Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

FimusTauri (talk · contribs) is engaging in long term disruptive editing. The issue resolves around what he perceives to be a "pro-myth" lobby group. He has started discussions on article talk pages (notably Talk:Noah's Ark - see the archives), WT:NPOV/FAQ (see here), The Village Pump (see here), new policy pages (see Wikipedia:Ambiguous Words), selective canvassing (see here for one instance), and now WikiProject talk pages (see here). They're the ones I've noted in my interactions with FimusTauri, though I haven't gone through his edit history too thoroughly so there may be more.

I have previously asked FimusTauri to lay off of the forum shopping here and here, carefully explaining the details including why I'm making the request, offering wikilinks and letting him know it is a blockable offence. Another editor has noted it here. The latest posting at the WikiProject talk page I noted above offers a threat of more forum shopping if he doesn't get the response he wants.

His persistence has exasperated many editors, including myself, so I'm bringing the issue here. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say he is involved in disruptive editing, but you haven't posted any diffs to article space. Can you back that up? Or is it simply that his talk page choices are a problem? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through Wikipedia:Canvassing again before posting this, and based on that reading, I thought disruptive editing was the correct term to describe the problem. He has very few article space edits, in fact, the account is only a few months old whose almost sole purpose is what I linked above. Ben (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That diff you say is canvassing doesn't seem objectionable in isolation. How do we know there is selective canvassing going on? Has he only invited editors on one side of a discussion to take part in another?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar had no apparent interest in the discussion, including making no edits to pages related to the alleged myth problem. Fimus made the request quite some time after he started his RfC, and in isolation of any other requests for editor comments. The NPOV/FAQ page is locked, and Dreadstar is an admin, which he paid particular attention to in his request for that editors comment. The request seemed dubious at best, but you are welcome to discard if you think it isn't relevant. I have no objection to any one of Fimus' edits in isolation, it's the general pattern I have a problem with. It has been ongoing for months in spite of him being aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. Ben (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't have time to dig in depth, so I will have to leave it to someone else to look more closely. Thanks for coming here. If you have not done so already, you should inform FimusTauri that there is a discussion concerning him at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You missed this, on Islamic mythology. Ilkali (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some dealings with FimusTauri in three locations (Christian Mythology, WT:NPOV/FAQ and Wikipedia:Ambiguous Words), all loosely based around the same issue (use of the word myth). My impression is that he has no intent to be disruptive, but is determined to disregard any outcome that does not favor his view, frequently taking the same issue to new venues in hopes of a different outcome. It's leading to a disproportionate amount of editors' time being taken up with his campaign. Ilkali (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of ambiguous words in any articles (not just "myth" and not just religious articles) is of great importance to me, because it is my belief that ambiguity leads to lack of neutrality (or leaves the door open for it). Hence, I have been attempting to gain attention for this issue. As Ben points out, I am still fairly new to editing and may not have followed procedure as correctly as I should. If so, it is due to unfamiliarity with procedure and certainly not due to an intent to be disruptive.

The main reason why I have attempted to open this discussion in different places is because every time attempts are made to discuss the issue, editors such as Ben and Ilkali come along and simply refuse to admit that there is an issue. As a result, the discussion stalls before it gets anywhere. When this happens, I have attempted to find an alternative means of gaining wider attention for the issue. Up to now, this issue has only been discussed by a limited number of editors (around half a dozen regularly, with maybe twice that number making occasional contributions), so I have been trying to get more editors involved. For the same reason, I asked an admin to get involved. This was a simple request to one who had been editing in related articles. That admin neither got involved nor responded. I respected his wishes and have made no further attempt to contact him about it.

The allegation of "disruptive editing" is wholly false, at least with regard to articles. Whenever one of my edits has caused contention, I have immediately gone to the talk page to discuss the issue. I have made many edits on a number of talk pages, but do not see how that can be called 'disruptive editing'. Surely the idea in Wikipedia is to discuss issues? This is the heart of the problem: on the NPOV/FAQ discussion page, both Ben and Ilkali have implied that "there is nothing to discuss". Because they feel that, they are of the opinion that somehow "I don't get it" and my persistence in this issue is therefore "disruptive". The simple fact is that there is an issue and neither of these editors are willing to accept that. This is yet another attempt by Ben to stifle this debate. He has made numerous accusations against me in the past: of being a sockpuppet, of "not getting it", of having religious motivations and now of being disruptive and forum shopping. If I were not assuming good faith, I would be inclined to believe that this is an example of Wikibullying.

Because of the utter refusal on the part of the aforementioned editors to see a problem - and because they continually attempt to stifle any debate - I have become increasingly exasperated. Another editor has siggested that this should be a case for ArbCom, so I investigated the procedure for taking it there. One aspect of the procedure is that the issue should be raised in the relevant WikiProject. Hence, my most recent post at the WikiProject Religion talk page. Again, if sufficient editors can be brought into the debate, then maybe this issue can be resolved.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation is fine the first time, which is why I explained the problem on their talk page (linked above). But this explanation has been used before; see for instance: In my defense, I started the Village pump discussion when I was still relatively new and unsure of procedure. Note that that defence was used after the talk page explanation, and still the pattern continues. Ben (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make it entirely clear. The "newbie" excuse applies to the initial opening of different forums. Later openings are explained above.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The main reason why I have attempted to open this discussion in different places is because every time attempts are made to discuss the issue, editors such as Ben and Ilkali come along and simply refuse to admit that there is an issue". Firstly, there is nothing wrong with editors disagreeing on the extent of a supposed problem or arguing that a supposed problem does not exist, and describing this as an attempt to "stifle any debate" is uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. Secondly, do you realise how your testimony reads? You are telling us that you found opposition in the places where you posted, so you've posted in other places hoping that everybody there will agree with you. That's what forum-shopping is, and you're not exempt just because you believe you're right.

"on the NPOV/FAQ discussion page, both Ben and Ilkali have implied that "there is nothing to discuss". Because they feel that, they are of the opinion that somehow "I don't get it" and my persistence in this issue is therefore "disruptive"". Please don't try to speculate on other editors' thoughts or motives, especially if you're going to use quotation marks. For my part, the accusation of disruption and of forum-shopping has nothing to do with how strong your case is. Even if I agreed with you, I'd still object to your incessant relocation and unwillingness to accept unfavorable outcomes. Ilkali (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Outcomes"? What "outcome" were you referring to? Maybe I missed it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that 'outcome' thing is just the tendentious assertion of a statement in the hopes others will take it as established fact. oldy but a goody. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think one outcome is listed just above: "As a result, the discussion stalls before it gets anywhere. When this happens, I ..."

Now, I wouldn't say months of discussion resulting in walls of text on numerous forums constitutes stalled discussion, in fact I'd describe the outcomes of each of his threads very differently, but hey, call it what you want, I don't care. Either way, it simply wasn't the outcome Fimus wanted, so he looked elsewhere to get his way, again, and again, ..., and again, and there is still more to come according to him. Just to be careful though, he may hatch brilliant plans like recruiting others to do it for him. Ben (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it does take two to tango, Ben. frankly, while I don't agree with Fimus on all of his ideas, what I see is a heck of a lot of pointless, reasonless opposition to some points that ought to be simple and straightforward. "we ought to attribute potentially insulting words to sources." gee... "we ought not to use potentially insulting words to if we can't attribute them properly." golly... but no, apparently you find those ideas wholly unacceptable on wikipedia, to the point that no compromise is possible.

sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of your or ilkali's opposition, despite the fact you've made prolonged efforts to oppose these very points. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone mention tendentious assertions made in the hope that others will take it as established fact? Ben (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without making any assertions or assumptions about the motivations of other editors, the simple fact is that there has never been any "result" on any of the forums. I have repeatedly asked for debate and been informed by certain editors that there is no debate. I have certainly not moved on to other forums because I haven't "got the result I wanted" - I simply haven't got a result of any description. All I am asking is for some sort of debate leading to consensus. I will abide by a consensus decision - that's how Wikipedia works. But if debate is stifled in one place, then I have no recourse but to either "give up" or go to another forum. I am not about to give up, so I am forced onto another forum. It is the actions of editors such as my accuser that are pushing this debate into new forums. The dispute resolution process requires me to try certain avenues before taking more extreme measures such as ArbCom. I am simply following procedure. --FimusTauri (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing here is POV-pushing disguising itself as scholarliness and a simple content dispute. To the casual reader, "myth" implies "untrue", and immediately runs the risk of planting suspicions in the reader's mind about the article's neutrality. For that reason alone, it should not be used, regardless of the alleged "scholarly" use of the term. Now, the article goes into some detail as to whether the story (which, by the way, is a much more neutral word than "myth" and is just as good) has any basis in reality, and that's fair. But to start the article with a sentence that asserts, to the general public, "This is a fairy tale", is not the right way to do things. Wikipedia is not "scholarly" as such, it's a mass-market entity, and that fact should always be kept in mind. I note that the word "myth" is used in the lead, yet it links to "mythology". At the very least, why not just say "mythology" in the lead? That word is likely less tendentious than "myth". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ambiguity leads to lack of neutrality" if its ambigous, its not going toward any one thing and therefore is neutral.  rdunnPLIB  09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a logical conclusion. And to the average reader, there is nothing ambiguous about the word "myth" - it's a synonym for "humbug". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That means most people don't understand the word "myth". We all know the "myth" about Icarus. None of us believe that anybody actually glued some feathers on with wax, flew too high, the sun melted the wax, and they crashed down to Earth. We do however understand the lesson: don't fly too high, you'll crash down. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And anyone who tried to argue that Icarus actually existed would just be smiled at while they looked for the nearest exit. However, there is a significant portion of the population that believes that the Noah's Ark story is either literally true or has some basis in reality. Hence the use of the word "myth", even if possibly technically correct, is not appropriate. "Mythology" would be better. "Story" would be ideal, as I don't think there are many who would question its neutrality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, there are "parables" told by Jesus, which could be safely classified as "myths" in the sense that there is no dispute that Jesus was simply teaching a lesson through a story that he had presumably made up on the spot. However, that principle does not apply to the stories of the Old Testament, as they are presented as fact, even if scholars question their factual basis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I am accused of "forum shopping" and here Ben has opened up yet another debate on the issue!

Let me concentrate on why this discussion exists. Ben has accusd me of "forum shopping". I think that the accusation of "disruptive editing" has been debunked by the lack of diffs offered (because there aren't any). So the only "issue" left is the so-called forum shopping. Lets examine which forums I have actually employed:

• Noah's Ark. This was where I came in - the debate was already going on.
• The village pump. I attempted to raise it here because the issue had stalled at Noah's Ark and I wanted input from the wider community. This was a mistake that I have referred to above. Had I known procedure better I would have gone straight to the forum below.
• RfC on the wording in the NPOV/FAQ. The current wording was written by Ben without consultation or consensus. I raised the RfC because this article was being quoted by Ben and others and I sought some consensus on that wording. Since then there have been "walls of text" which have amounted to Ben and co saying "there is nothing to debate" and several other editors patiently attempting to explain why that is wrong. In exasperation I have decided that this needs to be brought to wider community attention; if need be, to ArbCom. Before going to ArbCom, I am required to bring it up on the relevant Project page, hence:
• WikiProject Religion. I have raised this issue on the talk page of this project in line with required procedure.

There is one other forum that I have used:

• Wikipedia:Ambiguous Words. This was never intended to be the same issue. It was supposed to be a matter for the Manual of Style. Ben and others, however, destroyed any hope of debate there by continually attempting to insist that I was forum shopping on the issue of myth and religion. I have now abandoned that project until the current issue is resolved.

Now, if anyone can enlighten me as to how this is "forum shopping", then I will happily desist. Otherwise, can an admin close this discussion for the irrelevance that it really is. This is, after all, just another attempt by Ben to disrupt the discussions over myth.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

IP 92.17.225.113 (also using 92.1.40.215, both resolving to the same place) is a self-described sock account violating WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CANVASS. For starters. The 3rr vio is on Emily Jacir, reverting sourced material here, here, here, and here. User canvasses here, refers to edits as "bullshit" numerous times here, here, "POV assery", and twice here. User admits to being a sock in that same thread. "As for logging in with my real account, I don't intend on muddying that with pointless back and forths over whether or not we should state tenuous allegations as fact in the lead sentence." This could appear on multiple boards, but I was hoping this one would be most efficient. IronDuke 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not the most polite editor, but removing negative thinly-sourced comment from articles isn't a problem. One source isn't enough to describe someone as a "terrorist" (even his own article only says that "Israel considered him a terrorist"). At the point of some of his edits ([1]), the claim had no source at all which makes that particular edit completely policy-compliant. Black Kite 23:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in fact, I've rolled that edit back. Claiming someone to be a terrorist needs more than one source (especially one written by two Israeli historians, however respected), when the subjects own article does not definitely state that. Either source the claim properly, change it to "alleged terrorist", or leave it out. Black Kite 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does being Israeli have to do with anything? And I was asking about a policy-violating sock, not canvassing for someone to weigh in (erroneously) on policy. Anyone out there able and or willing to take admin action? IronDuke 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to prove it's a policy-violating sock first - I couldn't tell you whether it is or not, because I don't know the main account. And the reason I said "Israeli", is because, as you know, basing an edit like that on one Israeli source is always going to be seen as thin whether it is or not. (I'm willing to bet that source doesn't even say that this person was definitively a terrorist though, only that Israel believed him to be one - am I right?) There's no admin action to be taken here unless the edit-war continues. Black Kite 07:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did already prove it -- it violated 3rr for one thing among many -- which you helped out with by edit-warring on its behalf. And I'm still not getting the objection to an Israeli source -- why would a source coming from an Israeli be "thin"? And as for your bet, two questions. 1. How much were you thinking? 2. Do you have a PayPal account? IronDuke 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I was referring to "thin" as meaning "one source". You know that you can't refer to someone as a terrorist via a single source that will be challenged because of its origin, regardless of how respected the authors are. If you can source it properly, I certainly won't challenge it. Black Kite 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know no such thing. You wrote that the fact that my source was "written by two Israeli historians" was "especially" important in terms of its not being good enough. In what way is their country of origin important here? IronDuke 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a regular on I/P articles, you know quite well how a controversial comment being backed up by a source emanating from a single country involved in the issue might be considered "not good enough". Black Kite 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sure am a regular, but I don't have to be to know how... odd... your comment is. Would we dismiss a US historian on the Vietnam war, because the US was a combatant? No. Would it be problematic in any way? No. And yet, for some reason, two Israeli historians are. IronDuke 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it a different way; if you had an article which was being fought over by two political factions (let's say Republicans and Democrats for simplicity), would you accept a contentious edit sourced only by a book written by someone involved with one of those factions? This isn't an I/P issue, it's a Wikipedia-wide one. I know from working on The Troubles-related articles how thorny an issue such sources can be. Black Kite 08:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'd "accept" it -- why wouldn't I? I might try to balance it, if that were appropriate and/or possible. But you didn't do that, you just removed the "Israeli" source without knowing anything about it, apparently, other than that it was "Israeli." IronDuke 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You are correct IronDuke, this is most efficient, I wish we'd thought of it sooner. Thank you Black Kite, it worries me to see that such long established editors as IronDuke and Mr Hicks would push such a blatant POV. I would have expected them to have spotted what a tenuous claim it was and either banish it or temper it in the lead, I was disappointed. But if you take at some of IronDuke's comments regarding the positive aspects of POV pushing, you'll be unsurprised at his actions, and worried for the atmosphere in which these articles get built. Then again, I could be Black Kite :) 92.17.225.113 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well don't be too pleased with yourself; you did technically violate 3RR which would've been a block if it wasn't for the nature of the edits, you need to sort out your civility, and you might still be violating WP:SOCK as well (depending on your primary account). I'd suggest you go for dispute resolution before edit-warring next time. Black Kite 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think our anon sock has good reason to be pleased. He's sucked you into edit-warring on his behalf. I'd be laughing, too. IronDuke 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Dispute resolution with an anon sock? Really? Great. Are there any admins out there who want to take admin action and not jump into the edit war? IronDuke 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice; stop forum shopping for a block and source your edits properly. If you hadn't insisted in trying to force insufficiently-sourced POV into the article, then the issue wouldn't arise in the first place; so you're equally as culpable as the IP. Black Kite 07:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice. I hereby will promise to stop... forum shopping? Oh, wait... where did I do that again? IronDuke 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strangely enough - here. The place to report edit-warring / 3RR violations is over here. Take it there by all means, and if you can find someone willing to block the IP for it, then fine. (Though it'd be a little pointless, as it's a dynamic IP over a large UK broadband range). Black Kite 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange ain't the word for it. Forum-shopping, in a WP context, refers to querying multiple venues in search of a satisfactory answer -- ironically, the very thing you just suggested I do. I'm a bit surprised a regular admin on AN/I wouldn't know that. And do please stop marking this as resolved. Even if you hadn't jumped in to start edit-warring on behalf of an anon sock, it wouldn't be resolved. It may not get resolved, but I'd like to give others a chance to weigh in. IronDuke 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's resolved here. WP:ANI is for admin action that can't be resolved at other venues. I pointed you to the correct venue for reporting edit warring above. Use it, please. And I'm marking it resolved again. Black Kite 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't resolved, though. You've weighed in. You're wrong on virtually every point you have made, both in terms of letter and spirit of policy, and in terms of the subject matter (which you leapt in to edit without knowing anything about). And this covers a number of issues. a 24 block for edit-warring wouldn't resolve the issues. That is extraordinarily obvious. IronDuke 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest giving a minor talking to to the IP and a civilty to IronDuke for the above  rdunnPLIB  15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about giving me "a civilty." There's nothing uncivil about what I wrote. That said, if Black Kite is particularly upset about any of it, I'm happy to consider refactoring. IronDuke 16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thrilled about IronDuke claiming I'm edit-warring, but since it's inaccurate I'm not bothered. Black Kite 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're not bothered; I guess I'm not as bothered as I should be by your extending the abusive sock puppet's reverts to 5. I assume you also wouldn't be bothered by my pointing out your extraordinarily inappropriate edit-warring on the resolved tag of this thread, either? IronDuke 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's interesting. An IP user violates WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CANVASS, and you suggest nothing for the IP, but a violation for IronDuke. How do you figure that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. I'm certainly not going to sanction IronDuke, and no-one else is either. Either take it to WP:EW or don't, the place is not here. Marked resolved again. Black Kite 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

An unregistered user from a consistent IP keeps making the same POV edits to Ali with negligible or no difference. The post was first put up by User:94.187.69.235, then carried on by User:Faizhaider for a bit, and now by User:63.216.122.93, who seems to be making a joke of it as well. Assistance would be much appreciated. RavShimon (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - there is some consistent POV pushing going on by the anons, mostly aimed at bashing Sunni Muslims, but I'm convinced that User:Faizhaider was editing in good faith and he is participating civilly in talkpage discussions. The IP edits are certainly a frustration tho....Doc Tropics 03:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Sunni bashing in "Sunnis nowadays claim to regard Ali with the utmost respect, though historical Sunni treatment of Ali and his progeny suggests otherwise (see Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali, Umar at Fatimah's house and Battle of Karbala)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.122.93 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this has resolved itself. With special appreciation to Doc Tropics, a compromise phrasing has been reached, and the anons seem to be staying out of it. RavShimon (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a participant in WikiProject Neutrality.

“	What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.	”
— Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

This single purpose account has violated WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP at Talk:Aspartame controversy for several days. Essentially, this editor wants to add a GAO report from 1987. The report is relevant to the article in a strictly historical manner, because the report itself, done at the behest of Senator Howard Metzenbaum, was a review of the FDA approval of Aspartame performed by the Government Accounting Office. It fails WP:MEDRS since it doesn't even qualify as a tertiary source, it has been outdated by much more current research (that clearly shows that Aspartame does nothing), and it is not peer-reviewed. That's just the background, and I realize that this noticeboard's goal is to not decide content.

What is more concerning is Unomi's tendentious editing of the discussion section. They have made numerous requests to add a discussion of this GAO report, even though consensus is that a small sentence, from a purely historical purpose, is all that is required. I would point out individual edits, but a review of the history of the page is sufficient. Moreover, Unomi's contributions are completely either in or about Aspartame. I'm also quite concerned that Karloff (talk · contribs) and Unomi (talk · contribs) are the same person, since both edited only Aspartame controversy, Karloff quit editing on 28 February 2009, after Verbal made some observations at User talk:Karloff. Unomi started editing Aspartame controversy on 8 March 2009. It's obvious that Unomi and Karloff are probably socks, and may be socks of other editors.

I do not think that Unomi represents how we need to deal with contentious articles about controversial medical information. Editors revert the most egregious POV statements, so it remains a pretty good source for NPOV information on the controversy. However, an admin needs to deal with Unomi soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note [[2]] -- a pretty severe case of I didn't hear that. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sockpuppet investigation here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather serious allegation that to my mind borders on harassment, I welcome the ensuing discussion and will try to defend my self against the claims in-depth shortly. In brief I will say that I acted in good faith and was repeatedly thwarted in my attempts to discuss with some editors involved, I think OMs links will show evidence of that and so will this. The allegations of sock puppetry are hilarious but will be dealt with in the appropriate venue.

It does not strike me as surprising that editors are refraining from contributing to wikipedia considering the behavior that OMs links document.

I hope that the submitting editor will further clarify the allegations. Unomi (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that my view of the events is available here. Summarized by :

• I am being met with a barrage of WP:TAGS that seem to border on WP:PS.
• Every time I try to address one, it becomes another, when I try get outside opinion regarding the applicability of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR
• I am accused of forum shopping. When I explain that I feel that they are in the wrong and try to explain why while soliciting their thoughts
• I am accused of WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM and WP:DE. I am trying to assume good faith but I am halfway to WP:NOCLUE.

If more information is needed I will be happy to add it, please let me know. Unomi (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this user filed a thoroughly frivolous 3RR report about me, apparently in retaliation for a good-faith warning concerning his or her own (actual) 3RR violations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can some really nice admin deal with this editor ASAP. He has pushed and pushed and pushed the good will of the community. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By following the links you will see that it was in fact NOT a 3RR report, and that orangemarlin and goodwill don't belong in the same paragraph. Unomi (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more thing I would like to bring to the attention of those that might be taking part in making decisions on this.

jc37s 'contribution'. I would like you to take a look at what an experienced editor interjected as 'reference to research'. Unomi (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems that I have to explain everything afterwards anyway; I might as well explain it up front. After the allegations of sockpuppetry came up I went to read up on karloff and immortale, this included visiting their talk page, I remembered seeing this which, if true, seems to indicate that this type of behavior is not uniquely confined to jc37. Unomi (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also refer to this studiously ignored request for clarification. Unomi (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Please note that the 'controversy' is about the inclusion of passages from the Executive Summary and section summaries contained in a General Accounting Office report. Orangemarlin et al seem to simply be fishing and engaging in WP:PS, not understanding that WP:LASTWORD is not to be taken as literal policy. I have repeatedly asked for constructive debate and consistently been met with an attitude that could best be described as assume bad faith. Unomi (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starterwife (talk · contribs) has been warned several times on his page, but is continuing to blank sourced material on the Jack Weiss page with vague edit summaries. He's also adding various material disparaging the subject to the page and talk page without even trying to make it fit in from an encyclopedic standpoint. Seems to be an unrepentant POV kind of guy. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Admin reply: Looks to me like a standard "remove what you don't like" vandal. I say give a standard last warning and they don't chill after that then a nice 48 hour block so they can think about it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 12, 2009 @ 07:12

He's already received a "final warning" temp, now he's returned to blank the entire article calling it "libel." Can an admin step in, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, he's blanking the page [3] [4] with no discussion. I don't want to edit war over this, so again I ask for an admin to step in. Dayewalker (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this doesn't seem to be getting a quick resolution here at ANI. I have reported the user to AIV for vandalism. This is obviously a vandalism only account. I have issued a "last and final" warning to the user's talk page as well. I will keep an eye on the user's contribs in the meantime. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 04:22

Gracias, NeutralHomer. Not sure why this one's lasted as long as it has without an admin dropping by, but I appreciate you making the report. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be of assistance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 05:11

As this definitely all seems like bad faith and POV editing, I have blocked him 24 hours for disruptive editing with a message telling him to take the time to read up on policies and why he should be engaging with other editors. Mfield (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Much apperciated :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 05:11

Only those who have dealt with a similar issue may know what I am hinting at, but this particular editor, editing this particular article, smells rather fishy to me. Please keep this thread open for a bit, I need to email the other involved parties.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or nevermind, maybe I just saw a similarity which wasn't really there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am however still waiting on comment from the involved party which I have emailed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Discussion on talk page seems to have resolved it. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin consider the recent comments added by User:Beantwo and give guidance on the best course of action (or take the best course of action). I gave the user a 12 hour block yesterday (talk page) and this is apparently retaliation. I'm looking for an outside view on this, cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's just upset that he was blocked. I've removed the warnings from your page and I think that's all that's needed for now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what if that's not it? What if he continues the erratic behavior because no one can explain to this user why everyone gets multiple warnings except for Beantwo? He (or she) also posted appropriate warnings on User talk:Yousaf465 I move for a complete ban. He (or she) also listed himself (or herself we just don't know) on the admin vandalism intervention page and he (or she) is giving himself (or herself) warnings on User talk:Beantwo Beantwo (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if you continue your erratic behavior? It's fairly clear. You will be blocked and possibly banned. Will this be fair? Maybe, maybe not. Consider how your behavior looks. I've been involved in on-line community since the mid-1980s, and there is a phenomenon I've seen over and over. User is insulted, or thinks it was an insult, it doesn't matter. User is outraged and complains loudly, so to speak. Community sees user making loud complaints, which are disruptive, concludes this user is a problem. User is unsubscribed, blocked, banned, or, at least, rejected and ignored (which sometimes causes user to become even more disruptive). This community cares little about isolated incidents, and, indeed, that makes total sense. If you think an admin made an error, you can ask for an apology, or at least for an explanation. But if you loudly complain, if you disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT, you become a more serious problem than the original issue, even if it was a problem itself.

Your choice, Beantwo. I suggest that you, on your Talk page, open a section that says, "I'm going to stop editing until I figure this out, thanks to those who have given me sincere advice, I'm going to consider it." Then consider it. If you've made mistakes, admit them. If others have made mistakes, forgive them. In either case move on. If you don't, you will define yourself, before the community, as the problem. --Abd (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellence guidance by the way Abd, some of it should in fact be incorporated into a guidance page on how to handle disputes, etc. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – indef'ed by User:Camw. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but User:Peter163o has repeated removed a {{db-notability}} tag from Poundstuff.net, which he created, and was also speedied previously. It's probably also a WP:COI issue. Evan ¤ Seeds 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been warned several times and has stopped at a level 3 warning which finally states that he will be blocked if he continues. If he continues, he should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. C: DreamHaze (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted by now, but I won't be surprised if he recreates it. He also at one point blanked his user talk page and replaced it with "Go ahead, block me, I'll just make another account", and also "You're a stupid cunt (~~~~)" and "You're all black" Evan ¤ Seeds 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Black? That's considered an insult now? When I was at school that was considered high praise ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...his comment was obviously meant to be insulting...though that's up to interpretation. However, he has described his intentions of creating another sockpuppet. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not disputing the intent. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even as an American (one of the lucky ones who has rugby experience, of course), that wouldn't be an insult. I'm assuming the capitalization was just omitted. Evan ¤ Seeds 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's WP:AGF to an extreme extent :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done He's also placed some rather racist and defamatory comments on his own talk page; suggest protection for talk page if he continues to edit his talk page AFTER the block. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, 08:57, 12 March 2009 HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk | contribs) m (2,594 bytes) (2 IPs left. rm Peter163o (blocked indef by Camw (ACB ABD)). 1 comment(s) removed.) (undo) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please block OrangeMarlin as he doesn't contribute to a discussion on the article Aspartame controversy but instead makes constant accusations of sockpuppetry to anyone disagreeing with him. There is current sockpuppet investigation going on here but no conclusions are drawn there. Nevertheless, he acts like they are facts. To falsely make accusations is not allowed, right? Immortale (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the accusations are true, but I think we should wait for the SSP case to close first. There seems to be some forum shopping going on, what with the multiple posts to noticeboards and an ongoing, if rather shortsighted, mediation cabal thingy going on. Verbal chat 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have pointed out that the allegations against OM aren't true either, as he has contributed to the article and has simply had his patience warn thin, and has only accused three rather suspicious SPAs of being sock/meat puppets. There are other editors there. Verbal chat 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important what your view is, it's the evidence that counts. And there's none because I don't have sockpuppets. OrangeMarlin is making these sockpuppet accusations lately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy and he's getting hostile in the choice of his words towards other editors. There's nothing suspicious about these editors you mentioned. There are far more similarities between you and OM but we all know you are 2 different people. Immortale (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I will be blocking OrangeMarlin. Though I will examine the other issues here. Chillum 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? When you're a single purpose account, you tend to get associated with other single purpose accounts on that issue. It's hardly a surprise. Asking for someone to be blocked because they make the connection is hardly going to help your cause. Black Kite 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a broken record, but I again must say this. Being an SPA is -not- inherently a bad thing. Whipping out the SPA label weakens whatever argument you are trying to make. If the behavior is disruptive, it is disruptive no matter what else the account edits. Why do so few understand this? Arkon (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's something very familiar-sounding about the complainant's ID, yet he's supposedly a brand-new user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Actually not quite. Created in 2006, but pretty much of a "sleeper" account until this past December. Still, something sounds very familiar... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not ringing any bells to me, but... the sockpuppet investigation tried to tie together Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Unomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and Karloff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I think the latter is a false positive - Karloff is an Oooold account (apparently pre-account-creation logs) which was sleeping for a long long time, which is not that unusual, and shows interests tangental to what Immortale and Unomi do from older edits. Immortale and Unomi match each other well in style and timing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to do a "word search" across the brazillion ANI archives? Although I'm guessing you've already done that yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or the "search" link on the archive navbox at the top of this page. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no wonder I couldn't find it. It was hiding in plain sight. I don't see anything for Immortale prior to December when he started his artificial sweetener crusade, so maybe I'm just remembering that, and being confused by early-onset Alzheimer's. I tell ya, the future looks really bleak when Alzheimer's starts at age 13 1/2. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on behavioral analysis, Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is identified as sockpuppeting with puppet account Unomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Unomi is indefinitely blocked, Immortale is blocked for a week. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser came back as unrelated. Cardamon (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... reexamining, but with Jpgordon being that emphatic, I am inclined to unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior is still suspicious, but not so suspicious as to constitute clear evidence of meatpuppeting at a distance. Given a strong unambiguous geographical separation from the CU results, I believe that my earlier conclusion was in error. I certainly can't say that the suspicious apparent cooperation is sufficient grounds for a meatpuppetry block if we know for a fact that they're some distance apart. With that, the block doesn't stand as reasonable, so I have unblocked both parties and apologized for disrupting their editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to Immortale's complaint against OrangeMarlin - I think that if I as an uninvolved administrator who spent more than an hour looking at edits of the two accounts thought they were likely connected, OrangeMarlin's conclusion that they were was not grossly unreasonable, even if both of us seem to have turned out to be wrong. I do think that an independent mentor and/or the mediation cabal discussion might be helpful to try and de-escalate the incident, which I unwittingly made worse to some degree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is not 100% accurate, therefore being  Unrelated does not mean they're not the same person. Just that there's no connexion that we can see, from a technical POV. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I am having difficulty comprehending why people think we are sock puppets. Would *anyone* care to point to specifics? Or will it all just be based on vague and unspecified 'suspicions'? SPA is, I think, the natural state of affairs when one has been engaged in a WP:BATTLE since day one. Would any of you have 'just backed off'? Please note that the 'controversy' is about the inclusion of passages from the summary of Executive Summary and section summaries contained in a General Accounting Office report. Orangemarlin et al seem to simply be fishing and engaging in WP:PS, not understanding that WP:LASTWORD is not to be taken as literal policy. I have repeatedly asked for constructive debate and consistently been met with an attitude that could best be described as assume bad faith. Unomi (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to make of this. This is likely merely a case for WP:SOCK, but since there are few editors watching the page, I thought I would bring it up here for some other opinions. This article appears to be an autobiography, is being edited by a variety of accounts and IPs, that, judging by their editing style, all seem to be the same person (and they are proliferating), and despite their protests, there is quite a bit of article ownership going on here, especially on the talk page, where, apparently, one has to put comments in the proper section, according to this (these) editor(s). I'm not sure what action needs to be taken. Maybe block the socks, keep more eyes on the page, and offering of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. opinions so the editor(s) in question. Note that I think the editor(s) is (are) acting in good faith. I also think that we might be dealing with someone who has a different communication style than most people, so although we can't allow this person to be disruptive, hopefully responses to him/her will be patient and in good faith as well. Thanks for checking into the matter. Katr67 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first question to be asked is whether the subject is "notable" or not. It's obviously an autobiography of sorts, which is not strictly against the rules, but it's obviously a touchy area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to AFD it. I checked 8 of the "references" in the article. Six of them didn't even mention her name anywhere I could find, and the other are essentially self-created CVs, with no independent reporting on this person at all. An AFD should end this mess post-haste. Well, 5 days or so... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an SPI. Katr67 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've already admitted to being "colleagues". The curious one is the IP address voting against itself, but that could be just its own "straw man", as in, "Hey, not ALL the colleagues agree with this article." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that Partisan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (and Catherine2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) is the newest reincarnation of Bloomfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (35 identified socks since at least 2005). See this edit where Partisan1 in essence reverted the article to October 2006 version by his other sock AHAPXICT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). All older socks are too stale for a checkuser. This user has a very long history of (at best) questionable edits: he creates what seems as legit content, but upon closer investigation becomes clear that it's total OR & POV. It literally takes years to clean up after him. See my ANI report in 2007 His latest hobby is copy & pasting bits & pieces of WWII articles about the Baltic states.

Opinions what to do? Renata (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the {{user5|Username}} template helps provide us much easier access to analysis links/tools - if you're making a complex report here, I recommend its use.

I'm looking into the histories now. Are you aware of archived sockpuppet / checkuser investigations on this set of socks?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I changed to the user template. The main checkuser is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield. There has been additions to it in Dec. Here's another: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kidsunited. And for a desert: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky. Renata (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the report... I agree with the behavioral evidence on these two. I have indefinitely blocked both of them on that basis. Also see below... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal on User:Bloomfield

Per multiple massive sockpuppetry incidents listed above, numerous indef blocked sockpuppets - I believe Bloomfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reached the community ban threshold. I recommend that the community ban him from editing on an indefinite basis, confirming the repeated indef blocks already handed down into an outright ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Long overdue. Renata (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And can we please {{db-banned}} some of his recent creations? Like Anti-partisan operations in Belarus which is a copy&paste from some POV book? Renata (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly supported, though I don't doubt the person in question will continue to drain the time of normal editors through later socks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support one of the most persistent "crazy sock" on Wikipedia I personally have happened to come across, and the guy keeps coming back again and again. The clean up work after this guy has been tedious and is a neverending story. He has created a number of hoaxes as his specialty has been nobility and fake states, for example the Kingdom of Livonia [5], [6],[7] etc. and the United Baltic Duchy [8] [9] get reverted into an insane version in regular bases. The most amazing hoax created by the sock I have come across has been WP:Articles for deletion/Principality of Estland. The guys has been also very active on his family history and attempts to get this WP:OR sorted out has been failed. [10] etc. The only good thing about this sock is that his edit patterns are very easily distinguishable. well, at least for people who are familiar with the problem. His favorite area of editing has been anything that has to do with the historical Polish, Baltic-German, Belarusian and Lithuanian nobility and states.--Termer (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I also suggest keeping this and this updated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not much to say, really. — neuro^(talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we either have a huge conflict of interest and/or we have an account that is violating the username policy by engaging in account sharing. Anyways, there is already an SPI open on this person at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FatGary5436 (where user openly admits to sharing with 25 other people). MuZemike 06:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admission is somewhat vague. I don't see a direct admission to account sharing. I do see an assertion that a team of 25 people are editing Urban75 related articles on behalf of Urban75. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to User talk:Astatine-210 to leave a note about not trying to redirect closed WP:SPI cases to the archive (doing so causes the old case to be relisted, and prevents new cases on a particular user being filed until somebody spots it and fixes it manually).

In doing so, I noted that he has an editnotice on his talk page than simulates MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Any less than experienced user going to leave him a message might imagine that he had been blocked.

I was tempted to just revert his editnotice per WP:SMI, but given that we seem to tolerate some deviations from WP:SMI (such as fake "new messages" boxes), thought I'd ask for a second set of eyes on it. Mayalld (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also (technically) impersonating an admin. Also, given that they patrol recent changes, more noobs than usual will be seeing that. Also also, was apparently a user who invoked RTV, so they should know better. Also also also, baleet. //roux   07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it. There's no possible legitimate reason for that. – iridescent 07:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I've unilaterally deleted User:Astatine-210/editnotice, an identical fake block message on his user page, as there's no valid version to restore. Normally, something like this would be MFD'd – but MFD-ing in this case would cause the MFD notice to appear as part of the editnotice itself. If anyone objects to this deletion – which I fully agree is technically out-of-process – feel free to restore it. – iridescent 07:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme an I! Gimme an A! Gimme an R! What's that spell? iridescent ROCKS //roux   08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be Iridescent And Roux? Teaming up to obliterate dangerous isotopes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except I did nothing but cheer from the sidelines. Like my pom-poms? //roux   08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're migrating from the realm of IAR to the realm of TMI. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least you didn't have to see the pictures. — neuro^(talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to continue at AE as recommended by Ronnotel. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Please see part of this discussion which took place at AE, but discussion has now been moved back to here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unmarking this as resolved and unarchiving. The issue here cannot be resolved at WP:AE; see my comment there. II | (t - c) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having failed to make for a case for a merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine (see Talk:Orthomolecular medicine and Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry) editors User:Verbal, User:Orangemarlin and user:Keepcalmandcarryon are resorting to edit warring[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] on the article as a WP:TAGTEAM. As you can see from the talk page they really don't have much of a leg to stand on either in terms of consensus or policy put continue plugging away at it and WP:SHOPPING.At times their tone has strayed into the territory of the obstructive and the WP:UNCIVIL and it is beginning to become quite disruptive. I request that someone ask them to give it a rest, and if they are really that set on a merge to attempt to carry it out via the proper procedures (which is what should have happened in the forst place on that article, but that's a long story). Artw (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not familiar with the case above, I ask admins to also have a look at the very same editors approach to mediation efforts here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as an independant person: the redirect is a clear breach of the concencus not to.  rdunnPLIB  09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ban these editors, as well as any other disruptive troll who believes science should be afforded the slightest respect on our social network. Badger Drink (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue of science (despite continual attempts to portray it as a battle against the anti-science forces), but one of ignoring the results of a RfC, which concluded "the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge." --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

correct diff for that sentence --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is out of place. Respect for science doesn't mean that unscientific tendencies need to be censored, it means they need to be framed properly. I haven't seen much of Keepcalmandcarryon, so I can't comment about this user. But OrangeMarlin has been "pro-science" hooligan for a long time, and recently Verbal tends to act in a similar manner. Just look at their childish behaviour at WT:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy, linked to by Unomi above. (The main advantage of this page is that it's must shorter than e.g. Talk:Aspartame controversy, so it's easier to see what's going on. Oh, and there is a neutral editor there trying to moderate.)

