User:Philip Cross Harassing me as well.[55] .There has been more since then posted to my talk page. Anyway I did not see that the Johnathan Cook article was 1RR but yes we do have a problem and Mr Cook started it with Harassing me over edits I made to the Oliver Kamm page,he has then gone on from that as described in my link to harass me on not just my talk page but another 3 peoples talk pages,accusing me of being some else and a sock puppet. Frankly it is getting a little boring now and not very civil.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


As the name of the person (and the account holder's spouse) who I believe is behind the Zrdragon12 account have now been removed from my talk page, it is now impossible to discuss this issue in public. I have tried to find an email contact address where I can answer the issue of the Zrdragon12 account confidentially, but without success. Please could an administrator email me. This is easily achieved, contact by other users through email is activated.
On the Jonathan Cook article. A genuine mistake, but I was not aware when working on the article that the 1RR on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute applied to this article. (He is a British journalist, not someone originally from the region.) A foolish error perhaps, but in the heat of the moment, dealing with the behaviour of the other editor, I must have missed or overlooked the banner. Please could someone contact me via email. Philip Cross (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A large number of edits Outing one of these editors have been suppressed so much of the editing history is unavailable. User:Philip Cross has been advised to pursue conflict of interest issues confidentially, or, at least, without allusion to possible personal identity. I think there may be a serious dispute about point of view editing, but I have not investigated it at this point. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, fair enough.
The other editor's references to me being “paranoid” and posting “ravings” and being someone who has escaped from a mental hospital using ‘Philip Cross‘ as a pseudonym were not very helpful in helping me to perceive where I was diverging from Wikipedia policies. I hope these comments are still accessible when any penalties on either of us are decided. The other editor has clearly been uncivil, and broken the good faith rule, though obviously so have I. The other editor’s comments about myself though, bearing in mind WP policies, will doubtless be reacted too in due course. From my perspective, such observations about myself could remain, but this is out of my control. Philip Cross (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The comments are inappropriate and certainly a violation of civility; however, in my opinion, as the user is not a mental health professional, not suppressible as libel, although they might be deletable as grossly degrading, offensive, and insulting material. I have not done so, although any administrator, if they feel it is justified, is free to do so. To me, they just mean "he is bad." rather than being a serious aspersion regarding mental health. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Is Philip clear on where he can pursue his concerns confidentially ? Is it functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have replied to Fred Bauder. Sorry to have to put you through more of this. Philip Cross (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to say a thank you to User:Fred Bauder for deleting all of User:Philip Cross harassing posts directed at me,maybe at last he will stop bothering me with his fantasy version of reality. If Mr Cross had not started this campaign against me in the first place then we would not be here I feel and as an editor of wikipedia for many years surely he should know the rules and know that it was wrong in the first place.Anyway I hope we can all move forward now.Zrdragon12 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 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.

Problems with original research: