Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:34, 12 August 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Wikihounding and disruptive editing?

Crossposted to WP:VPM

I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours of Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors wikihounding me while working together as a group.

My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles).

Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed.

I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page (where they then also edit warred with others ) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case.

Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. The case evidence I presented was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either.

After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Misplaced Pages which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further.

I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion.

While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail and began to do the same for Miami33139 and JBsupreme. Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked.

A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect.

I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace.

Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. ) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions.

A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above).

I really have tried to do some good here on Misplaced Pages and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time.

As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it.

Sigh.

I think I'll take another short break from Misplaced Pages as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• just one preliminary point--moving the material and then blanking with the history intact preserves the content, and I think it's acceptable behavior. At least I hope it is, because I once did something similar myself to preserve content for future use. However, surely he should have notified you he was going to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really tally, though, does it? JBsupreme wants the page deleted because it "borders on abuse of userspace", but will go to all of this effort in order to retain it under xyr own user space, including reverting a deletion request by the person who is, purportedly, "abusing" xyr user space with it in the first place. This just doesn't add up. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Something else I noticed after posting the above is that Hm2k did something similar with another draft I had within my userspace. What was odd is after he moved it to his userspace, Miami33139 immediately initiated a MFD for that in-progress article. I know Hm2k has good intentions as far as improving the draft article so if he wants to work on it, he has my support. The immediate MFD by Miami33139 is certainly strange though. (It is probably also worth noting that Theserialcomma wikihounded and baited Hm2k previously as well, eventually leading him to lash out and be blocked for a short while. Theserialcomma is also the one who initiated an AfD for mIRCStats in the first place, when the wikihounding by Theserialcomma first began.)

      Shortly after JBsupreme moved the above mentioned draft from my userspace, he also removed the majority of the content of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients just before initiating an AfD. This is actually the second time JBsupreme has attempted an AfD for this page and the MO of blanking the article before nominating it for AfD is one of his regular tactics. Considering how JBsupreme argues against reliable sources and so on in AfDs and considering that even an ArbCom restriction has failed to curb his behaviour, I honestly don't see any point in even trying to participate in that AfD because I feel he would just attack me (as he has done previously) anyway.

      Sigh. What a complex, tangled mess. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Given this edit I moved the page back to my userspace and redirected it for the time being. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing for admin to do here, this has been to Arbcom

This is wrong forum. Arbcom is over here. Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf that everyone is out to get him were not found credible by Arbcom. I went through and suggested deletion for two of his walled garden of previously deleted articles, which were stale from 6 to 15 months. 6 months is normal timeframe at MfD to improve deleted content or have it thrown out. This is normal followup on the deletion process of things I have been keeping track of. Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him. He thinks anyone who edits his toys is hounding him. Enough paranoia.

Thank you to all who previously commented for letting those mentioned in the paranoid ranting know about it, as expected by the header on the noticeboard. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While not meaning to be a prosecutor or some such, but isn't calling the fellow's comments "paranoid ranting" a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I am sure it can be described with a bit less crass? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent unfounded accusations also a violation of NPA and civil. It is not ad hominem to say he is paranoid. It fit pattern. You see above he accuses three editors of persecuting him. What shown in previous dispute resolution was all disagreements result in Tothwolf writing long screeds about being persecuted. For two years when someone edit his articles in a way he don't like he runs to a noticeboard talking about people out to get him. Enough of that! Paranoid is simple adjective succinctly describing situation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So then there should be two blocks- one for him and one for you. And how is it not ad hominem to call him paranoid? It's minimally NPA. Just don't do it. Basket of Puppies 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

BOP, paranoid can describe a pattern of behaviour as well as a mental illness. It would be better if Miami says "displays paranoid behaviour" but I can't see it as a PA myself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think intent also has a lot to do with whether or not something can be considered a personal attack. Shortly before Jehochman tried to help me with filing an ArbCom case, Miami33139 made this comment in which he also called me "paranoid and delusional". While the term "paranoid" can be used in a way in which it isn't a personal attack, I think the way in which Miami33139 uses the word both above and in previous discussions really does seem to be meant as a personal attack.

I believe this comment made by Miami33139 yesterday could also be considered a personal attack. It is also clearly an attempt at escalation, which is something he been warned for previously.

To refocus this back on the behavioural issues (which as I noted above is why I brought this here), Miami33139's current behaviour seems to fit the very definitions of tendentious and disruptive editing to the "T". I found that the only way Miami33139 and the other two named above would leave me alone was to be completely "absent" from Misplaced Pages and not edit anything. This doesn't seem right.

Disruptive editors who engage in tendentious editing, wikihounding, bullying, etc have a history of being restricted and eventually blocked if restrictions fail to curb such behaviour. Unfortunately, it seems like many times such disruptive editors end up doing a lot of damage to the community (often including the morale of other editors) before the community notices and finally decides to take action. It seems like the random page blank/junk text/explicit image type vandals, etc (which in general really seem to do far less overall long-term damage to the encyclopedia) are dealt with much faster than those who take steps to attempts to evade detection and scrutiny of their actions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies here. From what I can tell you have a prior history with Tothwolf, so your objective judgement is questionable. Simply express your concern and don't make asumptions about other users behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, calling someone paranoid is a violation of NPA any way you look at it. It's not appropriate at all for this project. I'll have a look at the NPA policy, but I doubt there is an exemption for calling someone paranoid. Basket of Puppies 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. In the circumstances, its also baiting. I would be somewhat reluctant to block on the basis of what's said at this intrinsically contentious page, but I think it's way over the line. Tothwolf is certainly entitled to come here and say that disruption has continued even after an arb com decision which should have put an end to it. The question is whether we can do anything about it without a second arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is and combined with the tl;dr comment above, I'd say a block is in order. It's very obvious that he's come here to try and inflame the situation, troll and harass the other user.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't use NPA as a bludgeon. The whole statement above was basically baiting (as DGG says) and shouldn't have been said, but we are getting really parsimonious in referring to words describing actions (paranoid ramblings) to mean words describing actors. when accusing someone of making personal attacks, a semantic discussion shouldn't be necessary. If you find yourself in a good faith semantic discussion after leveling an accusation that someone is making a personal attack, they likely haven't violated NPA. Remember, NPA is a big stick in policing discourse, don't use it unless it is abundantly clear that it is necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you misread DGG's comments. DGG says that calling Tothwolf paranoid is baiting and that he is entitled to make his statement. Stop calling other people paranoid. As far as I can see, there is a concerted effort by at least JBsupreme and Miami33139 to hound Tothwolf off Misplaced Pages, so I wouldn't say Tothwolf is at all paranoid in suggesting this. Miami's comments to "Call the Waaaambulance" are crossing the line into mocking. Fences&Windows 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Tothwolf is not being paranoid in suggesting there is an attempt to hound him off Misplaced Pages, it's a reasonable perception of what is going on. See the comments at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Arbitrator views and discussion. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to "bait" so I have removed my statement and will restate it. This accusation that I am hounding him is false. I work on deleting a lot of articles and it is not a personal crusade against him. Arbcom listened to him bring this argument months ago, maybe even a year. They found it baseless. I am tired of hearing this accusation. Making persistent unfounded accusations is against NPA, That Tothwolf violates NPA by making persistent unfounded accusations is part of Arbcom finding of fact. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What was your intent with the "tl;dr" comment? Did you think that was a helpful comment to make towards someone you're engaged in a dispute with? Do you honestly think that could be reasonably seen as anything but?--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, Miami33139 removed that statement you are referring to along w/ his strikeout of the above remarks. So it might be right to assume it to be retracted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consider his statement "It was not my intent to "bait"" to be a bald-faced lie. Taken in conjunction with the previous tl;dr post, his nomination of articles in Tothwolf's userspace and his canvassing of cohorts JBSupreme and Theserialcomma with blatantly taunting language (whaaambulance, whine one one) , there should be no other interpretation of his behavior. Redacting a comment days later in an effort to avoid being blocked is not a real redaction. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing {{]:]}} on their talk page not canvassing when they are mentioned here by the original poster who did not follow instruction do it himself. I use joking language with people who have been through this accusation before on their page, because it would be inappropriate here. I am obvious frustrated after ArbCom say Tothwolf should stop making these accusation, and here he is still making accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes perhaps canvassing isn't the proper legal word for it. Though there must be a wikipedia policy out there which discourages contacting your cohorts so they may participate in a pile-on against your rival. WP:TAGTEAM, perhaps? (I am of course aware that citing WP:TAGTEAM may itself be considered incivil; I feel that there is adequate evidence of malicious collusion between Miami and JBSupreme targeting Tothwolf to justify the citation)

But more obfuscation from you - you didn't use Template:ANI-notice, did you? No, you accused Tothwolf of "dialing whine one one" for the "waahmbulance".

Let us read WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, section 1d. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts

Would you care to explain how your tl;dr post and your posts to JBSupreme and Theserialcomma's talk pages were not gross violations of civility? Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You miss the part that I did use ANI-NOTICE template and it was Tothwolf responsibility, not mine, to apply that notice. The pile-on here, is on me, even after Arbcom found six months ago I was not hounding him. What is your part here, Seth, to inflame against me? Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was 6 months ago. That isn't a carte blanche to do whatever you want for the rest of your wikicareer with impunity. Just because you weren't hounding him 6 months ago doesn't mean you aren't now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Retracted or otherwise, it goes to his claim that he wasn't trying to bait. There is no other way to see it. Using joking language with a user that you're that embroiled with is just inappropriate. It can do little beyond inflame the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not use joking language with a user I am embroiled with. I used it with users who were similarly accused without being notified of the accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf seems to have taken great issue with you and you replied to his comment with "tl;dr" I asked you specifically how that could be seen any other way. If it isn't joking language, and it wasn't baiting and it wasn't hounding, what was it?--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is the appropriate public/admin response to a comment like that after it has been retracted? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is how and why it was retracted. The retraction seems just as bad as the comment as his reasoning is quite poor and comes across as disingenuous. The appropriate response is to determine whether the user actually acknowledges the problem and if there is a likelihood the behaviour will continue. So far he seems to be attempting to excuse it away and deflect blame and not genuinely own up to it which is an indication that the behaviour may continue at a future date to me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the section header Miami33139 used in this edit until Seth Kellerman linked to it: "==W<span style="background:white; color:white; ;">h</span>ine suggestion==" This renders as "Whine suggestion" with the 'h' in white text on a white background. It seems to fit the same pattern of the other edit. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for transparency I want to mention here that someone posted this strange message on my talk page today: --Tothwolf (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

About 2% of my editing since June overlaps with Tothwolf. I am tired of his accusations. I wish to ignore him. I'm sorry you think 5 characters an exasperated comment is capital crime on Misplaced Pages. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

5 characters, your reference to him as paranoid, your inappropriate comment here, here and then your disingenuous attempt to cover it all up. If you are saying you made all of those edits unintentionally then I think you should be blocked because it is quite apparent you are not in control of your actions.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested Amendment from Arbcom Miami33139 (talk) 07

07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving on - to block Miami33139?

There seems to be a fair amount of consensus among administrators and regular editors that Miami's actions warranted a block. As such, I would prefer this discussion not die with no action being taken.

Since one of Miami's collaborators, Theserialcomma, was blocked 5 days for baiting, I propose that Miami also be blocked for 5 days. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above, Beyond My Ken made a statement on July 16th regarding Miami33139's wikihounding behaviours which I think will be of interest to the rest of the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban including a ban on nominating articles or user pages for deletion that were created or significantly edited by Tothwolf would be a good idea, but events may be moving on regardless of the decision here, as Miami33139 may have chucked a WP:BOOMERANG: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf. Fences&Windows 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I noted my concerns with a simple interaction ban in my reply to Carcharoth on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed . I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas."

One example I noted in my statement is {{IRC footer}}, which the edit history will probably explain far better than I could here. There were also events like these diffs document which I'm not sure a simple interaction ban as proposed would prevent: There are also other examples such as Category:Internet Relay Chat games (CFD) and others which I did not note in my statement. I had been in the process of populating them when the wikihounding began and Miami33139 attempted to depopulate them in order to have them deleted via CFD. Sigh.

I really do wish Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme would stop the personal attacks though (calling me "paranoid", "delusional", etc and claiming WP:OWN, WP:COI, etc). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

the reviewing arbitrator is apparently waiting for further comments. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Klaus Ebner: Wikicrossing, spam, conflict of interest and puppet users

Initial reports/feedback

After a problem in Galician wikipedia related with Klaus Ebner, I have found a complexe network of editors (probably fake or puppet editors) aiming to overpromote the name of the Austrian translator Klaus Ebner. These are some of the proofs:

• The article Klaus Ebner was created by the user Klaus Ebner.
• The article was also mainly edited by Torsten Wittmann, irina Walter, Sarrah Wham and Helmut Bihy. Also, there are on the list two more users: Litteralittera and Svartvicks.
  • Torsten Wittmann was created 22Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
  • irina Walter was created 20Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
  • Sarrah Wham was created 14Apr 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, two days after.
  • Helmut Bihy was created 25Apr 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
• Torsten Wittmann's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. He also removed the tag of Conflict of Interest and supported the removal quoting himself as a reference of the Ebner's relevance. He focused his other editions in the articles Austrian literature, Grazer Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher) and the novel Hominid (novel), by Ebner.
• irina Walter's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. She also supported the removal of the CoI tag quoting himself as a reference of the Ebner's relevance, the same day as she joined (en)Misplaced Pages. She focused her other editions in the articles Austrian literature, Grazer Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), and Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher). She showed a good acquitance with Ebner when edited the Ebner parent's date of birth and death. Also she asked for support for improving the English version of this article.
• Sarrah Wham's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. She focused her other editions in the article Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]].
• Helmut Bihy's only article is Klaus Ebner. He also nominated the article klaus Ebner as a good article.
• Klaus Ebner's main article is Klaus Ebner. He admitted the creation of this article about himself. He also edited the article List of Austrian writers for including his name, and Austrian literature.

An exploration: French Misplaced Pages

I will examine the French wikipedia

• The French article fr:Klaus Ebner was created by an anonymous IP on 20Dec 2007, the same day for the registration of the user Klaus Ebner (fr) and irina Walter (en). The first contribution of Klaus Ebner (fr) was the article fr:Klaus Ebner.
• This article was edited mainly by Linda Auerbach and Frodon le Grand.
  • Frodon le Grand has been created on 4May 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. He dedicated his other editions to the articles fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]] and the novel fr:Hominidé, the homonimy page of the novel by Ebner.
  • Linda Auerbach has been created on 23Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. She dedicated her other editions to the articles, fr:Grazer Autorinnen Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), fr:Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), the prize fr:Feldkircher Lyrikpreis, won by Ebner in 2005, fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher) and the novel Hominid (novel), by Ebner. Even more remarckably, she has edited the article fr:SetzeVents Editorial, about the Catalan publisher of Ebner and the userpage of Svartvicks, in order to state what's the Catalan skills of this user (!)
  • Svartvicks has been created on 4May 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. He dedicated his other editions to the articles fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]] and the novel fr:Hominidé, the homonimy page of the novel by Ebner.

Other Wikipedias

There is an article about Klaus Ebner in 78 different languages.

• The German article de:Klaus Ebner was created by an anonymous IP 62.47.142.232 on 17Dec 2007, one day before the registration of Klaus Ebner (de) on 18Dec 2007, the same day for the article's creation in the English wikipedia. The first contribution of Klaus Ebner (de) was the article de:Klaus Ebner.
• In Aragonese: created and edited mainly by an:User:Anne-Claudine on 22Feb 2009. Her only relevant contribution.
• In Asturian: created and edited mainly by as:User:Anne-Claudine on 22Feb 2009. Her only contribution.
• In Corsican: created by an IP and edited mainly by co:User:Marco Zitti on 9Mar 2008. Zitti's only contribution.
• In Welsh: created and edited mainly by cy:User:Litteralittera on 21Oct 2009. Litteralittera's only contribution.
• In Greek: created and edited mainly by el:User:Veronika (sic, on Roman alphabet) on 27Feb 2008. Veronika's only contribution.
• In Galician: created and edited mainly by gl:User:Ana Montez on 23Feb 2008. Ana Montez's only contribution.
• In Frisian: created and edited mainly by fy:User:Anne-Claudine on 28Feb 2009. Her only contribution.
• In Hungarian: created and edited by hu:User:Judit S on 12Mar 2008. Her only contribution. Also edited by hu:User:Szentgroti (his only contribution), hu:User:Vajdaoli (his only contribution) and hu:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution).
• In Creole Asiyen: created and edited mainly by ht:User:Anne-Claudine on 25Feb 2009. Her only contribution. Also edited by ht:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution) and hu:User:Irina Walter AT (her only contribution).
• In Latin: created and edited mainly by la:User:Ennius on 30Jun 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by la:User:Litteralittera who also edited the List of Austrian writers in order to add Ebner.
• In Occitan: created and edited mainly by oc:User:Claude on 7Mar 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by oc:User:Irina Walter AT (her only contribution), oc:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution) and oc:User:Anne-Claudine (her only contribution).
• In Portuguese: created and edited mainly by pt:User:Ana Montez on 26Feb 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by pt:User:Irina Walter AT (she also asked another User to translate into Portuguese the article about Hominide, the Ebner's novel) and pt:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution).
• In Tagalog: created by tl:User:Irina Walter on 14Nov 2008. Her only contribution. Also edited by tl:User:Irina Walter AT and tl:User:Francesca la Bola (her only contribution).

Puppet Users

I'll list here some users having editions in more than 3 Misplaced Pages projects and all of them Ebner related.

• Francesca la Bola: en, ca, nap, pl, scn, tl.
• Anne-Claudine: af, an, ast, en, fr, fy, ht, oc (it's remarkable that the author of the Ebner's Latin article thought that Klaus was the equivalent of Claudius, instead of Nicolaus)
• Ana Montez: ca, es, fr, gl, pt.
• Litteralittera: ca, commons, cy, da, de, en, es, fr, gl, hi, hu, it, ja, la, meta, ms, mt, mr, ro, ru. sl, sq, yo
• Littera: ca, de, en, ia.
• Torsten Wittmann: da, de, fi, is, jv, no, sk and Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe): en

--Xabier Cid (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, OK. On first read through, there is something worth digging into here, but it's not clear what's actually going on. You need to inform all those editors about this discussion: do that now I've done so. The good article reviews included several of those editors: Talk:Klaus Ebner/GA1, Talk:Klaus Ebner/GA2. Fences&Windows 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition to the en.wiki users you listed above, I have alerted the following single-purpose accounts (WP:SPA) which share names with those on other language Wikipedias: Litteralittera (talk · contribs), Littera (talk · contribs), Svartvicks (talk · contribs), Anne-Claudine (talk · contribs), Irina Walter AT (talk · contribs), Livia Plurabelle (talk · contribs), Francesca la Bola (talk · contribs), and D. Bogdan V. (talk · contribs). Fences&Windows 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This is one of the biggest potential sock rings I've ever seen. And the fact that it's cross-wiki too may mean it's an ArbCom issue. (Speaking from no experience, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) In any case, it's definitely enough to merit a CheckUser, so I'd go for that. Sheesh. elektrikSHOOS 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, checkuser is needed, though many of the accounts may be stale. Fences&Windows 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Support move to ARBCOM Elektrik Shoos, I disagree both TM and Scientology were much larger but this is a good idea to move to arbcom. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Hence the phrase 'one of the biggest.' Keeps me from liability. :) elektrikSHOOS 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Hold your horses, why does this need to go to Arbcom? It's only just been raised, there's no suggestion that the community can't handle this. Enough with the Arbcomania. Fences&Windows 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • If it's cross-wiki surely it's beyond the scope of the enArbCom? MtD (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If and when we conclude that there is an issue here, we can contact the other language Wikipedias, or perhaps a Steward. But let's not put the cart before the horse: we've still got to assess the evidence and hear from the involved accounts (who have all been alerted of this thread). Fences&Windows 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I see that users with the names Irina Walter, Torsten Wittmann, Claudia Nittl, and Bogdan Dumic all posted positive reviews of one Ebner's books at Amazon.de around November-December 2007, around the same time that the Klaus Ebner article was created here and on the German and French Wikipedias. Looks like a coordinated promotion effort. ThemFromSpace 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• In Galician Misplaced Pages has been admitted by gl:User:Fátima Rodríguez that Klaus Ebner and Litteralittera are the same human, and at the same time her translator, trying to promote her books (his translations). Also she was asked by Klaus Ebner to join Misplaced Pages and engage the discussion about the deletion of the article about her.--Xabier Cid (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Hello to all. I've just been informed on my discussion page about this discussion. To be frank, I am overwhelmed by this bulk of information and the many coincidences (and evidencies), although I am surprised that an engagement for a specific topic (this author in this particular case) is automatically damned and regarded as overpromotion or puppet activity. The date of the beginning of my editing activities on Misplaced Pages is not a coincidence because it was shortly after the publication of Ebner's first book. (My review on Amazon is mentioned above) Yes, of course, I like the books of this author. If not I wouldn't have collected information and written about him. My involvement does even look more as there had been discussions around the GA status where I heavily involved myself because I was angry about the argumentation. If it is not wanted (any more) to work on Ebner then I will concentrate on other authors. But they will always be from Austria or Germany. And if I misunderstood all the criticism above and it is not wanted that one person edits in several languages, then please put that clear. Greetings.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The suspicion is sockpuppetry on a grand scale, i.e. one person using more than one account to give the false appearance of consensus, including to gain good article approval. The timing of the registration of the accounts strongly suggests coordination of these many single-purpose accounts. So - have you edited from any other accounts on Misplaced Pages? Fences&Windows 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Hope this is the right secton for my comment. Thanks to user Fences&Windows to inform me about this. Im impressed by this thread, must have been 30 min or so to read through and to re-read some of the passages. I comment because I think two parties go against me. First, the base tenor of this thread, led by Xabier Cid. Second, the answer of Klaus Ebner that drags me in closely. Yes, it's true, I know Ebner. I met him the first time at a public reading back in 2007. I loved his funny stories and his ironic style to write. Bought his book and wrote a review for Amazon - oh yes, you already noted that. Then I began to do my edits in Misplaced Pages. Primarily Ebner's article, in the German Misplaced Pages. Then in the English Misplaced Pages. Thought it would be cool. I talked with Ebner at the reading, and again at another reading. So he knows who I am. Maybe we also talked about Misplaced Pages and about my activities here, I don't remember that. Xabier Cid says I am a Single Purpose Account (didn't know this expression before). I am contributing very little to Misplaced Pages, don't even have this Sichten-stuff on the German Misplaced Pages. And I am editing only authors I really like or where I found out something which isn't mentioned. That was primarily Klaus Ebner in the German Misplaced Pages. I wouldn't have written about someone I don't like. In the English one - I checked this after having read this thread - it is more Austrian literature in general I would say. So what does Single Purpose Account mean? Contributing only to one topic? Yes, this is definitely Austrian literature. I am Austrian. So this is a natural interest, isn't it? Even though our bookshops are drowned in translations of American novels, this is not the entire world. Ther is an Austrian literature, I love going to public readings and I love to discuss with the writers after the reading. This is absolutely normal in Vienna. I think I already know dozens of Austrian writers that way. But I only wrote about Ebner. Shame on me. In case of course it wasn't about Austrian literature in General. Ebner is only a tiny portion of it - oh, you noted that too. And oh yes, I am also living in Vienna. Like Ebner. Shame on me? Some say Vienna's population as already about two million or so. Hm. I understand that this is a severe case, and I understand that Ebner edited his own article and lied several instances. To the Misplaced Pages community, of which I am a member I think. But some arguments made me laugh. The Single Purpose Account is one of these. My somewhat obvious engagement for Ebner and the Austrian Literature make this plausible, ok. But did you really check the contributions of the main contributors? Someone named Torsten Wittmann a Single Purpose Account. Sorry, this makes me laugh. He's a German, and his "home" Misplaced Pages is the German one. Did you check his contributions there? Xabier Cid found out that his first contribution was to the article of Ebner, yes. As mine - wooo. Maybe Ebner shouldn't have written his books. But it looks to me that all these contributions are not known - and it's so easy to look them up in the German Misplaced Pages, even when you don't speak German. Or the "fake article". Maybe I'm too stupid to understnd what a fake article is. I thought it would be an article that describes somthing that is not real. But Ebner is real, and his books too, and the information in his article too. Of course I can only judge the German and the English Misplaced Pages articles, no idea what the French and the Catalans and whoever wrote about him. There are some other items don't seem right to me, but I don't want to write so long. But I'm really not happy about the allegations against me. I met the writer about who I contributed some times and spoke with him. So what? Who wants to forbid that? I am writing about Austrian literature. Of course this has something to do with Ebner too since he is Austrian. And if I write about the GAV or the PEN or the ÖSV then it also has to do something with Ebner. All Austrian writers are organized in one or two of these organizations, there is no other. Why did I contribute to GAV and not to PEN or the other way round? Because I read more books about it? Because the quarrels in the 70s were so interesting? Why do I have to justify that? Am I not allowed to contribute where I want? If I overreact now, because perhaps I misunderstand some of your sayings, then I beg your pardon. As Fences&Windows informed me about this I saw a finger pointing at me. What I don't like. --D. Bogdan V. (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bogdan, I would like just to clarify some points. First, I've never said that you were a single purpose account. Secondly, it is not importante whether you like Ebner or not, or whether you live in Vienna for that purpose. The only important thing is if you have edited the Ebner's article adviced, pushed or lobbied by Ebner himself. I have spend last minutes checking again the main editions of Klaus Ebner in many wikipedias between the 20th and the 23rd December. This is the result.

• 20Dec07: 20:48. Pressed by the claims of Conflict of Interest, User:Klaus Ebner did his last contribution on Klaus Ebner.
• 20Dec07: 22:16. de:User:Klaus Ebner did his last contribution on de:Klaus Ebner. At the same time (22:15 and 22:16) Ebner did his last contributions on fr:Klaus Ebner and ca:Klaus Ebner.
• 20Dec07: 22:49 to 22:54 User:Irina Walter, allegedly the Ebner's sister, has been created and has contributed on Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 13:15 de:User:Irina Walter has been created and has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 17:01 ca:User:Nuri has been created and has contributed on ca:Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 18:41 de:User:Irina Walter has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 19:05 to 19:07 de:User:Torsten Wittmann has been created and has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner..
• 22Dec07: 11:45 to 12:14 User:Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) has been created and has contributed on Klaus Ebner.
• 22Dec07: 15:49 to 15:59 de:User:Torsten Wittmann has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 23Dec07: 14:04 to 14:13 User:Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) has contributed on Klaus Ebner
• 23Dec07: 16:25 to 16:59 User:D. Bogdan V. has been created and has contributed on Klaus Ebner.
• 23Dec07: 17:45 to 17:51 de:User:Irina Walter has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 23Dec07: 19:07 fr:User:Linda Auerbach has been created and has contributed on .
• 23Dec07: 19:36 to 19:37 de:User:Irina Walter has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.

I would say that it is an extraordinary coordination for acting five people on their own, editing in different wikipedias and never overlap. I am not trying to accuse anyone: my aim is to provide some data for everyone reach their own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xabier Cid (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See what you mean. When you go to the Readings (Lesungen) page of Klaus Ebner's homepage, you will see that Ebner read in public on Nov. 30 and December 21 2007. The november reading was my first contact to him where we got acquainted. He mentioned the december reading thats why I went there. And this is me. There were about twenty or thirty people. I don't know more but this are facts. To what you say about "adviced, pushed": if someone pushed something than I pushed it because I found it a great idea to elaborate an article about him. He never told or asked me to do something specific, and our contact is so minor that there is little link (sorry, don't know how do say that in english). --D. Bogdan V. (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

More evidences in cyrillic wikipedias

This is a message left by East of Borschov on my talk page:

• ru:Эбнер, Клаус created by ru:Участник:ЮрийВВ Dec-30-2007. This account edited only Klaus Ebner page and disappeared Jul-9-2008 (contributions). The account uses a Slavic name but is not a native Russian (or any other Eastern Slavic) speaker - improbable grammar mistakes (this has been noted on his page).
• uk:Клаус Ебнер created by an IP 80.123.42.139 from Vienna, Austria. Edited at length by another Austrian IP (62.47.128.133) and uk:Anna Kovac. All in summer of 2008. Anna Kovac, too, disappeared.
• be:Клаўс_Эбнер - IPs from UK and Austria
• bg:Клаус Ебнер - created by User:Bogdan.D in April 2008. User disappeared after five edits to Ebner's article and nothing else.

All articles were created by their authors as mere lists of works, no free-flowing text.

This is a meat grinder of editors. They just disappear one after another. Only User:Winertai of zh-wikipedia appears to be active (and "real"). Where's my conspiracy microscope? Cheeers, East of Borschov 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

--Xabier Cid (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser request

If anyone doesn't mind, I'm going to open a case at WP:SPI and request checkuser with a link to this discussion. elektrikSHOOS 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer from Klaus Ebner

Good morning. As the accused and in many (but not all) cases guilty I want to make my statement which I kindly ask you to read. During Fall 2007, Misplaced Pages was something totally new to me. I created my personal account with my own name and started to create articles about myself in German, English, French and Catalan - because there was none and I thought that would be ok. I had no ideas about the rules - and I was beaten for that very quickly by some people (maybe admins) of this English Misplaced Pages; they even had some difficulty explaining all this to me because in the beginning I didn't even understand what they were talking about. But of course I understood very quickly that it was not allowed to write an article about oneself. So I stepped back but I asked friends and colleagues if they could step in and continue, what they did, and shortly after some other people, whom I do not know, began to support the articles, too.

I did not see anything wrong to involve people who know me. But I have to admit that I did two things that were not correct: First my alter ego Littera/Litteralittera - I did not want to leave Misplaced Pages completely because I wanted to contribute, mostly concerning other writers, publishers, magazines and other literature related topics, but unfortunately I also contributed to "my own" article. The second thing is the account of Irina Walter - it is my sister who stands behind this account and we often worked together, sometimes even from the same computer.

I always wanted to contribute to Misplaced Pages, especially to the German one, because Austrian literature has a hard stand there and there is much wrong information and bias, because it seems that some Germans are still dreaming of a "Greater Germany". E.g. to define Franz Kafka as "German writer" and Elias Canetti as "Bulgarian writer" is not only wrong but very offending. Sometimes I had the impression that some old "Nazi conceptions" were still defended in this area, and I wanted to help to get rid of this. Or another example: it is known from public speeches of the writer Franzobel, that much of the Misplaced Pages information about him is wrong - and I cannot understand why nobody feels responsible to fix that. I was very surprised and pleased about Torsten's contributions because I've never seen a German before who is so engaged in favor of Austrian literature.

You gave me the feeling that I am not allowed to create any article in Misplaced Pages simply due to the facts that I am, as a writer, part of Austrian literature and that there is one article about me. I did not want to accept that. In addition, I saw on the German Misplaced Pages that some of the rules, especially the criteria of relevance, were often not observed, even by administrators. I saw articles of writers with five and more books (not self-published!) be removed and on the other hand there was one case where a writer with only one book was kept, only because her father was a well-known author in Austria. So there was my impression that some long-term contributors and administrators are interpreting the rules as they like. Maybe this led me also to the conviction that it would not be so severe to contribute under a false account.

What certainly went wrong was my own engagement with the different Wiki languages. You know that I speak several foreign languages and that of course I liked them, and I was (and still am) fascinated by the multilingual possibilities, and with hindsight I believe that this became a kind of drug for me. Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say). When I found out the possibility to create an Inter-Wiki account on the French Misplaced Pages (which however does not work on Commons), I stopped creating new accounts. I think it was at the same time that we discovered the possibility to place a translation request, which eventually my sister used heavily. (Before we had even used automatic translators and then tried to improve the translation with the example of existing articles on writers).

There are several people I am acquainted with, either friends of mine or colleagues. I personally know Marco Zitti, Svartvicks, Bogdan, Anne-Claudine, Francesca la Bola, Linda Auerbach, Frodon, Drusio, and also Helmut Bihy - in these cases I still think that it should not be forbidden to involve acquaintances or friends (and I also believe that this is a usual practice at almost all articles about living persons).

In spite of my breaking the rules I want to urgently ask you to distinguish between my punishment and encyclopedical facts. The articles that I or my sister were involved in or have even been created (or by acquaintances who did so) have always been written following the rules of Misplaced Pages. We have tried to make them as neutral as possible and we always indicated all sources and only mentioned information accessible through these sources. Many of the authors in whose articles I or my sister were involved, don't even know that we wrote them (and I estimate that I know at most about 50% of them personally). I can even say that some of my friends whom I involved, learned through me how to write good Misplaced Pages articles.

Concerning the case of Fátima Rodríguez, I still cannot understand why this article must disappear. If I cannot contact a subject person, how should I get e.g. to a photo (which improves the article)? Of course I contacted her, I wanted to have a photo for my article (and who else but her should have a photo which can be released to Misplaced Pages?), I asked her to point me to some Internet links which I didn't find at once (e.g. the articles in a Galician newspaper) and finally I let her check the language of the Galician article, because I had to compose this one with an automatic translator and some corrections I could do on my own due to my knowledge of several other Romance languages. But I sticked to the rules - the article is neutral and all sources are indicated and there is no information which only she could know. BTW, I am NOT her translator - there must have been a misunderstanding. I only asked her if I could translate one or two of her poems to German for an Austrian literature magazine (for which I would not get any money, so this is not a "professional connection" in its usual sense) - so if this happens, it would only be the future (and this is not clear so far because her publisher didn't release the right to do so).

Of course I must accept all verdict over me and I feel that a kind of boycott of my name will arise, but please leave all the other articles intact that I or my sister (and especially my acquaintances when the wrote on other articles) were involved in. Deleting them would not improve Misplaced Pages but destroy a lot of (neutral!) information due to a kind of personal vendetta.

I did not want to do any advertising (Misplaced Pages is no advertising, not at all), I wanted to give information, even when it came to myself (I don't want to end up like Franzobel who has to explain publicly to journalists that his article in Misplaced Pages is garbage). And I never wanted to hurt someone. Now I have to apologize to all people who invested time to write on the articles on me, and I am sorry for the inconveniences that I have caused with my "over-involvement".
I guess this will be my (and my sister's, Irina Walter's) last statement on Misplaced Pages.--Klaus Ebner (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say)." Are you sure this will be your last statement (from you or "your sister") on WP? Disgusting: seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure. Because I don't want to have this shameful gauntlet run a second time. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't Sock. If your edits didn't make it in the first time, creating sock accounts probably won't help get them in any more successfully. Work with the other editors here... Doc9871 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Klaus, alternate accounts are prohibited on Misplaced Pages save for a few legitimate purposes, and even then only if they're clearly linked to the master account in question. The fact that you have edited articles under multiple accounts on your articles, on various wikis, to edit articles solely about yourself, is a flagrant violation of Misplaced Pages's sockpuppet and conflict of interest policies, two core ideas any Wikipedian editing for three years should have known. By doing this you have egregiously misrepresented yourself to the community. In addition, recruiting others to edit articles on your behalf - referred to as 'meatpuppetry' - is just as bad as editing it yourself. I have to be honest, with this admission you will likely be indefinitely blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. elektrikSHOOS 10:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. --188.22.167.199 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (Lost my login) --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actions being taken

Six-month block

Given the above, I'm proposing an indefinite block for the above user and all socks, for abusing multiple accounts and flagrant violation of WP:COI, and possibly a community ban if abuse continues (though that may not be immediately necessary). elektrikSHOOS 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

True, ignore the above. However, given the editor did admit to using at least seven (!) socks, and encouraged others to write on his behalf, I find it difficult to just let him go with a slap on the wrist. Given this and his admission of guilt and subsequent apology, I'm proposing a 6-month block, after which the user agrees to no more sockpuppetry and can contribute again constructively to the community, as a pre-emptive WP:OFFER. elektrikSHOOS 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (retracted in favor of the below elektrikSHOOS 07:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

Probation

Honestly, while I admit socking is bad, I also know that in my experience issuing blocks are easy. I propose an alternative.

1) Klaus Ebner (talk · contribs) is to be put on probation for a period of 6 months, and is restricted to one account. He is prohibited from editing from other accounts without the knowledge and consent of the Arbitration Committee, and is topic banned from any articles relating to himself, broadly defined. He may also be the subject of random checkusers, to ensure he complies with the restrictions of his probation. If it is found he is in violation of his probation, he may be blocked, for up to 1 year.

I haven't done any proposals like this for a while, but I think it works. Steven Zhang 05:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support but with the addendum that he is topic-banned from editing any articles about himself for any reason during that probation, as this is the main reason for the sockpuppetry in the first place. elektrikSHOOS 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd probably take out the stuff on ArbCom. I'm pretty sure the only people who can make those decisions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee is the Arbitration Committee. As of right now this is all community-based. elektrikSHOOS
• Neutral - I'd lean towards "Oppose" considering this editor's socking and COI involvement as possibly "incorrigible". But... hey! If the community will watchdog him, leave him be, right? Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sounds OK, so long as we can bind the Arbitration Committee in that manner to pass judgment on his theoretical use of a sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. Better than nothing, but I'd go for an indefinite topic ban (talk page editing allowed). After all, shouldn't one avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to oneself? MER-C 13:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

i don't know how things work here (then, sorry if I say something totally wrong), but I think there is also a problem related with the fact that a translator has achieved articles about himself in 78 wikipedias, i.e., his work is already done. He was not working mainly in improving his article (only here and there) but in consolidating a network of references. Will those articles be removed from every wikipedia? --Xabier Cid (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They should certainly be carefully examined, and checked for neutrality at the very least. Has anyone had a look at Klaus Ebner? I don't see any major problems but I know nothing of the subject. Rehevkor ✉ 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

He is an author with 4 published books, none of them a best seller. Most of the article is about translations and paid stays in other countries. But he has more wikipedia articles than German Nobel Prize Günter Grass. --Xabier Cid (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think at the very least we need to get a good article reassessment going at Klaus Ebner since the last one was tainted by socks. ThemFromSpace 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support A block would work as well, but if he is willing to work constructively away from his article we shouldn't prevent him from doing so. ThemFromSpace 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weary support: I've been peripherally involved in Ebner's article (and several others related) for the past two years. While Ebner's admitted sockpuppetry is regrettable, I feel I must point out that his actions (as well as those by editors affiliated with him) were seemingly well meant. Ebner's English Misplaced Pages article is not fantastic, but I feel it's a strong-enough GA. All comments, concerns and suggestions I've made over time have been taken into account, and I've found most editors involved (especially Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe), who has contacted me several times for help) to be dedicated to making sure the articles are not only well written, but that they fulfill the GA criteria. One such article, Hominid (novel), was just nominated at GAC after extensive work and a copyedit by the GOCE. Yes, I recognize that sockpuppets are bad news, but it's not like they're causing kerfuffles; procedures are being followed, and there is an obvious desire for the articles to be good, not just existent. Note, I'm only speaking of the English Misplaced Pages articles here; there was definitely a large push to include Ebner and his works on other Wikis, but is that a punishable offense if he's a notable figure? We're not talking about a MySpace band or something, after all; Ebner is an award-winning author. Obviously he shouldn't be editing his own article, and I support probation to ensure that doesn't happen anymore, but let's not punish other editors for their hard work. María (habla conmigo) 14:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Maria. I disagree with you in two little aspects. First, any kind of punishment or probation is addressed to User:Klaus Ebner, not to other editors; if someone made bona fide contributions to a fake article, the article would be removed, even if these are good editors, with large experience through the whole Misplaced Pages (and that is not the case; as you can agree, the Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe)'s is, at least, a WP:SPA). The second aspect is the aim of User:Klaus Ebner: to promote himself quite beyond his personal achievements. He has created articles about himself in 78 wikipedias, he has created articles about his only novel in 9 wikipedias, he has promoted or lobbied the creation of GAs at least in the English and the Catalan wikipedia (no wonders someone achieved it) and edited list of Austrian editors writers and other articles to include his name. But when it comes to achievements, there is only one novel and a couple of very local awards (not much more than a MySpace band, as you say). He has tried to overpromote himself using every method available and the result is that anyone reading his name's articles on many wikipedias would think that he is a very relevant writer. So, at the end of the day, he achieved his basic purpose. And bona fide editors, as much as the readers were cheated --Xabier Cid (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Kerfuffles? One important procedure has very clearly not been followed. Can any editor please explain how any of these socks are legitimate? e.g.: User:Livia Plurabelle is an admitted and blatant SPA sock who hasn't edited for awhile: but is still free to add to this thread. I'm sure I am I missing something, again. I don't believe it's appropriate to downplay the level of possible misconduct with the socking, which is against one of WP's core policies for very good reason. A SPI is still open on this case. If you combine sockpuppetry with a healthy conflict of interest, what do you have? (shudder) Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, consensus appears to be clear. Commenting again so the discussion doesn't get autoarchived. At this point we need an admin to close this discussion, and someone to take Klaus on for probation. elektrikSHOOS 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I have understood right...: What are you doing with the accounts with strange pattern of editions? What are you doing with the articles created about Ebner and his only novel in 78 and 9 wikipedias, respectively (and created by him or his accounts)?--Xabier Cid (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Though the above issue still appears to be tackled. In response to you... elektrikSHOOS 23:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of Klaus Ebner + related articles

The existing articles on Klaus need to be triple-checked for neutrality, notability and verifiability concerns, given the admitted socking above. If anyone has a more specific proposal (deletion, et cetera) please say below. elektrikSHOOS 23:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this normal to spam like this?

I have a question again about adding links ...I have come across and editor Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) with a long history here (he is simply fixing them). However this has made me aware of all the bios with this link and i question the need to add Find a Grave link to every dead persons bio on Misplaced Pages. The majority of the time the linked page does not provide any more info then the article in question. What i see is a mass attempted to link every dead person to the site just to generate traffic to the site. As i am saying it just does not feel right.. i am here looking for comments about this. I do see its mostly a fix but still.Moxy (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been relatively little traffic on the Find a Grave page in the last year, and almost none on the talk page, but what's there is somewhat revealing. I also have a vague recollection that the use of Find a Grave has come up before, and not just on its own talk page - I think there were spam concerns, so your question is deja vu. The trouble with Find a Grave is the same issue with IMDB, namely that there's inconsistent sourcing for the information. IMDB is considered reasonably reliable for cast lists, but not necessarily for trivia. Likewise, Find a Grave does provide what appear to be reliable locations for graves. The rest of it is questionable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This editor is not adding all this as it looks like hes simply fixing the links..I just question Y are they all linked...Not sure that a grave site is needed on every bio especially the first external link. Were should i bring this up to get a bigger view on the matter.Moxy (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to be defensive here but since this is about me I would like to take this opportunity to explain my actions somewhat. I have not been "adding" mass links to the find a grave site. In fact the only time I "add" this link is for Medal of Honor recipient articles I create. What I think this user is referring too is the edits I have been making to cleanup some of the links to Find a grave and Hallofvalor. With the help of a couple other editors (because I do not have admin rights) we made some chanegs to the structure of the Find a Grave link (we added author, date, work and accessdate) so I have been going through them and restructing the link to match these changes. I did not think these edits to be controversial but if the consensus is for me to leave the somewhat disorganized state of these links be, let me know. Below are some of the changes I have been making to the link for clarification. Please let me know if you have any questions.

• Add work=Claim to Fame: Medal of Honor recipients for Medal of Honor recipients (was going to do this for other groups as well time permitting)
• replace }} Retrieved on XXX date with |accessdate=XXX date}}
• add accessdate equals current day if no accessdate is present
• converting bare http links to the Find a grave site to the find a grave template
• replace findagrave with Find a Grave
• remove the id=, grid= or name=
• make sure that the find a grave link is under external links (unless it falls into a citation) --Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And yes Baseball bugs your right, the site has come up several times before. --Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kumioko i have reworded the above statement as i know its not you adding them ...Moxy (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Its no problem Moxy, I just wanted to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A useful if inconclusive discussion was held at ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8's talk page comment

if you really want to - User:WLU

Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sample.

I think administrative attention may be appropriate. This user has a tendency to leave and return.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have called someone an idiot on a talkpage and retired...what kind of Admin action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a variety of admin actions happen in these situations from nothing to warnings to bans. There's a bit more in the contributions boiling-over-wise and I just fear that people who leave Misplaced Pages in a huff sometimes return and do damage. Analysis by those who are not close to this situation is appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, this user has gone through a number of identity switches and has been embroiled in controversy over acupuncture for some time now. This kind of activity makes me extremely uncomfortable, but unlike Off2riorob, I don't believe in WP:PUNITIVE. What I think might be appropriate is an administrative warning. If I give the warning, he'll just dismiss it as hounding. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't speak as if for me, your report is rubbish. Utter rubbish and nothing more that reporting an opponent. You are edit warring to keep your worthless report open it is hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• ScienceA, you cannot keep deleting two other editors' "resolved" notices from a thread which you started. Especially not with edit-summaries just as snippy as the material you are complaining about. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  Should you, as one of the editors in question who is being snippy, be criticizing me for being snippy? When does the WP:KETTLE circle end? Will you please wait for an administrator to give an opinion? Sheesh. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You, ScienceApologist, complaining about someone else and WP:KETTLE? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day! You're whining about a single lapse on my part (me: never been blocked, never been sanctioned despite your frequent baiting and occasional, inadequate efforts), whereas you have something like 30 blocks, and are among the most disruptive editors still active on WP. I think you deserve to be sanctioned for just this sort of time-wasting hypocrisy. Wonder if any admins are up to it? --Middle 8 (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Two questions. 1) Can you please provide a diff of any comment I have made which has been "snippy" and/or impolite? 2) Can you please explain how deleting my comment because of its – alleged – grammatical irregularity is appropriate? Please note that I will take failure to answer these questions within a reasonable amount of time as an indication that you have no satisfactory response. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this satisfactory...middle 8 you naughty little boy, if you don't stop calling people idiots I will put you on the naughty step for five seconds. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You aren't an administrator. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No but I am the next best thing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

reporting your opponents

Users that make weak reports when they are in content disputes or opponents of users such as this should be blocked for wasting the communities time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this comment give a reason for why you've taken a peculiar interest in this thread? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, so what, its more rubbish, get over yourself, take five seconds on the naughty step yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to you asking for your own blocking, then, per the comment you made in this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You can look forward to whatever you like, if this is a school project I have some stickers you can have. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I love stickers! How do you want to get them to me? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be nice here. And this certainly looks like good reason for administrative action to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What kind of Administrator action are you suggesting? Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought blocks of various lengths were traditional for such things. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a police state, it is a contributory website. Users should be aware that teacher and mummy have left the building and they should use adult type discussion in an attempt to work things out with their opponents. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, however, the current discussion is occurring, it seems, because such idealism has broken down. I was referring to the actions usually taken after the ideal is already broken. Further, the opposite of a "police state" is not anarchy or license. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, i see nothing weak about this report, considering the diff provided. I do not necessarily recommend blocking, but just closing it as if there was nothing worthy here seems wrong to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed and passed over. Calling someone an "idiot" and using the F word in the context that they did is a blatant break of civility. Silverseren 22:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A third-party warned him, so I think this is pretty good. He may never come back, in which case, no harm no foul. If he does come back and continues to be uncivil, well, then we have evidence that we at least went through some sort of due process. Thanks all! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but in my opinion this belongs on WP:WQA and not here. Salvio 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about that. It just occurred to me moments ago. We should make some sort of flowchart to keep these things straight. I just plumb forgot about WP:WQA. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As the one called an idiot, I don't really care. M8 does make good faith suggestions that I think are misguided and incorrect, and it can be frustrating. He can leave and come back if he wants, so long as he honestly attempts to improve the wiki - which he does try to do. There's a lot of strong opinions on acupuncture, but overall there's little to suggest in my mind that M8 consistently engages in personal attacks to the detriment of pages. I've dropped more than a couple f-bombs in my time and had to deal with the consequences - usually the fact that my editing is more difficult. Personally, since I see no patter I see no reason to make a big deal of this. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, WLU -- it's true that I don't consistently engage in personal attacks. And we seem to have the same opinion of each others' edits, i.e. good-faith (I hope) but misguided and incorrect. I do apologize for calling you an idiot (which I didn't mean seriously) when I could have just said "O, ye whose edits are too often misguided and incorrect!" Still, in some cases there can't be two right answers; attribution of a well-known source is one (see below).