I am sure I am not the only editor with a firm science background who is sick and tired of seeing these editors' confrontative tag-teaming and complete failure to communicate in a meaningful way, each time they are confronted with a new user they don't agree with. It is my impression that they often prevent discussion and proper framing of notable fringe opinions in articles where it belongs, by refusing to discuss anything but the editors who propose such discussion. I am sure if these editors were editing under their real names they would be more careful, because there would be a real chance for them to hurt their real-life careers with their recklessly sloppy approach to writing about science. The fact that a large number of "pro-science" editors support each other in this misbehaviour doesn't exactly help, either. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the complaint and consider the behaviour of the offending editors to be quite outrageous. The topic falls within the scope of a general Arbcom finding which requires especially careful behaviour when editing such topics. User:ScienceApologist was involved in this matter and has now been banned for his bad behaviour and refusal to accept Wikipedia norms and sanctions. These editors show similar open contempt for policies such as civility and engage in similar game-playing and wikilawyering. Since they espouse the same methods and goals as a banned user, they should be subject to the same sanctions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The correct venue for this is probably Arbcom enforcement. Is there some reason this wasn't filed there? Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a general fear of being labeled 'anti science' kook when confronting users who purport to represent Science and proclaim themselves as those that hold the barbarians at the gate. I believe those involved do not follow scientific principles or value intellectual honesty. I further believe that the costs incurred by an overbearing attitude towards them are quite substantial and real. This is one of the consequences, and part of a wider discussion on village pump regarding this kind of behavior. Unomi (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment. All I'm saying is that the admins who monitor WP:AE have been tracking this issue more carefully than the reader of this board. They are probably better equipped to render a decision and take action that is in line with the outstanding ArbCom decisions. I think you need to take this there. Ronnotel (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list of suggestions at the head of this page, we seem spoilt for choice as there seem to be separate noticeboards for uncivil communications, edit warring, long term abuse and ban discussions. Perhaps someone should add arbcom enforcement to this list too but it's not clear what one is to do when there's a combination of all these. Anyway, you are an administrator - is there some reason that you do not wish to act upon this matter yourself? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different admins tend to specialize in different areas. Given the long-running nature of the dispute here and the personalities involved, there are a relatively small number of admins who have the requisite knowledge of relevant ArbCom cases and other precedents that would be needed to be comfortable in building community consensus for any actions that are needed. I think you'll find these admins tend to congregate at WP:AE. I'm not saying I won't take action, all I'm saying is that this seems like an appropriate case to bring to WP:AE and that you will be more likely to generate a consensus there. Ronnotel (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user who performed the merger after asking for input and receiving positive feedback. I don't co-ordinate with other editors as a tag team, and I respectfully ask that my interests in common with other editors not be used against me.

The articles had extensive duplicated information; also, what is called "orthomolecular psychiatry" and "orthomolecular medicine" are inseparable, and have been from the very first article by Linus Pauling coining the term (a term which is not accepted by medicine and never has been). User: Enric Naval eloquently made this case on the talk page. It seems that the major objection to the merger afterwards was that the final article was too long. However, the readable text occupies less than half the memory recommended by WP:SIZE. The discussion in general was marked by clearly partisan remarks versus arguments from policy by users such as Naval and the only truly uninvolved editor to respond to the RfC. As a result, based upon WP:VOTE, I saw the reversion by User:Coppertwig as unjustified and an example of Wikipedia at its worst: when sheer numbers of passionate advocates can sway content beyond what WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, etc. would justify. Again, consensus is not a vote, and sheer numbers should not trump policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty much uninvolved at these articles. I don't know much about the subject other than what I've learned here on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the subject with regards to its medical efficacy. I am the editor who brought up WP:SIZE. The current readable prose occupies about 50k. While this is significantly more than the 30k which the policy suggests is a good size, it does fall into the category of: "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". That can be an argument either way. However, in my RfC comment, I stated that I oppose the merge per Phil153's comments. Phil brought up the most relevant policy to this dispute: WP:N. The question should be: Does Orthomolecular Psychiatry merit its own article? This can be addressed by looking at the sources that are out there discussing this specific topic and weighing them against the requirement of WP:N: Has the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? My searches on Google (Web, Books, Scholar, and News) returned a plethora of independent, reliable sources, and have thus - in my mind - proved the notability of this topic.

Okay, this is neither here nor there, as this isn't the place to make such an argument. What has happened at the articles and what continues to happen is atrocious. The small group of editors mentioned in this complaint are ignoring the closing admin's interpretation of the RfC discussions: The discussion stalled and no consensus for the merge has developed. However, as I said below, the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge. This small group of editors are now relying on personal attacks, edit warring and gaming the system to further bully their POV here. It is my opinion that the Orthomolecular psychiatry article be reinstated (and its POV issues be addressed immediately). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE recommends 30 to 50 kb of readable prose, not "30k". The guideline also recommends "6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose", and the merged article is below this range. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- outdent

Here's the relevant chart from WP:SIZE:

While I think this is a reason to support separating the articles, I think the most relevant policy is WP:N which answers if Orthomolecular Psychiatry merits its own article. In my estimation it does. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the text says 30 to 50 kb, or 6,000 to 10,000 words. Clearly, this is just a very rough guideline, so rough that no one has bothered to make it internally consistent. Even so, the current word count of the readable prose (by definition excluding boxes, tables, markup, headings), is just over 3000 words and thus well below any sort of arbitrary cutoff. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE exists to keep articles at a length which is easy-to-read, so in that sense, word count matters. However, it also exists for swifter page downloads, and in that sense, page size is important. The readable prose is roughly at 50kb, which places it in the "May need to be divided" category. So it doesn't have to be divided per WP:SIZE, but it may need to be.

Again, what should be more relevant to the discussion is WP:N, as that is the true test of whether a topic merits its own article or not. I hope that you and the others participating in this discussion will address WP:N rather than get caught up on supposing individual editor's motivations or biases. The latter is not helpful. Stick with a civil discussion of WP:N and you should be all right. In the meantime, please abide by the reading of the RfC's closing admin and allow the article to exist (at least for the time being so WP:N discussions can proceed in good faith). I would really appreciate your cooperation here and think that it would be a grand gesture of Wikilove if you were to revert the latest redirect. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally would love to see these two articles merged, and I'm happy to add what criticism I can find to the orthomolecular medicine article (along with balancing opinion, per WP:NPOV). However, I can't reward poor behavior, and thus I have to oppose the merge. The blatant lies and edit-warring that are occurring here reflect a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia's basic principles: process, good faith, honesty, neutrality and civility. One convenient case in point is Keepcalm's words above. He says "Naval and the only truly uninvolved editor to respond to the RfC". What he doesn't say is that in the original RfC, DGG and Phil153 voted oppose, and had never edited the article before. On the talk page, the continuous assertion from Verbal is that "there was consensus to merge, therefore a RfC on the issue with no consensus is no consensus to demerge" [paraphrase]. Keepcalm has said similarly that "since the merge occurred boldly and with consensus (at least at the time), I have reverted it". As I pointed out on ANI last time, the "consensus to merge" occurred when the 3 editors above, along with ScienceApologist, decided to merge in a discussion titled "This article was a POV fork". No note was made to the broader orthomolecular medicine talk page. Even then, Coppertwig, Colonel Warden, and myself expressed disagreement with it. The argument was actually immediately 4-4 (counting noted partisan editors ScienceApologist and John Gohde). How do you reconcile that with the frequent statement that there was consensus to merge? You tell me. In a place like Wikipedia, lying is usually easy to ferret out, but that doesn't seem to bother the above editors. II | (t - c) 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One point which is not made clearly above is that the merge in question was the subject of an RfC. Admin User:Ruslik0 found against the offending editors and restored the article in question. As I understand it, this admin was previously uninvolved and so was acting impartially. By reverting this admin, there seems to be an element of willful disobedience/wheel-warring here. What is one to do when the results of dispute resolution are not respected? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a content dispute, not an incident. Why doesn't somebody nominate the purported POV fork for deletion, and see what the consensus is? Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion is not appropriate for this per WP:BEFORE and not even SA proposed this. The only sensible alternative is merger and we have already had that discussion which produced a result. What we now have is editors refusing to accept the result and so this is a behavioural incident, not a content dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec; executive summary: what Colonel Warden said). Thank you very much for the suggestion, Jehochman. Earlier in this same dispute, although I favour keeping it as an article, I wanted to put it to AfD in order to get a broad community consensus with a discussion lasting a reasonable length of time (neither too long nor too short) and a definite, enforceable decision one way or the other. However, after I inquired here I was told that AfD was not appropriate since no one wants to delete the article outright, only convert it to a redirect (though the effect on content is essentially the same); I therefore pursued an RfC and asked that it be closed by an uninvolved admin after 5 days, figuring that this would be essentially the same as AfD as far as getting broad community input. This was done.
  This is an incident rather than a content dispute because some editors are editwarring against the outcome of the RfC as stated and clarified by the closing admin. I would appreciate administrative action, beginning with statements as to whether it's acceptable to revert to a redirect under the current situation (as Verbal and Keepcalmandcarryon have been doing), or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated some little while ago on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry that my perusal of the sources indicated that probably there is only enough notability for a single article, with psych. treated as a particularly notable facet of OMM in general. Psychological syndromes are easier to see via apophenia, so this makes sense. At that point and at least as of earlier today, much of the WP:SIZE argument is obviated by vast swaths of tangentially related cruft clogging the articles. Since that point, there have been no sources introduced indicating that the topics obviously would be better treated separately and distinctly. I respect that other good faith editors have reached the opposite conclusion, and request that they improve the OMP article to the point that it is obviously distinct from OMM in general. Given that such improvements may as readily carried out in a section as an article, I am unclear concerning why anyone cares deeply about this particular issue one way or another, or why the usual battlelines have been drawn on this particular article. Frankly, it is a little bit frustrating to be having the same conversations with the same people when there is so much encyclopedia out there. Why do people seek out editors with whom they seem incapable of editing harmoniously? Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, take a sharp knife and trim out any cruft or poorly referenced material. Then you can take the resulting crisp prose and add it to the other article as a section, and redirect. Is that a possible solution? Saying we need two articles because of length when one or both are bloated is not a convincing argument. Jehochman ^Talk 00:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading this discussion, I see 7 or 8 editors (Artw, rdunnPLIB, Michael C. Price, Colonel Warden, Ronnotel, Levine2112, myself and arguably Hans Adler) supporting the idea that the uninvolved admin's close of the RfC should be respected, i.e. both articles kept; 2 (Keepcalmandcarryon and Badger Drink) apparently taking the opposite position; and two editors (Eldereft and Jehochman) presenting arguments in favour of a merge although this is not a forum for content discussion, but not as far as I understand their comments arguing that it's OK to revert against the consensus mentioned in the RfC close. This looks to me to be strong support for respecting Ruslik's close of the RfC. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the major thrust of my post was a request that we drop all this faintly pointless drama and just go write an encyclopedia. The rest was historical context for uninvolved editors who happen to wander through this thread. And Jehochman - yes, that is exactly the solution I proposed; a couple editors, most notably Keepcalmandcarryon and Orangemarlin (this article is fairly close to the edge of my editing interests), were doing an admirable job of improving the quality and relevance of the sourcing and removing material not well supported by the references. And now we have this interrupting article improvements. Can we please just close the thread and move on? Not try to censure people volunteering for a generally thankless task? Does that sound like fun? Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lex2006 (talk · contribs) and some IPs added unsourced BLP violating material to Marcus Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The material was removed my me and others, and after edit-warring Lex was indef blocked as a SPA BLP violator. However, I'm now having problems with Ivankinsman‎ (talk · contribs) who has repeatedly added the offending material to the talk page (see history), despite warnings. He's now wikilawyering that BLP does not apply to talk pages. I've not the time to deal with this, nor the will to reply to wikilawyering. Can someone have a word, and watchlist for more problems? I'm sure he'll replace the material again.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note with this link. //roux   09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's dead wrong about BLP not applying to talk pages, as we've seen over and over on pages like Obama and Palin. I could put it on my watchlist. Unless you don't want me to for some reason. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 4 1/2 years and you'll be ready for anything. ;) --Scott Mac (Doc) 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the 13 1/2 figure is rabbit years. And it's already on my watch list, just to see what happens. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit years? Wow!! EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've been around for awhile. Took this photo when I was a bit younger. [17] Seen a lot o' changes in my years. And I was agin' every one of 'em. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tillman has been engaging in inappropiate behaviour.

We have been engaged in a long-standing dispute (with others) over the use of the term "myth" in religious articles. This is not about that dispute and I certainly do not wish to discuss the dispute here. I mention it because it is in the context of that dispute that Ben's behaviour is questionable.

The specific issues that concern me are these:

1. Early on in the dispute, I noticed that certain policies/guidelines were being used as arguments, so I decided to investigate those policies. I discovered that one section of "policy" (currently in dispute as to whether it should be a guideline) had been written by Ben (presumably an attempt to strengthen his arguments). Further, it had been written without consultation and therefore without consensus. This is the section "Regarding terminology" on the WP:NPOV/FAQ page. Ben's edit can be found here. Further, at the time of the edit, the page was flagged as policy, with a clear warning to editors that they should gain consensus before making changes. A glance through the talk page history will show that no discussion took place; nor did Ben attempt to initiate a discussion.