I think any objective observer knows that there are double standards on Misplaced Pages in terms of editorial conduct. Because I don't edit like a hardline skeptic, there are editors watching me (and others of my ilk) like hawks, waiting for missteps so that they can run to WP:ANI, as ScienceApologist once again has done; meanwhile these same editors routinely engage in personal attacks, outings, and harassment, all in the name of standing up for "science", and all with the intention of causing editors they don't like to leave, since that's part of their jihad for improving the wiki, and is easier than engaging actual WP:DR.

Some of the current divide on acupuncture reminds me of the divide between the right and the left in US politics. Large parts of the right (birthers and teabaggers) take positions that are simply not reality-based, and often are disingenuous in reporting the facts (see: Faux news). Similarly, I find it impossible to believe that certain recent edits or discussion at acupuncture can be both in good faith and reality-based. Since we like to AGF around here, I can only assume that a dearth of information was responsible for the examples that follow. The most amazing is one from WLU, who insisted (along with others; see ES in that diff) that the WHO report on acupuncture wasn't really by the WHO, despite every kind of evidence that it is. (My horrible, blameworthy response to WLU's stainless, wonderful edit is here.) Another good example is WLU's asserting that an article on a Quackwatch site is as strong or stronger, WP:WEIGHT-wise, than an NIH consensus panel consisting of a dozen researchers' collective review: WLU opines, "Quackwatch would be considered a reliable, third-party source that could adequately comment on the committee and its findings. The committee itself however, would be considered a primary source for its own motivations." I think most scientists understand that the process of peer-review under the aegis of an organization like the NIH squashes Quackwatch like a bug. (But the ones who can't/don't grok it are disproportionately vocal, mirroring the situation on WP. It works the same way in politics.)

What is happening, if you can't tell, is that a few editors are nitpicking even the most non-controversial evidence in favor of acupuncture, causing editors with opposing views to have to bring said evidence before a wider audience of editors. But that's a time sink that I can't engage, and neither can some other editors, e.g. the one who made this edit (the best edit the article has had in a long time); that editor contacted me offline expressing disgust with the hyper-skeptical, POV nitpicking. When editors of a certain mindset find even basic "water is wet"-type assumptions nit-picked at every turn, they get disgusted and leave, taking any chance at NPOV with them; only the skeptical jihadists remain (and yes, many of them are as tenaciously fanatical, in an online way, as any religious fundamentalist), wikiality reigns as a default. That's the kind of encyclopedia you've collectively chosen.

Now, if I were a ScienceJihadist type editor complaining about pseudoscience, I'd be able to tell everyone to go fuck themselves, and maybe someone would leave a warning on my page which I'd remove, and a bunch of editors would cluck over how terrible it is for Defenders of Science to be under such pressure, and that we really need to be more gentle with him, poor thing. But I'm not going to engage in that kind of drama. So I'll leave you with the considered opinion that Misplaced Pages remains an unreliable source in large part because it self-selects for editors who have lots of time to push their agendas in ways that are ignorant, disingenuous or both. And some of you, I suppose, can freak out about what a horrible thing I just said. I do appreciate the recent performance-art from the hyperskeptics at acupuncture; it makes a great case study in why Misplaced Pages's approach isn't working.

All it takes is persistence and you can get your way here. That's the wikiality way. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare is being hounded by a few editors

Related ArbCom case

User:Brews ohare has come back from a Physics topic ban (which was overturned after intervention by Jimbo Wales, who instructed ArbCom to pass a motion to let the sanction expire) and since then there have been a few problems that seem to be escalating. For sure, Brews has made a few mistakes, but I now see clear evidence that there is now a concerted effort to hound him away from Misplaced Pages. Since Admin Jehochman has now become involved here, issuing a threat to Brews, I think this merits discussion here.

Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to simply point to a few diffs here, I need to explain the background a little before I can give some relevant diffs. The main issue with Brews is that he has difficulties with avoiding being caught up in long winded talk page discussions on issues that are far less relevant than he thinks they are. Especially when editing an article outside his expertise, like the speed of light, that can lead to problems. After coming back from his topic ban, an article ban for speed of light was imposed by Sandstein and this is now under discussion on the relevant ArbCom pages. On this issue, I've told Brews to be mindful of consensus, however frustrating that can be.

Now, Brews expertise is mainly in topics such as classical mechanics and electical engineering (he is a retired engineering professor), and before his topic ban, he had conributed to a large number of physics articles on such topics. These articles mostly still exist with Brews contributions in them; so there is no issue with pseudoscience or very problematic conttent lke that in these artcles.

Brews is now editing some of these articles and it is there that he is now being hounded. On the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) article, Brews' new edits are being opposed on OR grounds by a few editors (User:JohnBlackburne and User:DVdm), even though that very strict a reading of OR by them, where you can't even freely give examples, would make practically the whole article in violation of that interpretation of the OR policy. In the way it is written now, you can give general citations, but you cannot give citations to every babystep in the article.

For sure, there are other more valid grounds on which his edits to this article can be opposed (like article bloating). But the particular way way OR is raised here, and the failure to then discuss this properly with Brews, leads to Brews being caugh up again in long winded discussions that go nowhere. I have a strong feeling that this is a deliberate attempt to provoke a problem and then let an Admin who is already critical of Brews (i.e. User:Jehochman ) to ban Brews on the remaining ArbCom sanction. This would then make it impossible for the issue to be reviewed by other Admins (as overturning an ArbCom related sanctions is not allowed). So if it is then later pointed out that actually Brews was not blame, it is too late as you need a very strong community consensus to overturn such a ban.

In support of my allegations, let me point to the following facts:

1) User:JohnBlackburne decided to bring Brews before AE, mainly on the grounds that Brews had started too many discussions on the speed of light talkpage . But after Brews stopped editing there, some of his discussions and some new discussions have grown beyond all proportions judge for yourself here, but User:JohnBlackburne is nowhere to be seen there (I think he made one or two short comments there after Brews left).

2) Not discussing a perceived OR issue properly. E.g. when Brews raises the point that the whole article is already writen in this way, all that User:DVdm can do is warn Brews about WP:POINT, even though WP:POINT says that if there is a point to be raised, please raise that point, just don't act on it (and Brews was never going to delelete any sections of the article, as DVdm surely knows).

3) Then Admin Jehochman, who already at the recently initiated AE disussion by User:JohnBlackburne, asked for Brews to be permanently banned, exaggerating the real issues there (I can't find the diff right now), comes to Brew' talk page giving warnings to Brews based on merely taking note of the fact that an OR issue was raised at the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and that the discussion there is quite lengthy.

Now, let me let me make it very clear that the issue I'm rasing here is not at all a content dispute. While I'm more in favor of Brews' edits than the other editors there, my opinion on the edits is that they can be shortened. Also, it is entirely legitimate for the other editors to rewrite the whole article, remove lengthy examples, or bring the whole article in line with a very strict interpretation of OR where even simple examples need to be taken almost verbatim from textbooks. What is not ok., however, is to follow Brews around and only raise objections to his edits, while turning a blind eye to other similar edits, even on the very same page, refusing to discuss Brews edits in the context of how the article is presently written, thereby provoking problems to erupt and then threaten ArbCom enforcement based on those problems. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that the normal has happened here, except one key factor. Brewsz supporters have been blamed previously for supporting brews, the reason we do is because people gang up on brews. my personal favorite is the pre-emptive warning Jehochman has placed on brews page ], this doesn't sound like a nuetral admin nor does ]. That doesn't sound nuetral or fair, sounds like a threat that at the thinnest excuse he will block brews. Don't we have rules preventing the admin from blocking someone they have a content dispute with? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis, would you please supply a link or diff showing Jimbo Wales instructing ArbCom to pass a motion to let the sanction expire? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Please edit your posting to just the relevant points. I will also note that Count Iblis has been Brews habitual wingman, so it is not surprising that Count steps in to interfere with any attempt to limit Brews disruptive behavior. Jehochman 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

what a awesome why to attack him Ad hominem and completely ignore your own bias. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever consider that if you are averse to reading, an online encyclopedia might not be your thing? Unomi (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the online encyclopedia is why some of us don't want to waste lots of time reading interminable dramaboard posts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would expect you to provide diffs to support your accusation that I am "hounding" Brews, not vague accusations. As for arbitration this is not the proper venue for appealing arbitration decisions.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On viewing this unfold, I think personally that the Centrifugal force "OR" argument is silly. Most Misplaced Pages articles and sections, on first draft, are written that way. In my skimming, I saw nothing wrong with what Brews wrote. We should instead use common sense and allow time for sources to be provided; any intro-level classical mech textbook should have a relevant page.

DVdm's interpretation of WP:POINT is obviously incorrect, per Count Iblis, above, and my re-reading of the guideline. Internal consistency is necessary, and this is what makes it look like he/she is simply hounding Brews instead of enforcing policy. If DVdm were really interested in strictly, strictly enforcing WP:OR (which I think is overkill here), then all of that material would have to go.

My greatest concern here is that Brews is starting to try to make contributions again, and is being stymied. The thing that is unfortunate is that, from looking at DVdm's contribs and talk, it seems that he/she is a good, helpful editor in general, as is Brews. Since they are both going for the same goal -- improving the encyclopedia -- there must be some way that this can be resolved. Awickert (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like very much for the following:

1. Brews stays away from speed of light and the definition of length of a meter. These are the areas where Brews has gotten into difficulties before. Brews recent return to this area, resulting in controversy and disruption is an ominous sign.
2. When another editor requests citations for what Brews is adding to Misplaced Pages, Brews either provides acceptable citations and works towards agreement with other editors, or else removes the challenged content, stores it in sandbox, and goes and does something uncontroversial.
3. I am very happy to leave Brews free to edit, and will encourage other editors to do same, so long as Brews abides by the spirit of 1 and 2 on this list.

Hopefully this will help. Jehochman 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So as long as he doesn't disagree with you he is fine? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly OK with Jehocohman's requests above, so long as in #2, that request for citations is applied in a common-sense way (which I would expect from any good Misplaced Pages editor). I would also like to note that when debates become heated, the best thing is to say "chao, buddy", and leave it for tomorrow when tempers are back down; very large comments usually just exacerbate heated discussions. Awickert (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman is a bit out of touch.

• At the behest of Blackburne, Sandstein has imposed a page ban that enforces my avoiding Speed of light. Whatever the merits of that action, it is clear.
• There has been no refusal to provide citations on my part. Rather, I did query Blackburne and DVdm as to what was to be established (never answered), as sources could not be found when their purpose was unclear. All attempts to get an answer were stonewalled, and as my requests were sharpened to specifically relate to particular text to evoke a response, becoming thus unavoidable, claims of disruption ensued rather than answers.
• The material appeared on the Talk page as an RfC, so there was no material to "remove". There was no "challenged content", only a challenged proposal for content.

Jehochman is arguing about imagined events, and is unfamiliar with the real proceedings. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, see here. Motion 3 was passed not long after this intervention by Jimbo. Reading the comments of the Arbitrators, it should be clear that this wasn't exactly something they decided to do all by themselves. Count Iblis (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm sorry about this long posting, but if I were to have limited to mentioning just the recent problems, then that would obviously have created the perception of me being "Brews' wingman". I'm not, there are issues with Brews as well and everything has to be placed in its proper context. About providing citations, I agree with AWickert that such requests be made with common sense.

I would also ask Brews to be mindful that his vision of a perfect Wiki-article may not be shared by other people. Then, before spending a lot of time offline working on a figures etc., only to find out later that inclusion in an article is opposed, he should try to determine if his proposed edits fit in the article and if it would be welcomed in by the current editors. Count Iblis (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Count, if you are sorry about the long-winded (and short-evidenced) posting, fix it. Don't add to the length of the thread with more empty words. Jehochman 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So what would you be willing to read and respond to Jehochman? I'd be interested to know because all you are doing now is sidestepping the issues. Can you account for yourself? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to read and respond to reasonably concise comments. Jehochman 09:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy

Forget I brought it up. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC) -- uncollapsed by Jehochman 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week. (motion link)"
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions

Has this motion been superseded? Protonk (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see the motion below that one: Amendment 4 to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare"). (motion link)". Since 4.2, as amended by amendment 3, expired at the end of June, that remedy is technically no longer in effect. Which, of course, does not preclude an administrator taking any action that they feel would be appropriate to maintain a proper editing environment. NW (Talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right in front of me, thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent events show that relaxing this restriction has not been beneficial. It is virtually impossible for any administrator to even warn Brews ohare without his wingmen swooping in and starting a dogfight. I hereby propose that the community reinstate the above advocacy restriction. Jehochman 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Jehochman 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this extremely funny, you can't reply to arguments so you try to silence people. Typical behavior,I wouldn't expect anything less from you. {erhaps you can back up why this would be needed but i doubt it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I closed this for a reason. Dueling advocacy bans are a waste of everyone's time. My proposal is that everyone here who was party to (or listed in the final findings) of a giant arbcom case ought to take 10 steps back. Is this really a serious problem? Can discussion occur without sniping? Is there anything to be gained from admin attention. If this circus continues, I'm liable to prevent all parties from continuing to bicker over this. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you closed it. Sorry, I merely wanted the content to be visible; it was not my intention to revert a close. If you want to re-close could you leave this content uncollapsed? ArbCom is now considering the matter at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion. The retaliatory proposal below is highly problematic because the other subjects of the proposed sanction were not notified, it is not workable to ban people from using arbitration (that will never be allowed), and, well, it's transparently retaliatory. Jehochman 08:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Its ok. I'll comment there once I figure out where the salient place to do so is (the clarification or the appeal). As for the closing, I just wanted to put the brakes on what seemed to be a growing mess. Protonk (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative advocacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed editors John Blackburn, Jehochman and DVDm indefinitely restricted from harassing brews ohare or bringing Arb action unless uninvolved editors or administrators agree.

• Support as proposer.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did you notify all the editors you are proposing to sanction? It seems unfair to not even tell them they are being discussed. Jehochman 07:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No but perhaps you can show me the notification you left myself or Iblis you were discussing sanctions on us. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Agreed. From what I have gathered from this discussion, it really does seem to be bullying going on. Silverseren 23:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support You should be ashamed of your behaviour in this case, Jechoman. Jtrainor (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose You should not, and cannot, ban people from using arbitration (or dispute resolution in general). As for harassment: all editors are already banned from harassing other editors. I agree never to harass Brews, and invite any editor to slap me silly if I ever do. Jehochman 08:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Again if you want to accuse me of hounding, harassing or bullying you need to provide diffs. As for arbitration I could have been sanctioned then if my enforcement request were inappropriate, so that was the proper venue to challenge it. Throwing out vague and unfounded accusations now because you don't like the result of it is unlikely to achieve any result you desire.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 09:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Your enforcement request was a approved, was it not? It is not "harassment" to make use of dispute resolution including arbitration and arbitration enforcement, especially when a request for enforcement is approved. Jehochman 10:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Earlier today, Jehochman tried to prematurely close Brews ohare's appeal , and he removed the discussion where I raised concerns about his behavior . I think users should be able to examine the appropriateness (of lack thereof) of Brew ohare's conduct without Jehochman's unhelpfully intimidating behavior which acts as a distraction ; it falls short of appropriate admin conduct. More light than heat is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Administrator Stifle closed the thread, and you improperly reverted him. I undid your interference. Ncmvocalist, when you post a comment on this board, please give a complete, accurate description. Don't leave out important details. Jehochman 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • When administrators like you are consistently bullying editors, the description is totally accurate. A legitimate appeal was made and both you and Stifle interfered - and that too, unnecessarily. Encouraging Stifle to misuse their tools, you clearly are unfit to be considered uninvolved, and the later edit does not excuse or justify your behavior. The bullying, along with your repeated disruptive advocacy in relation to this dispute needs to stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ncmvocalist, I admire your enthusiasm, but you need to take a break. You're getting overwrought, throwing around accusations, calling people names, and generally lengthening this thread for no good purpose. Jehochman 11:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a very poorly drafted proposal. As noted above, the first half of this proposal is completely superfluous, all editors are banned from harassment. The second half is very unclear - requests for enforcement are brought to WP:AE and enacted by uninvolved admins, so it also appears superfluous. If the intent was to say that Jehochman should be considered involved, that should have been clearly stated. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question from a confused arbitrator

Is there a reason that this issue is not capable of being resolved at WP:AE? Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask Count Iblis. I am not sure AE would work, because various remedies from the case were terminated, apparently prematurely. Jehochman 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm terribly mistaken - which happens from time to time - all remedies providing for discretionary sanctions remain in effect. Discretionary sanctions seem to be what are being sought here. Steve Smith (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So you mean I can just reimplement all the original sanctions, to remain in effect until the original expiry date of Oct 29, 2010? Seeing how Brews, Count and Hell IAB have all resumed exactly the same pattern behavior that lead to the sanctions, this would seem to be a fitting result. Comments from uninvolved editors please. Yes, I realize this discussion could be had at WP:AE, but the most convincing evidence is immediately above. I do not think there is a strong enough reason to move the conversation. Jehochman 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't sanctioned anybody in the long history of this dispute. I'd rather not start now. (I'm also not a fan of discretionary sanctions - ArbCom should decide, not pass the buck.) How about Brews voluntarily avoids conflict on physics articles, and Count and HIAB voluntarily avoid getting involved in and Brews-related warning or sanction discussions. This would ease my concerns. Stay far away from the behavior patterns that lead to the arbitration case. Jehochman 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like a question answered. How is our advocacy less valid because we agree with brews. You are putting us in a role that you have labeled us part of the problem but you have not answered any questions posed to you. How has Iblis or my own behavior violated policy? Face it your beef with us is disagreeing with you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The key difference is that we had an arbitration case. Brews and friends were sanctioned and told to stop the tendentious editing. (SeeMisplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_and_disruptive_editing and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions #4.) It appears to me and to other editors that the same pattern which lead to arbitration sanctions has resumed. This thread clearly demonstrates the difficulties of even discussing the matter. I believe we'll be back at arbitration soon if things continue, and I doubt the arbitrators will be very impressed. How about you folks take my suggestions above that Brews avoid conflict on science articles, and you avoid interfering with any administrators who try to enforce policy. For my part, I am more than happy to go back to ignoring Brews, for the sake of peace on wiki. Jehochman 07:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point or missing it completely, no where in this discussion has Iblis or my own behaviors has our conduct been anywhere near tenditous other the the fact we disagree with you. I ask again that you submit proof this is hap

I can't see how there can be an action at WP:AE when the arbitration sanctions have been lifted. There may well be a case for considering an ArbCom motion, as the behaviour that Jehochman is complaining about is very similar to the behaviour that lead to the orginal sanctions. Physchim62 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

I think the clearest example of what is happening is given here (using link provided by dVdm below): Brews' RFC on TP. Let me attempt to summarize the responses of the various editors to this RfC. (I only mention the names of the editors who seem to be involved here.)

First response is dVdm who raises two distinct objections. First, that the proposed change is OR, and second that it is in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

Second response is John Blackburne who thinks that the sources provided do not support the proposed change, and therefore the change is OR. (Later he also adds the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK objection.)

Third response does not think it is OR (or at least says it is "routine reasoning"), but does object to the verbosity.

Fourth response does not address the OR issue, but does say that the proposed change violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

Fifth response is Count Iblis who supports the inclusion and does not think it is OR or in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

Sixth response thinks the proposed change violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and is generally too long and "article bloating."

Seventh response objects to the section because s/he thinks it is wrong.

There is more discussion, but this summarizes the views of all the editors who commented. I would point out the following. DVdm and John Blackburne are the only editors who argue against inclusion based on the OR complaint. In particular, there is no consensus amongst the editors who commented that this is OR. In my opinion the result of the RfC is a consensus that brew's proposed changes violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and should not be included as they are in that light. Therefore I would argue that DVdm's repeated removal of brew's content with comments citing OR is unreasonable and inappropriate.

Now I think the problem stems from this. DVdm, and also John Blackburne, do not wish to discuss with Brews specific reasons why they would like to remove his content, but rather cite the OR policy without explaination when as shown by the analysis of the above RfC there is no real consensus that what Brews is adding is OR. This type of appeal to WP:OR leads, as pointed out by an editor in the RfC, to inappropriate sources being used to justify trivial comments, and significantly contributes to the "article bloating" effect. Seriously, it is absurd to claim that examples of classical mechanics that could be heard in lectures at any university and have been understood for hundreds of years are OR.

That said the objection to the change on the basis of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK remains. IMO however, a large part of the preexisting article in question could be removed based on this same policy, and in fact also large parts of many existing articles on basic math and physics. Personally I don't think this policy is really so clear and relies essentially on a judgement call of whether content is provided to "inform" or "instruct." Given that this policy is somewhat vague and must really be interpreted on a case by case basis, the apparent consensus of editors in the RfC saying that the proposed change did violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK should have settled the matter. Brew's real problem is that he is unwilling to accept this. Holmansf (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

My impression is that at AE you would take a very procedural approach and that would then also frame this issue very tightly to the Speed of Light case. But the issue I'm raising here is separate from this, although it may look similar at first sight. Here one can consider what is going on in the broader context of editing the articles in question. This AN/I page is being watched by many editors, so they can then give their opinion based on their editing experience on similar articles, as Awickert has done above. This sort of feedback is i.m.o. more useful than imposing sanctions on editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by DVdm.

Here's what happened in my view:

1. 1-Aug-2010: WP:OR: Brews' edit on Redefinition of the metre in 1983. My removal. My informal OR-warning lvl 1 on user TP. My msg on article TP.

   Discussion on article TP. Brews' RFC on TP. Result: consensus to remove content.

2. 6-Aug-2010: WP:OR: Brews' edit on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). My removal. My informal OR-warning lvl 2 on user TP. My msg on article TP.

   Discussion on article TP. Brews' RFC on TP. Result: consensus to remove content.

3. 8-Aug-2010: WP:POINT: Brews' edit on Talk:Redefinition of the metre in 1983.

   Short discussion on article TP. Result: Nothing happens on article.

4. 8-Aug-2010: WP:OR: Brews' edit on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). My removal. My formal OR-warning lvl 3 on user TP. My msg on article TP.

   Discussion on article TP. Result: content reinserted by Count Iblis (talk · contribs)

In every OR-case in typical textbook/lecture notes style Brews inserts originally researched content of his own making, assembled from partly sourced or unsourced bits and pieces, and then insists on endlessly discussing on exactly what it is that needs sourcing and what kind of sources we want. The answer is of course trivial and can be found in the policy. No explanation by anyone seems to help, so, while we do our best to assume good faith, we have no other option than to assume that Brews has wp:NOCLUE about the basic wp:NOR policy. After the 3rd OR-case I really got bored with it, and I guess other contributors had a similar feeling, as nobody objected to the reinsertion of the material.

I want to stress that I have nothing against Brews. I am not hounding anyone. I just try to keep some articles free of textbook formatted original research, in this case created by Brews.

DVdm (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Brews_ohare

I believe DVdm has a semblance of reality in observing that my procedure on the Centrifugal force article was to insert an example. Such an insertion is pretty commonplace in editing, I believe. It was promptly removed as WP:OR. I then requested on the Talk page an explanation for this classification, a very usual response, I'd say. The response by DVdm was that “If this is not OR, then it will be easy to provide one or more good sources for the entire section.”

The subsequent brouhaha hinged upon this reply. What DVdm and Blackburne insisted upon was a source that actually presented the entire example. It was insufficient that every detail of the example was sourced, as pointed out later to Blackburne.

It would have been helpful if the following discussion revolved about WP:SYN, which I now believe was the view of DVdm and Blackburne. However, I didn't grasp that, and thought the point was that something in the example needed to be sourced. Rather than point out their objective clearly as WP:SYN, these two simply beat on the drum that it was WP:OR and would not elaborate, no matter what questions were asked. I repeat, no matter what questions were asked.

Although only a conjecture of mine based upon earlier behavior, IMO, the reason for this behavior was simply that these two editors did not want to argue the WP:SYN assessment, because it would go nowhere. Rather, they decided to create a furor and try to get myself banned for disturbing the Talk page, a strategy that worked very well for them on Talk:Speed of light. Why was resistance to this elementary example worthy of such extreme behavior? Why avoid a sensible argument and set up instead a political drama to avoid its insertion? Is that collaboration over content creation? Was all this drama really, as claimed, about avoiding insertion of an example, or was the example a vehicle for the drama?

Brews ohare (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see here my first reply mentioned neither WP:SYN or WP:OR but did describe my concerns as well as I could. I got terser after that as I dislike repeating myself. I don't see how claiming it comes under synthesis rather than original research changes anything - they are both links to WP:No original research and so both come under that policy. The correct way to deal with synthesis/original research is to supply sources for it. And as for making a political drama of this it was you who raised an RfC, removed it 3 days later only to say you wanted another despite there being a clear consensus against you in the first one. And neither I nor DVdm raised it here.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 15:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The only comment I have in reply to Brews' remarks is that I am not going to repeat myself again. There is nothing to explain beyond what is clearly and unambiguouly explained in WP:NOR (and thus in WP:SYN). DVdm (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Involved Admins are needed here

I think a big issue in this particular case and more generally in case of disputes on some science articles, is the general rule that an Admin needs to be uninvolved. Here "uninvolved" means not being involved in editing the article. While for politics articles this is a good rule, for science articles this doesn't work at all. The reason is that the disputes on politics pages are often intimately related to the POVs of the editors and how aggresive they want to push their POV. An Admin obviously has more power and allowing the Adin to use his/her powers is obviously a recipe for disaster.

On science articles, usually there are no POV issues. E.g. there is no POV issue about centrifugal force as there is about e.g. Sarah Palin. Editing disputes that then do arise on such science pages often have to do with issues that are not well visible from the outside. E.g. you can have an editor who does not understand the topic and that then causes irritation. I encountered such a problem last year on the entropy page. In this case, part of the dispute is that two editors are inappropriately invoking OR which casuses irritation.

As should be clear, Jehochman did not understand what the source of the OR issue actually was. Otherwise he would not have threatened Brews with a site ban over the OR issue discussed here. He just made a judgement based on the warning Brews was given about OR from DVdm and the fact that Brews was the subject of an ArbCom case. Then, because I had said that Brews should ignore that OR warning and instead focus on the other complaints about his edits, I was found guilty by Jehochman of "advocating for Brews". Also, I see that on the ArbCom clarificaton page, Protonk, another uninvolved Admin, has supported Jehochman's "analysis".

Another good example is the trouble on the climate science pages. When William Connolley was an involved Admin, there were some problems there, but not anything close to what we see today. Now, just imagine that in the early stages of Misplaced Pages we would have had only two editors on the Global Warming page, William and Scibaby, and Jehochman would have been the Admin. Then, it would have been entirely possible that Jehochman would have indefinitely blocked William for disruption :) .

Of course, there may not always be an involved Admin present. In that case, I suggest that an Admin actually takes the time to involve him/herself in the relevant issues, before passing judgement. Commenting on the talk page and engaging with the editors there would certainly be a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm now satisfied that JohnBlackburne and DVdm did not intend to hound Brews

Reading the comments by everyone, I now think that JohnBlackburne and DVdm were acting in good faith. It is plausible that checking the watchlist and looking at the diffs of the article, naturally leads one to focus only on newly added edits by Brews, which can be objected on the grounds of a very strict reading of OR, even if the whole article is already writen in this way.

But I still maintain that the way JohnBlackburne and DVdm were arguing about OR did cause an effective hounding of Brews, albeit unintentional. Also the fact that Brews tends to argue for too long about not so relevant issues played a role here. As I tried to explain to him, if only two editors are raising the OR issue while most other are raising other, more easy to deal with objections, you should focus on those other issues to get the consensus you need.

Jehochman's intervention in this case was not ok. We have Admins to solve problems not to create new problems or make existing problems worse. Count Iblis (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. This is not your soapbox. Please stop pestering and harassing me. Jehochman 03:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pestering anyone. I just note that your intervention on the OR issue raised against Brews was not correct. I can also assume that you acted in good faith, i.e. to correct a problem that you thought was really there. But I think that an Admin should not rush to judgement and be more careful. Count Iblis (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but could you communicate more concisely? This thread has grown so long, few uninvolved editors will invest the time to read it and get all the background. How about we agree to close it, and go do something else. Everybody has had a chance to state their concerns. My concerns are satisfied. Jehochman 03:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"... the way JohnBlackburne and DVdm were arguing about OR did cause an effective hounding of Brews, albeit unintentional." => I cannot speak for JohnBlackburne, but as far as I am concerned, Count Iblis has it upside down. I did not urgue about OR, but quite on the contrary, I intentionally refused to argue about OR, because there is nothing to argue about OR beyond the presence or the absence of sources. On the other hand, Brews has persistently (and i.m.o. disruptingly) attempted to argue over something inherently "inarguable". DVdm (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE CLOSE THIS AS NOTHING USEFUL IS HAPPENING HERE

The heading says it all. Jehochman 03:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback, edit-warring by User:Sulmues

Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with a loaded history of blocks, topic bans and whatnot, was recently granted rollback. As I expected, he is misusing it by using it to edit-war . He has done so in the past as well . I can't understand why a user with such a history of disruption was granted rollback in the first place, especially considering he was on an ARBMAC 1R restriction until the end of June. If not blocked for edit-warring so soon after the expiration of his revert parole, he should at least be stripped of rollback. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If he is edit-warring then he isn't edit warring by himself. You and Alexikoua have also been very disruptive in removing the Albanian name of the subject in one of the usual edit-wars. Btw it should be noted that since you couldn't revert him again because you're on 1RR Alexikoua(who was also on 1RR) reverted him continuing the edit-war you initiated in the usual approach. Edit-wars aren't started or continued by 1 user, it does take at least two users. As for the content dispute itself its a pointless one, since the name is the native language version name of the person and Sulmues actually improved the article in many ways but you and Alexikoua are edit-warring just to keep a name off the article without actually doing anything to improve it.--— ZjarriRrethues —  18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would add this as well. I also told him on the Sarande talkpage about misusing the rollback tool but obviously he hasn't listened. Rollback is only meant to revert obvious vandalism. It is a serious offence to serially revert good-faith edits even after being warned. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt back then but obviously this is getting worse. Dr.K.  18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback revoked. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate it had to come to that but rollback cannot be used for editing disputes. Maybe in a few months Sulmues can reapply. I wish him the best. Thank you Peter for letting us know. Dr.K.  18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for having used the tool improperly. I used it twice by mistake: against user:Local hero and I ran to his talk page to explain it User_talk:Local_hero#Sarande_can_you_please_say_your_opinion: no hard feelings from him as a matter of fact the next thing we did was a DYK co-nom, see below the above thread, and yesterday with Alexikoua again by mistake at Markos Botsaris: but I wrote at length at the talk page, still I would like to apologize with Alexikoua. I continuously undo vandalisms, and would like to have the tool back, however no problems if it will take awhile to have it: I will reapply if necessary: I just think I'm needed especially in the sports pages where there is a mess. I also would like to explain to user:Athenean that he too has been in a 1RR per ARBMAC and that he has an even longer history of disruption, but he has not been revoked his rollbacker status. And as far as edit-warring is concerned, he might want to rebrush on his explanations on the talk page and on MOS:BIO, which he doesn't understand. In general content issues are not discussed here though, and have nothing to do with rollbacker status. However it's the n-th time that he calls "inane" me or my editing and it's uncalled for. I also warned him in his talk page for that. Do I need to mention that user:Athenean reverted my warning as a vandalism using rollback ? Or do I need to mention that now he calls me overtly an idiot ? Sulmues  15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to explain that the revert to Djali malesis were after I wrote many times in his talk page that he was editing the wrong articles (see his talk page User_talk:Djali_malesis) and he wouldn't listen. In reference to the rollback to Dmries, I undid myself that same day . Sulmues  15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy

User:Preciseaccuracy continues to attack other editors. The editor is relatively new and has been focused on including material on allegations of Israeli espionage at Art student scam. Things have not gone in their favor and the editor resorts to using multiple talk pages and noticeboards to accuse others of grouping together in scandalous manner. I had provided the editor with yet another reminder but the behavior continues.User talk:Preciseaccuracy#Reminder.