2. A related article WP:WTA has a section on the word "myth". Ben has also altered this section (at around the same time); again without consultation or consensus. His edits can be found here. Again the talk page reveals no attempt to discuss this change.

3. Ben (and one or two others) has been attempting to stifle the debate about the use of the word "myth" in religious articles. Despite a number of other editors giving a whole range of reasons why there should be a debate, he is simply refusing to engage in debate. See here for a clear example.

4. Recently, Ben has threatened to archive the discussion at NPOV/FAQ. Up to that time I was willing to ignore his actions described above, but I was not willing to see the debate unilaterally closed by one editor who refuses to engage in debate. Therefore, I warned him that I would have to report his action if he carried out this threat. See here.

5. He has now unilaterally archived the discussion - see here. Another editor reverted this as he was considering an RfC. Ben ignored this and unilaterally archived the discussion again. See here.

(There are other, minor events that relate to this, but I do not think they are worth mentioning except for the fact that Ben has raised an ANI against me previously (see above). This is not relevent here - I only mention it because I suspect a "defence" that may be offered here is that I am raising this as some sort of "revenge". I ask only that admins consider this on its merits.)

I am not sure which of the rules this behaviour violates. I am not sure what the appropriate "punishment" is. All I want is for a debate that leads to consensus. I will leave it to admins to decide appropriate actions.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also advised the user concerned of this notice.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FimusTauri, I suggest you file a request for comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that that would be a bit too extreme. Are you saying that I should take it there? I am not really looking for Ben to be somehow "punished"; rather, I am seeking to ensure that the debate is not "killed off" and that admins are made aware of Ben's behaviour and can advise/warn him appropriately. Certainly, if the behaviour were to persist I would consider more extreme measures. --FimusTauri (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this at all tit-for-tat from the entry above? Why not keep the entire discussion together? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. As I said above, I ask that this be seen in isolation for the events it describes. Ben's entry above is irrelevant to this discussion and I would have brought this discussion up whether that entry existed or not. Please see the warning that I gave to Ben on his talk page.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) personally, I'd be happy if an admin would reinstate the discussion that Ben archived. I'd do it myself, again, but I'm worried it might provoke an edit war, which wouldn't help anything. I'll add, that the only thing I can make out of Ben's actions is that he's acting out of a distinct religious prejudice. whether that's a prejudice against religion as a whole or a prejudice against particular religions I can't say, but this whole discussion clearly speaks to an effort to discredit something, not to an effort at achieving some sort of neutral balance... --Ludwigs2 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else FimusTauri, you're living up to your username. Yes, I edited a policy and guideline page, and yes I archived a dead debate that was over 300 kilobytes - I know, I know, my stifling skills obviously need some work. The rest of what Fimus wrote is tendentious at best, inflammatory at worst. At any uninvolved editor's request I'm happy to discuss any one of the points Fimus raises, otherwise I don't see the need to add to this. Fimus, I apologise for what you will likely see, if your point three is any indication, as stifling your AN/I thread. Ludwigs2, I apologise for reading outside of the Bible. Ben (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Four days after being blocked due to edit-warring on Barack Obama, and since then getting into other tendentious editing, the user looks to be resuming his main cause (plain as day on his user page) of trashing Obama, specifically of pushing the fringe-at-best notion of Obama being foreign born. Can something be done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not until you pass an RfA ;-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week. This is far beyond what we ought to tolerate. If anybody wants to go for a more longterm sanction, they'll have my support. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, does this mean I passed my RfA??? :) :) :) Actually, this is precisely how I would approach a case like this. I'm already involved with this editor, so I would have no business blocking him - I would "take it to court", as I did here, and let an uninvolved admin decide. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody brought an objection to this block to my talk page. Please review; feel free to overturn if those concerns are shared. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. Coming off his/her last block, this account also started edit warring over the image at another article the other day. More demonstrations of same POV pushing behavior will likely lead to longer blocks or a ban. R. Baley (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wax_play_on_back.jpg has a very "interesting" deletion reason. Why hasn't it been dealt with yet?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh - the file is now hosted on commons, the GFDL requirements seem to be met. What's the issue? WilyD 13:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the issue either. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that it looks gross. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks gross? Wow, I kind of like it. :( — neuro^(talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 97.96.86.226 continues to add unsourced music genres to the page Complicated and delete sourced genres, see here! Please help --Smanu (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently moved to a new title by User:Sceptre with a claim that a "rough consensus" on talk supported it. In fact, there has been no recent discussion of a name change at all and all past discussions have more or less rejected a move (an example at the bottom here [18]]). Per BRD i notified scepter of my intent to revert and did so. As i tried to start a talk page discussion he immediately reverted my move (within 1 minute). As this article is on probation and i don't want to edit war, i come here. He's making a rather dramatic change that has been rejected by a consensus of editors on numerous occasions in the past.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP problem can make what looks like no consensus into a good consensus. Besides, consensus can change. Seeing as no-one's explained how the old title isn't a BLP problem, I'd rather have it at the title I've moved it to. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you would. Wouldn't we all? But you ought to know better. Move-warring after a move has been reverted is considerably more serious than "simple" revert warring. Move-protected for a week, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The divide on that article is the issue of whether all of it is a conspiracy theory or whether some of it is sincere. The catch is that conspiracy theorists usually think they're sincere, or at least they put on that front. The title Sceptre proposed might be more technically correct, but a title that goes clear across the screen seems excessive. And I don't get the "BLP violation" part. The mere presence of the article has been argued to be a BLP violation, and messing with it's title doesn't change any of that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "clear across the screen"? On Modern at 1440*900, it only goes to about two-thirds. The only limit is the software limit, which is 255 characters, and if we can fit a title in there, it's hardly nexcessive. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us have smaller screens. But what BLP issue does the longer title fix? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that some of the people mentioned in the article are conspiracy theorists when we have no indication that they are. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One does not need to be a licensed, board-certified "conspiracy theorist" in order to promote a conspiracy theory. Your average disgruntled voter can promote it. The title makes no "assertion" that anyone is anything. But if it somehow has that implication, then how about something even more objective, like...Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories? :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an actual redirect. I was expecting a redlink. Nice. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term, BLP indicates that we don't use such a term to describe someone('s actions) unless we can undeniably say that that is the case. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, through citations that say so. And that's the dilemma, right? That some of these items can definitely be cited as "conspiracy theories", but not all of them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. And we have ethical concerns to not lump those that can't be cited with the verifiable crackpots. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the "wrong" title raisies BLP concerns why is the page protected as such and this thread marked resolved? There doesn't seem to be much disagreement that this title lumps all of the parties making legal challenges as conspiracy theorists. This seems to be a legitimate BLP problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See m:The wrong version. Horologium (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, marked as unresolved. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's resolved here. As the old saw goes, what administrative action do you want now? Yes, you made a unilateral move you knew well would be controversial and you did so with an edit summary claiming a "rough consensus" supported your action (when in fact there had been no discussion on the talk page recently at all, pro or con; all past dicussion had rejected this move). Your unilateral action led to a flurry of move-warring that resulted in an admin protecting the page against moves for a week, and now discussion is underway at the talk page. Which seems well and good. So (again) what admin intervention do you want now?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the POV issues of titling the article with "conspiracy theories", the title seems to be a clear BLP violation that lumps people into this category. The alternate title maintains the conspiracy theory assertion and notes the legal challenges. This seems a very reasonable compromise that eliminates the BLP concerns. A good case could be made that the title should be "Legal challenges to Obama's citizenship" based on our NPOV policies, so I think a compromise title is very reasonable. What is the argument against alleviating the BLP problems of the current title? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all should be put into the conspiracy theorist category, as that is precisely what they are, as I have explained on the article talk page. The assertion that the current title is violating BLP in regards to those who have made these allegations of ineligibility is a false one. We have several articles with "conspiracy theories" in their titles, from fake moon landings to 9/11 to JFK's assassination. Reliable sources have described them as such, and we follow suit. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, because I don't see sources that specifically call Fessler or the Tennessee representatives conspiracy theorists. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to "Right wing whack job opinions from the people who got us in this mess"... it may be a little partisan though... ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I tend to agree generally with your characterization, that might not be the most encyclopedic title. The proposal isn't to remove the conspiracy theory part of the title, but to also note that there are legal challenges. The proposed title would be "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship". I'm sorry I didn't mention it earlier. I think it satisfies the concerns of all parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that this sounds more like a content dispute which does not belong on AN/I and those who are arguing here and not on the article's talk page, please take it there. As far as things being resolved, the page has been protected for a week, as far as this section was started for, it is resolved. Brothejr (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive conduct by Sceptre

The real problem here is that Sceptre is engaged in bad-faith tactics and disruptive conduct, in violation of article probation. He has made it clear on several occasions that he doesn't believe the article should exist in the first place [19]. He's AfD'd it twice [20],[21] and sent it to DRV once when the community disagreed with him [22]; he has repeatedly proposed name changes for which he has obtained no consensus; he has repeatedly reopened old discussions (and by old, I mean only a few weeks old) to reopen issues and make the same arguments that were rejected last time around; he has attempted to impose a name change without consensus by move-warring [23],[24],[25]; he has publicly rejected the validity of consensus [26],[27] and appears to believe that he is the sole arbiter of policy. His current concern about the article's name is little more than a smokescreen for whittling down, and ultimately getting rid of, an article that he has failed to get rid of by other means. His conduct on this article over the past three months is an absolutely textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and Sceptre is lucky not to have been blocked for it. (That may yet happen.)

The article has been largely stable since its creation last December; the only real exception has been the disruptive wrangles and move wars caused by Sceptre. This is not fundamentally a content dispute; it's mostly the result of a single editor refusing to accept consensus and repeatedly disrupting the article in consequence, apparently to either impose his preferred solution or to bully or wear down other editors into letting him have his way. This is a canonical violation of the article probation regime which is in force across Obama-related articles. The probation empowers uninvolved administrators to sanction any editor for "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith."

Given this record of disruption, I propose a topic ban on Sceptre editing, moving or participating in the talk page of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for a period of at least three months. Failing that, it will probably require an arbitration case to deal with Sceptre's misconduct, but I would like to see if the community can deal effectively with disruptive editing before involving the arbitrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the matter is resolved, I'd like to chime in that the (repeated) move was obvious bad faith by Sceptre. The name has been repeatedly discussed and polled, and every single time a consensus resolved to keep the original name. I completely agree with ChrisO that a topic ban for Sceptre is appropriate and needed, since his/her entire contribution history to this topic has been disruptive. LotLE×talk 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC) (note my emphasized word, BTW; I absolutely do not support a general ban on Sceptre, just a restriction from working on this specific topic)[reply]

I think I remember a history of disruption on other content areas, also.. Any reason we're still tolerating this guy? Friday (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.

He's brilliant at article-writing, particulary with bringing pages up to GA/FA standard. He's an asset to Wikipedia in that sense, and this being an encyclopedia, that's great. You can't seriously be suggesting that he's banned? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-banned. That simply means that he can't edit articles relating to the topic area - in this case Barack Obama - for the duration of the ban. He is still free and unimpeded in editing any other articles on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was replying to Friday, who seemed to be implying an actual ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I wouldn't support a full ban on Sceptre, though a short block for the recent move war would not be inappropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you be preventing by blocking me for move-warring? FutPerf already protected the page. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, forget it. It's only a trivial matter of defaming people. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which, fortunately, Wikipedia is not doing. Reliable sources have associated their actions with the conspiracy theories and that is how they are presented in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where are the sources that Fessler and the Tennessee representatives are conspiracy theorists? We need them, or it's a BLP problem. What part of this don't you understand? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the only defamation is what you see. However, Wikipedia is not here to soften things. Not here to call things other then what they are reported as. We call the issue, what the reliable sources call the issue. Plus, if you look up the definition of conspiracy and then look at each citizenship theory, it's vary hard not to call them what they are, conspiracy theories. Finally, something that must be keep in the back of our minds, we should not, and cannot legitimize these theories if the reliable sources do not legitimize these theories. The title change could be construed, whether intended or not, as legitimizing the theories in the article. Brothejr (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing "conspiracy theories" from the title. I'm adding "legal challenges", because it then removes the unsourced implication of Fessler and the TN representatives being conspiracy theorists. It's actually more accurate than the current title, and less BLP-volatile. Personally, I'd rather unintentionally leigitimize a theory than deliberate debunk a theory on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem here, move on - Sceptre and I have rarely agreed on anything. He has been mean and rude to me a lot. With that said, I don't see any problems here. I think he has followed standard processes and that there is an assumption of bad faith on the part of Chris O. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Chris O was not the one to continually try for RFD, Chris O was not the one to continually bring up and re-bring up changing the title. Chris O was not the one who kept on changing the title against consensus. Brothejr (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move-warring, rejecting consensus and failing to engage in any dispute resolution whatsoever are the polar opposite of "following standard processes", and are what the current article probation was specifically implemented to prevent. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, please Chris. Once you do that, you won't see these things as disruptive. However, with each moment you make it harder and harder for me to assume that you aren't disrupting and that you are here out of good faith. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, OR, you're backing the wrong horse and slaying the messengers. Nice work. Chris O is the one who followed good procedure, not the one dragging around the fermenting chunks of equine carcass, flogging it in the streets. ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page moving wars are stupid, and Sceptre should not be doing that, but a topic ban (or any kind of ban) is unnecessary for this highly productive editor. These are legitimate concerns. The title of the article essentially lumps everyone mentioned in the article into a group claiming an Obama birth conspiracy, which is not entirely accurate and not fully supported by reliable sources. Although I personally think everyone who questions Obama's presidential eligibility is a wack-job, I think we have to be mighty careful with article names that characterize their content with such loaded terminology. Surely a less loaded title can be found? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's also find a "less loaded title" for 9/11 conspiracy theories, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories while we're about it. We use the term "conspiracy theories" for good and well-sourced reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. I'm seriously doubting your good faith too. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including ... assumptions of bad faith." [28] Violating article probation on a thread about your violations of article probation is not a good idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubting good faith isn't the same as assuming bad faith. Otherwise, you could be topic-banned too. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that you have already more than adequately demonstrated bad faith through your conduct, as documented by the diffs I posted above. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult situation. Sceptre has clearly been seeking some kind of conflict. He could have let it drop here after not getting blocked for move-waring, the page was move protected, and yet another time-wasting discussion was begun on the relevant talk page. But he insisted on keeping it here. He lied (a hard, but accurate, word in this case) about a "rough consensus" for his original move when there in fact there had been no discussion on it whatsoever recently and past discussions, which he participated in, ended in a consensus not to change. He's being flip now, and obtusely seeking to use BLP in a manner that would make it impossible to describe any conspiracy theory on the planet as such. He's shown no indication that he's willing to work within the rules and framework here (at least when they don't suit his own interests). And (according to his block log) he's a guy who's had a lot of last chances. However, I don't know that he's sought to rename the article before (doesn't show in the logs, but i'm not that savvy; maybe those get purged unlike regular edits?) and hasn't edit-wared over content there (at least not recently). Maybe he gets a strict warning not to make any possibly controversial edits without support on the talk page over there and if he fails in that, then just give him a nice long timeout. Maybe a further proviso that he can't propose a name change more frequently than once a year.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there isn't and the current title is the most accurate. If you see something in there that is not considered a conspiracy theory, then remove it. Brothejr (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the fiftieth time, where are the sources for Fessler and the Tennessee representatives? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That their actions have been linked to a conspiracy theory? The sources are used and cited in the relevant section of the article. I made helpful edit summaries "for sceptre tktkt" when i added the quotes.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that they're conspiracy theorists. That's how high the bar needs to be set. Guilt by asssociation is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What nonesense. No one is calling them "conspiracy theorists." The article says that they appear by their actions to believe there is some merit (i use appear because maybe they're doing and saying things they don't believe to be disruptive, time-wasting, score cheap political points etc...) to what a preponderance of reliable sources describe as "conspiracy theories." There is no guilt by association. They openly state and do things consistent with the things called "conspiracy theories." And on this note, i support a topic ban or other steps that might curtail your ongoing disruption.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what the article says violates BLPs. We need concrete sources that show they believe in this theory. Stringing together the facts that they want Obama's birth certificate to be released, and that some people who want Obama's birth certificate to be released are conspiracy theorists, to imply that they're giving merit to the theory is synthesis and is prohibited per BLP. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been totally uninvolved looking at this, I agree that it has gotten woefully out of hand. I see sources listed in the article that have already associated the actions with conspiracy theory even for the protested individuals, so I don't see a BLP problem. I agree that ending the debate and moving on is appropriate, and that the issue can be raised again in a few months or if there is new information on the topic that suggests a change. To paraphrase an old yarn, "the problem with consensus is that sometimes the other guy wins." There are many other things to be done on Wikipedia, and the world does not end if Wikipedia is wrong. SDY (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly like to move on but the problem is that Sceptre has not allowed anyone to move on. Every time a consensus has been reached or (so we thought) a dispute settled, Sceptre has waited a few weeks before reopening the issue again. This can only be resolved by Sceptre either voluntarily agreeing to disengage from the article (which he's showing no signs of doing) or for him to be topic-banned for violating the article probation, which he has unquestionably done. Or of course he could simply be blocked. Which do you prefer, Sceptre? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. I'm against a topic ban in this case, for reasons explained by Scjessey and others. However, I would recommend to Sceptre that edit-warring is not very useful, and that posting at the BLP Noticeboard might be a more useful pursuit. I agree that there is a very serious BLP problem here. The fringetard conspiracy theorists are being emphasized in the article title, to the exclusion of people who merely believe that a clause in the U.S. Constitution should be enforced more actively. So, it's basically a smear job, and Sceptre is right to be concerned. As far as the Tennessee representatives are concerned, a source says they are continuing a conspiracy against Obama, not that they are theorizing any conspiracy by Obama (and one of those representatives merely speculated that some unnamed people might view them as conspiracy theorists). Sceptre, would you please indicate that the edit-warring has ended? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I kind of find the concepts of edit warring and BLP enforcement to be mutually exclusive. I do agree, though, that I should have gone to the talk after the first move back. Still, what people are missing in this thread is being bold. I thought that there was a rough consensus that the title, in its current form, was not the best title, and given BLP concerns regarding Fessler and the TN representatives, that gave me the justification to move it. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, given your history, you're unlikely to get a break here unless you acknowledge that you were way out of line. There was no consensus to change the title, and being bold has nothing to do with edit-warring.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't do forced apologies, as I don't think they're sincere. I will say that I acted like a bit of a cock and made a rash mistake, because that's true. Mind you, if I said I was out of line, someone's bound to jump on that and say, "he admitted he was disruptive! Topic ban him!" Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind Ferrylodge that SCOTUS disagrees with you about whether or not the constitution was sufficiently enforced; the actiosn of lesser representatives after the fact is without constitutional argument merits as a result. Off topic, no state can pass a law making the requirements for candidacy for federal office more stringent, a fact that any sitting representative at state or federal level ought to know. This is all theater for the right wingers desperately grasping their straws by politicians hungering for votes and favors. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the place to get into detail about that. Suffice it to say that the Constitution gives the separate states freedom to decide how presidential elections are run ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....").Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different. Each state may determine the method of voting, but NOT place additional state laws on top of the federal constitution, which sets the eligibility of candidates. You keep building strawmen, though... ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a thirty-year-old seeks to get on the presidential ballot in a state, the state is perfectly entitled to pass a law requiring proof of age, given that the constitutional minimum age is 35. If you dispute that, fine, but it's the simple truth.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a reminder of history, Sceptre was permanently banned from Wikipedia in 2008, for disruption. The indef block was changed to a 2 month block as a "last chance". This was extended to a 3 month block after he started socking. The block expired in December, and since then he has continued to be disruptive. You would think that a person with this history would learn to be a bit less assertive, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. See the discussion at [29]. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic Ban, both editors - IMO, I think a Topic ban is appropriate for both editors. It is clear that both editors are way too involved. If Chris truly has the best intrest of Wikipedia in mind, then there will be no more issue here. If Sceptre has the best intrests in mind, then he will realise that the community does not want a war over this. The community can step in during the ban and decide what should be done to the article. Sceptre may indeed be a star editor, but that is no excuse for inapproprite conduct such as edit/move warring. As editors, we need to clear our heads before we use our keyboards:) Good luck to all involved. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Both editors"? I've had no involvement whatsoever in the move war and I've not edited the article in a week. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to clarify, I mean to suggest a restriction, by consensus, for both editors to stay away from the topic, not nessesarily an administrative action. Sorry for the confusion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please present evidence of disruption by ChrisO, otherwise please stike your accusations against him. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Please topic ban both User:Sceptre and User:Ferrylodge for their entirely disruptive activities at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Scepter prosecuted a page move war against consensus and policy, and Ferrylodge has engaged in argumentum ad nauseum and endless talk page disruption. Please read Talk: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and its archives to see what's been going on there. Note: I am an involved editor, not acting as an administrator in this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, let's just bring out the guillotine and ban everyone. Let's ban Scjessey too, since I've just been endorsing what he's been saying.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is this, the King Solomon response? Threaten to hurt both sides and see which one folds out of the concern for the true subject? Bah. This is a melodramatic situation. Such ultimate responses are unneeded. Come on Jehochman. This can't be -that- crazy yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, consensus, now and in the dozen other times this has been brought up, is rather clearly against removing the "conspiracy theories" from the title. A topic ban would probably depend on what Sceptre plans to do at the article once the move protection expires. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I can adapt to it. I've recognised that the page won't be deleted, hence why I've stopped nominating it for AFD. I should point out I'm didn't remove "conspiracy theories", I added "and legal challenges". Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that he has no intention of abiding by the consensus decision and has gone past the line from "bold" to "too bold" (Thank you, Mr. Spenser). His point isn't entirely ridiculous, consensus can come to a bad decision if the participating editors are biased, but that's why we have mechanisms like requests for comment, the BLP noticeboard, and arbitration (unless, of course, the whole world is against you). Disruptive editing is not the solution to an unacceptable outcome, and it should be punished in some fashion if it has taken place. A topic ban appears to be appropriate if the allegations listed here are confirmed. SDY (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, is there any official written Wikipedia policy which allows positive contributions to serve as protection from repercussions for disruptive editing? I was simply wondering if it had ever been formally articulated. If not, doing so genuinely might be a good idea, as long as it includes limits to how many times it could be used. arimareiji (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IAR allows you to screw the rules (affluence not required), but whether you can get away with it depends on how popular you are. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything formal, but that doesn't mean that it's not taken into account. I'd strongly oppose a formal guideline, since some people would use it as a license to be disruptive. SDY (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be openly referred to as a reason to protect someone from repercussions, as it has been several times in this thread, then it would seem nothing is lost by bringing it all the way out into the open. In fact, there could be substantial gain if doing so allows a limit to be placed on how many times this defense can be used. At present, it seems there is no limit - and that goes a long way toward driving away other positive contributors. arimareiji (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I still think it would be ill-advised. Maintaining and enforcing such a system would be a massive drain on resources too, since the quality of edits is not something that is easily judged and the volume of edits often means little. SDY (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little bit too bold, but I will abide by a consensus decision that's in line with BLP. I'm trying to do so on the talk page, and we're getting there (by discussing removing tenuous paragraphs, instead of moving), but there's still some work to do. I think everyone got a little too heated earlier on and we're hopefully settling down now. I think that topic banning me would damage the efforts to improve the article; doubly so seeing as Scjessey's quit the discussion in disgust. Oh, and ArbCom don't rule on content. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly, no, but they would intervene in cases where it's obvious that someone is acting based on motivations other than improving the article (certainly a possibility on political topics). SDY (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That simply isn't good enough, Sceptre. You've already appointed yourself as the sole arbiter of what is "in line with BLP". You've already stated your intention to disregard any consensus that you feel doesn't follow BLP. You've justified all your actions to date in the name of BLP. You've repeatedly rejected consensus decisions because you deem them incompatible with BLP. And despite everything that's been said so far, you still haven't stepped away from the article. Do you really want this to go to arbitration - not for a content ruling, but to put your conduct under a microscope, with your past conduct coming up for review as well? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a one month topic ban. Long enough for Sceptre to cool off about this topic and build interests in the areas in which Wikipedia benefits. Otherwise, I suspect it will be well under a month when we see the 'Sceptre causing problems on Obama CT page again' AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa Chris, Why don't we give Sceptre a chance here? Give him the chance to abide by the BLP descision and work out the articles issues. If continues to "disrupt" the activities, then feel free to take other measures. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you re-read what he's written above: "I will abide by a consensus decision that's in line with BLP". His approach all along has been to reject consensus because it doesn't accord with his personal views on BLP. After his two AfDs and one DRV were rejected, he made this approach clear in the article (see edit summary here) and only a few hours ago on his own talk page [30]. He's literally promised to do nothing differently to what he's already done, since he's justified all his actions to date - including the move war - in the name of BLP (see edit summaries here and here). His "in line with BLP" clause is nothing more than a get out of jail free card. Note that he's given himself room to ignore consensus if it's not "in line with BLP" in his judgment. That is how we've got into this problem in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because, if there's a consensus decision that's not in line with BLP, BLP will always win out. You can't make a consensus decision to defame someone. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is that it isn't defamation, what then? SDY (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, SDY. Sceptre, the point that you are consistently missing - or ignoring - is that you are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what meets BLP and other Wikipedia policies. If there is a consensus of other editors that something meets the requirements of BLP, then it's not your place to override that consensus. When the AfDs and DRV rejected your position, your response was to festoon the article with tags and declare "AFD stupidity does not override NPOV and FRINGE". You've made no attempt to go to the BLP noticeboard. When you raised the issue at the fringe theories noticeboard you were told that the article was created as a result of a discussion on the noticeboard, to which you replied: "You've got to be fucking kidding me, right? ... Jesus Christ, was everyone's brains on holiday that day?" The consistent theme is that you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that if consensus comes to a decision with which you disagree, you are empowered to ignore it and act against it. That's a canonical sign of disruptive editing: "Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesing point here. I think the point is that a consensus to keep content in an article, and a consensus that said content doesn't violate our policies, are not necessarily the same thing. Take, for an example I know of, the South Park episode "Volcano". An AfD could plausibly end in a "keep", but that doesn't make it not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Transplant this onto the conspiracy theory article: a consensus could end up in keeping the content, but that doesn't automatically make it not a violation of BLP. It would be best to focus the discussion on whether the content is BLP-compliant, not whether it should be kept. Otherwise, we run around in circles. The reason why I keep harping on on the talk page is that no-one's given me a reasonable explanation on how the stuff about especially the TN representatives and Fessler are BLP compliant. Most of the replies tend to use circular logic, or at the very least, detours to answer the question. By the way, I won't move the article again rashly, but I will advocate for strict BLP enforcement on the talk page. If only for the fact that we screwed up articles about the last president, and we don't want to do it for this president. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. If consensus is that it is not a BLP violation, will you abide by that consensus? SDY (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although that's an academic question, because there's no consensus either way. And there's no consensus on what "no consensus" defaults to regarding BLPs, funnily enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an academic question. Are you willing to accept a decision that you do not agree with if consensus is against you? If you always claim that there is no consensus when you don't agree with it, then a block is probably the best option. If you are willing to work with other editors and concede defeat when consensus is against you, then I don't see a reason for any administrative action. SDY (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy says that the burden of evidence is on people who wish to add or restore information, rather than on people who wish to remove it. In other words, consensus is required to retain information, and if there is no such consensus then removal is acceptable even if there is no consensus to remove. I'll leave it to you to figure out how all of that applies under present circumstances.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I must say this is the most interesting conversation I've had to date on Wikipedia, I'm please to be participating. So it appears we need to find a consensus on the BLP status of the article. That should be step one, correct? AFTER we have done so, we can see what happens and take action, IF nessesary. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi,

A user at a school has demonstrated that they want to make a good faith edit, but is unable to do so because of a school rangeblock.

Could someone please consider swiftly removing this rangeblock, so that they can improve wikipedia?

I have already created the unblock template on their page, but raise the request here to try and get quick action.

User is 208.108.156.242

User talk:208.108.156.242

Rangeblock is 208.108.0.0/16

Thanks,

--  Chzz  ►  14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved; user referred to proper location. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a new one. In this edit User:DancingPhilosopher explains that he linked to an old talk page edit by User:SloContributorSince2005 and presented it as his own history because he suffers from Dissociative identity disorder. He's also using this alleged personal experience as his justification for reverting the article on that topic to an old version that was determined to be the POV pushing of an editor who has since been banned (User:ResearchEditor). I have no idea if he's a sockpuppet of ResearchEditor (I don't recall RE ever claiming to have the diagnosis himself, he was more advocating its existence as a symptom of the satanic abuse conspiracy he was convinced was everywhere), but his actions seem very problematic, to say the least. I'd just 3RR it, but the official warning against 3RR on his talk page got there after the sixth revert (he was going really fast), and the edit warring seems to be just the tip of the iceberg on this one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a job for Julian Colton, why not?! X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, this edit summary is basically admitting the editor in question is planning on sockpuppeting. "your status quo will never be safe again, you will never know when I might change it, you can't block all IP I can do it from..." Block and page protect? I'm pretty sure that this is over the 3rr, and several warnings have been dropped on his/her page now (User talk:DancingPhilosopher#Edit warring and POV pushing on Dissociative identity disorder and User talk:DancingPhilosopher#March.2C 2009. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry eh? The evil genius! Who woulda thunk it? X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now his "alternate personality" as User:SloContributorSince2005 has conveniently kicked in after User:DancingPhilosopher's block. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended for one week. SloContributorSince2005 blocked indefinitely. seicer | talk | contribs 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Chillum 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What? seicer | talk | contribs 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you heard him right: "sockpippetry". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block, seicer. I wasn't sure about performing it myself. Meanwhile, there is a shiny new case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DancingPhilosopher if anyone feels that a CheckUser would be appropriate. Probably that won't be necessary until/unless other accounts begin to appear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I'm awaiting additional sockpippets. seicer | talk | contribs 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one other pippet that I could find. Updated to "confirmed" by-the-by. -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is obviously a lie in this case, I don't want a bad precedent to be set - people with multiple identities should be able to have separate accounts for those identities, and they should be instructed not to share accounts. It should be inferrable from their writing that they're different people. Dcoetzee 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume for the purposes of this debate that multiple personalities is something that actually happens and not just a bad diagnosis, a scenario where different personalities have different accounts and edit different articles with different writing styles should never get to the point where anyone would even take notice and have to do anything about it. But if there's ever any situation where it comes to our attention for some reason that it looks like socking or so forth and the person claims multiple personalities as an excuse, it'd be a very bad policy just to take the person at his or her word. As a practical matter anyone claiming DID still has to follow all the same rules as anyone else. There's no other way it would even work, and the last thing we need is an easy out for people to rationalize bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's something of a non-issue, in that from our perspective, a user with multiple identities is indistinguishable from family/friends who share a computer or a LAN. In either case we should strive to avoid accusing people of sockpuppetry unless there's evidence beyond CU that it's the same person doing the edits. Dcoetzee 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chintha.com a Malayalam website has been trying hard to increase traffic by linking WP articles to it. Malayalam Wikipedia has suffered this most. Recently Ml.Wikipedia deleted the article on this site because it is non-notable. The reason why I call it a phoney site is that it claims to be a Creative Commons (with no further specification) complaint site at the bottom of every page. However, if you check the disclaimer page of this site it becomes apparent that the contents are copyright protected and forbidden to copy.[31] Moreover, this site steals copyrighted contents from other websites and display them as its own property. Many of the articles on the site are mere theft from newspaper websites. How does Wikipedia deal with this problem?59.91.253.110 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPAM for useful links. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• chintha.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Indeed on ml.wiki and here. Will keep an eye on this one. WP:SPAM tells more, you can post on WT:WPSPAM for discussion. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked per NLT. — neuro^(talk) 19:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this article to try and make it more NPOV, but may have overdone it. The situation involves user_talk:Irfsol who identifies himself as the subject of the article and who has edited the article [32] and who has contacted user_talk:Michellecrisp complaining of defamation [33] [34]. I'm posting it here for wider consideration of the issues involved and to garner additional attention to watch the article. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you added was either already sourced, or sourced by you, so I don't see any issues myself. I added the article to my watchlist in case of any potential removal of cited content.-- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This lawyer had already been warned last year of our "No legal threats" policy. After examining his latest screed, I had to block him for violating it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he actually threaten legal action? I think he said he would mention it to his publisher, but I didn't see an actual legal threat. But perhaps what he said was enough to violate the policy. I am new to those issues. Anyway, thank you both for your consideration. I agree this is resolved.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike, wasn't that his professional address? I am not so convinced of the validity of the block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after resolution The history here shows that user:Michellecrisp as far back as December last year was trying to stop continued attempts for the blocked editor Irfsol to have her contact him, and explains why. It appears improper to me that he continue to address her user page as late as a few days ago, providing further information clearly designed to have her contact him. I also note that Michellecrisp has not edited since Mid-January making it even more perplexing why he continue to address her in this manner. I was of two minds to provide the block myself but chose to remove the two lots of information from Irfsol on Michellecrisp page in the first instance (before I saw this thread). That said I can see the link between Michelle's summation of the request and Orange Mike's action. I support that action.--VS ^talk 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors continue to use this page to complain about the English (or worse), in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.106.166.14. BillMasen (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it per WP:NOTFORUM. I recently did a lot of cleanup on the Talk page of Douche that had been there for years. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the campaign image on User:Axmann8 acceptable? Besides the fact that there is no copyright statement attached to the image (the Palin campaign probably would not mind the image being put up wherever they can get it), is the use of a campaign image a violation of the no polemical statements provision of WP:USER? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the copyright thing, I don't see anything too wrong with that. We have "this user is a democrat/republican/anarchist/whatever-the-hell" userboxes which more or less serve the same purpose. The image isn't attacking anyone or deliberately provoking them, so it can stay until it's deleted for the copyright thing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is he still here? Huh. *checks* Oh, he only got a week this time. I've seen some other similar pages, doesn't really bother me either. (Besides, I have a strange suspicion that editor won't be around much longer anyhow.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I disagree with him, I dont take issue with it, Its a copyrighted image, so thats the only issue. As was said earlier, we can have userboxes that say "This user voted for hope and change, not country first." --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked for three months by Edgar181. henrik•talk 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that can be done about an IP editor like 70.57.239.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? This user, or users using the same IP address, has been problematic for over 2 years. Their Talk page has a long list of vandalism warnings, and the IP has been blocked three times, though none recently. Do we just let this User get away with starting over with the lowest level of vandalism warnings every time they decide to drop by to cause trouble? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride is continuing to make automated deletions [35] despite the ArbCom injunction [36]:

MZMcBride is directed to refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion while this arbitration case is pending. This is a temporary injunction and does not reflect any predetermination on the outcome of any issue in the case. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately. Passed 9 to 0 at 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC}

-- Norvy (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the user is highly abusive in reguards to editing wikipedia. However, I'm not aware of any way to check to see if an IP is a shared IP. Maybe an Admin can look into this. User is currently blocked. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Load forty tabs on Special:Delete, then go through them quickly. Undiscernable from a bot. Mind you, I recall Beta doing that and still being sanctioned... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is aware of this thread. MZMcBride had previously noted on his talkpage that his recent deletions have been manual, not automated. If anyone believes there is concrete reason to dispute this, or if any of the deletions are actually problematic, evidence can be presented in the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: How should one be able to do 44 deletions per minute manually? :) — Aitias // discussion 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using tabbed browsing: with tabs, I've reviewed a load of pages to delete; and even I've made close to 44 deletions in a minute, and they've all been manual. I haven't done it for a long time, however. Acalamari 22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, what's the substantive difference between using a bot to delete pages and using a tool which allows rapidly deleting swaths of pages without actually looking through them? arimareiji (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked MZM to respond here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you're a bot, you don't respond to questions or concerns. That's a pretty significant difference when we want our admin corp to be responsive. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would seem the big question would be whether MZM has been responsive to questions and concerns raised about the deletions, or simply continues. And the answer probably depends on who you ask. arimareiji (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted these manual deletions on my talk page. (Tabs, anyone?) After I delete broken redirects, I don't usually stay on the computer for sixty hours straight in case someone has a question. All users have talk pages for a reason. Admins are supposed to be responsive, but they are allowed to do other things (like go outside), as far as I'm aware. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with keeping an eye on him, but there's no reason at the moment to doubt MZMcBride is complying. The important thing about manual editing is that each action is being taken willfully and with visual examination of the page being deleted. And don't forget that with tabbed browsing the deletions are usually done in bursts after a preparatory loading and visual examination period. Dcoetzee 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Charles Hoelzel and it has been brought to my attention that my name is being used without my knowledge, I am assuming the person trying to use my name is the same individual who is responsible for my identity theft. I ask if you please remove any item. board or aticle in which my name is atached in any way, attached is what I'm refering to:

[edit] Nec532x

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereDealt with on ANI

[1] This is the most recent comment left on my talkpage by Nec532x. He is impersonating an actual Navy SEAL named Bob McMeans (I've spoken to the real Bob McMeans about this) and has been trying to add someone named Charles Hoelzel who was not a SEAL to the List of Navy SEALs. This is beginning to look like harrassment and I wanted to make the admins aware. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk · contribs) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's rarely any admins here but that comment is obviously incivil and i posted a warning. Also remember to inform the editor of this alert. This seems to be an SPA so if the problems continue i'd post on the admin board. As this involves unsourced claims about a living person you are correct to remove the info. --neon white talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Having read the post to WP:ANI, I have issued a 1 week block to Nec532x (talk · contribs). Attacks of that nature are intolerable. caknuck ° remains gainfully employed 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again I don't know what is going on here but but please remove my name. Regards Charles Hoelzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.127.30 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Hoelzel, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation's Open Source Ticket Response System to resolve this issue. Follow this link to go to the appropriate page with the procedures you will need to follow. This may take a while, and there will be some sort of verification involved, but they should be able to help you. Horologium (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::*What makes this editor think he is the only Charles Hoelzel? I know for a fact that there's a wikipedia article on another individual with the same name as mine and I have a very odd name. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the deleted article. I thought the editor was talking about a user with his name. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't pretend to understand what is going on here, but this IP started removing text from WP:WQA, and has now been blocked for a day. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washingblack, a new user here at Wikipedia, has very recently begun creating obvious hoaxes. In addition to being unsourced, there is not a single piece of evidence. I suggest that the community take the appropriate action through deleting the entire list of articles and proceeding to either give a final warning or block directly. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose option #2. DS (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful when nuking, however. His article Chapple Norton has had a source added, [37]. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to dont bite the newbies. Have we thrown that out the window? SunCreator (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton fought in the War of 1812 but was born in 1731? That's what I'd call a spry senior citizen. arimareiji (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a problem. While a bunch of these are hoaxes, a few are actually real. I'm individually searching the authentic ones now...Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a hoax? The few I checked all looked sensible. SunCreator (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. One of them, Scottish_Captain_Donald_McDonald has been already deleted. Would you like more? Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one we could actually look at would be helpful. Artw (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah... Articles about people who took part in the American War of Independence, where, on checking sources, seem to veer off into fantasy. Rings a bell, that does. There were a couple of those a few weeks ago from a different user. Going through my contributions of two weeks ago, but style and content is very familiar. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing, it's very familiar. Mfield (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which resulted in me posting this ANI :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) OK, Adelhoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is who I was looking for. The problem a couple of us had there was that while the articles were built on existing redlinks, the details didn't stand up to any scrutiny. There were a couple of members of the British artistocracy mentioned, and a quick look through the various copious sources available indicated that the details of the lives, even birth and death dates were fabricated. And all the articles created related to participants in the Ameerican War of Independence, on both sides. I notice at least one of this batch of articles has a reference to the Battle of Flamborough Head, which was something that popped up in one of Adelhoch's articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the above-referenced article on Chapple Norton, some facts matched the source and some appeared to have been created from whole cloth. arimareiji (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's about the size of it. I came across Adelhoch while I was patrolling at New Pages when I was looking at the Henry Mowat article. I originally thought all the article needed was a few sources and an unref tag , as Mowat did exist and was involved in the Burning of Falmouth. I was looking for a few quick sources just to send the article on its way, and noticed that the article asserted that Mowat was later killed at the Battle of Flamborough Head, and that's when Houston was called, as none of the sources there mentioned anything about him, which was a bit unlikely. Really, everything will have to be checked thoroughly in every article created this case. (Yes, obviously by that statement I mean "more so than normal" :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look at this - my initial impression is that he's being quite sly about this, he's picking people who *could* have been involved in such battles at that time and in those places. However when you dig into the sources, it certainly appears that the battles and events are fabrications. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is almost certainly Adelhoch (talk · contribs) back again. He did James Campbell, 5th Earl of Loudoun - a real person, with all sorts of picturesque detail, and when checked every single detail - dates of birth and death and marriage, father's name, wife's name - was wrong. He's doing deliberate fiction, and should be blocked a.s.a.p. It's bed-time here, but I'll help clear up in morning. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the incredible effort this person put into these hoaxes, I suggest we do a checkuser. I'm guessing this is one of those "prove that Wikipedia is unreliable" editors. I doubt this is their first time, or that blocking would stop them. Dcoetzee 23:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser isn't for fishing. Unless there is some evidence of a link between this and another account checkuser would be inappropriate. ∗ \ / (⁂) 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an obvious link between Adelhoch and Washingblack. And, frankly, CU should be used for fishing. Yeah yeah, I know. Never happen. But we'd have FAR fewer problems. //roux   23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I actually passed several of those articles as "patrolled" when doing some new page patrolling, and worked to do some cleanup (spacing and spelling type issues), categorization, and adding relevant wikiprojects. What a waste of time, and that was probably far less than that spent by many of you in cleaning up after this guy's mess. :( Aleta ^Sing 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have to disagree with you about you wasting your time :). Categorization and adding relevant WPs will at least send the article in the right direction and people specializing in the relevant area would soon spot the fraud. All of these articles were based in some sort of fact and at least one or two facts at the start of each article would check out. I have seen a lot of articles that were in a lot worse condition that these ones, but were the basis of useful articles. Doing a bit of gnoming on articles that aren't in the best of condition when they arrive is a heck of a more useful time spent than tagging for speedy deletion anything that arrives at New Pages which isn't a perfectly formed Featured Article candidate. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• GrahamBould (talk · contribs)

I am an editor in WikiProject Gastropods. I discovered on March 7th, first posted March 8th, that we currently have a very major CopyVio problem which is spread across a huge number of gastropod articles (approximately 800 to 1,000) and which also spills over into many (?hundreds?) of articles on the other molluscan groups. It appears that all (or nearly all) of the articles in the Category:Molluscs of New Zealand contain (in all or almost all cases right from the start) a lot of text that is copied verbatim or almost verbatim from a 1979 book by Powell, New Zealand Mollusca.

Unfortunately none of us in the Project have a copy of the book (which is uncommon outside New Zealand) otherwise this copying would have been caught a long time ago. I think that the creation of new articles with copied material has been going on for approximately 3 years. I asked the editor responsible for this about that possibility more than a year ago, on the 26th February 2008, in a message entitled "Doto pita and others" where I gave him a link to the WP Copyrights guideline, and quoted part of those guidelines in my message... but somehow he managed to sidestep the question while making it look like a no.

On March 7th 2009 I was able to quickly consult a copy of the book at a museum I was visiting in another State. I was able to examine a few species entries and compare them directly to the Wp articles. As soon as I had confirmed the copying, I told the editor responsible for this ( User:GrahamBould ) on 8th March 2009. Although he admitted he had copied, and agreed to work on fixing the articles, in the last 5 or 6 days he has not really made useful contributions in starting to fix this problem, despite several suggestions from me and another editor. An hour ago today I tried to alert everyone on Project Gastropods to how serious the situation is. The other editors are still replying to me as I write this. I do not need to tell you that this is an urgent problem of great magnitude.

I imagine that perhaps we may have to simply start the process of blanking some but not all of the content in all of those articles, possibly by using a bot? Doing it by hand may I imagine take too long because there are so many articles and this needs to be addressed urgently.

Of course I was not able to check all of the articles against the book, (it seems I may possibly be able to borrow a copy of the book for a few weeks, in a few weeks' time), but my general impression is that the majority of the text is copied verbatim or almost verbatim. However, as far as I can tell:

• The taxoboxes and photos are OK, although the taxonomy is totally out of date. The first sentence in each article is OK. Maybe the size info at the end of the description is OK. Any info that was subsequently added by other contributors is very likely to be no problem at all.

Very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've advertised this thread in a few relevant places. Dcoetzee 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bot can tag all those pages with {{copyvio}} and then editors can check the articles afterwards, now the copyvio text has been blanked from view? SoWhy 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. I'm inclined to second SoWhy's suggestion; the important thing is to block publication of them immediately for full clean-up. (Coincidentally, I'm in the process of trying to build a WikiProject for just this sort of thing at User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this being the consensus I will proceed with automatic tagging of the category. Might want to examine User:GrahamBould's other contributions and interview him about other sources he may have copied. Dcoetzee 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can your script (I hope that's the right word) work for listing his contributions? Is there any way to exclude those that are in the category? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the user links above; the relevant diff where he acknowledges copying is here. It would be very nice to get hold of somebody with the book. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Resource Exchange#Potential massive copyright infringement; can your project help?. For further clarity, here is the February 2008 post where User:Invertzoo first broached the topic: [38]. Here is the partial response admitting one infringement (from a different source than Powell): [39]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I'm doing a ContributionSurveyor run on GrahamBould, but it'll take several hours as he has over 26000 edits. Filtering out the articles from this category tree would be straightfoward. Dcoetzee 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments to all on the fast response. I'd support a ban of the editor in question for his actions. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a very good response here, I suspect I do too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Don't be hasty. I suspect this is not intentional, as in a deliberate action to copyvio. He must give a comprehensive response soon tho, or events might overtake him. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be interested in hearing from the contributor, but I don't know how he would be able to justify continuing to infringe after being notified in February 2008 that this was inappropriate, should it prove that articles such as this also copy from that source. If he infringed accidentally, I do not know why he would not have admitted this over a year ago and taken efforts to rectify the error then. --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)yes, the same user :)[reply]

. Events have indeed overtaken him, because he has been indef blocked, which might discourage him from giving an explanation. You say he was notified Feb 08 he was acting inappropriately. I couldn't find anything relevant on his talk page for Feb 08. Back to my barbie. Hot enough for the T-bone. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion solving Gastropoda afected articles is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#A very large and widespread CopyVio problem! and other general tasks can still be solved here. --Snek01 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm now automatically tagging all articles in the category tree as copyvio from the stated source (see Special:Contributions/DcoetzeeBot. Took longer than I thought, haven't done editing against the API before and got hung up on idiosynchrasies of cookie manangement. :-P Dcoetzee 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have been edited since their creation, I cannot see how this is a copyvio. The allegation of copyvio is one editors view, isn't this response a bit excessive? cygnis insignis 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor says, here, "Yes, you are right about copying." That would seem to me to move it beyond one editor's view. --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was heading over there to ask him to weigh in, but after seeing he'd been warned a year ago and continued, I decided to block him indefinitely. Please review. Blueboy96 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. There was only one sentence written by GrahamBould in New Zealand mud snail. (LOOK AT THE ARTICLE!) I corrected it. I believe that there are only certain books we need to find out in GrahamBould's edits. If we discover copyvio, do we need to tag it immediatelly or do we have a time to correction? There is always necessary to look in history and delete only one or two captions. It is necessary to do manually. How much time do we (members of wikiproject gastropods) have to manually remove all copyvios while we know now that they were here years? --Snek01 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of blanking before review is because there are so many. Once they are blanked, we don't have to worry about infringement; they can be investigated and cleaned. That's why the bot is blanking these articles pending investigation. Ordinarily, copyright articles are blanked for eight days before closure, but exceptions are routinely made for clean-up or verification of permission. I'm very sorry for the hardship that this is causing your project, but very glad that your project is proactive and willing to undertake it. (Sorry if I'm not eloquent; it's late for me, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(LOL, I am happy for simple English. Maybe you are lucky I do not know what is "leave you hanging".) I am not good in English, what does this mean? "copyright articles are blanked for eight days before closure." What is the closure? --Snek01 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To 'Leave you hanging' means to put a person in the position of awaiting, for a undue amount of time, an answer which they feel is important. ThuranX (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were the criteria for DcoetzeeBot, that was tagging articles? Are all articles according to chosen criteria tagged? It was stupid to tag articles including taxobox, because there can not be copyrighted material in taxobox and now articles do not provide information. I suggest to not remove taxoboxes next time. --Snek01 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [ec] My goodness! There is no reason to assume anything but good faith that I can see. Can I draw attention to the point made by Invertzoo above: The taxoboxes and photos are OK, ... The first sentence in each article is OK. Maybe the size info at the end of the description is OK. Any info that was subsequently added by other contributors is very likely to be no problem at all. and was not able to check all of the articles against the book. Who else has compared the text to the articles to confirm the extent of any copyright. In the stubs I have seen this would leave around 5 - 10 words that may be a copyvio. cygnis insignis 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, I did not mean to remove the taxoboxes, I will fix them. It tagged all articles in the Category:Molluscs of New Zealand category hierarchy. The tags are a temporary measure to hide the copyvio content while the articles are being reviewed. Dcoetzee 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators need to be aware of the following. A suggestion was made on the project page to use a bot to tweak the wording and I think user:cygnis insignis's changes to janthina janthina are a manual implemetation of the same idea. Concealing a copyright violation is worse than the current situation. wp:copyvio is quite clear, the offending content needs to be removed and replaced, not concealed. Celestra (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Jayron32 indef blocked offending editor while report was being filed here Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just give this user his requested wish and indef him, however last time I blocked someone for that it was stated on ANI that my being the subject of the final personal attack disqualified me as being an administrator in conflict with the block subject. So I'd like to request a review and presumptive block by an uninvolved admin on ErikWarmelink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I blocked ErikWarmelink for 24 hrs on March 11 for civility and personal attacks after warnings on March 4th and ongoing discussion. warnings on March 4th block on March 11th after edit summary accusing another editor of being racist and the edit summary suggesting another editor rot in a camp. The response was yet another personal attack, on me: suggesting I should rot in Guantanamo for the block

Today I left him another warning after two edits telling people to "sod off" (on Talk:Israeli-occupied territories, to user Wikifan12345) and "sod off, whitey" (on his talk page, to Arthur Rubin). Here's the warning: warning and his response here, with edit summary "hi, fat arse" and contents "I am not a member of your community. If you continue to consider obesity, lack of melanin and intelleigence, to be an important property of the master race, instead of a genetic decease of losers like yourself, please block me.".

I believe Mr Warmelink has exceeded the tolerance limit of the community for incivility.... However, per prior discussions, as he focused his ire on me most recently, I'll let someone else make the decision and take whatever action seems most appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Jayron32 came to the same conclusion while I was typing the report up and indef'ed him. Going to mark as resolved... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I indeffed him after his "losers like you comment". Sarek of Vulcan then shut down his abilty to edit his talk page based on this response to my block. I just redirected his talk page to his userpage and tagged him with {{indefblocked}} in the interest of WP:DENY. Let us enter the "I" stage of WP:RBI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected Barack Obama as things seemed to have calmed down. I ask that everyone keep an eye on it for the next few days to prevent further trouble. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but please don't refer to the POTUS as an "it" ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the secret service spends quite enough time keeping an eye on him (Obama), but I expect they leave the keeping our eyes on it (the Obama article) to us.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of John McCain's infamous "that one" gaff. :-P Dcoetzee 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke right? Keep an eye on the Obama article? Ok, I'll add it to my watch list. Maybe you should also advise the BLP board so we can make sure we have enough eyes watching it.(jokeing) Tom 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and have miserably failed to be the mediator between two users, Planecrash111 and JustSomeRandomGuy32.

There is accusations of sockpuppetry by Planecrash of RandomGuy and from RandomGuy to Planecrash. Warning Templation abuse on both. 3RR violations on both. Personal attacks from RandomGuy to Planecrash. Back and forth swipes at each other. Essentially a good ol' war of two users.

I tried to put them each in their corners with this post I sent both last night and it seemed to work, but today they are back at it.

I know it will probably end in blocks for both, but I need some help. Obviously this is something for an admin and not a non-admin wanting to help. :( - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 14, 2009 @ 04:00

I've blocked JustSomeRandomGuy32 independent of this discussion, and annotated his/her talk page about the whole TLDR saga now that I'm aware of it. Frankly, I don't feel inclined to wade through the whole saga tonight so feel free to modify my block in any direction. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]