• "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at their talk page
• "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at AfD
• New section titled "Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
• Refers to another editor's "phony drama" at the NPOV noticeboard
• and accusing others of diluting the discussion and making misleading comments at the NPOV noticeboad
• and Saying that Huey45 is a liar at Rschen7754's talk page
• Saying that those at the AfD are only "politically motivated" at Fences and windows' talk page
• A new section titled "Government Propaganda Organizations and Misplaced Pages" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
• Says that it seemed that I "pretended to give in a little so that you could later recommend the deletion of almost the entire section at the article's talk page after I denied allegations of whitewashing and said that the editor needed to stop making such accusations.
• An ANI titled "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli"
• "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli" section at the article talk page
• user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli at RomaC's talk page
• Attempt to make Shuki look bad (pointing out the unrelated blocks) after Shuki removed potentially inappropriate talk page material (a warning instead of removal would have sufficed, IMO)
• Accusing Mbzi and others of "ganging up" to whitewash the article at Edit warring board.
• Repeatedly calling Huey45 a liar at ANI
• Saying Huey45 lied at article talk
• Saying there was "politically motivated collusion" at the article talk page
• Saying users are "colluding to sabotage article" at ANI
• Section at ANI titled "User: Huey45 acting in “bad faith” and colluding with others to sabotage article “Art Student Scam” about the Suspected 2001 Israeli “art student” scam and spying"
• and Accusing editors of "ganging up" during an unblock request

I understand that the editor is new and actually think some pointed words are sometimes necessary. However, to continue to assume the worst of faith from other editors after being repeatedly asked not to is simply not acceptable. There is also behavior that borders on forum shopping with inquiries at several different noticeboards and talk pages. I understand that it can be hard for a new editor to take in all of the dispute resolution process but copy and pasting the same sources in at all of these noticeboards and talk pages is disrupting any chance that uninvolved editors will even look at what is going on. And they are certainly not worded as neutral requests for feedback.

It is my opinion that a block is necessary to encourage a rapid understanding that this cannot continue. A firm reminder from an admin might be a little less knee-jerk so that would be cool instead.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of note, User:Preciseaccuracy has posted his version of events to User talk:Jimbo Wales#Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested (say that three times fast!). I'd say forum shopping is a given. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else he should get a warning for his personal attacks on Huey45 (calling him a liar), a warning for canvassing on Jimbos talkpage, and a warning for disrupting wikipedia by repeatedly accusing anyone who disagrees with him of forming a cabal and being part of a conspiracy against him. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I also see on Preciseaccuracy's talk page that someone else seems to think Preciseaccuracy is a reincarnation of Factsontheground (talk · contribs) (who also edited as Factomancer (talk · contribs). Maybe a checkuser is in order? Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My Defense

Jimbo's page is the most neutral place on wikipedia. That is why I posted there. Before I began editing, an article about spying allegations in the U.S. had been twisted into being about a chinese tourist trap in China. This group of users is once again using the articlesfordeletionpage as a weapon to remove reliably sourced allegations and whitewash an article of references to Israel and the spying allegations. Below is a partial list of misleading tactics the group of users applies to the article "Art student Scam"

1. Continually Referring to allegations documented by reliable sources as myths and wingnut conspiracies.

2.Saying that the israelis were only typical israelis when they had military training that is far behond compulsory.

3. Saying that the allegations were completely dismissed when sources point to the allegations as inconclusive.

4. Saying that the Forward dismissed the spy ring when it was dismissing an entirely separate incident in Canada in 2004 while treating spying on the United States as inconclusive.

5. Users saying spying has been thouroughly debunked when only a one lone 12 sentence article claims to debunk it while later articles treat the allegations as inconclusive.

6. Saying art students are not Israeli.

7. Continuously attacking the reliability of the salon.com source while ignoring other reliables sources.

8.Forming polls in which friends of other users show up to leave three word or one or two sentence wp:idontlikeit comments as demonstrated on the talk page and more glaringly on both the first and second articlesfordeletion pages. Most glaringly on the first.

9.Users insulting me and linking to conspiracy websites on the talk page.

10.Users mistating information and then faking confusion.

It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins

The user above cptnono, at first pretends to be interested in adding reliably sourced material about the spying allegations to the article and then suddenly claims that the spying allegations portion should be cut down to only two sentences. Note: I only recently found out that meanwhile she had been attempting to get me topic banned.

Response to more of cptnono's links:

User huey 45 was directly lying

Huey45 says…

“I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. Huey 45 was repeatedly deliberately lying about the content of the sources, but my ai complaint didn't receive any attention due to friend of mbz1 gilisa showing up and diluting down the discussion declaring that most of the sources were unreliable. She was referring to haaretz, the Forward, the sunday herald, the newspaper creative loafing, Janes intellgence digest, salon.com, ect.

• With regards to mbz1, the comment about mbz1's "phony drama" was in reference to his above quote where he stated that I am making him sick with my additions to the article. Mbz1 is an editor whose block log goes off the page and has a history of harassing other editors, in some cases so much that they seem to have quit editing wikipedia and that mbz1 is banned from interacting with them. On my first day editing on wikipedia mbz1 goes out of his way to try to get me blocked, he completely deletes direct quotations, I even make concessions and agreed to leave out some of the direct reliably sourced quotations but mbz1 continued to revert. He said to address the issue on the talk page and stated that there had been some consensus, which as user:binksternet later pointed out, there was no consensus. I had carefully taken my time to read through the numerous sources in depth and had logically reasoned why the spy ring allegations don't fit the description of “urban myth” on the talk pages and the discussion board. Whereas mbz1's only response along with other users had been.

“I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)”

He then completely deleted a direct quote from a salon.com article. He didn't even bother to trim it down. Later mbz1 was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring because he continued to remove the very same salon.com quote when user binksternet added it back in.

• With regards to my comment about shuki deleting my comment. My comment was about jiujitsuguy who suddenly showed up to vote without any previous involvement in the article and made a misleading statement that the salon.com quote was from a blog. I've done some digging since then and apparently jiujitsuguy is good friends with above user cptnono. I questioned why shuki is deleting my comments, apparently he is currently topic banned from editing articles about land and places in and around the country of Israel. He also seems to show up to make short agreement comments with mbz1.

My accusations of user broccoli colluding with mbz1 were justified as well. Only a few weeks before my accusation, on a completely unrelated article another editor had made these same accusations in detail.

With regards to the article "art student scam," Until brocolli nominated the article for deletion, his only two comments were 3 or 4 word votes stating his agreement with mbz1. Its interesting after months of no interaction with the article, brocolli suddenly showed up and stated his agreement with mbz1's proposal very shortly after mbz1 proposed it. Since then, the only other action that brocolli has taken is to nominate a reliably sourced article for deletion.

Once again, It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins. Jimbo's webpage is the most neutral place on wikipedia. Hence I made my appeal for external input into the articlesfordeletiong discussion there.00:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• The pattern of personal attacks and forum shopping is indeed very worrying. Last warning for the user, then if personal attacks continue, I'd go with a short block. --Cyclopia 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Jimbo's page is the most neutral place on wikipedia. — No. The most neutral pages would have been Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment or Misplaced Pages:Village Pump. Jimbo's user talk page, in contrast, is often used by people who want to grandstand. It happens time and again. Uncle G (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban the user on Art students scam article

Last warning , short block? The user is a single article account. 99.99% of her edits are in one way or another connected to the article in question, and at least 80% of her contributions are either forum shopping, or personal attacks,or filing unwarranted AN/I reports or jumping to Jimbo talk page (today's post was not the first one), and so on, and so on, and so on. The user should be topic banned for that single article she spends so much time at. It is only for her own good because sometimes she takes only 4 hours break in 24 hours. On August 1 she was given the last warning by User:Fences and windows "I chose what I respond to, and when. You need to stop badgering people including me, and you need to stop forum shopping. If you do not voluntarily take a break from editing and discussing this article, then I will request a formal editing restriction to temporarily ban you from the page. The amount of time and energy you are spending on this single article is completely unhealthy, and you are becoming increasingly disruptive to collaborative editing".

So how many more "final warnings" the user should be given?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1 month topic ban on the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban, since it is clear to me that nothing will change. Broccoli (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the users own good. Seems to have an unhealthy obsession--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

more context on user mbz1 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMbz1 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And this is relevant because...? Broccoli (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy, I have already told you once: stop counting my blocks. It is none of you business. Better count your positive contributions, if any. have you heard about WP:NOTTHEM?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow brocolli, your managed to comment only 11 minutes after mbz1 this time. I wonder...Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of wp:AGF?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure what Precise's prior block history is if he/she ever used another account or IP address, but expect that bears little on the proposal. Seems like a red herring, given his response above. If someone agrees, I invite them to delete his comment and Broc's response ... and, as a sign of good faith, encourage him to do it himself. If Mbz were the subject of this proposal, I would of course have had a contrary view.--Epeefleche (talk)

Red Herring, that's the word for it, the allegations of spying were pushed to the bottom in favor of an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is disappointing that PA has failed to acknowledge that the behavior may not be acceptable. Choosing to deflect is even worse. A short block might be a great idea but I might be overreacting. We should probably not restart the mudslinging and let some admins take a look.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And since it can be hard to AGF sometimes: No, I did not email anyone or ask for any assistance.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow mbz1's other friend/defender epeefleche stops in only a few minutes later. Just like this other time mbz1 was accused of collusion by another user....http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=next&oldid=372294357 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You edited at this discussion before I did. Are you suggesting that Mbz notified you, or that Broc did so? Or ... is this just a red herring, to deflect attention away from the focus of this thread?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I really don't think that's necessary at this point in time, especially when there does appear to be some sort of malignancy toward the article, of which i'm also noticing in the AfD. Silverseren 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"malignancy toward the article"? What in the world are you talking about? This is proposal about a disruptive user, not about the article. I find your comment completely offline.I do not hide my dislike of the article. That article should not have been written in the way it was. That article is a bunch of non confirmed conspiracy theories as it is clearly seen from this document see page 18. Please also notice the name of the document. It is how that article should have been named. And it was my last comment here.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The information about the 9/11 link should probably be spun off into a separate article and have a link to it from the appropriate summarized section in Art student scam. But the rest of the article itself seems appropriate to me and doesn't appear to be unbalanced at all. From what I saw on the talk page, parts of the article were continually being picked at and dismantled and there were comments made, like yours, about deletion of the article. It is understandable for Preciseaccuracy, as a relatively new user, to worry and panic about the integrity of the article and I can easily see how s/he came to the conclusion that there is a "cabal" of users out there that are against the information proposed in the article. I think people on all sides need to tone things down and everyone should have a cup of tea, yourself included. Silverseren 04:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the split. However, I do not agree with your assessment. The article was relativity stable until PA read the Salon piece and decided to change the scope. There was no evil shenanigans. I even attempted to expand the espionage bit but realized it was not possible to make the editor content and reversed my position. I received a little personal attack for that. So even if PA was right in feeling that editors were ganging up, it is not appropriate to handle it with personal attacks, filibustering, and forum shopping. PA's transgressions need to be looked at by themselves, but even if the perceived faults of others are considered it does not excuse the behavior.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations and not 9/11. You added an entire section about 9/11 to the article about spying allegations.

The adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york, once again your whole argument rests on one or 2 sources and ignores these.

• http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1387069/US-arrests-200-young-Israelis-in-spying-investigation.html The Telegraph
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
• http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220 Sunday Herald
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/ Insight

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 washington post, this was written before many of the other articles and is the only one to claim to dismiss the allegations, however; the post admitted to not bothering to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document

• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Salon.com
• http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html Janes Intelligence
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
• http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
• 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• "adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york" Oh, thank you so much for opening my eyes on that matter. How that "pro-israel lobby" could even think about campaigning against building a mosque at ground zero, where 3,000 innocent people got murdered by Islamic terrorists?! If I only new how sinister that adl really is, I would have never ever linked to it site.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question for you, Preciseaccuracy. Since it wasn't you that added in the 9/11 info, would you be fine with that info being removed and split off to its own article? Silverseren 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course she would not mind to split, after all instead of one conspiracy theory there will be two. I assume you were so busy looking for "malignancy toward the article" in my edits that you have missed this very interesting exchange, and now I am really outtahere, and going to have a cap of tea before an admin offers something much stronger to me .☺--Mbz1 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Would be better answered at the article's talk page?Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just that a major part of PA's panic from what I can see, besides that about the AfD, is about the addition of material that makes it that much easier to say that the article is unreliable. Which the 9/11 info does. Silverseren 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But the panic should not have lasted this long or been vented as it has been. We can discuss 9/11 at the talk page where sources correlating the two can be provided. Actually, the source was first presented by PA.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually 9/11 was first referred to in march http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_student_scam&oldid=347356423#September_11_allegations

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize. I was trying to say the 9/11 line I added was per the sources you presented. My bad if it looked like I was misrepresenting the article history. That is still better discussed on the talk page and not here. So do you have any other response to the diffs presented? If you think your actions were totally acceptable then it is time to see if an admin wants to give you another warning or a block. Not sure if either will happen but I think it is clear that at least one of those options is necessary.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It was also already mentioned in the version of the article that existed right before I started editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I added this quote from Haaretz regarding the washington post article. It seems relevant to the Israeli espionage allegations. What do you think Silver seren?

" Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's 9/11 section has already been removed http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_student_scam&diff=376086286&oldid=376086173 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What if the haaretz quote was trimmed down to

" Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or how about this version

Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious.... According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad.." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you answer the question I had for you above? And Cptnono is right, this isn't the place for specific source discussion. Silverseren 06:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The only part mentioning 9/11 is the haaretz quote. Someone also added a link to a 9/11 advance knowledge debate. I think that the link to the 9/11 advance knowledge debate should be deleted. I think some other user added that link when mbz1's 9/11 section was deleted.

I think the haaretz and forward quote that connects the alleged art student spying to alleged spying through a moving company in the same year seems relevant to the spying allegations and should be kept, but I'm willing to make concessions, that could be split off into a separate article about spying allegations through the company "urban moving."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Suggestion to PA - I can't remember precisely, and frankly I'm too distracted in other matters to look into this fully, and look up the specific guidelines or policies I cite, but from reading your posts here, 3 come into mind. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and most of all, WP:NPA. PA, nothing you do here is really winning you any points, but rather the opposite. You are showing the community that you are incapable of assuming good faith, and therefore your editing here falls in the category of disruptive. Therefore, I suggest you stop commenting here, and accusing of those who do of either being sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or some kind of cabal. I can assure you, that if you do not, you will likely end up as another user who I remember quite well; Frei Hans (talk · contribs). For any who do not know, this user started a disruptive tirade(I'm sorry if this word is uncivil, but I cannot think of a better verb) of bad-faith accusations against what some would call 'the community as a whole'. Simply, they accused everyone that tried to help them or inform them of the relevant policies and guidelines as either being a sock or meatpuppet of a user or users who previously did such. As was stated, they were banned... granted, this happened after they appeared as a sockpuppet and began doing the same thing again, after they were previously indef blocked for the behavior noted above.

Either way, to the point of this post, I suggest you stop posting here, and accusing people of things. Another one would be to listen what the experienced editors here have told you, and try to follow suit. Continuing to assume bad faith will likely end for you, how it did for Frei Hans.

Anyway, back to research. I likely won't comment here again.— Dædαlus 06:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most users on wikipedia are acting benevolently. With regard to this article. This is unlikely the case. A reliably sourced article is being nominated for deletion due to a group of users wp:idontlikeit comments.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To someone who both thoroughly looks through the sources and then looks at the comments that that this group of users have made it should be obvious what has been going on. Just look at the diff. that was the result of the first nomination for the articlesfordeletion page. Once again, notice how the focus had shifted from being about spying allegations in the United States to being about an unrelated tourist trap in china. Also, notice how the inconclusive spying allegations are pushed to the bottom of the page and stated to be an urban myth despite the description of most sources both early and later of the spying allegations being at the very least inconclusive.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Topic/article bans that are initiated by and largely supported by opponents in said topic area are unlikely to be of any value. A user RfC where this user has an opportunity to receive feedback from uninvolved editors and (hopefully) be receptive to their input may be better here. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Note - I'm involved. Considering how editors are ganging up to try to get this article deleted, and the same editors are trying to get Preciseaccuracy topic banned, this is an appalling proposal. Not liking a topic and trying to get opponents banned is a terrible approach. I did say that Preciseaccuracy needed to stop forum shopping (and they do need to), and I even drafted an AN/I case myself last week, but I found that the case against them was remarkably weak and shelved it. The problem is that Mbz1 and others view their position of labelling this an "anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theory" as "The Truth" (the ADL says it, so it must be true), and thus they assume that anyone who wants to add details about the espionage allegations to Art student scam must be anti-semitic. Nice well poisoning. Fences&Windows 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think independent uninvolved editors should get involved with respect to improving (or deleting) the article in question and moving (or not) relevant and sourced information on the spying question to somewhere suitable. In the meantime, Preciseaccuracy's behavior issues are a separate question, and the forum shopping, single purpose editing, and general badgering needs to be addressed. As an uninvolved editor, a couple of things seem clear to me: first, if there is an "art student scam" that is possibly worth a separate article, though I doubt it, that's entirely separate from this particular incident. Second, the incident seems to be pretty unconfirmed and is likely evidence of general paranoia in the media after 9/11 than of anything else. But I've only read about half the sources - enough to suggest to me that Preciseaccuracy's summary of them is anything but precisely accurate - but not enough to give me a firm opinion as to where and how this information should be handled.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• OpposeReading more of the sources might leave a better understanding of the notability of the topic, and the AFD history indicates a general dislike of the article's subject rather than objections based on notability, on the part of some editors. The muzzling of the one editor in question seems a bit overdone in a topic dispute. We go from "IDONTLIKEIT" to "TOPICBANANYONEWHODISAGREESTOOLOUDLY." Edison (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, thank you for founding Misplaced Pages and thank you for your input in this matter. Could you please explain why you seem to believe that my characterization of the spying allegations as inconclusive is unfounded? The majority of the sources seem to be of this view and some of the original sources such as the guardian that reported it don't seem to have run corrections. Some of the sources are from several years later and most of the sources are from 2002. True there was paranoia around the time of 9/11, but the 60 pg. dea document and ncix bulletin were created months before 9/11. The focus of the article is the spying allegations. I strongly stand by the accusations I've made above about the group of users, and they are very valid.

Anyway, if independent uninvolved users stay with the article, I have no problem taking a break from defending it against deletion and editing it for a while. I felt there was no way for me alone to save a reliably sourced article from a group of users who wp:idontlikeit than to take my concern to your talk page. I didn't want to see a reliably sourced article I've spent a lot of time working on deleted. This isn't the first time that a group of wp:idontlikeit users have stopped by to overwhelm the article with there numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scam and likely won't be the last.

The result of the firs articlesfordeletion discussion shifted an article about spying allegations into an article about an almost unnotable Chinese tourist trap.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Once again, my concerns about the above users are very valid. However, I will respect your wishes and will soon voluntarily take a break for at least several weeks from editing. The process of constantly defending this article and having to correct the constant misrepresentation of sources by a group of users has been somewhat draining. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I do however think it would be a great injustice to topic ban me from the article. I have acted in good faith in pointing out the obvious fact that a malevolent group of users has been attacking this article because of their wp:idontlikeit views. If anyone should be sanctioned, they should be sanctioned a thousand times over before me.

You would be setting a very bad precedent topic banning me. Basically, you would be setting the precedent that groups of users acting in political coordination to delete reliable sources would have free reign over wikipedia to bully articles. These users when confronted with what they are doing by an individual user could then ban that individual user to in effect silence that user. Mbz1 and others may say assume good faith;however, in his case it would be utter foolishness to assume good faith with him and his friends. It is absolutely clear that their intent is push propaganda and delete reliably sourced inconclusive spying allegations that they find offensive.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, if independent editors take over editing the article, I would feel releived to take a break from wikipedia for at least a few weeks. Not because of any accusations of wrongdoing against me, but because I've already spent so much time on wikipedia in recent weaks that I feel that I should take a healthy break soon.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some time away regardless would serve you well, Preciseaccuracy. And when you return, editing quietly, respectfully and collegiately will serve you better. 86.159.91.201 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm shining light on the issue of a group of users colluding to delete reliable sources from wikipedia. If I take a break before independent editors become involved, in a few weeks the article with either be deleted by this group of users, or the focus may once again shift from inconclusive spying allegations in the United States to an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. Or perhaps, they'll shift the focus to discussing paint brushes in England or some other topic that is not reasonably connected to the spying allegations.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a break and worry about it when you come back. That's the point of taking a break. It's Misplaced Pages. Things that are done can be undone, or brought up for debate, etc. Take a step back for a while and relax. This is nothing worth getting so worked up over. Hazardous Matt (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per --Jiujitsuguy. The SPA (is that sockpuppet account or single purpose account?) one man crusade on this article is not real. I would not be surprised if this editor does 'take a break' from editing. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SPA - Single-purpose account. -- Atama頭 01:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per above and per Mbz1. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the fact of the user only taking a 4 hour break out of 24 as mentioned at the top of this discussion and Fences' "final warning", this is definitely for the person's best interest to get perspective on life. As someone who knows alot about heated discussions I must say from experience that a forced break does do a good thing for your mental health. Regardless of what other editors may be doing and how they are "ganging up" on PA (or not) this is about PA's actions and their actions ONLY. This most definitely is not a place to rehash the discussion that led us to this point, AN/I is not dispute resolution; and more importantly this is not a thread on the other users. If you think they need "punishment" as well then bring a complaint about them separately, dont try to muddy the waters. Also as a sidenote supporting PA- going to Jimbo for his opinion is not forum shopping at all, it may sort of be canvassing however depending on whether the editor truly believed Jimbo would be on "their side" and it was the intent that he would come to the discussion to vote! in their support, if it had been worded more carefully simply asking Jimbo for his ideas, input, suggestions, personal beliefs, then it would not have been canvassing either.Camelbinky (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor has come across as somewhat aggressive no question about that, but he is mellowing and has always been more than ready to provide sources and participate on Talk. As noted here and at the AfD there has been a tendency for some to work seemingly in concert to dismiss this editor's contributions, and this may have fueled his frustration and sent him off looking for input from uninvolved editors. I don't see this as disruptive behavior per se, and I hope some of the uninvolved editors on this page and the AfD will look into Art student scam and offer their opinions. (I support splitting the article into 1) an article on the allegations of an espionage ring and 2) an article on the student paintings scam, and remain willing to work on this if other editors will help out). RomaC 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• This is the user post to Jimbo' talk page from yesterday: "Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested" . It is what you call "mellowing"? Really? --Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per --Jimbo. His assessment is pretty close to how I feel about it. The response from the user after I unknowingly stepped into this minefield was very surprising to me and with that and all the identical long postings at so many locations is disruptive. This in addition to an apparent unwillingness to listen to a uninvolved opinion makes me doubtful that the user will have positive contributions to this topic. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is AliveFreeHappy's opinion

"This would NOT qualify it for it's own article"

"Most of the links that can be found that purport to substantiate this topic are obvious conspiracy sites"

He ignores that the majority of both earlier and later sources that treat the spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive. He ignores the later sources, The forward, haaretz, Insight, the sunday herald, salon.com, democracy now, Janes intelligence digest.

He stated that there was an "overwhelming body of evidence" dismissing the allegations. The only source to claim to dismiss the allegations was the 12 sentence washington post article that didn’t even bother to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document. He ignored the ncix warning.

I ask him to provide this “overwhelming body of evidence” that he claims refutes the notability of the spying allegations. He refuses and then he again refers to conspiracy theorists.

I highly recommend reading through the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Request_third_party_input_on_.22Art_Student_Scam.22_article_Split Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Threat of physical violence...

Going through WP:RFU, I came upon this. If I'm doing this right, the IP originates to Dover. Anyone in England able to give the local authorities a little phone call? --Smashville 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• The ISP is a wifi provider, so I think that might be anywhere in england. Protonk (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• As the target, I don't think there's any point following this up with the authorities; but a longer block than the current 12 hours might be in order. JohnCD (talk)

• Probably not worth it; this ISP operates a lot in wifi spots as diverse as airports, hotels, or even your local Starbucks; whoever was using that particular dynamic IP will be long gone when the block expires. Even if they're still there, they'll get a new IP address when they log back in. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this disgusting user should be showed.86.176.76.190 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite is right. Just let it go. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I semi'd the talkpage for 12h so they can't post anything else there either. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Showed what? The door? The error of their ways? The Zapruder film? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the first 30 minutes of From Justin to Kelly would be an apt punishment. --Smashville 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Or being forced to listen to Jerry Vale records for all eternity. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the deleted diff at Talk:Child pornography, this is banned User:Hamish Ross. He was doing the same thing yesterday as User:94.116.191.194. We actually do know this person's real life identity, so let me know if he does it again. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just keep a watch on my talk page, it seems to be his favorite target....harrrumphhh!..mental health advice indeed!". Force feed him Devo and Spinal Tap (Volume turned to 11), until he cracks! WuhWuzDat 06:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting closure for an archived discussion

Hello - I would like to request that an admin review and close a fairly recent and currently archived ANI discussion (which, as I see it, has a pretty clear outcome, per the input of several users and an admin at the bottom of the discussion). The discussion, to date, has been automatically archived three times and restored by me two times, and the first two times after I restored it, I requested that an admin close the discussion at the bottom of it (due to it seemingly slowing down and a decision for action being evidently clear), but that had no avail. As a result, I'm opening up a separate thread to request that an admin close it as they see appropriate. Just as a note, I am not (unless someone objects) notifying anybody of this discussion, as it is not related to a certain user, but rather, a discussion itself. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added TK-CP to the blacklist. Sorry you had to wait so long, SuperHamster! Olaf Davis (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem, thanks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433

I want to report users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433. They seems to be a football agents related to Heritage Soccer Agency. They are creating an articles about footballers with false informations. Most statistics they inserted to the infoboxes was fake and unsourced. I spent two hours to remove fake and pov informations from some articles, but this User:Zombie433 seems to fake most articles he edited. Please do something about these two, because wikipedia isn't a place for cheaters.--Wrwr1 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at this edit by Zombie433 , he start to fake articles in 2008, I don't want to think how many articles he faked since then. Please block this user permanently beacuase he made huge damage to wikipedia by posting fale information in articles.--Wrwr1 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see what is fake about that edit. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He inserted in this edit false information to infobox. Number of matches Angan played in U-17 and Entente Sportive de Bingerville are Zombie433's fabrication. And he's doing the same thing to every article he's editing. Also youthyears are pure fiction. Look at my Special:Contributions/Wrwr1, since few hours I'm reverting his false information in Ivorian footballers articles. But he did the same thing to thousands of articles. Reverting all the dameges he made will take months.--Wrwr1 (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at this fresh article made by him: Soumahoro Johnson. And this is the same fake edit as above. Youth years are fake, matches and goals in Stella Club d'Adjamé, Pol. Andorra and US Chantilly are fake as well as in Côte d'Ivoire U-21. He's fabricating every article since 2 years, I think that only permanent ban can stop him.--Wrwr1 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone with more knowledge of football than I will have to have a look at this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some background at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_45#User:Zombie433. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note, Zombie433 is currently blocked until 23 August for spamming. MER-C 07:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another quick note: Wrwr1, when you report someone here, you should notify them that they're being discussed. No biggie, however; I did that for you. Salvio 11:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

I am involved in something of a content dispute with a representative of a US firm producing an electrical stimulation device. This editor claims my edits at electroanalgesia are in violation of US trademark law. On my user talk page, this editor has related the opinion of that company's IP law firm, and stated that they will "strongly defend" their trademark (diff). This is a thinly-veiled legal threat in my eyes, and certainly seems worded to strike fear into me. I replied, and stated that I would be bringing this to the greater community (diff). While I am not sure if a WP:NLT block is required at this point, I would like some additional eyes on this situation. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Seems a pretty clear WP:NLT situation to me. Also the edits seem clearly to be spamming for their product, and it seems just a legal threat to allow such spam. --Cyclopia 00:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it looks to me like they want to spam an article about a medical condition to market their product and are edit warring to try and force their preferred promotional version. I say block them per WP:NLT and direct them to OTRS. There is nothing libelous or trademark violating in your edits. Trademark law doesn't enable marketers and other company representatives to force encyclopedias to accept their preferred promotional marketing lingo. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Block 'em, Dan-o. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for the legal threat. User cannot edit while the legal threat stands. –MuZemike 01:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, for the response! I'm going to review the page that prompted the threat in the next few days anyway. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken6175 has retracted their legal threat on their Talk page and has asked to be unblocked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Tnxman307 went ahead and unblocked, which I support as well. –MuZemike 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Block-evading IP

Apologies if this is the wrong venue, but there is an unregistered editor (75.51.166.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who is jumping IPs to evade blocks for edit-warring at Artsakh (originally blocked under 75.51.175.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. and User(s) blocked. -FASTILY 03:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack on admin

FunBob1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - see this contribution.

The only interaction previously was their comment here on ANI when I agreed to look into a complicated duck-test unblock request. It took about 3 weeks to resolve including private communications with the user and unblock-en-l, but it was resolved with a positive ID on the user as not being the sockpuppeteer and an unblock, so it's highly confusing that they'd be blaming me for some sort of abuse...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Minimum 48 hour block - If we are going to have admins elected by consensus, we should try to respect them if we want them to respect the rank-and-file. Here's an obscene, emphatic phrase... on your own talk page... and with an obvious intent to be disruptive. Clear-cut, as I see it. Jusdafax 09:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And done. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Douglast86

I notice that this user has been warned multiple times to stop uploading copyrighted content and placing a free license on it, including one time where an administrator gave him a specific warning. The user has heeded none of it, and most recently uploaded a photo this time dubiously claiming the copyright was released. Can an sysop please administer corrective action or give a last warning to the user (my own warnings will mean less than a sysop's, sadly). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've left another warning, deleted all the images that failed WP:NFCC anyway, one of his uploads was PD anyway, so I've fixed its rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that image doesn't qualify for enough originality to be copyright eligible? It's at least questionable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it doesn't. It's just a text "P" turned sideways with a text "G" over the top. I doubt very much if that hits the ToO. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I can sharpen White Main Deochellans's pencil with my mouth?

User:White Main Deochellans has theories of a planet of Ingoloids and Norgoloids (complete theory here), which now include that I can sharpen his pencil in my mouth (complete rant here). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just filed an AIV report at Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that too :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing, in particular personal attack. Favonian (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Need admin assistance to undo controversial move

On 1 August, user:Schwyz moved Province of Pomerania to Pomerania Province (1815-1945) . The new title gets 192 hits at books.google, many of which are false positives (other provinces or stuff like "Pomerania, Province of foo"). The previous title, "Province of Pomerania, produces 4,200 hits at books.google.

Per WP:BRD, I intended to revert the move, and have user Schwyz file an RM request if they still want to move the article. Unfortunately, the old title is now salted as it was redirected to a dab page .

Since for this reason I cannot undue the move myself, please can an administrator

• delete the current redirect page Province of Pomerania and
• move the article Pomerania Province (1815-1945) back to its former name, Province of Pomerania.

Thank you, Skäpperöd (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: I see this as a purely technical issue. If anyone actually wants to discuss a move of the article, please don't do this here, but file an RM request once the page has been moved back. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, personal attacks, and edit warring by User:Gun Powder Ma

User:Gun Powder Ma has been engaging in numerous personal attacks and disruptive editing recently. Here are some diffs to show his behaviour. Personal attacks:

This editor has been immensely disruptive in Chinese history-related articles through intensive POV pushing, edit warring, forum shopping, misreperesentation of sources, and general POV pushing. His actions have caused immense harm to wikipedia, and it has been recently revealed he is edit warring to push a POV on a forum. I request he be blocked immediately.Teeninvestor (talk)

With respect to "personal attacks", is there anything in this complaint that you did not bring up at the Wikiquette board yesterday? Not 24 hours ago, Administrator User:Toddst1 wrote there that "While I've seen civility problems in the past with GPM (and taken administrative action as a result) these latest diffs don't seem to be too much of a cause for concern. Aside from these two editors sniping at each-other, edit warring and wiki-hounding each-other (which really needs to stop), I don't see a continuing civility problem based on these diffs" --Moonriddengirl 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Attacks on an admin who disagreed with him, and more examples of personal attacks than the wikiquette report.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I got a particular chuckle out of the charge of "forum shopping" in the list of alleged wikicrimes above. Looks like retaliation, really. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor for context.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This sniping and forum shopping has gotten way out of hand and has got to stop. I've blocked Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for continued hounding of Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I see here, that seems like a good call to me. :/ --Moonriddengirl 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted edits

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

Can somebody tell me why I have deleted edits in my history? viz:-

1. 00:57, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Misplaced Pages:Help desk ‎ (→Colorado redux)
2. 00:54, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Misplaced Pages:Help desk ‎ (→Colorado redux: confused)

Can be seen at Special:Contributions/Exxolon

part of a larger sequence of deleted edits on that page viz:-

1. (cur | prev) 02:22, 9 August 2010 86.135.171.33 (talk) (→Problems with floating elements: new section)
2. (cur | prev) 02:21, 9 August 2010 PrimeHunter (talk | contribs) (→Taranaki Daily News - NEW EDITOR: Done)
3. (cur | prev) 00:57, 9 August 2010 Exxolon (talk | contribs) m (→Colorado redux)
4. (cur | prev) 00:54, 9 August 2010 Exxolon (talk | contribs) (→Colorado redux: confused)
5. (cur | prev) 00:53, 9 August 2010 SineBot (talk | contribs) m (Signing comment by 203.144.40.139 - "- →Taranaki Daily News - NEW EDITOR: new section")
6. (cur | prev) 00:53, 9 August 2010 203.144.40.139 (talk) (→Taranaki Daily News - NEW EDITOR: new section)
7. (cur | prev) 00:41, 9 August 2010 Teratornis (talk | contribs) (→Colorado redux: The Colorado article took about 10 seconds to load for me just now, in Firefox 3.6.8 under Windows Vista.)
8. (cur | prev) 00:39, 9 August 2010 SineBot (talk | contribs) m (Signing comment by 222.179.151.77 - "- →Please email me my user name.: new section")
9. (cur | prev) 00:38, 9 August 2010 222.179.151.77 (talk) (→Please email me my user name.: new section)

which can be seen at

As far as I can recall the actual content I posted is unaffected and still at Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Colorado_redux.

Since my edits were entirely innocuous why have they been deleted? I don't want deleted edits in my edit record, it suggests I posted something so offensive the edit had to be deleted which is blatantly not true. Exxolon (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

These are rev/del deletions, and there seems to be a fair few of them by editors in good standing on these pages. I would be inclined to suggest that perhaps there has been some serious vandal edits which were rev/deleted, and then Oversighted - and the rev delete has been somehow transposed on to legit historical edits. I know this thing had previously happened with Oversighting, but thought that that blemish had been removed with the refinement of the tools; although it may be that if content is being removed from the database that this might still occur. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I will see if I cannot "un-rev/del" them... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my thinking on it too. (the first part, not the 'un rev del them'... I assume they were revdel'd for a reason) Syrthiss (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There were some intervening edits, where someone revealed too much information, which have been oversighted. The information was still on the page when Exxolon edited, which is why those revisions went too. -- zzuuzz 14:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)::There's "User:Exxolon/Colorado (test finished, please delete this sandbox page)" but also a number of deletions where the article or talk page was deleted and you had at some point edited them. When they were deleted, eg by AfD, speedy, etc (and you might even had templated them yourself), your edits are deleted. It happens to most of us. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I cannot "un-rev/del" those edits... To Exxolon, post a link to this discussion when it is archived and use it should anyone question the legitimacy of those contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We all have deleted edits in our edit history. Most of which have nothing at all to do with us at all even User:Jimbo Wales has some, so I wouldn't look at it as any reflection on you.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Different kind of deleted edits. Look closer. Jauerback/_dude. 16:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - understand what's happened now. Will link to this discussion/archive. Exxolon (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this?

213.202.242.155 (talk · contribs) writes edit summaries such as "I'm User:Marco9673,FuturePerfectAtSunrise thou are too lazy to block my account-it is socked but not blocked,I restore my edits-if thou want me to not edit here logged,block User:Marco9673" "I'm from P.R.C, im both bloxd User:Marco3769 and FREE User:Marco9673 plz blox User:Marco9673 if u do not want me here,but consider long education in Laodong Gaizao if u bloxUser:Marco9673)", "Still not blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Marco9673 even if blocked already http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Marco3769 ? CURIOUS!!!)"

Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly obvious block evasion. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On the same subject, 108.1.128.128 (talk · contribs) is Moulton (talk · contribs). I know where WP:SPI is, but this should be quicker. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No comment on block evasion or otherwise (and I 'spose it's possible they were trying to get another editor blocked) but their editing was disruptive, and I have blocked them for that. They were at their final vandalism warning too, but that didn't enter into my block consideration: I blocked purely for the repetitive edits claiming to be a sock. TFOWR 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked it as an open proxy. This is a banned vandal who's into their socks among other things - not entirely sure which banned vandal, but I don't think it matters much. -- zzuuzz 18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least they're helping out ;-) TFOWR 19:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

94.219.198.90 & 188.107.8.82

The IPs (which are used by the same person) are vandalizing topics by deleting sourced material (from reliable sources like government agencies and the UN), insulting other editors, using multiple IPs so the edits can't be tracked, using original research and POV.

• Talk:Logar Province - insulting in Persian language, "Kere Tajik da kusse nanet, KharKusszai.".
• Talk:Badghis_Province#Reverted_edits_by_94.219.198.90 - insulting in Persian language, "Kiram da kusse nane faishet".
• Talk:Badghis_Province#Reverted_edits_by_94.219.198.90 - Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation of Afghanistan (which has taken their data and stats from Central Statistics of Afghanistan and the United Nations) is used as a source, but the IP is using his/her own original research and ethnic POV. The user is not accepting the sources because he/she thinks the government is anti non-Pashtun, which is again POV.
• Logar - Four different sources have been used to support that Pashtuns are the predominant group in the province. 2 of the sources (USAID and Conflict in Afghanistan: a historical encyclopedia By Frank Clements) points out that Pashtuns make up the predominant/majority of the population and 1 of the source (MRRD/CSO/UN) clearly states that Pashto language, which is spoken by the Pashtuns, is spoken by 60% of the population. Understanding the War is another NGO, and it clearly states that Pashtuns make 60% of the population. All the arguments and sources have been presented in the talk page.
• Maidan Shar - The user removes the local name in Pashto language from the article, even though, the language is spoken by 85% of the population and the official name of the province is written in Pashto language. All explained at the discussion page, but the IP still ignores all the information and keeps up with his own ethnic POV. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

I have written more than enough for now. All some one has to do is go through the IP's contribution list and see it for himself (herself). The user is nothing but an IP vandal - using multiple IPs so he/she won't be tracked (84.19.173.195 , 94.219.198.90 , 188.107.8.82 are some of the IPs). (Ketabtoon (talk))

For any admin that wants to take a looks at this, Ketabtoon and these IPs have been apparently going at it for quite a while, reporting each other to AIV, etc. One of the IPs posted on my talk page that Ketabtoon is a "sock-puppet of banned User:Alishah, Khampalak, Afghan4Real and others", but I haven't made an effort to find out if this is the case. I would prefer not to be involved in this and have suggested dispute resolution to these two, but I am not surprised that it has ended up here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been a member in here for over 2 years. Any admin who wants to go over a check user on my account, they are very welcome to do so. Along with Ed, I asked few admins to look at the IP's contributions and than decide. So far, it looks like no one has done so. Still waiting for some admins and wiki members to go over the IP's contribution.

So, I request an admin to do a user check on my account to clear my issue first. Once that is done, I hope they go over the IP's edits as well. Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Watchlist Notice Mistake

A watchlist notice just popped up on everyone's watchlists, but there is a slightly mistake about it. Here is the notice: "There will be a Misplaced Pages meetup in Pittsburgh on August 22 at 3:00 PM. We will meet near the University of Pittsburg campus. You're invited! See our meetup page for more information." The mistake is the second spelling of Pittsburgh, spelled "Pittsburg"...needs an "h" at the end. If someone could correct that, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Skomorokh 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive blanking of sources from editor Mikemikev at Race (classification of humans) while the Race and Intelligence arbcase is awaiting resolution

I would need some uninvolved admin (preferably somewhat familiar with the case, for the only reason is that it is a long and complex one) to take a look at Mikemikev's recent behaviour, including revert-warring and what I can only describe as tantamount to trolling. Can somebody help him cool his heels down for awhile please? I'm availableshould there be further questions about this issue. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been semi-actively patrolling this one for a while; the edits were clearly disruptive, they were right after the full protection timeout on the article expired, and after I explicitly warned the case parties on the Arbcom case proposed decision talk page that further disruption on either of the articles in question would result in blocks.

Pursuant to the prior warning, I have blocked Mikemikev for 72 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of a WP:SALTed redirect by User:Denelson83

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

About a year and a half ago I deleted an article on Jack Rebney per WP:BLP. For those unfamiliar with the case, Jack Rebney is the subject of the internet meme and subsequent documentary Winnebago Man. I later deleted a redirect from Jack Rebney to Winnebago Man under the same principle that we don't have a redirect to Star Wars Kid from the name of the subject; there was poor sourcing, and the portrayal of Jack Rebney within the original meme was quite negative. I then protected the article title from creation. Following these two deletions, press coverage of the documentary (and consequently its subject) has significantly increased. I just noticed that User:Denelson83 has recreated the redirect, marking it as a minor edit with the edit summary "Is this an okay redirect?". This was done without discussing the case with me first or taking the case to Deletion Review.

What is done is done, and I don't particularly feel like raking Denelson83 over the coals about this. I also acknowledge that there is a possibility that I, myself, may have made a misjudgment in originally deleting and protecting the redirect. I would like a review of both actions and advice on the current status of the redirect in question. This may very well be a question for RfD to address, but given the nature of the administrative actions taken, and the sensitive BLP nature of the case, I thought it better to bring it here first. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's because I didn't know that this had already been done before and that the community had already rejected it. I can re-delete it if you wish.

Hey, it was an honest mistake, and making mistakes is the best way to learn. --  Denelson83  22:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Rebney appeared at the film's premier, apparently of his own volition, it seems perfectly reasonable to have such a redirect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

As advised previously, I'm asking here for administrator intervention in response to this personal attack, rather than responding in situ, since a polite request to the person making the attack has been rebuffed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiquette noticeboard is that-a-way. Yworo (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

like I said, as advised previously. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it didn't look like the kind of personal attack that editors get blocked for, that's why I pointed you to Wikiquette alerts. Typically, blocking is for racial epithets, hate speech, gratuitous insults rather than opinions about your editing style. Yworo (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think there's anything actionable there; however, you should have notified OrangeDog (talk · contribs) of this thread (I've just done it for you). Salvio 22:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The comment was an attack directed at me; not a comment on my editing style. But who said anything about a block? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a comment on behavior. I don't think it qualifies as a "personal attack". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake

This user has been blocked 3 times for adding absurd information of various kinds to the article, yet they just won't give up. They'll add unnecessary and occasionally libellious information on the subject, then edit war until they're temporarily blocked to keep it in the article.

If you look at the history of the page you'll see it's littered with reversions/undid edits of unsuitable content that the IP added.

A few specific diffs of questionable content:

There were also a few additions by this author to the article which have since been REVDELed for containing libellious content and I can't list them here for that reason.

This user needs a longer-term block and possibly a topic ban, as few of their additions to the article thus far have been encyclopedic. elektrikSHOOS 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked for a fortnight. bibliomaniac15 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On the bright side, they've gone from outright libel to just being a nuisance. I guess you could call that progress. Unblock request in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... Resolute 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm also proposing a topic ban for the editor on Scott Oake and related articles, broadly construed. This would allow editors to bypass 3RR if they edit again on the page. (They have contributed positively elsewhere. But they've been blocked four six (!) times now for unhelpful edits to that article in particular.) elektrikSHOOS 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support A simple solution to bypass 3RR. Enforcing a ban is just simpler than having to deal with disruption on individual events. Swarm 03:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:NCDane

I became aware of this editor’s contributions having seen this edit while watching recent changes. Noticing a spate of edits deleting cyrillic renderings of proper names with less than collegial edit summaries and that the user had received advice on the conventions surrounding inclusion of non-Roman characters in article mainspace, I warned them that continued disruption would result in a block. After NCDane resumed their removal I briefly blocked them with an explanation. Today in looking over the user’s contribs I find that they insist on applying their perspective of Misplaced Pages convention unilaterally. I am not arguing that we should should be thralls to the naming convention, but that NCDane should be discussing their differences of opinion in the proper venue and not in the article mainspace. My impetus for posting here is to discover if there are remedies available other than extended blocks or a ban. I'm not seeing any. Tiderolls 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There's always the possibility of an editing restriction (that will be enforced through blocks, however), such as the requirement to discuss every edit on the article's talk page before making it or, finally, sort of a topic ban from removing those bits of info. Salvio 00:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to remove this information after being informed about the naming conventions and being briefly blocked for continuing to do so constitutes blatant vandalism. Block 'em, Dano. (I know someone else used this earlier. Still good.) elektrikSHOOS 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yepp. block warranted... indef. This is the 2nd ANI thread, will be the 2nd block, and user insists on his "English only"-crusade. Hopeless case. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree. He has few user talk page edits and they all say the same thing "I'm gonna keep doing what I want to do and screw you all". He also says that he will not stop until told to do so by official authority. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this here ought to be that authority. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we try an editing restriction? "User:NCDane is indefinitely topic banned from removing or replacing any non-English names (of people or otherwise) in any article. Any such edit will result in blocks of increasing length." Fences&Windows 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Worth keeping an eye on

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

Lion barmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just tripped my radar with his first few edits. Could someone nicer and kinder than me please keep an eye on him? Has just awarded himself the rollback user right icon because I asked him not to remove it from another user's user page pending appeal. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously a sock, since his very first edit singled me out. He might be a "Light current" sock, since that's kind of his M.O., or he might be some other troll that I've irritated over time. I reported this at the time, but the admin was unwilling to do anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He gone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin help needed for outing

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

In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Safwat Ghayur, one of the contributors, using technology that's probably too advanced for me, gave the name and address of someone they disagreed with. Can any of you powerful cats with buttons have a look and see if that info ought to be deleted? (Obviously, I think it should.) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please do not post requests to remove information such as this publicly. This page is visible to everyone. Go to WP:RfO instead. elektrikSHOOS 05:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the revision text to be on the safe side, I've not taken a really close look at this, but will report to oversight. I've also notified Marwatt of this thread - Kingpin (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Suppressed now. Let's archive this now & shut down teh dramahz - Alison 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need any help from an admin to out anyone :) –MuZemike 05:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am here in response to a notice on my Talk Page. Honestly, I somehow managed to find out the whereabouts of the person who had been vandalizing my articles on wikipedia and have been nominating them for deletion in past. You may well see that even this user is a purpose built user and has specifically targeted my new article on Safwat Ghayur. Out of sheer desperation I mentioned his real name on the discussion page to let him know that I know who he is. I didn’t know if that’s against any policy at Misplaced Pages, however, he and his multiple socks have been blocked upon my request earlier on as well and I expect the same justice this time too. -- MARWAT  06:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Socks of blocked User:BarzanPDK18

• RedWhite100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.110.203.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 207.47.163.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I reported these at WP:AIV, but there was a suggestion that I open an SPI case. I should think that WP:DUCK would apply. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I was the one who suggested the case at WP:SPI. If WP:DUCK applies here, then by all means, block away. No need for unnecessary bureaucracy. elektrikSHOOS 07:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards