위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive717

쿨쿤

안녕

위키백과에서:인신공격 없음:일부 유형의 코멘트는 절대 허용되지 않는다.

또 다른 기여자에 대한 인종, 성차별주의자, 동성애 혐오자, 연령 차별주의자, 종교, 정치, 민족, 성 또는 기타 비문(예: 장애를 가진 사람들에 대한 것)종교, 인종, 성적 지향 또는 민족성을 구성하는 것에 대한 의견 불일치는 정당한 구실이 아니다.

사용자 Coolkoon은 다음과 같이 썼다.

그리고 슬로바키아의 50% 이상이 쿨쿤 (토크) 21:53, 2011년 8월 18일 (토크)--라스트라이온 (토크) 11:21, 2011년 8월 20일 (토크)과 같은 정신이상적 주장으로 자신을 동일시하고 있다[응답]

참고: WP에서 방금 이전한 내용:AN Nick-D (대화) 11:40, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[답글]

Shees, 슬로바키아 민족주의자 sockpuppet?내가 이것에 대한 마지막 토론에서 다른 슬로바키아 민족주의자가 나를 힘들게 하기 위해 갑자기 나타날 날이 머지 않았다고 말했을 때, 나는 결코 하루 안에 그런 일이 일어날 것이라고 생각하지 않았을 것이다! (악의를 가진 노골적인 양말이 그렇게 하지 못한 후에) 나에게 알려준 것에 감사한다, 닉-D.

그리고 내 진술에 대해서는, 내가 언급한 사용자가 올린 슬로바키아 노트의 번역본을 누구나 읽고 자신의 의견을 정할 수 있다.내 의견은 사용자의 정신이상자(예: 헝가리를 " 짖는 개들의 언어"라고 지칭했다는 사실, 내가 워밍업하고 있다는 사실 등)와 내 주장은 적어도 한 명의 관리자에 의해서도 지지를 받고 있다는 것이었다(남자는 변명의 여지없이 차단되었다.내 성명의 두 번째 부분은 슬로바키아의 모든 대의원 투표에서 지지를 받고 있다. 슬로바키아의 오랜 승자와 지도자(지지율 50% 이상)는 SMER라고 불리는 정당이다.이제 이 정당은 2006~2010년 연립여당의 집권세력이었다.이 기간 동안 슬로바키아-헝가리 관계는 급격히 악화되었다(동결할 정도로).그 후 2010년 선거에서 그 정당의 선거 운동은 반헝가리 정서에 크게 기반을 두고 있었다(예를 들어 그들은 당시 유일한 헝가리 정당인 슬로바키아와 연합하여 우파 정당을 "사유"라고 간접적으로 비난했다).그러므로 나는 SMER의 전체 유권자들 (50% 이상의 유권자들)이 그들이 그 이전부터 그리고 그 이후로 추구해 온 강력한 반헝가리 선전에 동의/거절하는 것이 두렵다.그러므로 나는 슬로바키아 DO에 있는 많은 사람들이 스스로를 반헝가리 정서와 동일시하고 있다고 결론짓지 않을 수 없다.-- 쿨쿤 (토크) 13:21, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

호바티무스

[블록 회피에 의해 삽입된 텍스트 제거]

--LastLion (대화) 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC) 11:21 [응답]

참고: WP에서 방금 이전한 내용:AN Nick-D (대화) 11:40, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[답글]

요즘 호바티무스가 한 부적절한 행동은 이것만이 아니다.1848–1849년 트란실바니아에서 대량학살이 일어났을 때, 그는 신뢰할 수 있는 출처([4])에서 지원되는 텍스트를 제거하고 관리자(administrator)와 다른 중립 사용자 2명이 신뢰할 수 없는 것으로 간주한 2개의 출처를 다시 삽입하려고 시도하고 있다([2] [3]).SPS) - [5] 참조 — 188.24.46.251 (대화) 12:16, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]에 의해 추가된 이전의 서명되지 않은 논평

리포터는 사용자로서 무기한 차단되었다는 점에 유의하십시오.비조브네.슬로바키아 출신의 비조브네는 금지된 사용자와 다음과 같이 통신하고 있었다.이메일에서 Iaaasi를 사용하고 사용자를 위한 mitpuppet/proxy 역할 수행:아이아시. 호바티무스 (토크) 19:20, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

또 다른 플라우투스 풍자가 탄생했다.

위키피디아에는 질렸어.당신은 기사를 좋게 만들기 위해 열심히 일하고 누군가 그것을 되돌리거나 어떤 사소한 실수로 당신의 작품을 삭제한다.내 개인 이메일이 내 토크 페이지에 표시될 때에도 말이다.그렇다면 비록 어떤 실수가 있었던 것은 분명하지만, 대부분의 관리자들은 제자리에 있는 규칙과 정책에 상관없이 내 주장의 장점과 상관없이 원칙만으로 자동적으로 다른 관리자와 편을 들 것이기 때문에 그것을 고치기는 정말 어렵다.그리고 나서, 나는 위키를 파괴하고 트롤하는 것이 훨씬 더 재미있다는 것을 깨달았다.

축하해 얘들아, 넌 방금 슈퍼 트롤을 만들었어/슈퍼 반달.

조이 이즈 (대화) 13:14, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

여기 사용자들 사이의 주된 의사소통의 형태는 이메일이 아니라 토크페이지에 의한 것이다.그래서 당신은 누군가가 당신의 토크 페이지에 글을 올리면 "새로운 메시지가 있다"고 말하는 큰 경적을 울리는 오렌지 바를 보게 되는 것이다.사용자나 대화 페이지에 전자 메일 주소를 붙여놓고 사용자가 외부 전자 메일 클라이언트를 열어 사용자의 온-위키 활동에 대해 사용자와 대화할 것을 기대하는 것은 합리적이지 않다.당신의 이미지에서 그것들은 "최소한의 기술성" 때문에 삭제되지 않았다.위키피디아는 "자유 백과사전"이며, 매우 엄격한 예외를 제외하고는 우리는 "자유 라이선스"가 있는 영상만 사용할 수 있고 파노라마리오에서 발견된 대부분의 이미지는 자격이 없다. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:58, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

축하해 조이, 방금 관리자들이 변명하는 것을 미친 듯이 쉽게 만들었군. rdfox 76 (대화) 13:31, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

조이, 넌 과민반응하고 있어.Hut 8.5에서 제안하셨는데, 삭제된 파일(또는 파일)에 대한 로그를 보고 삭제한 관리자와 통화한 후 WP를 시작하십시오.DRV로 해결할 수 없다면?lifebaka++ 13:59, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

무기한 차단.이 사람은 WP를 파괴했다.다른 날 IP를 통해 동일한 쓰레기가 있는 경우. –MuZemike 14:05, 2011년 8월 20일(UTC)[응답]

FYI, 이 핵융해는 하나의 이미지 삭제로 귀결되었다.파일:존슨 비치 서부 뷰.jpg.–MuZemike 14:18, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 최근에 올린 것과 같은 무료 라이선스를 업로더에서 선택하면 여기서 파노라마io 사진을 사용할 수 있다는 점에 유의해야 한다.위키피디아에 올리기 전에 면허증만 확인하면 된다. --Ron Ritzman (대화) 15:01, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

여기에 업로드한 동일인(최소한 이름은 동일함)에 의해 파노라마미오에 업로드된 것으로 보이지만, 모든 권리를 유보한 채 저작권으로 표시된 곳에서 [6]를 취합한 것이다.Hut 8.5 16:02, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

누군가 거북이들을 생각해 주지 않겠나? - 내가 정확히 기억한다면, 그것은 비록 매우 적은 숫자지만, 한 개 이상의 이미지였다.저작권 문제가 쟁점이라면, 그에게 사본을 돌려줄 수 있을 만큼 충분히 오랫동안 복원이 가능했으면 좋겠다.관리자가 이후 기고문에서 삭제된 업로드된 이미지에 대한 로그를 볼 수 있는가? --Onorem♠Dil 14:28, 2011년 8월 20일(UTC)[응답]

그 안에서 최근에 삭제된 단 하나의 이미지만 보여.그가 원한다면 다운로드해서 그에게 사본을 이메일로 보낼 수 있어.이상하게도 2008년 2월에도 비슷한 반응을 보이다가 그 사이 어느 때 다시 돌아온 것 같다.건배, 여러분.lifebaka++ 14:43, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 방금 이것을 그의 토크 페이지에 게시했다.그가 어떻게 반응하는지, 어떻게 반응하는지 보자. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 21:39, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그리고 보너스로 그 사실을 알리는 이메일을 그에게 보냈다. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 21:49, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:레골라스, 또 다른 불친절함

해당 사용자가 내 토크 페이지에 들러 불필요한 것으로 간주되는 특정 GAR 페이지를 삭제해 달라고 부탁했다.나의 답장은 다음과 같다.

IMO, 커뮤니티 재평가 페이지를 삭제해야 한다.가이드라인에 근거해, 관련 편집자의 의견 일치가 없을 때는 반드시 GAR(커뮤니티)를 사용해야 한다.어제만 만들어진 것을 보니 두 번째 복사 붙여넣기 동작은 삭제해야 한다.또한, 피터는 거기서 논평이 있었다.다른 하나는 태그를 달도록 하지 그래고마워 레고. --Efe (토크) 13:16, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)

우리는 어느 것을 삭제할지 거의 결정을 내렸지만, 나는 이 디프가 명명자 User에 대한 공격인 공격을 보았다.Paul75. 나는 사용자와의 토론에 관여하고 있기 때문에 (다른 사용자의 참조를 위해, 페이지 삭제 결정이 있을 때까지 디프트를 보존하기 위해) 페이지를 삭제하지 않기로 결정했다.여기 내 글은 레골라스의 지독한 불친절함에 대한 것인데, 그것은 내가 요청된 행동을 실행하기 위해 빗자루를 사용하는 것을 방해했다.이 게시판에 한 번 이상 신고된 것으로 알고 있다. --efe (대화) 13:52, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

이해가 안 돼내가 어떻게 해야 합니까?나는 CSD 규칙을 이해하지 못한다.내가 페이지에서 뭐 잘못했어?그 논평에 대해, 나는 폴이 어떤 식으로든 그것에 동요하고 있다고 느낀다면, 지역 사회에게도 진심으로 사과한다.내가 그를 "똑똑하다"고 부르려고 했던 것 같은데 어떻게 그게 잘못됐는지 알겠어.나는 그들이 결정하는 것과 같은 공동체의 어떤 지배를 따를 것이다.이걸 에페에게 가져다줘서 고마워.— 레골라스^(talk2me) 14:37, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 관리자에게.Regolas의 요청에 따라 삭제를 검토하십시오. --Efe (대화) 15:12, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 레골라스의 불친절함을 보고해 준 에페에게 감사하고 싶다.불행히도 나는 링크가 삭제되어 그가 나에게 어떤 식으로 무례하게 굴었는지 알 수 없다.나는 그의 끊임없는 괴롭힘, 경시, 그리고 기교 전술이 위키백과 협약에 전혀 부합되지 않고 고통스럽다는 것을 발견했기 때문에, 나는 내 스스로 어떻게 그를 비굴하게 보고해야 하는지 찾고 있었다.모든 사람은 인간이고 실수를 할 수 있고, 만약 내가 성모마리아의 GAR 재평가에서 실수를 했다면 나는 위키티켓을 끊임없이 위반하는 사람에 의해 바보처럼 보일 자격이 없다.나는 개인적으로 레골라스에 대한 어떤 형태의 차단이나 처벌이 그의 첫 번째 경고가 아니기를 바란다.분명히, 나는 개인적인 사과를 받지 않았다. 만약 내가 부조리를 신고하고 링크후 링크를 따라가는 것을 검색하지 않았다면 나는 위의 사과를 발견하지 못했을 것이다. --2185.58.34 (대화) 01:49, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 페이지의 부적절한 사용

사용자:무제한휘핑은 위키피디아에 도착한 이후, 자신이 좋아하는 유튜브 동영상, 에이브릴 라빈에 대한 정욕적인 생각, 그리고 다양한 부적절한 내용들을 게시하면서 일종의 개인 웹로그로서 자신의 토크 페이지를 사용해 왔다.나는 무한히 경고했다.몇 주 전에 이것에 대해 호되게 당했고, 그의 허락을 받아 이 디프로 불쾌감을 주는 자료들을 제거하기 위해 페이지를 다시 조작했다. (이전에는 이렇게 보였었습니다.)오늘, 나는 그 페이지가 여전히 개인 웹페이지로 사용되고 있다는 것을 알아챘다. 사용자 이름에 대한 다른 편집은 없고, 황폐의 혐오스러운 기사에 대한 두 개의 사소한 조정을 저장했다.

나는 이것을 어떻게 해야 할지 정확히 모르겠다 - 반복적인 WP 위반에 대처하기 위한 명백한 과정이 있는 것 같지 않다.UP - 그러나 ANI가 올바른 방향 전환 장소일 수 있다는 조언을 들었다.사용자들이 정확히 누군가를 해치는 것은 아니지만 가이드라인이 존재하는 데는 이유가 있고, 무한히 만족할 수 있는 완벽한 웹호스트가 있기 때문에 불평하는 것은 매우 불쾌한 일이다.대신 휘핑의 요구 사항.윤수이(토크) 2011년 8월 20일 18시 50분 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 더프 내용을 삭제하고 내가 원하는 것을 올렸는데, 그것은 '올리지 말아야 할 것'의 간결한 요약이다.이번에는 그가 눈치를 챘으면 좋겠다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 20일 19:34 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Sandeep999 빠른 삭제를 위한 대량 태그 지정

최근에 GRUP Insight[7]라는 기사를 삭제한 사용자를 만났는데, WP에 따라 빠른 삭제를 위해 경쟁업체에 대한 기사를 대량으로 선정하고 있다.CSD#G11 [8][9][10][11][12] (only linking to a small proportion of diffs, see user's contibutions), these are mostly spurious, but I believe that Inbenta, Attivio, and Brainware have actually been deleted after being nominated by them (that is speculation, I can't know for sure as I am not an admin and the user has informed none of the creators).나는 모든 db태그를 파괴적인 것으로 제거하는 중이지만, 관리자가 블록이 제대로 되어 있는지 살펴보고, 필요하다면 삭제된 기사를 복구해 줄 수 있을 것이다.고마워, 준휴먼톡 16:06, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

내 토크 페이지에는 이 사용자의 관련 진술이 나와 있다. '나는 우리 또래 모두가 하나 있는 곳에서 제외될 준비가 되어 있지 않다.' - 미스터 올리 (토크) 16:29, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

이 태그 준에게 고마워.사실 이런 토론에 종지부를 찍는 것이 나의 목표였다.그렇지 않았다면 하루에 그렇게 많은 태그를 하고 구글 검색 어플라이언스에 태그까지 다는 것은 명백한 어리석음이었을 것이다.내 요점은 간단하다.오늘 내가 태그한 것들의 대부분은 순수한 홍보 콘텐츠를 가지고 있었고, 그들 대부분은 그들 자신의 웹사이트나 KMWorld와 같은 웹사이트에 언급되기 매우 쉬운 웹사이트를 가지고 있었다.GUPARD가 벤더 리스트에 추가된 직후 GUPARD를 명백하게 공격한 Ollie씨에게 이것을 지적했을 때, 그는 나를 "Other Thing Employments" 페이지로 지목했다.홍보라고 할 만한 콘텐츠는 아예 없애버리고, '회사가 주장하는 것'이라는 진품 약속까지 했다.하지만, "프롬" 태그를 달지 않고, 그것은 빠른 삭제를 위해 붙여졌다.삭제된 GUARP 페이지와 함께 삭제된 모든 페이지를 복원하자는 준의 제안을 환영한다.위키에 기고할 때는 정보를 공유하자는 취지다.만약 여러분이 이 태그가 붙은 페이지들에서 볼 수 있듯이, 문장들 중 일부가 홍보로 여겨진다면, 현명하고 책임감 있는 일은 그것이 홍보처럼 들리고, 그것이 몇 가지 더 참조가 필요할 수도 있다는 것을 제안하는 것이고, 빠르면 삭제를 추진하지 않는 것이다.내가 스팸을 올려놓은 모든 기사에는 그런 제안들이 있었다.내가 주의를 끌기 위해 경솔한 조치를 취했다는 것을 알고 있다.하지만 때때로 여러분은 관심을 끌기 위해 뭔가 과감한 행동을 해야 하고, 정당들도 같은 강단에 서야 한다.더 듣고 싶다.

샌디엡999 (대화) 18:21, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

준인간, 아티비오는 우리가 회복할 시간적 가치가 없어브레인웨어는 문제가 있었고, 전기톱으로 복사되어 이익을 얻었을 것이지만, 완벽한 G11 소재는 아니었다. 하지만, 누군가가 그것을 작업하고 싶어하지 않는 한, 아마도 걱정할 가치가 없을 것이다.인벤타는 현재 존재한다.

샌디엡99, 네가 해왔던 일은 파괴적이야.다시는 그러지 마십시오.여기서 얘기해보지, 하지만 다시 얘기하면 막힌 자신을 찾을 수 있을 거야.

GUPLE이 기사를 작성하기를 원하는 경우, 앞으로 나아가는 가장 좋은 방법은 User:에서 샌드박스 버전을 만드는 것이다.Sandeeep999/TURF Insight에서 페이지 이슈에 대해 작업하십시오.번거로움을 덜기 위해, 내가 전에 사용했던 콘텐츠를 이용해줄 수 있어.건배.lifebaka++ 18:31, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

라이프바카, 나는 너의 요점을 이해하고 너의 의견을 존중해.나는 위키백과 같은 훌륭한 기관을 파괴하거나 우리 모두가 엄청나게 이익을 본 곳으로부터 방해할 의도는 전혀 없다.지난해 개인 수익의 10%를 재단에 출연했다.재단을 교란하는 게 아니라 격려하는 게 내 의도다.나는 불공평한 점이 눈에 띄고 잘못된 점을 시정할 수 있는 옵션이 제공되기를 원했다.나는 목적을 달성했다.나는 샌드박스에 기사를 준비할 것이다.준비가 되면 검증해 주면 좋겠는데, 다음에 내가 공공영역으로 옮기고 올리 같은 사람이 거닐다 보면 다시는 같은 재앙이 일어나지 않을 것이다.다시한번 감사합니다.

샌디엡999 (대화) 18:39, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

라이프바카.나는 단지 그 작가들이 알리지 않았다는 것을 주목할 수 있다.예의상 행사 후 작성자에게 알리고 WP를 향해 다음과 같이 지시할 수 있는가?그들이 항소를 원하면 DRV.기사를 본 적이 없는 나는 관리들의 손에 맡겨 어떻게 해야 할지 결정하겠다.준인간톡 18:46, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

Sandeep99에 대한 참고 사항 - WP를 살펴보십시오.포인트. 고마워, - 위키데몬 (대화) 18:52, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

User_talk에서 Sandeep에 대한 자세한 조언과 분석을 추가로 제공했다.Sandeep999#Gaming_the_system. --Tagishsimon (대화) 23:50, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

페이지 이동 필요

여기서 좋은 시간(앨범)은 Here for a Good Time, Here for a Good Time(노래)은 Here for a Good Time(여기서 좋은 시간을 위해)으로 옮겨야 한다.앨범이 이름 체계에서 타이틀 곡보다 우수하다는 전례가 있다.누가 제발 이 동작 좀 해 줄래?2011년 8월 20일(UTC) 10파운드 해머, 그의 수달과 단서박트 • 22:54, (UTC)[응답]

WP:RM은 질문할 곳이다.당신이 인용하는 '사전'은 흔한 것일 수 있지만, 항상 그런 것은 아니다.라스베이거스위키안 (토크) 23:03, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

도시 테러범의 파괴적인 발언, 폄하 위협, 법적 위협 경계선 경계

어번 테러리스트 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

도시 테러리즘은 Heroes in Hellow의 지위에 대한 다양한 토론에 참여해왔다. 여기 AN/I에서, 그러한 이슈들에 관한 분쟁 해결 페이지, Heroes in Hellow talk 페이지, 그리고 나의 토크 페이지에서도.토론은 설명하기에 너무 지치고 사용자의 문제적 행동과는 직접적인 관련이 없다.이용자의 행위의 예는 다음과 같다.

• 내 토크 페이지의 최근 코멘트:그 법은 아직 위키피디아에서 시험된 적이 없고, 나는 변호사가 아니다. 하지만 나는 그 법이 위키피디아에 적용될 수 있다는 것을 증명할 수 있는 테스트 케이스가 되고 싶지 않다.
• 토론을 억누르거나 왜곡하기 위한 방법으로 위키백과 편집자에 대해 책에 쓰려는 위협:나는 이것이 매우 흥미롭다는 것을 발견했고, 위키백과에서 일하는 것이 어떤 것인지에 대한 짧은 논픽션 책을 쓸 수 있도록 모든 과정을 기록해왔다. 나는 결국 작가인데, 글쓰기는 내가 하는 일이다. 나도 출판사니까 책 놓는데 문제 없을 거야. 나는 너희 모두가 이 책에 주연을 할 것이라고 경고해야겠다.
• OrangeMike에게 보내는 이 통지는 또한 전체 에피소드에 대한 책을 쓰는 것에 관한 것이다: ...나는 내가 에피소드 전체에 대한 책을 쓰기로 결정했고 정보를 모으고 있다는 것을 너에게 알려주고 싶었어.
• AN/I에서 그가 알고 있는 사람들에 대한 이러한 파괴적인 논평:그래, 관련된 사람은 다 알고 있어. 난 많은 사람을 알고 있어...나는 조지 W 부시, 버락 오바마, 스티븐 하퍼, 아놀드 슈워제네거, 그리고 많은 다른 거물들과 2도 떨어져 있다. 내가 중요한 게 아니야. 난 아니야. 몸뚱이가 무너지기 전에 촉매변환기와 기타 배출가스 조절 제품을 제조하는 회사의 주요 회계 영업사원이었는데, 오타와, 워싱턴, 샌프란시스코에서 많은 시간을 보냈고, 정부에서 많은 사람들을 알고 있다.
• AN/I 중 작가 책 홍보: 나는 다양한 단계에 있는 책 몇 권을 가지고 있다 - 뻔뻔스러운 플러그 - 아이튠즈 책과 코보 서점에서 9월에 0.99달러에 아이리그의 즐거움을 산다!
• 두 편집자 사이의 논쟁이 법적 조치를 촉진할 수 있다는 비난:정확히 그녀를 얼마나 화나게 하고 싶니? Heroes in Hellow 토론 페이지에 대한 그녀의 논평으로 나는 그녀가 변호사들을 부를 준비가 거의 다 되어있다고 의심한다.
• 컨센서스 구축은 위험하며 따라서 위키피디아는 사용자들에게 본질적으로 위험하다는 믿음의 표현:많은 면에서 위키피디아는 나쁜 예다. 컨센서스 구축에 대한 믿음은 위험하다. 화학 관련 기사 중 하나에 대해서는 2H2 + O2 = 2H2라는 의견이 일치했다. 나와 같은 화학자라면 누구나 이것에 대해 공포로 반응할 것이다. 앞서 논의 과정에서 밝혔듯이 합의는 모든 상황에 적합한 것은 아니다. 사람들이 참고용으로 사용하고 있는 백과사전에서 이런 종류의 합의는 누군가를 죽일 수도 있다.

전반적으로, 우리는 위협, 위키백과나 위키백과 편집자에게 법적 함의를 암시하는 두 가지 의견, 그리고 일반적인 혼란을 본다.이러한 관찰에서 나 혼자만이 아니다.

• Doc9871 이 차이점 당.
• 이 차이점 당 생명바카.
• ANI 토론 밖에서 Urban Terrorist의 발언을 본다면, 그것은 나에게 차단할 가치가 있는 것처럼 보일 것이고, 지금 우리는 나의 토크 페이지와 OrangeMike의 토크 페이지에서 그렇게 본다.

이러한 것들은 그동안 도시테러리스트가 참여한 여러 토론에 걸쳐 산재되어 왔으며, 도시테러리스트의 목표와 행동이 위키백과의 개선과 양립할 수 없는 것은 분명해 보인다.우리는 법적 위협을 용납하지 않으며 편집자의 행동이 매우 파괴적이기 때문에, 나는 이것이 너무 오래 진행되었기 때문에 사용자 차단과 관련하여 즉각적인 논의를 요청한다.나, 제스로봇(주:봇이 아니다!) 06:36, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 일찍이 이것을 보았고, 연기할 겨를이 없었다.그 이후, 나는 어떤 추악한 오프위키 드라마에 말려들 위험 때문에 도시 테러범을 차단하는 위험을 감수하고 싶은지 결정하려고 노력해왔다.그리고 나서 깨달았지 그게 바로 내가 xyr를 막아야 하는 이유라는 걸나는 I Jetrobot의 토크 페이지에 간접적인 법적 위협, 책 쓰기의 관련 편집자들에게 의도적인 발표, 그리고 "2도" 이름이 떨어지는 것 등 논평의 연관성을 읽을 수 있는 합리적인 방법이 없다고 생각한다.책 플러그를 더하면, 이 편집에서 11개의 {{fact}} 템플릿(한 문장에서 7개의 템플릿이 실제로 도전할 수 없는)이 포인트로 추가되고, 전체적인 자세는 위키백과 규범과 심각한 비호환성을 볼 수 있다.

나는 앞으로 12시간에서 24시간 동안 별로 없을지도 모른다. 여기서 차단 해제에 대한 합의가 이루어져야 한다면(특히 도시 테러주의자가 한 모든 보상 논평을 고려하여), 나와 상의 없이 차단해제를 자유롭게 할 수 있다.Qwyrxian (대화) 10:27, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

NOTTEEM 언블록 요청의 고전 위키백과 BTW. "여러분 모두 책에 출연할 것임을 경고해야겠습니다"는 주장은 사실 편집자들의 행동을 '공보'하는 위협은 아니었다.신음소리...독톡 15:52, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고.... ublock을 거절했다. --Errrant^(chat!) 16:10, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

사람들이 왜 화가 났는지 알겠는데, IMHO라는 드라마를 줄여서 하는 행동이 아니었어.과민반응.조지윌리엄허버트 (대화) 2011년 8월 20일 18:27 (UTC)[응답하라]

외람된 말씀이지만, 토론 과정 중, 내 토크 페이지 또는 편집자 자신의 토크 페이지에서 다른 편집자(특히 라이프바카와 Doc9871)에 의해 몇 가지 더 중립적인 방법이 시도되었다.편집자의 행동은 변하지 않았다.나는 이것이 적절한 다음 단계라고 생각한다.나, 제스로봇(주:봇이 아니다!) 2011년 8월 20일 19시 31분 (UTC)[응답하라]

과민반응도 없었던 것 같다.만약 어떤 사람이 막힘없이 요청한다면, "...위협을 느낀다면, 그들은 그들 자신의 행동을 고려해야 한다. 내가 시작한 일은 아무것도 없다"고 말했다.GAB. 정말 표준적인 것.그의 블록이 "무한" 것이 아니기 때문에 그는 항상 다시 시도할 수 있다.그가 그것을 얻기를 바라지만, 개인적으로 나는 그가 위에 제공된 모든 차이점을 고려할 것이라고 낙관하지 않는다.그가 '구체적인' 법적 위협을 하는지를 두고 보기엔 그에게서 오는 베일에 싸인 협박이 너무 많다.그리고 우리 모두는 그때 무슨 일이 일어나는지 안다.독톡 21:34, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

FWIW, 그래, 이건 좀 빠르게 확대되었어.하지만 나는 우리가 잠재적인 괴롭힘이나 위협을 이용하여 토론을 냉각시키려는 시도를 꽤 빨리 해야 한다고 생각한다.그것은 동료애적이지 않고, 토론에서 다른 편집자들에게 완전히 불공평하다.이제 그가 자신의 생각을 버텨내야 할 책임이 그에게 있지만, 이것은 회복될 수 있다고 생각한다. --Errant^(chat!) 00:01, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 또한 내가 "빨리" 판단했다는 것에 동의한다.그래야 한다고 느꼈기 때문이다.만약 내가 관리자 조치를 취함으로써 발생할 수 있는 결과에 대해 위협을 느낀다면, 그 위협은 틀림없이 정기적인 편집에도 영향을 미칠 것이다.xyr 토크 페이지에 xe가 사전 행동의 문제점을 설명하고 받아들일 수 있는 한 나 자신이 차단을 풀고, 앞으로는 반복하지 않겠다고 약속할 것이라는 점을 지적하는 긴 메시지를 남겼다.Qwyrxian (대화) 00:28, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것이 심각하고 그 모든 것을 알고 있지만, "나는 위키피디아에서 일하는 것이 어떤 것인지에 대한 짧은 논픽션 책을 쓸 수 있도록 이 모든 과정을 완전히 흥미롭게 발견했고, 모든 과정을 문서화하고 있다. 나는 결국 작가인데, 글쓰기는 내가 하는 일이다. 나도 출판사니까 책 놓는데 문제 없을 거야. 여러분 모두가 이 책에 주연을 할 것이라고 경고해야겠습니다." 정말 웃기십니까?또한, 더 심각한 것은, 이 사용자는 그가 되찾기로 결심할 때까지 계속해서 금지되어야 하고 다시는 위협으로 해석될 수 있는 어떤 방법으로도 "변호사" 또는 "법"이라는 단어를 사용하지 말아야 한다.이러한 논평들은 개별적으로 경계선이지만, 함께 종합하면, 심각한 판단력 부족이다 - 이 경우 우리는 무모함으로부터 프로젝트를 보호해야 하거나, 경계선까지 가서 규칙을 의식적으로 과시해야 하지만, 결코 그것을 완전히 넘지는 말아야 한다 - 이 경우, 우리는 이 프로젝트를 w고 있는 게이머로부터 보호해야 한다.ith WP:NLT 교란 예정. --Cerejota (대화) 08:57, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

교묘한 반달리즘?

90.201.251.28(토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)은 소스가 없는 정보를 집요하게 추가하거나, 소스가 없는 변경을 한다[13] [14] [15] (일반적으로 주거지와 같이 상당히 사소하게 보인다.)8월 3일 이후 완전히 멈췄다가 어제 다시 시작했다.그들이 덧붙이는 것 중 일부는 옳다는 것을 증명하지만, 몇몇 편집은 [16] (출처와 대조된다)와 [17][18] (이미지 설명과 모순되는 캡션들)과 같은 명백한 잘못된 정보를 도입했는데, 이는 그들이 선의로 보이는 편집(예: 위키링크를 추가하는 것)과 미묘한 파괴 행위를 혼합하고 있다고 생각하게 만든다.

90 IP가 다시 시작되기 직전에 편집한 81.136.183.218(토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)은 동일한 사용자로 보인다. 90 IP는 [19][20], [21][22], 그 IP 역시 캡션에 거짓 변경을 가했기 때문이다 [23].1월 (토크) 07:05, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 훌륭한 어획량이다.81주소는 집요한 주소가 아닌 것 같은데...아마 이동 주소일 거야...비록 당신이 제공하는 링크가 연결된 것처럼 보이지만.그러나 1차 IP는 분명히 이슈다.귀하가 언급한 링크 중 몇 개는 매우 유사한 IP(동일한 범위)를 가지고 있으며, 연결되었음을 시사하는 시간 범위(동일한 IP, 연속적인 편집)에서 유사한 편집을 하고 있다.이것은 추적하기 위해 위험하고 어려운 일종의 미묘한 파괴 행위다.현재 사용자:90.201.251.28에는 다수의 편집이 완료되어 있지만, 내가 검토한 내용은 문제가 되지 않는다.

당신이 제공한 디프트를 위해 블록을 즉시 사용할 수 있을 겁니다. 하지만 이 사람은 예측 가능한 범위임에도 불구하고 IP를 뛰어넘고 있는 겁니다.이건 확실히 주시해야 할 사항이야...더 넓은 패턴이 있는지 알아봐나는 그것을 파헤칠 시간 atm이 없지만, 이것은 조사할 만한 가치가 있는 것이다.유사한 범위와 유사한 편집 유형은 많은 미묘한 파괴 행위를 고칠 수 있는 패턴을 드러낼 수 있다.

어쨌든 이 작품은 놀라운 1월...우리는 더 많은 사람들이 이런 것들을 찾길 원한다. 그리고 당신이 그것의 꽤 정교한 버전을 발견했다는 것은 정말 대단한 일이다.지금 가장 강력한 위키 위협인 만큼 앞으로도 계속 해줬으면 좋겠다.섀도잼 (대화) 08:55, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Hearfourmewesique

사용자:Hearfourmewesique는 부드러운 재즈가 자신의 POV에 맞게 오래된 재즈 스타일의 후예라는 사실을 계속 제거한다.그것은 WP를 위반하는 것이다.NPOV 및 WP:OWN. 부드러운 재즈는 재즈에서 유래한 것이지만, 사용자:Hearfourmewesique는 그것을 기사에서 계속 삭제하면서 그것을 "거짓말"이라고 단정한다.그것은 모든 사람들이 부드러운 재즈의 편견을 가지고 있다는 것을 알아야 하는 재즈 순수주의자들의 말에 따르면"거짓말"에 불과하다.

사용자의 편집 이력을 보면 편집 전쟁과 POV 밀기 이력이 있는 것으로 보인다.안드로스¹³³⁷_TALK 19:25, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

Hearfourmewesique는 매우 논쟁적이고 너무 완고해서 그의 이익에 맞지 않는 것으로 알려져 왔다.그는 대부분의 시간을 이성을 보는 것을 좋아하지 않으며, 여러 번 이성에 대해 차단되었다.편집 전쟁이란 그의 악덕의 일종인 것 같다.사용자에게 경고하고 경고하고 경고하지 않으면 경고하고 경고하지 않으면 경고하지 않고 편집 충돌을 편집하지 못하도록 차단하십시오.원자핵학자 (토크) 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC) 19:43[응답]

모두가 알고 있는 이 절대적 사실을 뒷받침할 자료가 있는가?그렇지 않다면, 그는 그것을 제거할 권리가 있다.또한, 우리는 그의 편집 내용을 반달리즘이라고 반박해서는 안 된다.이것은 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC) 20:30, 20:30 (토크)을 위해 진행중인 토론으로 보인다[응답하라].

우선, Atomician의 놀라운 WP에 대해 따뜻한 감사를 표하는 것으로 시작하겠다.AGF... 하지만 진지하게, 여러분여기 있는 모든 사람들은 앤드로스1337이 아직 단 하나의 WP를 제안하지 않은 현재 진행중인 토론을 체크하는 것을 환영한다.기사 페이지의 템플릿에 의해 추가로 지원되는 그의 "ABSOULTE [sic] FACT"를 지원하는 RS.그러한 원천을 찾을 수 있을 때까지, 블랙 푸딩과 브레드 푸딩 사이에 있는 것만큼 부드러운 재즈와 재즈 사이에는 많은 유사성이 있다. 물론, 그들은 둘 다 푸딩이라고 불리는 식품이지만, 그것밖에 없다.Andros1337에 대한 참고: POV 밀기 편집자를 고발하기 전에, 당신이 여기서 무엇을 하고 있었는지 살펴보십시오.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 2011년 8월 20일 01:30 (UTC)[응답]

도로의 엘렌에게 회답하기 위해, 2008년부터 전체 장르 자체의 검증가능성에 대한 논의가 진행 중이다.나는 몇 개의 참고자료를 작성했지만, 늘 그렇듯이, 그것들은 논란이 되어왔다.이제, 나는 그 누구도 매끄러운 재즈가 존재하지 않는다고 적극적으로 제안하지 않을 것이라고 생각한다(그리고 그것이 검증될 수 없다고 생각하여 위키백과의 정책과 위키백과의 포함 가이드라인을 충족시킨다면, 삭제 조항은 그 방법이다...). 왜냐하면 그것은 미국 (그리고 더 작은 정도는 국제적인) 라디오 지형의 일부를 형성했기 때문이다.그러나 기사 초안이나 더 넓은 지역사회의 기사 정리에 대한 요구와 같은 수많은 해결책들이 성공하지 못한 Hartfourmewesique의 편집 그 이상의 현재 몇 년 동안 전체 기사 자체에 더 큰 문제가 있다.나는 이것을 어디로 가져가야 할 지에 대해 벽에 부딪혔고 다른 사람들도 마찬가지인 것 같다.내가 다시 말하지만, 문제는 Hartfourmewesique와는 본질적으로 관계가 없으며, 기사와 함께 있으며, 특히 위키백과에 한 기사가 포함되기 위한 위키백과 정책과 가이드라인을 충족시키기 위해 커뮤니티 전체가 동의할 수 있는 검증 가능한 참고문헌의 포함. --tgheretford (대화) 2011년 12:12, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

사실은, 초기 매끄러운 재즈 아티스트들(조지 벤슨과 같은)은 모두 그들의 영향을 더 오래된 스타일의 재즈를 가진 음악가들에게 뿌리고 있다.그것은 논쟁의 여지가 없다.안드로스¹³³⁷_TALK 15:04, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 이제 그럴지도 모르겠는데, 그게 소스가 된 건가?기사에서 내가 본 주요 문제점 중 하나는 사람들이 출처나 출처를 언급하지 않고 기사를 싣고 있지만, 출처가 의심스럽거나 의심스러워서 우리가 여기서 보고 있는 것처럼 갈등과 논쟁으로 이어진다는 것이다.내가 보는 앞길은 a) 먼저 기사 내의 기존 인용문을 강화하고, b) 의견 일치를 얻을 수 없는 의심스러운 부분을 제거하고, c) 복수의 검증 가능한 인용문으로 기사를 재구성하는 것이다.여기서 본 대로 문제만 막으면 될 것 같다. --tgheretford(대화) 17:15, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

여기 조지 벤슨의 출처가 있다("인플레이션 바이" 섹션 참조): [24]와 그로버 워싱턴 주니어: [25].그건 쉬웠어.안드로스¹³³⁷_TALK 18:41, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

'예술가는 재즈의 영향을 받는다'에서 '스타일은 재즈의 하위 장르'로 도약하는 것이 여기서 쟁점이 되고 있다.하지만 다시 한 번 말하지만, 모든 것이 두 번 이상 말해졌지, 안 그래, 안드로스?Hearfourmewesique (토크) 21:47, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 이 아티스트들이 재즈 아티스트들에게 영향을 받았다는 사실은 매끄러운 재즈가 재즈 역사의 진화라는 것을 분명히 암시한다.R&B의 영향력은 어느 정도 있지만, 부드러운 재즈의 기본 기원을 무색하게 하지는 않는다.안드로스¹³³⁷_TALK 23:23, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

또 너 말고도 어떤 공감대가 형성돼 있을까.분명한 WP처럼 들린다.내게 소유하다.안드로스¹³³⁷_TALK 23:26, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

아니오, WP 없음:내 말은, 하지만 분명한 WP:WP는 말할 것도 없고, 당신에 대한 것도 있다.SYNTH – 인용 – "분명히 [...]의 의미가 함축되어 있다는 사실]." 여기의 모든 편집자(해당 문제에 한 마디도 기여하지 않았던 아토미시아를 제외하고)는 물론 좋은 토론에 대해서도, 당신의 "절대적인 사실"에 믿을 만한 출처가 없다는 것에 동의하지만, 당신은 계속해서 여기서 나를 나쁜 사람으로 묘사하려고 한다.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 03:50, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 롤. @ Andros1337 - 데이브 브록의 초기 음악적 영향력은 뉴올리언스 트레이드 재즈였다.이것이 호크윈드를 재즈 밴드로 만드는가?진지하게 대화 페이지에서 이 문제에 대해 논의하고, 추가되기 전에 출처를 제공하고, 컨텐츠 시비를 걸면 사람들을 ANI로 끌어들이지 마십시오.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC) 16:27 [응답]

안드레아세그데에 의한 보더라인 괴롭힘

안드레아세그데(토크 · 기여)는 토크 페이지(여기서 그리고 여기 구체적)에서 알 수 있듯이, 한동안 스와클리프(Swarcliffe) 기사에서 건설적인 영향을 미치지 못했다.치즈는 페이지가 폭발하는 것을 막기 위해 몇 차례 개입했고, 그 결과 안드레아세그드는 지금 자신의 토크 페이지(여기)에서 치즈를 뒤쫓고 있다.

방해받지 않은 사람이 개입할 수 있나?이상적으로는 이것이 블록의 수준에 이르렀는지 확실치 않지만, 체즈의 토크 페이지와 스와클리프와의 1, 2개월의 금지에 대한 엄중한 경고가 상황을 완화시키는데 도움이 될 것이다.스벤망구아르드화?06:11, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 나는 이 편집자가 우리 편집자의 절반 정도처럼 그들에게 호감을 가지고 있지만 적어도 아직까지는 그렇지 않은 것에 동의할 것이다.Chzz를 관리자로 오인하는 것 말고는, 어떤 시간 동안도 금지를 정당화할 수 있을 만큼 문제가 있는 기사에서 그들이 실제로 무엇을 하고 있는지 알 수 없다.--Elen of the Roads (대화) 16:50, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

"노랑구슬 핀타일" 기사는 심각한 문제를 안고 있다.

물새의 아나스 속주에 관한 기사를 읽고 있는데 황새 핀타일 링크를 클릭하니 역겹고 음란한 것이 떠올랐다.나는 링크/방향 기사를 수정하기 위해 편집도 할 수 없어서 더 나은 지식이나 접근 권한을 가진 사람이 뭔가를 해야 할 것이다.도와줘서 고마워Epf (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 12시 36분 (UTC)[응답]

이러한 공공 기물 파손과 기사 리디렉션에 대한 노골적인 해킹도 위에서 더 언급된 도도부 기사와의 사건들과 관련이 있을 수 있다.Epf (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 12시 38분 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 이 편집과 관련이 있다(현재 다시 삭제됨).파손된 템플릿은 반절제했지만 완전한 보호가 필요할 수도 있다.우쿠차 (토크) 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC) 13:42 [응답]

최근 양말은 2008년에 등록되어 오토콘이 확증되어 있어 반제품은 무용지물이다.나는 그것을 완전히 보호했다.계단식 보호의 어떤 형태가 권장될 수 있다.그건 I보다 더 잘 이해하는 사람들에게 맡기겠다 FWIW, 악성코드 삽입은 WMF 문제여야 한다조치를 취하려면 어떻게 해야 할지 봐야겠어.아크로테리온 (대화) 13:47, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

실제 위키백과 페이지가 아닌 연결된 페이지에 악성코드를 삽입하는 경우.불쾌감을 주는 링크를 블랙리스트에 올리는 것(그리고 사람들에게 노스크립트 같은 것을 설치하도록 권장하는 것)에는 우리가 할 수 있는 일이 거의 없다.우쿠차 (대화) 13:56, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

편의 링크가 손상되면 그 절차가

A. 클릭할 수 없고 숨겨진 코멘트가 되도록 편의 링크를 삭제("http://" 제거)하십시오.

B. 숨겨진 코멘트는 편의 링크를 언급하고, 그 이유를 적어라.

편의 링크의 삭제는 참조가 다른 방법으로 완료된 경우에만 이루어져야 한다(제목, 펍, 날짜 등).라고 생각했다. --Lexein (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC) 14:18 [응답]

새 사용자의 법적 위협

새로운 사용자 KevinScintilla의 위키백과 5번째 편집은 나의 토크 페이지에 전달된 법적 위협이었다.Binksternet (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 17:41, (UTC)[응답]

(비관리 의견) 사용자에게 경고함.그러나 나는 그 논평이 의심할 여지 없이 법적 위협이며, 결과적으로 무기한 차단되어야 한다는 것에 동의한다.나, 제스로봇(주:봇이 아니다!) 18:09, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

기사의 편집 이력을 살펴보면 SPA가 된 케빈신티야에게 상당히 설득력 있는 사례가 만들어질 수 있다.단 한 번의 편집으로 확실하게 예, 아니오라고 말하기는 어렵지만, 알버트 할프타운(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 유저 · 블록 로그)도 약간의 희미한 퀘킹 소음을 내고 있다고 생각한다.KevinScintilla는 또한 편집 이력을 바탕으로 IP 편집자 109.111.133.13 (talk · 기여 · WHOIS)가 될 가능성이 있다.그래서 서서히 불붙는 편집 전쟁도 진행 중이고, 기사의 Talk 페이지에서 당사자들 간의 토론은 절대 없을 겁니다.나의 2p는 WP를 던지는 것이다.KevinScintilla에서 NLT 망치질을 한 다음 3일 동안 기사를 반올림하여 교장들이 신뢰할 수 없고 중립적인 것에 대해 이야기하도록 한다. --Roving 앰배서더 앨런(사용자:N5iln) (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 18:21 (UTC)[응답]

좋은 생각이야, 다우.비블브록스 (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC) 18:33[응답]

검토: WP의 보호:CSD

완전한 보호를 받은 WP:CSD는 토크 페이지에서 특정 제안이 추가되는 것을 놓고 많은 사람들이 역전을 하고 있었기 때문이다.제안으로 이어지는 논의에 대해 의견을 냈기 때문에 내가 관여된 것으로 간주될 수도 있으니, 여기서 내 행동에 대한 검토를 요청하고 싶다.SoWhy 20:33, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

모든 당사자들이 경험이 풍부한 편집자라는 사실 외에도, 우리가 보고 있는 것은 더 WP였다.WP가 아닌 BRD:3RR...아직 그런 조치를 취하지는 않았지만, 나는 당신의 행동이 명예롭게 의도된 것이라고 생각하는데, 나는 그들이 어쨌든 정책 페이지에서는 항상 선호되는, 하나의 버전에 동의할 것이라고 기대한다. --Elen of the Roads (대화) 21:00, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

재키 다 알라콘 (토크 · 기여)...

...Category 편집 캠페인 진행 중:수많은 경고에도 불구하고 강제 투표로 차별되는 것, 이전에 차단된 것, 그리고 이것에 찬성하는 유일한 사람은 그 자신이다.어느 시점에서 방어막제가 적절하겠는가?사용자는 계속하기로 결정된다.츄우우우히:2011년 8월 21일 세브 아즈86556 20:46 (UTC)[응답]

지금쯤이면 내 의견일 것이다.언어 문제가 있는지, 편집자의 알 수 없는 가정 상태에서 발생한 어떤 POV인지, 아니면 그는 단지 파괴적인 트롤일 뿐인지는 모르겠지만, 강제 투표는 보편적인 형태의 차별이며, 사용자가 토론에 일관성 있는 것을 추가하는 것을 거부하는 것은 최소한 WP를 시사한다.역량 문제. --Elen of the Roads (대화) 21:07, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

AfD 지원 요청

위키백과의 OP:삭제 조항/Ashley Smith(죄수)는 이제 7일 조금 넘게 올랐다.나는 이제 그 기사가 보관될 것이 분명하다고 생각하며, AfDs를 폐쇄하는 것에 익숙한 관리자가 그것을 훑어보고 그것을 폐쇄하는 것을 고려한다면 감사할 것이다.주목할 만한 사안들이 앞으로 어떻게 다뤄질지에 대한 합의가 형성되어 있고, (AfD 주장 양쪽에) 많은 관련자들의 (AfD 주장 양쪽에) 앞으로 계속 일해 나가겠다는 의지가 있는 것 같다.고맙다 --Tagishsimon (대화) 21:01, 2011년 8월 21 (UTC)[응답]

삭제!보터 중 하나로서, 나는 아직 의견이 일치하는지 확실하지 않다.우리는 방금 매우 생산적인 토론을 했고, 나는 선택지를 두 가지 가능성으로 좁혔다고 생각한다: 1) 합의된 새 이름으로 페이지 이동으로 유지하거나 2) 더 많은 정보가 있을 때 합의된 새 이름으로 나중에 새로운 기사가 만들어지는 것으로 삭제하는 것이다.이 논쟁은 AfD에서 최근에야 일어났기 때문에 적어도 한 번은 재상장되어야 한다고 생각한다.특이점42 (대화) 22:21, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에게 직접 가해지는 매우 부적절한 인신공격:Ebe123의 사용자 페이지.

조이 이즈(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그)가 방금 사용자 Ebe123을 공격했는데, 이 공격자가 멈출 것 같지는 않다.그 공격들을 되돌리는 데 도움이 필요해나는 또한 AIV에서 메시지를 강화했고, 다른 공격자가 올 경우에 대비해 그의 페이지를 볼 것이다.StormContent (토크) 2011년 8월 20일 14시 12분 (UTC)[응답]

위와 같이 이미 차단됨(무제한).고마워. --efe (대화) 14:19, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

또 다른 공격이 발생할 경우 에베123의 사용자 페이지를 봐야 하는가?StormContent (토크) 2011년 8월 20일 16:16 (UTC)[응답]

그렇게 함으로써 위키백과를 위해 봉사하며 시간을 보내고 싶다면 아무도 당신을 말리지 않을 것이다. / /ETECCOMMS/16:43, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그건 까다로운 질문이야, Fetchoms.나는 그렇게 할 수 없어요.그러나, 나는 또한 내 앞을 가로막는 어떠한 인신공격도 되돌릴 수 있다.나를 믿어라; 나는 공공 기물 파손을 주의한다.StormContent (대화) 2011년 8월 20일 17:01, (UTC)[응답]

여보세요? 누구 있어?StormContent (대화) 2011년 8월 21일 13시 31분 (UTC)[응답]

문제가 다시 발생하지 않으면 이 일은 그만둘 수 있을 것 같아.그렇다면 적절한 조치를 위해 보고할 수 있다.Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

쿠르미 페이지 보호

이 페이지가 보호되는 이유2, 3명의 편집자들이 모든 사람들과 논쟁에 휘말려 있고 그들은 양말 퍼피와 같은 쓸모없는 문제를 제기함으로써 페이지를 보호받기 위해 노력한다.누가 그 양말을 잡았는지 말해줄 수 있어?그들에게 중단이 있다고 해서 이 페이지를 보호하는 것은 정당화되지 않는다.

어쨌든 사용자:Qwyrxian은 이 페이지의 관리자로 일하지 않으며, 관리자가 되기 전에 편집자로 이 페이지에 관여해왔다.

다음 사이트를 확인하십시오. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Kurmi_PP

"그러나 마지막 IP 편집자는 분명히 누군가의 양말이기 때문에(차단된 편집자인지 아니면 단지 3RR을 피하려는 사람인지 모르기 때문에), 양말 문제가 제기된 어떤 증거에 근거해 반보호 조치를 요청했다"고 말했다.이것은 심각하게 두통이 심해지고 있다.nameisnot중요 (talk) 18:51, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

로그하는 것을 잊은 사람이 될 수 있지 않을까?왜 행정관이 된 사람이 그런 간단한 것을 이해하지 못하는 것일까.어쨌든, 이 문제는 사용자 행동 보고와 관련이 없고 나는 사용자-Qwyrxian에 대해 전혀 반대하지 않지만, 이 보고서는 페이지 보호를 해제하는 것과 관련이 있다.이 페이지 보호는 어떠한 장점에 근거한 것이 아니었다.제거하십시오.nameismnot중요 (talk) 18:51, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC) --[응답]

왜냐하면 (예를 들어) 두 번 로그인한 후 로그아웃하기로 결정하고 복구를 시작한다면, 그것은 3RRR을 피하는 것이 될 것이기 때문이다.페이지가 보호되지 않도록 하려면 페이지에 대한 전쟁을 편집하지 마십시오.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC) 19:37 [응답]

엘렌, 내가 전쟁을 편집한다고 선언해줘서 고마워.이 양말 인형사건이 증명된 것일까, 아니면 페이지를 변덕스럽게 보호받은 것일까?nameismnot중요 (talk) 2011년 8월 20일 19:56, (UTC)[응답]

Qwyrxian은 관련된 관리자다.나는 그것이 그들이 페이지를 스스로 보호하지 않은 이유라고 상상할 것이다.이 카스트 기사들 중 몇 건에 걸쳐 뭔가 이상한 일이 벌어지고 있다.그것이 양말이나 미트푸펫리든 아니면 그냥 오프위키 유세든, 어디선가 상황이 좋지 않다.반보호는 크게 부담이 되지 않는다. 그리고 그것이 사람들로 하여금 전쟁보다는 대화 페이지의 요점을 올리도록 만든다면 그것은 확실히 좋은 일인가?최근 몇 달 동안 이 기사들이 이곳 NPOV, DRN 등에서 끝날 때마다 결정은 항상 나 자신과 매튜 바니타스 그리고 한 두 명의 다른 사람들의 기여에 치우쳐왔다. - Sitush (토크) 20:08, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

명확히 하자면, Qwyrxian은 그들이 관리자가 되기 전에 관여했고, 따라서 그 관여는 지속되고/유전된다. - Sitush (토크) 20:13, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 토론하는 것과 상관없는 문제는 가져오지 말자.이 페이지는 소켓 인형 케이스라며 보호되었다. 이게 증명되었나?당신이 편집하거나 6RR 또는 7RR을 해도 명백한 이유로 아무도 당신을 보고하지 않을 것이다.여기서 요점을 고수하자, 특정 집단의 사람들이 어떤 점을 예언하기 위해 어떻게 행동하고 있는가.심지어 이유 없이 어떤 남자들은 페이지 보호를 받을 수 있다.nameismnot중요 (talk)20:18, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 당신이 언급하는 "확실한 이유"가 무엇인지 잘 모르겠다.기사 이력에서 편집에 지장을 준다는 증거가 명백하다.만약 당신이 그것을 양말 치기 보다는 그렇게 부르고 싶다면, 자유로워라.반보호 적용의 관점에서는 사실 큰 차이가 없다. - 시투시(토크) 20:22, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

디토. 네가 원한다면 보호 로그를 수정해서 양말풀이 대신 "IP에 의한 중단 편집"이라고 읽도록 할 수 있지만, 내 생각으로는 반보호를 해제하지는 않을 거야. 살비오 20^{Let's talk about it!}:26, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 로그인한 사용자에게는 세미 프로텍션이 영향을 미치지 않는다는 점을 감안할 때, Nameisnotmatic이 왜 이 곳에서 그렇게 공기 공급을 하고 있는지 정확히 궁금하다.도로의 엘렌 (대화)20:25, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그 이유는 아무런 장점이 없는 이유로 누군가 페이지 보호를 요청하고 페이지를 보호한다.그것이 짜증나는 것이다.더욱 실망스러운 것은 사람들이 페이지 보호를 정당화하는 이유를 조사하는 것을 무시한다는 것이다.이번에 페이지가 보호되는 이유는 무엇이었습니까?양말 꼭두각시 케이스라고는 했지만, 제 간단한 요점은: 양말 꼭두각시 인형 잡으셨나요? 엘렌, 무슨 요점이세요?nameismnot중요(talk)20:30, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

위의 이유들은 다음과 같다: 만약 내가 행정가라면, 나는 내가 원하는 것은 무엇이든지 할 수 있고, 나는 이런저런 이유로 그 행동을 정당화할 수 있다.nameismnot중요 (talk)20:35, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

권한이 없는 관리자 의견 페이지를 보호하지 않으려면 항상 WP:그러한 요청을 할 수 있는 RFPP.Mjroot (대화)20:40, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

Mjroot에게, 제안해줘서 고마워.RFP가 아닌 ANI에 온 몇 가지 이유가 있다.

• 관리자인 유저가 엉터리 주장을 하다사용자가 편집 전쟁에 관여하고 있지만, 양말 인형과 같은 장점도 없다.관리자인 사람은 더 잘 알아야 한다. 아니면 누가 관리인이 될 수 있는가?
• 누군가가 나타나 페이지를 막고, 액면가에 관한 문장을 가져간다.

페이지 보호를 요청할 이유는 없지만, 위의 이유는 충분히 심각하고 조사할 필요가 있다.nameisnot중요 (talk) 00:15, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

물론이지, 아마 그 사람은 로그인하는 것을 잊어버렸을 거야.의심스럽지만, 나는 기꺼이 그 선의의 믿음을 연장할 것이다.그러나 만약 그렇다면, 페이지 보호는 문제를 해결하는데, 잊어버린 사람은 페이지를 편집할 수 없다는 메시지를 받게 되고, 따라서 로그인하게 된다.여기 무슨 해로움이라도 있나?반보호는 모든 사람을 정직하게 하고 실수를 피하도록 도와준다.어차피 그 페이지에 건설적인 IP 편집이 많은 것도 아니다.나는 (CU가 IP와 명명된 계정을 연결할 수 없기 때문에) 어떤 종류의 SPI도 추구할 생각이 없다는 점에 유의하십시오. 왜냐하면 나는 누구를 처벌할 마음이 없기 때문이다. 단지 내가 신경쓰는 것은 편집 전쟁이 멈추고, 고의적이든 의도적이든 의도하지 않았든 간에, 어느 누구도 로그아웃한 동안 편집함으로써 "추가" 되돌아오는 것을 원하지 않는다는 것이다.Qwyrxian (대화) 00:32, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

Mjroots의 요점은 RFP에서 비보호 요청을 할 수 있다는 것이었다. - Sitush (대화) 00:30, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

Qwyrxian, 당신의 논리에 따르면, 각각의 페이지와 모든 페이지는 위키피디아에서 동일한 수준의 보호를 필요로 한다.이것은 11월까지 페이지를 보호해야 할 타당한 이유가 아니지 않은가?nameisnot중요 (talk) 23:42, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그러니 WP:RFP로 가져가세요.그것은 확실히 적절한 포럼인가?아니면 살비오의 능력을 묻는 게 요점인가?- 시투시 (대화) 00:27, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

에드존스턴은 WP의 비보호 요청을 거절했다.RFPP; 내가 지적한 바와 에드존스턴이 동의했듯이, 적어도 4월 이후 그 페이지에서 IP 편집자들의 모든 편집은 정책, 합의 또는 둘 다와 일치하지 않는 것으로 되돌아갔다.언제나 그렇듯이 IP 편집자들은 "반보호 템플릿 편집"을 사용하여 토크에 대한 변경을 제안하는 것을 환영한다. 제안된 모든 편집은 우리의 정책과 지침에 따라 평가될 것이며, 불만스럽게 해결된 모든 문제는 분쟁 해결 과정을 통해 받아들일 수 있다. 보호가 이루어지지 않는 것을 고려할 때, 나는 자발적이지 않은 사용자가 있다고 믿는다.이 논의를 해결된 것으로 표시하는 것이 정당하다.Qwyrxian (대화) 01:55, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 Msu2006

사용자 Msu2006은 몇 시간 동안 위키링크를 삭제하는데 수 년 동안 시간을 보냈다(모든 주에서 그렇게 했다).나는 지난 30분 정도 이 수정사항들을 되돌리고 사용자들의 토크 페이지에 3번 경고했지만 그들은 이해하지 못하는 것 같다.Msu2006은 지금 미스 틴 USA 페이지에 같은 일을 하고 있다.나는 이 사용자가 경고받은 대로 관리 블록을 요청하며 이러한 설명되지 않은 편집을 계속한다.트루트허츠맨 (토크) 22:42, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 나는 Msu2006에게 그들의 편집이 여기서 언급되었다는 메모를 남겼다.나는 또한 그들의 편집이 어떻게 파괴적으로 보이고 대화를 열려고 시도하는지 설명했다.그들은 두어 시간 동안 편집하지 않았기 때문에, 현 시점에서 블록은 예방적이지 않을 것이다.티데롤스 00:05, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• 업데이트: Msu2006과 몇 시간을 함께 보낸 후 나는 이 개인이 여기서 편집하는 것에 대해 진지하지 않다는 의견을 형성했다.차단할 수 있는 것은 없지만, 만약 그들이 현재 모드로 전환한다면 그것은 오래 걸리지 않을 것이다.티데롤스 02:34, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

북아일랜드 참조 문서 삭제

내가 이걸 가져온 이유는 내가 너무 가까이 접근한 것 같아서 감독 검토를 원하기 때문이야.편집기 사용자:John6547은 밴드 Crubeen (또한 Crubeen (밴드), The Longkesh Ramblers, Eagle's Rhrow)과 관련된 기사들을 편집해왔다.일부는 사용자에 의해 만들어졌다.기사 자체도 괜찮고, 사용자도 제작과 편집이 잘 됐다.한가지 작은 문제가 있어서 내가 그 문제를 여기에 가져가는 것이다.이 모든 기사들은 원래 이 밴드들이 아일랜드의 뉴리 카운티 다운 출신이라고 말했다.내 검색에서 나는 최근에 밴드의 국가를 아일랜드에서 북아일랜드로 수정하기 위해 그들을 바꿨고, 이것이 문제가 발생한 곳이다.John6547은 원래 북아일랜드 대신 아일랜드를 읽도록 편집본을 다시 변경했고, 복권되었을 때 이제 원본을 완전히 삭제하는 작업이 진행되었다."원저자에 의해 수정된 세부사항" 1 (참조된 정보를 삭제함)과 "원본 중립" 2 또는 "원본을 알 수 없음" 3에 대한 주장과 함께 약간의 소유권 문제가 있는 것 같다.지금은 너무 가까워서 다른 의견을 묻기 위해 가지고 온다.나는 또한 내가 약간 강하게 다가왔을 수도 있다는 것을 인정하지만, 그것은 북아일랜드의 프로젝트에서 제거하려는 시도를 다룬 아일랜드 민족주의적인 반달리즘과 수년간의 투쟁에서 기인한다.나는 이 토론을 편집자에게 알릴 것이다.나는 그것이 결국 어느 쪽으로 끝나든 어떤 반응도 찾을 수 있다.캔터베리 테일 토크 00:00, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

다음 중 하나를 수행한다.문제 또는 위키백과:중재/아일랜드 기사명 또는 기타 사건에 대한 요청이 여기에 적용되는가?이런 종류의 분쟁에 대한 재량적 제재가 있는가? --Jayron32 00:22, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

가능한 일이지, 민족주의적인 편집으로 해석될 수도 있지만, 제재 주변의 규칙은 정직하다고 잘 이해되지 않는다.어쨌든 이번 사건에는 좀 무거운 짐이 될 수 있어내 생각에 솔직히 말해서, 이것은 차단될 만한 사용자가 아니다. 그들은 선의로 편집하고 있다. 그리고 아마도 이 분야에서 그들의 행동의 결과를 깨닫지 못할 것이다. 그리고 아마도 나는 그 점에서 더 명확해질 수 있었을 것이다.그래서 내가 이걸 여기로 가져온 거야.캔터베리 테일톡 00:32, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

(갈등 편집) 현재 상태로는 직접적이지 않다.그 중 하나에 대해 아주 광범위한 해석을 내놓거나, 수정이나 해명을 요구할 수도 있지만, 그 문제는 저절로 해결될 수 있고, 만약 그렇다면, 그것이 더 바람직할 것이다.뉴욕브래드 (대화) 00:37, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

또 다른 사용자가 무게를 실은 것 같고 대규모 편집 전쟁 링크를 계속하는 것 같아. 결국 여기에 블록이 필요할 것 같아.내가 그것을 할 사람이 되어서는 안 된다고 생각한다.캔터베리 테일톡 00:42, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

시간이 좀 걸렸지만 드디어 그가 메시지를 받은 것 같다.참고 항목: 사용자 대화:바람의 밤/아카이브/2011/8월#크루벤 업데이트 바람의 밤 01:50, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

영구 태그

한 편집자는 2010년 9월부터 기사의 한 섹션 상단에 {{update} 태그가 들어가야 한다고 주장해 왔다.그는 이 절에서 누락된 출처가 있으며, 어떤 출처를 사용해야 한다고 생각하는지까지 명시하고 있다고 말한다.그러나 그는 실제로 기사를 직접 업데이트하거나, 구체적으로 어떤 자료를 추가해야 한다고 생각하는지 밝히기를 거부했다.나는 태그를 제거하려고 노력했지만, 그는 분명히 자신만이 보는 문제를 고치기를 거부함에도 불구하고 반드시 그 태그를 제거해야 한다고 주장한다.이쯤 되면 어떻게 해야 할지 막막하고, 문제는 행동이기 때문에 여기까지 가지고 왔다.기사 페이지 토론은 여기까지입니다.Jayjg 21:06, 2011년 8월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

기사 Talk 페이지의 대화에는 다른 편집자(이전에 한 명 이상의 권한이 없는 관리자 포함)가 참여했다.행정관이 지금 당장 할 일은 없을 것 같아. 아마 토론을 계속 지켜보기만 할 거야.--Alan the Roving 앰배서더(사용자:N5iln) (대화) 21:23, 2011년 8월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

이 ANI 사건을 종결시킬 것을 제안한다.거기서 태그를 원하는 사용자가 토론에 임하는 선의의 편집자임이 분명하다.따라서 더 많은 코멘트를 환영하지만 외부 조치가 필요하지 않다.—Ynhockey 22:35, 2011년 8월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

'신의가 있는 편집자'였다면 10개월 동안 기사를 태그하기보다는 자신이 주장하는 것이 무엇이든 실제로 집어넣고, 태그 제거나 자료 추가는 모두 거부했을 것이다.이 문제는 어떻게 해서든 해결이 필요하다. 아니면 그냥 10개월만 더 두고 갈까?Jayjg 23:29, 2011년 8월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 태그들을 없애라고 말하고 싶다. 그 기사는 잘 발달되어 있는 것 같다.만약 우리가 다른 곳에 같은 수준의 태그를 가지고 있다면 우리는 그것들에 빠져들 것이다.캐스리버 (토크 · 기여) 00:33, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 사실 IMO를 정리하는 것에 관한 것이 아니다.쟁점은 לארר이 이 구간이 대립적인 관점에 경쾌하다고 생각하는 것으로 보인다는 점이다.하지만, 그것은 단순한 정리 작업이라기 보다는 분쟁에 가깝고, 분쟁 태그는 논의가 진행되는 동안에만 제자리에 유지되도록 되어 있다.반대 의견을 덧붙인 그의 주장을 밝히기 위해 그 책임은 onארר에 있다.만약 그런 일이 일어나지 않거나, 그렇게 하는 데 의견 일치가 없다면, 태그는 제거되어야 한다.Chris Cunningham (사용자:thumperward) - 토크 09:54, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

이는 기사에 문제가 있다고 주장되는 것을 실제로 고치려고 할 의도가 없는 한두 명의 파괴적 편집자의 경우로 보인다.태그를 사용하는 데 있어서 그들이 명시한 목표는 "독자들에게 잘못된 내용을 경고"하는 것이다.그것은 결코 우리가 임시 정리 태그를 사용하는 것이 아니며, 그것에 대한 전쟁을 계속 편집하는 것은 WP를 위반한다.포인트 및 WP:TE. 지금은 '관여'되어 어떤 조치도 취할 수 없지만, 다른 관리자들은 계정 administratorsאוו ((토크 · 기여)과 אדעוו ((토크 · 기여)의 태그팀 편집 행동을 살펴볼 필요가 있다.— 사토리 손 15:37, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)위키마니아에서 자원봉사를 한 지 2주 만에 ANI에 소환되는 것은 이상한 일이다...관련 토크 페이지에서 설명했듯이, 이 섹션의 존재는 제이지가 그것을 그대로 유지하자고 주장하면서, 2005년 이후 적어도 7명의 다른 편집자들에 의해 논란이 되었다.우리 모두는 태그가 일시적인 것이라는 것에 동의하지만, 태그가 플래그로 표시되도록 의도된 잘못된 내용 또한 그렇다.잘못된 부분을 구성하고 다른 사람들에게 당신이 한 후에 치울 것을 강요하는 것은 위키피디아를 구식 콘텐츠로 유지시키는 훌륭한 방법이다. 그리고 짜증나는 편집자들.

어쨌든 이 부분을 어떻게 다룰지에 대한 건설적인 제안이 토크페이지에서 나왔기 때문에 그 부분에 대한 우리의 노력을 지시하는 것을 제안한다.샤브밭 샬롬, ליאו • Lior (대화) 15:42, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

첫째로, 당신은 거의 신참이 아니다.2010년 4월부터 계속 편집하셨잖아요.그리고 나는 당신이 이 이슈를 관리자 주의가 필요하지 않은 내용 분쟁으로 특징지어지기를 원한다는 것을 이해한다. 하지만 당신의 "건설적인 제안"은 그 부분을 완전히 삭제하거나 "독자들에게 잘못된 내용에 대해 경고"라는 영구적인 태그를 유지하는 것이다.그 두 옵션 중 어느 것도 "건설적"이 아니며, 당신이 후자를 둘러싼 전쟁을 계속 편집하고 있기 때문에 "제안"도 아니다.여기 영어 위키백과에서 존재하는 많은 불만들은 여러분과 같은 편집자들이 우리의 지침을 따르지 않고 협력적으로 편집하는 것에 의해 야기된다.— 사토리 손 16:34, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

사실, Lior는 이 섹션이 WP와 반대된다는 점을 지적할 수 있다.MEDRS. 그에 따르면 복제되지 못한 유전자 연구에 반대한다고 했어.WT에 게시할 것을 제안한다.MED에서 이걸로.FuFuEd (대화)20:06, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

유전자 연구가 언제 "복제"되는가?이것들은 의학 연구가 아니라 유전학 연구들이다.그러는 동안, 그는 다시 술래잡기를 했다.Jayjg 21:44, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

사토리가 어떻게 내가 2010년 4월 이후 편집자라는 이상한 결론에 도달했는지 모르겠다.만약 그것이 어떤 차이를 만든다면, 그리고 나는 그렇게 하지 말아야 한다고 믿는다, 나는 2003년 이후 등록된 편집자였고 나의 첫 기고는 2004년 11월로 거슬러 올라간다, 그의 기고보다 1년 반 앞선다.지난 4.5년 동안 위키피디아에 대한 나의 대부분의 기여는 특히 히브리어로 베타 이스라엘 위키피디아 주제를 중심으로 이루어졌다.나는 수천 개의 관련 편집을 했고, 수백 개의 관련 이미지를 기고했으며, 성공적인 글짓기 대회를 조율하여 베타 이스라엘 문화유산과 에티오피아 문화에 관한 80개의 새로운 기사를 공동 집필하게 되었다.게다가, 나는 토크 페이지에 유전자가 어떻게 다른 유대 민족에 대한 우리의 기사에 부합하도록 다시 쓰여질 수 있는지 자세히 설명했어.나는 그 주제에 대한 전문적인 안목이 도움이 될 수 있다는 FuFuEd의 의견에 동의한다.나는 Jayjg나 내가 위키피디아 토크에 글을 남겨야 한다.위키프로젝트 유전학(Wiki Project Genetics)과 이 문제를 좀 더 차분하게 정리하도록 한다.ליא • • Lior (대화) 18:23, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

잘됐네.그래서 지금 보이는 (무엇이든) 이슈가 주목을 받고 있으니 태그 제거에 이의가 없으시겠죠?달리 명시하지 않는 한 지금 제거하는 데 동의한다고 가정하겠소Jayjg 00:48, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

구간이 개선되면 태그 제거를 반드시 지지할 것이며, 구간이 불량일 때 태그 제거를 반대했던 다른 토론 참가자들도 마찬가지일 것이다.내가 너의 토크 페이지에서 제안했듯이, 나는 내가 맡은 다른 긴급 과제들은 제쳐두고, 앞으로 몇 주 안에 너와 다른 사람들의 감독하에 이 섹션을 고치도록 하겠다.따라서 2주 후에는 베타 이스라엘 기사에 태그가 표시되지 않을 것이며 영구 태그 지정에 대한 우려는 다른 곳으로 향할 수 있을 것이다.ליא • • Lior (대화) 06:41, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

조셉 마리나치오 AFD의 독특한 활동

참고 항목: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Marinaccio 새 사용자 ID와 유사한 기능을 가진 많은 권장 사항 유지.ID와 IP 주소가 여러 개인 것으로 의심하십시오. 닙소나눔옴마타 02^(Talk):12, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 "투표용지가 아니다"라는 템플릿을 추가했고, 몇 명의 !보터들을 SPA로 표시했으며, 심지어 두 번 투표한 사람의 투표까지 했다.AFD는 지금 내 감시 목록에 있다. 만약 그것이 정말 파괴적이 된다면, 더 많은 조치를 취할 수 있다. 그러나 최종 관리자는 결국 토론을 어떤 식으로든 투표하는 사람들의 숫자가 아니라, 논쟁의 질과 그들이 우리의 정책/지침과 어떻게 관련되는가에 의해 평가할 것이다.Qwyrxian (대화) 02:28, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

Qwyrxian에게 감사한다. 닙소나눔옴마타 10^(Talk):43, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

94.65.56.95

여보세요, 사용자 대화:94.65.56.95는 계속해서 스팸 링크를 기사에 추가하고 있다.나는 더 이상 되돌릴 수 없다, 왜냐하면 이것은 3RR을 위반할 것이기 때문이다. (스팸이 공공 기물 파손이 아니라면, 누군가가 나에게 이것이 사실인지 말해줄 수 있을 것이다.)고마워 --Matthew Thompson 08:30, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

신경쓰지마, 지금 사용자 차단. --Matthew Thompson 08:31, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

• WP:VANDTYPES는 "스팸 외부 연결"의 제목 아래 외부 스팸 링크를 반달리즘으로 추가한다고 정의한다.당신은 그러한 상황에서 3RR을 면제받으며, 경고는커녕 훨씬 더 걱정할 필요가 없다.평화. --64.85.217.39 (대화) 11:57, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Cush 3RR 위반

이 편집자가 뭘 하고 있는지 알 수가 없어.그것은 거짓된 싸움, 편집 전쟁, POV, 편견, 그리고 잘못된 비난이다.그리고 그는 방금 3RR을 위반했다.나는 그가 설득당하거나 대화하지 않을 것을 알기 때문에 여기에 글을 쓴다.내가 보기에 그는 POV를 밀고, 거짓 비난, 투영, 편향, 괴롭힘, 적대감, 노골적인 편집 전쟁 등의 이력이 있다.

나는 그가 이미 친야훼 편견을 갖고 있다는 것을 안다.그는 잘못된 이유로 지금 편집을 세 번 되돌렸다. (홍해 횡단 기사에)그의 편집된 논평 중 하나에서 그는 그것이 노골적인 POV일 때 "가장 이상한 가능한 번역"이라고 말했고, 단순히 사실이 아니다.'여호와'는 이상한 번역이 아니며, 단지 의견의 문제일 뿐이라고 말하는 것이다.그것은 이미 확립된 표현이고, 주요 성경 번역본이다.그리고 이미 많은 WP 기사에 실려 있다.대부분의 WP 기사에는 '야훼'가 실려 있는 것은 사실이지만 전부는 아니다.자기 자신이 더 죄를 지었다고 남을 탓하는 것 같다.여기에 있는 POV와 편견은 모두 그의 것이다.그리고 그것은 명백하다.'여호와'라는 렌더링에 대한 그의 편견은 분명하다.그리고 결함이 있고 단지 POV 현장에 있을 뿐이지, 그 이상은 아니다.그 렌더링의 양쪽 측면에 학자들이 있다.단순히 "WP:I Don't Like It" 때문에 그것을 제거할 타당한 이유가 없다.(그리고 내 입장에서 "Vandalism"이 없었기 때문에 그것은 무고하다.)나는 그에게 제발 전쟁을 그만 편집하거나 이 기사에 참여하라고 말했다.대신에 그는 단지 다시 돌아왔고, 잘못해서 나를 "반달리즘"이라고 비난했다.

나는 세 번이 아니라 두 번밖에 돌아가지 않았다.거기서 내가 한 "편집"은 실제 "편집"이 아니었다.여기를 클릭하면 단순히 수정 내역에 대한 주석을 편집하기 위해 편집하지 않은 것임을 알 수 있다.그 구체적인 것에는 '반전'(또는 그 무엇도)'이란 것이 없었다.그래서 세 번이 아니라 두 번만 돌아갔지...그가 그랬던 것처럼 말이야

쿠시는 24시간 동안 세 번 분명하게 되돌아갔다.
여기...
22:33, 2011년 8월 21일 쿠시 (토크 기여) (1만2,504바이트) (가능한 모든 번역 중에서 가장 이상한 것으로 신의 이름을 바꿀 필요는 없었다.
여기...
09:27, 2011년 8월 22일 쿠시 (토크 기여) (12,505바이트) (Hashem sfarim에 의한 수정기호 446121644 미이행)는 명칭 변경의 필요성이 없다.일부 POV를 홍보하기 위해 불필요하게 기사를 변경하지 마십시오. 변경을 원할 경우 먼저 논의하십시오.)
그리고 여기...
09:42, 2011년 8월 22일 쿠시 (토크 기여) (12,505바이트) (하셈 스파림에 의한 446124503 미개정) 당신은 토론 없이 기사를 변경했다.공공 기물 파손을 막아라!)

저기 보이시죠.그것도 하루도 안 돼 세 번이나 되돌아온 겁니다.그건 선명한 선이고, 그는 위반이다.하셈 스파림 (토크) 10:23, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:AN/3RR? (토크→ BWilkins ←트랙) 10:45, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 빌킨스.나는 이런 일에 익숙하지 않다.나는 정말 어디로 가야 할지 확신할 수 없었다.앱 고마워.안부 전해요하셈 스파림 (대화) 10:54, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

단지 쿠쉬가 3RR을 위반하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라(그럴 수는 있지만), 여호와를 먼저 변화시킨 것은 하셈이었다.그 후 그는 쿠시와 전혀 다른 입장을 가진 로스 닉슨에 의해 역전되었다.하셈은 자신의 버전으로 되돌아가고, 그러자 쿠쉬는 내가 생각하기에 원래의 (야훼)로 되돌아갔다.토크 페이지에서 이 문제를 논의하려는 시도는 없었으며, 나는 하셈이 변화를 원하고 있고 두 명의 편집자에게 뒤바뀌었다고 생각한다.더그웰러 (대화) 2011년 8월 22일 11시 16분 (UTC)[응답]

빌레 반유대주의 이메일

Ttwtchr (대화 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 핵 기여 • 로그 • 필터 로그 • 차단 사용자 • 블록 로그)이 나에게 이메일을 보냈다. 당신이 유대인이라는 것을 읽다니 놀랍다. 네가 다른 사람을 얕잡아보는 것을 전혀 모르고, 모두가 너를 잡으러 나온다고 끊임없이 불평한다. 그리고 우리가 주제를 다루는 동안 당신의 사용자 이름에 금전적인 언급이 들어있다는 것이 얼마나 놀라운 일인가, 정말 고약한 새끼가!

이메일 + 토크 페이지 액세스를 차단하고 취소할 수 있는 사람이 있는지 확인하십시오.Ta. ╟-TreasuryTag► 지역 개표담당관-- 13:22, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 그렇게 했지만, 너는 아마도 증거로 이메일을 누군가에게 전달해야 할 것이다.나는 지금 당장 너의 말을 믿어도 좋다(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

이메일이 어떻게 전달될지는 모르겠지만(쉽게 조작될 수 있다) Checkuser가 나에게 이메일을 보내준다면 답장으로 전달하게 되어 기쁘다.╟-TreasuryTag►co-프린세스-16:57, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

TTWatcher?SPA처럼 들리는데, 특히 하나는 재무부 태그를 괴롭히기 위한 것이었다.윌리엄 매튜 플린더스 페트리세이 샬롬 경! 2011년 8월 22일 13시 34분 (UTC)[응답하라]

이게 지금 네 번째야 다섯 번째야?Checkuser를 한 사람이 있는가? --Errgent^(chat!) 13:35, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

응, 하지만 지금은 별로 볼 게 없어.TNXMAN 15:04, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Bwilkins가 이메일 카피를 요청하고 있다고 의심한다. 그래서 당신은 TT 감시자들에게 "그가 지어낸 것"과 같은 탄약을 주지 않는다.TT 감시자들의 역사를 아는 것은 - 현재 분류된 것처럼 - 그들에게 탄약을 주고 싶지 않을 것이다.S.G.^(GH) 18:09, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

향후 이러한 사람들을 위한 사적인 연락 담당자로 나서기 위해 관리자에 대한 요청을 반복하는 것.TT, 만약 당신이 ANI에서 모든 메일의 내용을 반복한다면, 이 메일은 멈출 것 같지 않다. ANI는 발신자가 아마도 그의 jollies를 받을 것이다.Chris Cunningham (사용자:thumperward) - 토크 18:34, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 누군가가 이것이 하고 있다고 상상한다면 "TT 감시자들" (MfD에 관련된 사람들을 의미하기 위해 내가 취할) 호의는 그들이 미쳤음에 틀림없다.나는 또한 그것이 적어도 재무부 태그에 의해 만들어지지는 않을 것이라는 것을 믿을 수 없다.의심의 여지 없이 그런 종류의 일을 꾸며낼 사용자들이 있다.처음에는 이메일이 과장된 것일 수도 있다고 생각했지만, 이제 우리는 그들 중 두 명의 내용을 제공받았으므로(그리고 나는 더 이상 게시되어서는 안 된다는 것에 동의한다 - 그것은 TT에게 달려 있지만 그렇게 하는 것은 아마도 미친 사람이라기보다는 트롤에게 먹이를 줄 가능성이 높다, 그것은 배제될 수는 없지만) 충분히 그럴 것이다.절대 용납할 수 없다는 걸 알아

누구도 이것을 참아서는 안 된다.에그 센트리크 19:28, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

이런 점에서 지역사회 제재가 제기되는 것을 좋아할 수 없는가?ANI를 볼 때마다 TT를 중심으로 드라마 같은 게 나오는 것 같아...왜 이런 일이 일어나는지 모르겠지만, 이 일은 좀 더 넓은 관심이 필요하다. --Cerejota (대화) 19:31, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

Ttwtchr(대화 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 핵 기여 • 로그 • 필터 로그 • 차단 사용자 • 차단 로그)이 위키피디아를 통해 이메일을 보냈다는 것을 확인할 수 있지만, 수신자가 체크 사용자 결과의 해시(hash)로 나열되므로, 전송된 사람을 확인할 수 없다.분명한 양말도 없다. --아비 (토크) 19:34, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답하라]

10달러면 장부가...잉글랜드그냥 어둠을 찔렀을 뿐이야.Doc talk 21:54, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자: 아갈롭

아갈롭 (토크 · 기여)

이게 AIV, CCI, 아니면 다른 곳에 있는 것인지 확실하지 않아서 일단 여기로 가지고 왔다.아갈롭은 새로운 사용자로, 다른 웹 사이트로부터 콘텐츠를 복사/붙여넣는 것만으로 콘텐츠를 추가하는 것뿐이다.그는 여러 번 경고를 받았다.내가 마지막으로 그에게 개인화된 경고를 남긴 후, 그는 또 다른 카피비오 기사를 만들었다.이쯤 되면 차단을 요청할 수밖에 없다.특이점42 (대화) 15:30, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

막혔어, 비록 누가 행동하기로 약속하면 그 블록을 줄이거나 들어올리는 것은 괜찮지만.TNXMAN 15:36, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

오 신이시여 내가 망쳤어

나는 "위키피디아:삭제/아슈케나지 인텔리전스(3차 지명)에 대한 기사 - "위키피디아:삭제 조항/아슈케나지 첩보(4기 지명)" 하지만 모두 잘못됐다.누가 좀 고쳐줄래?다신 안 해!2011년 8월 22일 에그센터 22:56 (UTC)[응답]

고정 리퍼 이터널(토크) 23:03, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워! 에그 센트리 23:40, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

인디펜던트 1세

누가 독립군 조슈아를 돌볼 수 있을까?에스페란자 스팔딩에서 그는 저작권 위반, MOS 위반, BLP 위반(살아있는 사람들 범주의 제거 포함)을 만들고 있다.나는 집에 없고 이럴 시간이 없어.트보치.^™문법적으로 틀리십니까?정답!약관을 참조하십시오.2011년 8월 22일 23시 34분 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 24시간 동안 계속 차단했는데...편집된 내용은 Tbhotch가 지적한 방식대로 파괴적인 것으로 보이며, 다른 것이 없다면 Independent The Independent Joshua가 3RR을 고장냈다. --Kinu _c/ 00:07, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Grerrr

다른 편집자를 모욕하기 위해 만들어진 계정.FuFued (대화) 00:04, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

• 명백한 트롤은 명백하다.무기한 차단. --Kinu _c/ 00:11, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

욕설 e-메일 3: 욕설 e-메일

위키피디아 추가 정보:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive716#Ababious e-메일 및 위키백과:관리자의noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#학대하는 이메일:속편, 나는 아직 다른 사랑스러운 메시지를 전달 받았습니다, Ttslyr 이번에 –(이야기·contribs·logs·필터 로그·블록 사용자·블록 로그·contribs 삭제되)이 한 다소 다른 사람들보다:당신LITTLE 똥 HORRID-성공 지나EMAILSABUSIVE 생각 THINK??노골적이었다는?당신의 보복하다!!ABUSIVE 바로 당신LITTLE TWAT FUCKING의 MEANING었을 겁니까!는 발췌한 것이다.제발 지난 번처럼 누군가가 이 소위 말하는 사람을 차단하고 토크 페이지 접속을 취소할 수 있을까?고마워요.╟-TreasuryTagesconsults-11:17, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 막혔다. 살비오 11시^{Let's talk about it!} 41분, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

누군가는 빌어먹을 목숨이 필요해, 예수님북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 15:18, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 최근에 실이 하나 있었는데...실수... 어딘가에...카프차스와 이메일 시스템에 대해.내가 마지막으로 확인한 바로는, 꽤 심하게 받쳐져 있었다.우리가 그것을 해결하고 실행할 수 있을까?스벤망구아르화?19:49,2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

  공정하게 말하면, 위 자료의 범인은 (거의) 문맹이기 때문에 캡차들은 욕설 이메일 문제를 해결하지 못할 것이다.내가 이 사람에게서 받은 3개의 메시지 중 2개는 서비스를 사용한 적이 있는 메일리네이터의 이메일 주소와 같은 '폐기할 수 있는' 이메일 주소를 금지하는 것이 유용할 것이다.╟-TreasuryTagndominium-19:53, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

  토론의 이 부분에 대해 논평하기 위해: 해당 토론에서 제기된 한 가지 아이디어는 사용자가 캡차 요구사항을 제거하기 전에 일정한 수의 기여를 해야 한다는 요건을 갖는 것이었다.나는 한 걸음 더 나아가서 일정 개수의 편집이 충족될 때까지 새로운 사용자가 전자우편 기능을 사용하는 것을 허용하지 않을 것이다.생각?사이클론GU (토크) 21:06, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

공정한 아이디어는, 비록 그것이 구현된다면 선택사항이어야 하지만(그리고 아마도 기본 설정에 대한 견해는 없음) 다른 사용자에게 전자우편을 편집하지 않은 사용자에게 전자우편을 보낼 수 있는 정당한 이유가 있기 때문이다.받는 사람이 이메일을 보낼 수 있는지 아니면 확증된 사용자에게 자동 메시지를 보낼 수 있는지 선택하는 것도 사소한 일일 것이다.사실, 나는 익명의 편집자(즉, IP 역할을 하는 로그인하지 않은 사용자)가 그들에게 이메일을 보내는 것을 누군가가 허락하지 않는 것이 유용할 이유가 없다고 본다.보다 정교한 필터링 기능을 추가하는 데도 몇 가지 효용이 있을 수 있다(예: 사용자가 특정 IP나 사용자의 전자 메일 발송을 금지할 수 있도록 허용). Egg Centric 21:14, 2011년 8월 22일(UTC)[응답]

그런 제안은 어디서 하는 게 좋을까?사이클론GU (토크) 21:43, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과:마을 펌프 (proposals) - 당연히 Egg Centric 21:49, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답] 위의 윤곽과 비슷할 경우 지원하겠다.

TT가 신뢰하는 관리자가 이러한 것들을 위한 미래의 사적인 접촉으로 자신을 지명할 수 있을까?매번 ANI에 가져가는 것은 단지 TT의 혹독한 사람들에게 그들이 찾고 있는 관심을 주는 것 같다.Chris Cunningham (사용자:thumperward) - 토크 15:42, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 의견에 찬성한다.이러한 이메일을 보내는 사람은 아마도 자신이 보고 있는 반응의 유형을 정확하게 보기를 바라고 있을 것이다.또한 지속적이고 심각한 오프위키 남용의 사건에 대한 정보는 이메일을 통해 중재위원회의 주목을 받아야 한다.Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

재단에 전달하십시오.꽤 분명한 위협이고, 그 지역의 당국과 접촉하는 것이 더없이 기뻐할 것이라고 나는 확신한다.—제레미 v^_^v^{Components:V S M} 06:16, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

아니면 아마도 우리는 얼마 전 비슷한 이메일 문제에서 누군가 제안했듯이 이메일 기능을 비활성화해야 할 것이다.–MuZemike 06:32, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

여성 생식기 절단

마을 펌프에서 발생한 사건(정책)

나는 WP에서 더 많은 커뮤니티의 의견을 요구한다.VPP#AfD_nomentations_and_de_jure_WP:Banning_Policy, 논의 결과 사용자로부터 다음과 같은 질문을 받았다.나를 인신공격하는 것으로 간주되는 '침략 또는 파괴 행위'를 옹호하는 것을 완강히 중단하고 중단하라.관련 사항 - 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC) 02:50 (UTC)[응답]

• 템플릿의 페이지 기록 참조:같은 편집자에 의해 8월 22일에 만들어진 금지-강제_언더미네이션.이 템플릿은 전혀 선의의 것이 아니며, 내 의견으로는 너무 논란이 많다. - 펜웨일 02:55, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

NOTPROMOONION 및 손상된 계정일 수 있는 명백한 위반 페이지 작성

WP를 위반하는 것으로 보이는 Infopulse 우크라이나 LLC를 참조하십시오.NOTPROMOTPROMONION.이 글은 사용자:ALEF7은 일련의 책임 있는 편집 후, 손상된 계정을 나타낼 수 있다.한 관리자가 다른 관리자가 검토할 수 있도록 ANI에 이 내용을 게시하라고 말했다.소나무^talk 09:28, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 관리자가 ANI로 가져가야 한다고 말한 곳을 찾을 수 없다.개인적으로 나는 손상된 계정의 증거가 전혀 보이지 않는다.잘못 본 거 아닐까?작성자와 NOTPROMEN 문제를 해결하거나 기사에 태그를 추가하셨습니까?아가토클레아 (대화) 11시 7분, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 기여를 살펴봤는데 WP:GOTRAXED는 그럴 것 같지 않다.그는 내가 지난달 말부터 문제의 기사의 이력을 통합한 사용자 공간 초안을 작성해 오고 있다.겉으로는 첫 기사의 B2B 주제를 '상관'하는 것이 이상하지만 결국 첫 기사의 창작을 결심한 위키그램처럼 보이는데, 언뜻 보면 홍보에 경계선이 되는 것 같다. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사건은 적어도 "종합 계정"은 아니다.그리고 승진에 대해서 - 나에게 시간을 좀 줘.WP를 검토하겠다.NOTPROMOONION 그리고 기사 고치기를 시도하라.영어는 나의 모국어가 아니기 때문에 시간이 걸릴 것이다.기사를 사용자 공간으로 되돌리는 것이 더 나을 수도 있다.ALEF7 (대화) 06:10, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

응답해줘서 고마워.즉각적인 우려는 ANI에 이를 가져오는 주된 이유인 계정 타협 가능성이었다. ALEF7, 수정하는 동안 사용자 공간으로 이동하는 것이 좋을 것이다.기사를 다시 작성해서 기사공간으로 옮기기 전에 검토했으면 좋겠다면 내 토크페이지에 메모를 남겨줘.고마워!파인^talk 07:06, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

메탈자칼립스 에피소드 목록

이제 AFD에 오른 사이버 자신감은 명백한 홍보로서 신속한 삭제를 받을 자격이 있는가?

IP 파괴를 다루는 과정에서 나는 그 기사를 우연히 접하게 되었고, 이제 위키백과에서 AfD:삭제/사이버 자신감에 대한 기사.기사의 제목인 '사이버 자신감'은 IP주소를 소유한 회사의 상표로, 그 회사에 근무하는 누군가가 만든 것이 분명했다(어느 직원인지, 가족 회사인지는 확실치 않지만, 구글 검색 결과 그 회사에서 편집자가 몇 명 나올 가능성이 있는 것으로 나타났다.어떤 믿을 만한 출처가 있는지 '사이버 자신감'은 언급되지 않는다.AfD는 두 개의 삭제된 !보트를 가지고 있는데, 둘 다 이것이 단지 홍보에 불과하다는 것에 동의한다.상표를 제목으로 사용하고 회사 직원이 만든 글은 G11이 적격인 것으로 보인다.다른 사람들은 어떻게 생각하는가?더그웰러 (대화) 2011년 8월 23일 08:23 (UTC)[응답]

그게 정말 중요한가?카피비오나 공격 페이지와 같은 심각한 정책 위반을 제외하고, 우리는 AfDs가 이미 실행 중이라면 일반적으로 AfDs를 빠른 페이지로 재정의하지 않는다.Chris Cunningham (사용자:thumperward) - 토크 09:30, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것을 두 번째로 하고 싶다; 긴급히 제거되어야 하는 내용이 없는 한, AfD가 진로를 운영하게 하는 것이 아마도 더 쉬울 것이다. 보브레이너 (토크) 10:34, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

물론이지, AfD가 아니었으면 속도를 빨리 내는 게 맞았을까 해서 그랬는데, 분명히 삭제될 거니까 그건 문제가 안 돼.더그웰러(토크) 2011년 8월 23일(UTC) 10시 43분 [응답]

나는 잘 모르겠다; 그것은 일반적인 의미에서 직접적으로 홍보하는 것이 아니라, 그것은 저자가 아마도 일하는 지역의 신학주의에 관한 것이다. (그리고 "신학"은 CSD 기준이 아니다.)나도 그 분야에서 일해, 비록 콘텐츠에 대한 우려가 있지만, 나는 그것을 특정 경쟁 기관(또는 관점)에 대한 모호하지 않은 광고로 보지 않을 거야.

하지만, 그건 내 의견일 뿐이고, 이 근처에 있는 많은 사람들은 다른 의견을 가질 거야...Bobrayner (대화) 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC) 12:04[응답]

내가 이걸 CAT에서 봤더라면:CSD, 나는 그것을 거절했을 것이다. 왜냐하면 그것은 제품에 관한 것이 아니기 때문에 그것은 본질적으로 덜 스팸함을 만든다.FWIW. GedUK 12:10, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 이런 의견들이 내가 추구했던 거야.사실 나는 그것이 꽤 홍보적이라고 생각하지만 나는 왜 몇몇 사람들이 그것을 거절했는지 알 수 있다.더그웰러 (대화) 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC) 13:06 [응답]

인데버 요청됨

IP의 경우: 31.96.126.89 (대화 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 핵연료 기여 • 로그 • 필터 로그 • 블록 사용자 • 블록 로그)PA는 말할 것도 없고 법적인 위협도 있다.닥터K. 13:06, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

IP는 변명의 여지가 없다.영국 ISP, 아마도 모바일 제공업체에 등록되어 있어서 역동적이다.WP:RBI. --Alan the Roving 앰배서더(사용자:N5iln) (대화) 13:14, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

동적 IP라면 일리가 있다.그러나 만약 달리 결정될 수 있다면, 그들의 편집 입장이 적어도 단기적으로는 그다지 고무적이지 않다는 점에서 일시적인 차단이 있을 수 있다.해명해줘서 고마워.2011년 8월 23일 (UTC) 13:22 박사[^{λogosπraxis}응답]

그들은 분명히 좋지 않은 일을 하고 있지만, 지금까지 니코시아 기사만 편집해 왔다.나는 최근 전면적인 보호가 실시되기 전에 실시되었던 반보호를 부활시켰다.이 기사에서 위키피스의 가능성에 대해 낙관적인 척 할 수 있었으면 좋겠다:(Favonian (토크) 13:26, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

GMTA; 나는 그 기사를 세미프로 붙이자고 제안하려고 했었다.거의 3시간 전에 IP가 마지막으로 편집되었기 때문에 이미 다른 주소로 이동했을 가능성이 더 많다. --Alan the Robing Ambassador(사용자:N5iln) (대화) 13:30, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

자세한 건 너희들이 고마워.이건 해결된 것 같아.몸조심하세요.K. 15:59, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

수정 필요

사용자:98.25.186.42 최근에 파괴된 Aziz Ansari - 신뢰할 수 있는 오래된 ConverseBot이 내가 할 수 있는 것보다 먼저 되돌아가긴 했지만, 반달의 diff에는 개인 전화 번호가 들어 있는 것 같다.문제가 될 것 같진 않지만, 도구화된 관리자가 그쪽으로 가서 편집 기록에서 삭제하는 것이 가치가 있을 것이다.윤수이(토크) 13:49, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

완료. TNXMAN 13:57, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워. 잘못된 게시판에 글을 올려서 미안해. 편집 충돌이 생겼을 때 나는 감독하기 위해 이 요청을 삭제하는 중이었어.이제 문제가 해결되었으니, 나는 그 요청을 굳이 옮기지 않을 것이다.윤수이(토크) 2011년 8월 23일 13시 59분 (UTC)[응답하라]

위키피디아에 해당하는 정보:억제 정책 기준, 나는 편집의 가시성을 더욱 제한했다.LessEverned vanU (토크) 15:07, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

제이크와 할례

이 페이지는 특정한 사건에 관한 것이 아니라, 오히려 계속적인 가식적인 편집의 패턴이다.나는 내가 올바른 위치에 있기를 바란다.

간단히 말해서, 사용자:제이크는 (할례에 찬성하는) 편집에서 일관된 편향의 패턴을 가지고 있다.그의 설명은 단 한 가지 목적에 가깝다. 내가 보기에 그는 백과사전을 짓기 위해서가 아니라 할례를 장려하기 위해 여기에 온 것 같다.

칭찬할 만한 것은, 그는 극도로 예의 바르며(나를 포함한 그의 많은 동료 의원들보다 훨씬 더), 항상 명확한 정책(예: 3RR) 내에서 활동한다는 것이다.그는 위키백과 정책을 잘 알고 있으며, 자주 인용한다.나는 그가 전에 공식적인 비난에 직면하지 않은 것은 이것 때문이라고 믿는다.

나는 어떤 특정한 차이점을 가리켜서 가식적인 편집의 역사를 보여줄 수 없기 때문에, 나는 더 넓은 곳을 찾아야 한다고 제안해야 한다.우선, 관리자 게시판에서 그가 51번이나 분쟁에 휘말린 것을 고려해 보십시오. [27].그 중 많은 시간은 그가 다른 사용자들을 보고하는 것이었지만, 그것이 항상 명확한 것은 아니었다.다른 위키피디아 분쟁해결 자료들을 검색해보면 그가 다른 편집자들과 충돌한 많은 사례들을 발견할 수 있을 것이다.많은 분쟁에 관여하는 것은 스스로 방해를 하는 것이 아니라 뭔가 잘못된 것을 암시한다.물론, 당신은 또한 할례의 토크 페이지와 관련 기사들의 기록 보관소에서 많은 논쟁에서 그를 발견할 것이다.그리고 모든 수단을 동원해서 그의 계정이 단일한 목적인지 아니면 옹호하는 데 관여하는지를 판단하기 위해 그의 편집 내용을 살펴본다.또한 기사를 읽고 그것이 당신에게 NPOV처럼 보이는지 알아보세요; Jakew는 지금까지 그것들에 가장 큰 기여자 입니다.마지막으로 이 다소 빈약한 증거를 꺼내는 것을 주저하지만, 제이크는 할례 관련 기사에 대해 그렇게 강하고 편향적으로 보이는 통제력을 발휘하여 정반대의 편견을 가진 사람들이 실제로 자신을 추적하는 위키에 한 페이지를 만들었다. [28].

나는 그의 편견에 대한 구체적인 예시를 하나 제시할 것이다.7월 초에는 할례에 관한 의료단체의 입장을 어떻게 말할 것인가를 놓고 오랜 논쟁이 있었다.그들 중 어느 누구도 어떤 설득력 있는 비정상적인 의학적 원인 없이 신생아 할례를 권하지 않는데, 나와 다른 편집자들은 그런 취지의 언어를 삽입하고 싶어했다.당연히 그런 네거티브를 입증하기 어렵다.WP에 대한 많은 논쟁과 이를 갈고 난 후:MEDRS(우리에게는 '너무 오래된' 원천이 있었다)와 과도한 비중(여러 조직의 입장을 열거한다면)이 마침내 같은 주장을 분명히 한 최근의 소식통을 찾았다.그리고 그 후 며칠에 걸쳐 점차 언어를 약화시켰다. [29] [30].나는 그 두 가지 편집이 그 자체로 불합리하다고 말하는 것이 아니라, 그들은 가장 엄밀한 정밀조사까지 반순환 청구권을 쥐고, 이용할 수 있는 어떤 정책으로 그들을 공격하고, 그들이 전적으로 기사로부터 벗어날 수 없을 때 가능한 한 많은 자격을 부여하는 패턴의 일부분이다.친서클릭 편집은 그에게서 그런 정밀 조사를 받지 않는다.

나는 이것이 해결하기에 쉬운 논쟁이 될 것이라고 기대하지 않는다.가리킬 만한 붉은 깃발이 없다.진정으로 좋은 이해를 얻기 위해서는 5년간의 역사를 편집해야 하는데, 그것은 누구에게나 부탁하는 불합리한 일로 보인다.하지만 솔직히 나는 이런 종류의 문제를 보고하기 위해 어디에 의지해야 할지 모르겠다.많은 사람들이 과거에 그와 함께 적은 분쟁 해결 방법을 시도했지만, 큰 행운은 없었다.

나는 Jakew가 주로 위키피디아에 그의 관점을 밀어붙이기 위해 온다고 믿는다. 그리고 그는 관련 기사의 손상으로 두드러지게 성공했다고 믿는다.나는 그를 금지할 것을 제안한다. 또는 가능하다면 할례와 관련된 기사 편집만 금지할 것을 제안한다. 이자드 @ 07:52, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

전혀 아무런 의미도 없이, 그리고 다른 것을 보지 않고, 이 사용자가 SPA라고 주장하는 것은 이 용어가 의미하는 것에 대한 다소 깊은 오해를 배반한다.이 사용자는 FA 품질과 전혀 관련이 없는 또 다른 기사를 가져오는 것을 도왔다.그래서 다른 이슈와 상관없이, 이것은 SPA가 아니며 확실히 SPA가 되는 것에 가깝지 않다.저걸 잘라내라고 제안한다.--세레조타 (대화) 12:27, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 여러 번 제이크와 교감했다.그는 할례(User와 반대되는)에 대해 강한 의견을 가지고 있는 것 같다.리자드위저드의 의견)이지만 그는 확실히 기사를 개선하거나 믿을 만한 자료를 추가하는 등 많은 에너지를 소비한다.내 경험상 그는 자신이 예의 바르며 기꺼이 타협할 수 있다는 것을 보여주었다.편집자마다 POV가 다르다는 것이 위키피디아의 강점 중 하나인데, 그러한 이유로 출처를 면밀히 조사한다.편집자가 당신 의견에 동의하지 않을 때는 짜증날 수도 있지만, 그렇다고 제재할 이유는 아니다.– Quadell 13:43, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Jake와 편집자로서 5년 넘게 교류해 왔다.Jake는 여기 위키피디아에 있는 다른 많은 사람들과 마찬가지로 개인적인 의견과 관점을 가지고 있다.관점을 갖는 것은 대개 지적이고 생각하는 개인이 되는 것과 밀접한 관련이 있다. 이것이 중요한 편집에 영향을 미치는 방법이다.이 5년 동안, 나는 제이크스의 개인적인 의견에도 불구하고 그가 위키백과의 원칙과 지침에 따라 엄격하게 편집하는 것에 계속해서 감명을 받는다.그는 필요성과 질 둘 다 인용에 엄격하고 매우 중립적인 관점에서 글을 쓴다. 그와 의견이 다른 대다수의 사람들과는 달리 그의 산문은 독자들에게 색칠을 하려는 의도가 아니라 단지 독자들에게 알리려는 의도라고 생각한다.만약 있다면, 나는 제이크를 위키피디아를 편집하는 방법의 예로 들 것이다. 모든 것에 최신의 적절한 중립적 소스를 사용하고 산문이 어느 방향으로도 채색되지 않도록 하는 것이다.게다가 제이크는 이 프로젝트에서 이해관계가 있고 편집이 광범위하게 이루어졌는데, 이는 현재와 수년 동안 이해충돌이라는 부적절한 주장을 통해 제이크를 침묵시키려 했던 대부분의 사람들보다 더 많은 것이다.제이크는 확실히 하나의 목적어 계정은 아니며, 내 의견으로는 이해충돌과 함께 편집의 증거를 보여주지 않는다. -- 에이비 (토크) 14:32, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

적어도 4명의 편집자들이 최근에 Jake의 편집에 대해 불평했고 나는 그러한 우려에 동의한다.작년에 분리된 편집자들 또한 비슷한 우려를 제기했으므로, 분명히 문제가 있다고 말할 수 있다.나는 개인적으로 그의 편집이 WP를 위반한다고 생각한다.COI. 할례 논쟁의 모든 주제에서 Jake는 매우 강한 친위주의 편견을 옹호한다.그는 할례 기사의 앞부분에서 할례의 혜택을 과장하고 있다.그는 할례의 HIV 예방 혜택을 증폭시키고 WP로 이러한 견해를 옹호한다.소유권 POV는 당신이 본 그 어떤 것보다도 좋아.그는 할례의 불이익이 인쇄될 때마다 논쟁을 시작한다.그는 심지어 WP에 들어갔다.배치는 이와 같은 전쟁을 되돌려서 친서클릭 문장이 반서클릭 문장보다 우세함을 보장한다.그는 자신의 견해를 같이 하는 사람들에 대해 위키 정책을 요구하는 경우는 거의 없지만 다른 의견을 공유하는 사람들에 대해서는 최선을 다한다.제이크와의 타협이 부족하기 때문에, 나는 그의 끈질긴 POV가 비파괴적이고 불쾌하다고 생각한다.그는 위키백과 정책에 대한 그의 강한 지식을 WP를 압도하기 위해 사용한다.뉴비즈.백과사전 대신에, Jakew와 함께 위키피디아가 할례를 장려하고 있는 것 같다.이 문제는 5년 지속되는 체계적인 패턴으로 디프트를 제공하기가 어렵다.나는 한달에 걸친 토픽-반(topic-ban)을 지지한다. 그래서 그는 겉보기에는 정중하지만 그럼에도 불구하고 공격적인 WP:B를 식힐 수 있다.아틀그라운드 스타일.결론적으로 그는 WP를 위반한다.NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:FRURED와 WP:COI. 메서드토크 16:41, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC) 통과[응답]

WP:COI는 무엇인가?그 용어는 단순히 의견을 갖는 것을 포함하지 않는다. 그의 관심사는 무엇인가?그 사람이 무슨 친위대의 대변인인가?마찬가지로, 나는 WP를 본 적이 없다.소유권 문제; 그가 그런 식으로 행동한 다른 곳과의 연결고리를 제공해 줄 수 있는가?한 가지 차이점은 문단의 표지가 어디에 있어야 하는지에 대한 두 가지 반향 중 하나라는 것이다.특히 그가 토크 페이지에서 더 많은 의견을 요청했기 때문에, 그것은 소유권 문제가 아니다.이것은 여기 몇몇 편집자들이 단순히 자신들에 동의하지 않는 누군가를 폄하하려는 시도로 보인다.– Quadell 17:02, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

쿼델의 말처럼 제이크의 편집 내용을 검토하는 데 시간을 들이는 것은 기사가 중립을 지키도록 하기 위해 종종 뒤로 구부러지는 편집자를 가리킨다.지난 2-4년 동안, 페이지상에서 제이크를 침묵시키기 위한 지속적인 시도가 있었다.내 생각에, 그것은 괴롭힘과 맞닿아 있고, 아마도 제이크를 계속해서 잘못 폄하하는 편집자들에 대한 추가적인 조사가 시작되어야 할 것이다.의견이 맞지 않아 다른 편집자의 기사 편집 능력을 없애려고 하는 것은 위키백과의 목적을 진전시키는 것보다 외부 이익 진전에 더 관심이 있는 사람을 가리킬 것이다. -- Avi (대화) 17:32, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

Jakew가 COI를 가지고 있다는 비난은 어디선가 "매년 제안서" 페이지에 추가될 수 있을 것이다.쟁점은 몇 번이고 제기된다.그럼에도 불구하고, 그것은 여전히 COI가 존재한다는 생각에 어떠한 신빙성도 주지 못한다.제이크는 사실 (사실상) CERCS라는 기구의 설립자에 소속되어 있으며, 포경주제에 관한 학술지 기고에도 게재되어 있다.그 모든 것이 여러 번 인정되었다.그러나 제이크는 내가 알기로는 그 조직이나 웹사이트, 혹은 자신의 작품을 홍보한 적이 없다.어떤 주제에 대한 의견을 갖는 것은 COI를 구성하는 것이 아니며, 그 분야의 전문가가 되는 것도 아니다(WP:COS 참조).나는 2년 전에 이 문제에 대해 처음 알았고 그 이후로 여러 번 문제가 제기되는 것을 보아왔기 때문에 이 모든 것이 새로운 것은 아니다.또한, 많은 분쟁에 관여하는 것이 무언가가 잘못되었다는 것을 보여준다면, 나는 위키피디아로부터 사이트 금지를 받아야 한다.수년에 걸친 조정 작업, COI 게시판에서의 도움, 관리공고 게시판의 분쟁 해결을 위해 노력한 나의 노력은 내가 끊임없이 분쟁에 관여하고 있음을 보여줄 것이다. -- 아타마頭 19:07, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

WP의 굵은 글:COI는 "위키피아의 목적을 진전시키는 것보다 외부 이해의 진보가 편집자에게 더 중요한 곳, 그 편집자는 이해의 충돌에 서 있다"고 읽는다.그것은 어떤 이유로든 할례를 촉진하는 것에 대한 외부 관심처럼 들리도록 한다.정책이 그런 식으로 해석될지는 의문이지만 애매해 보인다.자드 @ 23:15, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 내가 할례(esp)의 혜택을 과장하고 증폭시킨다는 파사메토드의 주장에 다소 놀란다.그 기사의 선두에 있는 HIV 예방.6월 초 이전에, 리드는 한동안 안정 상태에 있었다(예: 이 버전). 이후 몇 주 동안 긴 편집 과정이 진행되어 현재 버전이 되었다.알 수 있듯이 위험과 이익에 관한 정보는 거의 전부 다시 작성되었지만, 그 사이에 내가 편집한 내용을 살펴본 결과, (문장에 귀속성을 추가하는 것과 같은 몇 가지 예외만으로) 현재 버전(즉, 리드의 두 번째 단락)에 있는 거의 모든 텍스트가 나 이외의 편집자에 의해 작성되었다는 것은 분명하다.예를 들어 모든 HIV 정보는 Jmh649에 의해 추가되었다(나는 그것을 쓰지 않았다고만 지적하고 그것에 대한 판단을 내리는 것이 아니라고 서둘러 덧붙인다).내가 틀렸다면 고쳐줘, 하지만 나는 그 내용을 둘러싼 편집 전쟁에도 참여하지 않은 것 같아.나는 또한 WP를 통해 "로 그것을 변호했다"는 비난에 놀랐다.소유권 POV는 당신이 본 그 어떤 것과도 같다." — 그 자료에 대한 주요 논의는 Talk인 것 같다.할례/아카이브 67#아카이브 소개 리라이트는 물론, 같은 아카이브 페이지의 "선도 과학을 대표한다" "인트로 변경에 대한 합의 없음" 섹션도 소개한다.대략 계산해보면, 나는 그 부분들 중 첫 번째 부분에서 21개의 댓글 중 0개를, 두 번째 부분에서 0/10을, 그리고 세 번째 부분에서 2/40을 작성했다.내가 그 자료나 방어에 거의 관여조차 하지 않았다고 말하는 것은 정확해 보인다.이러한 비난들을 불공평하고 부당하다고 묘사하는 것은 다소 절제된 표현으로 보인다.제이크 (토크)2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI가 이런 문제를 해결할 수 있을지 의문이다.RfCU. FuFuEd (대화) 19:43, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

조언해줘서 고마워.대신 RfCU를 고려했지만, 솔직히 "자발적 제재, 차단, 금지, 구속력 있는 징계"가 없다면 상황은 해결될 수 없을 것 같다.자드 @ 07:37, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

소유권에서는 사용자:와 같은 일부 친영 밀라(유대인 할례) 지지자가 포함되기 때문에 덜 노골적이다.Jayjg 및 사용자:그 기사들을 편집하고 제이크 편을 드는 애브람.할례는 유대교 교리의 필수적인 부분이기 때문에 나는 그들의 POV를 이해한다.그러나 민감한 의학 기사의 가장 주목할 만한 기고가 브릿 밀라 지지자들과 할례 집단의 설립자들일 때, 문제가 있을 수 밖에 없다.7월 중순, 포경수술을 연달아 편집한 결과, 어느 순간 포경수술을 하는 것이 생명을 위협하는 질병을 예방하기 위해 꼭 필요한 수술인 것처럼 읽게 된 기사!그것은 지금 아직 약간의 문제가 있다.참고, 문제는 내용 편집뿐만 아니라, 페이지를 되돌리고 대화하는 데에도 있다.메소드토크 19:58, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC) 통과[응답]

나는 어떤 종류의 할례의 "제안자"가 된 적이 없고, 당신은 나에 대해 아무것도 "이해"하지 않는다; 허튼소리를 그만하고, 나에 대해 말하는 것을 멈추고, 여기서 제기되는 실제 문제들에 대해 이야기하기 시작한다.Jayjg 22:07, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이모는 별도로 고려해야 할 것이 두 가지가 있는데, (1) 제이크 와스켓이 실제로 그의 편집에 영향을 미치는 정도까지만 관심 있는 할례라는 주제에 편견을 가지고 있는지, (2) 제이크 계정을 통해 수행된 편집이 사건이나 심지어 가식적인 편집의 패턴을 확립할 수 있는지 여부다.
  할례에 찬성하는 와스케트의 상당히 강한 개인적 편견은 서커스 페이지에서 제공되는 포럼 링크를 보고(그리고 구글링을 통해) 사실로 성립될 수 있다.자칭 '아마테우르 연구자'가 할례(현재 그가 공동 집필한 논문들이 할례와 할례 논쟁의 성 효과의 출처로 사용되고 있음)로, CERCS를 공동 창간하고, 위키피디아에 할례 관련 기사에 대해 꽤 많은 자칭 도어맨이 되는 사이에, 그는 또한 할례와 관련된 기사에 대해 많은 것을 알고 있다.다른 사람들에게 할례의 혜택을 설득하려는 분명한 의도를 가지고 육아와 다른 인터넷 포럼에 게시된 것.나 자신의 겸손한 생각으로는 그의 전반적인 행동은 강박관념의 징후가 뚜렷하다.그가 이전에 심한 제재에 직면하지 않았다는 것은 서한에 따른 정책(대부분의 경우, 어쨌든)을 따르는 그의 현명한 행동과 많은 관련이 있을 뿐만 아니라, 수년 동안 다양한 범위 내에서 그를 지지해 온 느슨한 계열의 관리자 그룹과도 관련이 있다(한 시점에 그를 관리직에 임명하고 지원).
  아마도 가장 우스꽝스러울 정도로 명백한 붉은 깃발은 주요 할례 기사를 특집 기사화 상태로 만들려는 시도조차 없었다는 사실일 것이다.이것은 제이크가 분명히 훌륭한 기여를 할 수 있고 특집 콘텐츠를 제작할 수 있다는 사실에도 불구하고, 그리고 그가 주제와 기사 자체에 대해 분명히 깊은 관심을 갖고 있다는 사실에도 불구하고 말이다.
  개인적으로 나는 제이크에 대해, 특히나, 예전처럼 깊이 신경쓰지 않지만, 이런 상황이 자주 일어나는 만큼 오래 지속될 수 있게 하는 시스템적인 약점들에 더 신경을 쓴다.그러나 내가 보기에 제이크는 기고자로서 잘 입증된 그의 능력을 고려했을 때, 그럼에도 불구하고 그의 위키백과 기고문에 대한 강한 편향성 때문에 이 프로젝트에 분명한 순부채가 있다. 이는 제재를 가하기에는 너무 미묘하지만 진정한 편집 중립성 주장에 대한 신빙성을 주기에는 너무 많은 것이다.임호야, 설득력 있는 증거체를 조립하는 것은 가능하지만, 그것을 읽고 토론하는 것은 증거에 관한 최고의 지적 정직성을 필요로 할 것이다.문제는 RfC/U 또는 RfAr를 어디에, 어떤 형식으로 문제를 논의하느냐 하는 것이다.또 다른 (아이모 선호되는) 선택사항은 Jakew가 할례 관련 글과 대화 페이지에 대해 간단히 금지시키는 것이다.이것은 공동체에 의해 제안되고, 논의되고, 결정되고, 시행될 수 있다.최악의 경우, RfC/U --213.196.208.244 (대화) 20:32, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]의 출발점으로 사용할 수 있는 의견 개괄적인 내용만 산출할 수 있다.

• 당신은 실제로 누군가가 위키백과 정책을 신중히 따르면서도 너무 유해한 편견을 은밀히 유지하고 있기 때문에 금지하자고 제안했는가?아니면 그가 "기고자로서 잘 입증된 능력"을 가지고 있음에도 불구하고 FA에 기사를 얻지 못한 것에 대해 금지되어야 한다고 생각하는가?나는 Jakew의 친구가 아니다. 나는 그를 상대로 COI의 적용 가능성에 대해 몇 번 언급했던 것 외에는 그를 알지도 못한다.실제 파괴적인 편집 내용을 보여주면 내가 어떤 제재를 지지할 수도 있어또한 RfC를 증거로 사용할지, ArbCom을 사용할지 모른다고 말하는데, ArbCom이 적어도 RfC/U 없이는 사건을 거의 맡지 않는다는 점을 고려하면, 이에 대한 해답은 명확해야 한다. -- Atama頭 22:03, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 아타마, 그래, 그가 정말로 그 모든 것을 제안했어. 213.196.208.244, 그 장황한 진술을 뒷받침하는 실질적인 증거가 있는가, 아니면 단지 또 다른 편향된 의견인가?또한 "제이크에 대해 예전처럼 깊이 신경쓰지 말라"고 말할 때, 과거 제이크와 교류할 때 어떤 계정을 사용하고 있었는지 말해줄 수 있는가?Jayjg 22:07, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 제이크 와스킷을 방어하기 위해 여길 찾았군놀랄 만한 일이네.나는 너와 토론하는 것을 주저하지 않을 거야, 나는 네가 이해한다고 확신해.할례와 제이크 와스켓에 대한 당신의 의견은 세상에서 가장 편향된 것에 대한 것이고 당신은 지적으로 정직하게 참여하려는 노력을 전혀 보이지 않는다.Should this ever proceed to ArbCom, you will most definitely be named a party to the case, and you know that quite well, Mr. I-lost-my-CheckUser-and-oversight-privileges-due-to-behavior-inconsistent-with-holding-a-position-of-high-trust. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 난 그 애드호미넴 공격이 네가 여기 있었을지도 모르는 신뢰를 무너뜨렸다고 생각해.그런 공격을 한 번 더 하면 위키백과에서 잠시 쉬게 될 겁니다. -- 아타마頭 23:18, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 내 코멘트에 인신공격은 없는지 지적해줘.또한, 나의 신뢰는 여기서 완전히 무관하다.Jakew의 편집에 대한 사실들은 그들 자신을 대변한다.안 보이려면 안 보이려고 애쓰고 있어야 한다.단순하고 단순함. --213.196.208.244 (대화) 00:08, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 누군가를 I-Lost-my-Loss-My-CheckUser-and-overtrights-Due to-behavior-behaviors-insisten-bo-sisting-a-state-a-stitution-high-trust.라고 부르는 것은 인신공격이다.실제 사안에 대해 합법적으로 우려를 제기하기보다는 타인을 비방하려는 동기를 보여주기 때문에, 여기에서의 당신의 전체 입장을 훼손한다. -- 아타마頭 00:28, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 신뢰도가 높은 지위를 유지하는 것과 일치하지 않는 행동으로 인해 CheckUser와 감독 권한을 잃었다는 것을 누군가에게 상기시키는 것은 인신공격인가?
  "다른 사람을 비방한다"고?내가 거짓말을 하고 있었나?
  "실제 어떤 문제에 대해 합법적으로 우려를 제기하는 것보다" -- Jayjg가 할례, 대화:할례, 관련 장소와 같은 문제들?그가 ArbCom에 의해 구체적이고 반복적으로 경고되어 CheckUser와 감독 권한의 취소를 주도하는 그의 반복적인 행동 패턴과 같은 문제들? --213.196.208.244 (대화) 00:46, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 어머니는 늘 내게 "네가 한 말이 아니라 네가 한 말 그대로야."라고 말하곤 하셨다.누군가가 그들의 특권을 박탈당했다고 언급하는 것은, 그것이 토론과 관련이 있는 한, 괜찮지만, "블라블라블라"라고 말하는 것은 누군가의 개인적인 불행을 빗대어 하는 비아냥이고, 그것은 예의에 어긋나는 것이 아니다.인신공격인지는 확실치 않지만, 그것은 거의 시민적이고 연대적인 것이 아니다. (그리고 당신은 그것을 그렇게 표현하기 위해 선택할 다른 이유가 없기 때문에 거의 확실히 그것이 빈정거림이라는 것을 알고 있었다.얌전히 굴어줘.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 04:49, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 익명의 아이피(I.P)네가 계정을 만드는 법을 아는 게 너무 새롭다는 건 아니잖아?개인적으로, 나는 어떤 사람들이 Jayjg에 대한 모든 실마리를 만들고 싶어할 때 짜증이 나고 다소 지루하다고 생각한다. 단지 Jayjg가 Jayjg를 언급했다는 이유만으로...익명성 뒤에 숨어있으면서 과거의 문제들에 대해 그를 질책할 때 나는 그것이 우스꽝스럽다는 것을 알게 된다.– 쿼델 11:51, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

맙소사 213.196.208.244, 정말이지 투르 드 힘이다!인신공격, 오도, 빈정거림, 그리고 명백한 거짓의 조합이다.Bravo! 어쨌든, 네가 너무 교묘히 사이드 스텝을 밟은 주제로 돌아가서, 네가 이전에 Jakew와 대화했을 때, 너는 어떤 계정을 사용하고 있었니?Jayjg 00:46, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

아이러니러니하다.도마뱀붙이 마법사는 사용자를 설명하여 이 AN/I 스레드를 열었다.Jakew는 단일 목적 계정이다.공교롭게도 제이크는 거의 2,100개의 독특한 페이지를 편집했다; 그에 비해 리자드위저드는 900개의 독특한 페이지 아래를 편집했고, 기본적으로 올해 1월부터 이 주제에 대해서만 편집했다.제이크는 불행히도 자신과 함께 계정을 만들고 전쟁을 편집하기 위해 협력하고 Talk: 페이지에 그를 비방하는 반공시술 운동가들에 의해 많은 잘 꾸며진 위키피디아 캠페인의 표적이 되어왔다.가장 최근의 노력은 페이스북 캠페인의 결과물이다.Jayjg 22:07, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 위키피디아에서 수백 개의 기사를 편집했지만, 내가 편집한 것으로 인해 포위당했다고 느낀 유일한 기사는 할례 기사인데, 주로 제이크와 제이크와 같은 그를 옹호하는 편집자들 때문이다.많은 다른 사람들도 같은 방식으로 느끼고 있고 이것은 ANI에 있었던 이유를 설명할 필요가 있다.좋은 조건으로 해결할 수 있을지 없을지는 약간의 인정이나 순수한 부정의 여부에 달려 있다.대화 페이지에 있는 이 편집자들에게 말하는 것은 무의미하다. 왜냐하면 당신은 즉시 시민적인 토론보다는, 사람을 애지중지하는 방식으로 받아쓰게 되거나, 모든 쉼표에 대한 끝없는 논쟁으로 빨려들어간다는 것을 알아차리기 때문이다.누가 이 개정판이 중립적이라는 것을 나에게 솔직히 말해줄 수 있니?메소드토크 23:23, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC) 통과[응답]

내 생각에 너는 이 차이점을 연결하려고 한 것 같아.편집 요약본은 출처의 타당성에 대한 의견을 표현하고 있다.그 개정의 장점은 그 인용문을 선두에 포함시키는 것이 WP를 위반하는 것인지 아닌지에 대해 논의될 수 있다.FRURED, 출처가 의견 조각이든 아니든, 또는 불명확한 소수자 입장을 대변한다.그런데 그게 뭐가 그렇게 잘못된 걸까?관리자 개입이 필요한 소스를 제거하는 것은 무엇인가?콘텐츠 분쟁처럼 들리기 시작한다. -- 아타마頭 23:52, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

그런데, 나는 마침내 Talk을 보았다.할례.끔찍해.제이크는 항상 그런 걸 참아야 하니?나는 내가 꽤 두껍다고 생각하지만 나는 더 다크사이드 하스타코스의 공격을 감당할 수 없을 것 같고, 다른 사람들이 실제로 공격을 지지하고 있다는 것이 불안하다.Jayjg가 그러한 발언에 대해 최종 경고를 한 것으로 보는데, 이는 전적으로 적절하다. -- Atama頭 23:58, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

과거에 ArbCom으로부터 이와 같은 종류의 정확한 행동 때문에 ArbCom으로부터 경고를 받은 경험이 있는 고도로 관여된 관리자가 자신과 그의 프로테지의 관점에 반대하는 사람들에게 관리 도구를 흔드는 것에 대해 "완전히 적절하다"? --213.196.208.244 (대화) 00:16, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

경고를 남기는 것은 "관리 도구 저장"이 아니다.Jayjg는 WP를 위반할 것이다.차단할 수 있도록 개입됨.하지만, 예를 들어, 내 자신처럼, 자발적이지 않은 누군가가 그렇게 할 수 있었다.TheDarkSideHasTacos가 인신공격의 반복을 택하지 않는 한 나는 하지 않을 것이다. -- Atama頭 00:28, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

경고를 남기는 것은 "관리 도구를 갖는 것"이 아니다. - 우리는 그것에 대해 동의하지 않는 것에 동의해야 할 것이다.임호가 바로 그것이다.다시 한번, 제이지는 ArbCom으로부터 과거에 이와 같은 종류의 위협적인 행동에 대해 훈계를 받았다. --213.196.208.244 (토크) 00:39, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

아타마: 다크사이드의 공격은 평상시보다 훨씬 심했지만, 불행히도 가끔 일어나는 공격은 드물지 않다.이 얘기를 꺼내고 싶었는데 (여기가 다른 곳만큼 좋은 곳인 것 같다): 다크사이드의 토크 공격에 대해 누군가 어떤 조치를 취할 수 있을까?할례 및 사용자 대화 시:더 다크사이드 하스타코스나는 WP:BLPTAK에 따라 스스로 그렇게 하는 것을 고려해 보았지만, 권한이 없는 관리자가 그렇게 하는 것을 훨씬 더 선호한다.제이크 (토크) 08:29, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집, 아직 패스를 읽지 않음)아메토드의 논평) 숫자로 보아, 총 활동 수준을 고려해야 할 것 같다.Jakew는 나의 2.5에 대해 기사당 평균 6.6개의 편집을 한다.그것을 읽을 수 있는 한 가지 방법은 그가 더 집중해서, 따라서 단일 목적의 계정에 더 가깝다는 것이다.또한 상위 편집 기사를 비교해 보십시오.Jake's는 다음과 같다.

• 1269 - 할례
• 349 - 의료_분석_of_circumcision
• 314 - 포피
• 194 - 성_효과_of_circumcision
• 179 - 포피_복원
• 176 - 할례_논의
• 175 - 유병_of_circumcision
• 173 - Ethics_of_circumcision

내 것은 적어도 더 많은 인간의 성적 기사에 걸쳐 다양하다.그리고 공식적으로, 나는 이전에 페이스북 페이지를 본 적이 없었고, 내가 이 사건을 제기하는 것은 어느 외부 기관에 의해 조직된 것이 아니었다.할례 토크 페이지에는 나를 그쪽으로 몰았던 약간의 갈등이 있었고, 그 갈등은 어딘가에서 조직된 곳에서 비롯되었을지도 모른다.나는 전혀 모르겠다. 이자드 @ 23:26, 2011년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 제이크는 의견 충돌이 있을 때마다 마치 자신의 말이 각각의 이슈에 대한 최종 결론인 것처럼 상대방을 침묵시킨 과거의 토론을 지적한다.WP와 접경할 수 있다.Owner와 그가 혼자서 6명의 편집자들의 의견을 압도하는 것은 다소 짜증나는 일이다.메소드토크 01:04, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC) 통과[응답]

이것의 몇 가지 예를 들 수 있는가?라이프바카++04:52, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

이 페이지에서 '논의됨'이라는 단어의 처음 세 가지 예를 시작하십시오.더 많은 것을 찾기 위해 '논의된' 혹은 '이미'와 같은 세계를 위한 자료실 검색. 이자드 @ 07:27, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

아하, 나는 스메그마를 사랑하는 사람들이 위키피디아가 "사전정밀 카발"에 의해 운영된다는 그들의 주기적인 주장 때문에 돌아왔다고 본다.【베이스볼 버그스카라믹스^{What's up, Doc?}→ 03:46】, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

"프로 서큘리스 카발" 언제나 나를 쿡쿡 웃게 한다.최근에 누군가가 그 망상에 집착하는 것 때문에 차단되거나 금지되지 않았는가?비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 04:56, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

"스메가, 경련, 개구리, 그리고 랑게르한스의 멀리 떨어진 섬들." - 파스ign 극장

당신은 이 토론에서 '카발'이라는 단어를 처음 사용한 사람이었습니다.그리고 아예 읽으면 제이크에게만 초점이 맞춰져 있다는 것을 알 수 있을 것이다(제이지의 영향력은 올라왔지만).한 사람 반은 카발이라기 어려우니 나를 놀릴 목적으로 내 입에 말을 넣지 않았으면 고맙겠다.고마워! 아이자드 @ 07:33, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 나는 내가 처음으로 차단한 사람이 제이크에게 몇 가지 추악한 주장을 하고 있던 반순환 운동가라고 믿는다.도로의 엘렌 (대화)20:33, 2011년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

COI

다시 말해, 여기서 COI(또는 COI의 부족)는 표면적으로 ANI 사용자가 영구적으로 선호하는 것과 유사하다.제임스 캔터나는 표면적으로 비슷하다고 말하는데, 왜냐하면 Jakew는 James Cantor와 달리 그의 직업생활과 직접적으로 관련된 BLP 기사에서는 편집하지 않지만, 실생활에서 관계를 맺겠다는 그들의 선언은 그가 편집을 좋아하는 주제와 비슷하기 때문이다.결국, 우리는 COI의 "나쁜" 측면에 초점을 맞추고 싶지만, 어떤 주제에 대한 전문가 관점의 관점이나, 품질에 대한 열정이 선의의 관여를 할 수 있는 것과 같은 좋은 측면을 간과하는 경우가 많다.

나는 시간이 흐르면서 이 주제에 대해 친절하고 포괄적인 접근법을 취하면서 나의 관점을 바꾸었다.

내 제안은 위키백과의 "허용된" 목록 작성에 대해 고려해 보는 것이다.주제 영역 또는 이와 유사한 것(또는 사용자 카테고리/사용자 박스 콤보)과 자체 선언된 관계를 가진 편집자들은 좋은 위치에 있는 편집자들이 어떤 문제에 대한 전문적이거나 잠재적으로 관여할 수 있는 관계를 선언할 수 있고, 지역사회가 어떤 논란에 대한 판단을 내리기 전에 접근할 수 있다.자기식별이 자주 논란이 되고, 전문지식을 가진 편집자들이 어떤 주제에 대한 열정에 종종 실수를 할 수 있다는 점에는 의심의 여지가 없지만, 어디서 왔는지를 밝히는 친절함을 가진 사용자와 편집 분쟁이 있을 때마다 OMGCOIBBQ를 소리 지르는 이런 패턴은 pp를 일으키는 미개한 것이다.oor 편집 환경.

나는 우리가 충분히 사려깊고 종종 자신들을 취약한 위치에 두는 사용자들을 어느 정도 축하하고 보호해야 한다고 생각한다. 그래서 그들이 전문적이거나 다른 잠재적인 이해 상충을 가지고 있다는 것을 밝혀야 한다.그러나 만약 우리가 공동체로서 COI에 대한 노골적인 비난에 회의적인 반응을 보이지 않는다면, 혹은 그들이 받아들일 수 없는 반대라는 것을 어떻게든 알려야 한다.

이 특별한 경우, 실제 전쟁에 대한 다른 증거나 다른 증거를 보여주기 보다는 1) 사용자에게는 COI가 있으므로 사용자는 우리의 규범에 따라 편집할 수 없다.반복적인 3RR 또는 1RR 위반, WP의 고발과 같이 오행의 실제 증거가 포함되지 않는 한 그것은 매우 솔직히 헛소리다.Own 또는 다른 진정한 가식적 행동 - 주제에 대한 열정을 갖는 단순한 것은 사용자가 그것을 다룰 수 있다면 좋은 일이 될 것이다.

나는 COI를 공개하는 사람들에게도 COI와 관련된 실수를 하는 것이 불가능하며, COI와 관련된 실수를 하는 것이 불가능하다는 것을 제안하는 것이 아니다. 그러나 COI에 대한 가능성이 없는 편집자가 조사되는 것과 같은 방식으로 그들의 장점을 검토해야 한다.현재 우리의 작업방식은 기본적으로 자칭 COI를 주홍글씨로 만들고 있으며, 사용자 페이지에서 이루어지는 다른 자기식별만큼 중요하지 않은 것으로 만들기 위해 노력해야 한다.--Cerejota (대화) 06:07, 2011년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Jakew의 건방진 편집의 패턴에 대해 여기서 한 논평에 동의한다.그의 행동은 할례 페이지에 국한되지 않고 여성 생식기 절단 페이지에서도 건방진 편집에 착수했다.Jakew는 예스라는 글자까지 규칙을 따르지만, 문제가 제기될 때마다 다른 편집자들이 성취한 결론과 합의를 무시한 채 자신의 관점을 끈질기게 추구한다.다른 편집자들이 그에게 어떤 문제가 해결됐거나 합의가 이루어졌다고 말하려 할 때, 그는 그것에 대해 이의를 제기하고 자신의 거부된 관점을 다른 편집자들에게 납득시키려는 패턴으로 계속된다.일단 그렇게 하지 못하자 그는 합의가 없다고 주장하고 이를 빌미로 '외부 편집자'들이 문제 해결에 도움을 줄 때까지 기다린다.신기하게도 도착하는 "외부 편집자들"은 할례에 대해 이야기하고 그의 관점에 동의하는 다른 페이지에서 그와 함께 일한 사람들이다.여기 (Quadell과 Jayjg) 두 편집자가 제이크와 함께 이런 종류의 행동에 참여하는 것을 목격했다.계속하기 위해, Jakew는 또한 문맥에 맞지 않는 그의 입장과 일치하지 않는 출처를 잘못 인용하거나 인용하는 패턴이 잘 확립되어 있는데, 이것은 특히 두 가지 경우에 널리 퍼져 있다.그 첫 번째 예는 그가 논평 요청을 시작할 때, 그는 자신의 관점에 유리한 관점에서 토론의 틀을 짜려고 시도하고 그것에 대해 거듭된 경고에도 불구하고 계속 그렇게 하고 있다.두번째는 내가 그와 여성 생식기 절단 대화 페이지에 있는 용어에 대해 토론한 데서 나온 것이다.여성 생식기 절단부터 여성 생식기 절단까지 RM에 이어 나는 이름 변경에 맞춰 페이지의 모든 용어를 바꿨다.이것은 Jakew와 한 달 동안 논쟁을 시작했는데, Jakew는 그 용어들이 제목이 바뀌었음에도 불구하고 FGC를 유지해야 한다고 주장하려고 했다.이 논쟁 동안 그는 자신을 제외한 모든 편집자가 거부했던 주장을 계속 사용했고, FGC는 25% 미만의 출처에서만 사용됨에도 불구하고 계속 사용되어야 한다고 주장했으며, 그렇게 함으로써 유엔과 세계보건기구와 같은 평판이 좋은 출처의 타당성에 의문을 제기했다.그는 FGC를 사용하는 선원의 양을 부풀리기 위해 여러 번 시도했고 FGM의 사용을 지지하는 선원이 실제로 그랬다는 것을 부인하려고 시도했다.이에 대해 행정관의 조치가 가장 분명히 필요한데, 제이크는 동료 편집자들의 말을 절대 듣지 않을 것이기 때문에 이러한 행동들에 대해 경고를 받을 필요가 있다.그가 친서클릭 조직과 제휴하고 있는 것을 고려하면 나는 여기에 심각한 문제가 있다고 생각한다.전문가가 어떤 주제에 기여하는 것과 그것이 장려되어야 하는 것은 한 가지지만 제이크는 전문가가 아니라 활동가다.그는 전문가로서 자신을 자성하고 자신의 관점을 전파하기 위해 다른 사용자들로부터 양보를 얻어내기 위해 소모적인 노력을 하는 사람이다. 그렇게 그는 위키피디아를 친서클릭 원인의 발판으로 삼고 있다.전문가들은 학자나 학자로 출판과 주장에 대한 동료의 평가를 받는 학자로, 엄격하고 반복적인 학문적 성취와 인정을 통해 얻은 과목의 학위를 가지고 있다.제이크는 기껏해야 흥미를 가진 편집자일 뿐, 최악의 경우 의제를 가진 운동가일 뿐, 이런 사람들 중 한 명으로 취급되어서는 안 된다.비록 현실은 그 중간 어딘가에 떨어질지 모르지만, 그것이 그가 반복적으로 해왔던 가식적인 행동을 변명하는 것은 아니다.비엣민 (대화) 22:08, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

위의 몇 가지를 다루기 위해 나는 요청된 움직임으로 시작된 여성 생식기 절단에서 Viewminh와 컨텐츠 분쟁에 정말로 관여하고 있다.나는 그 움직임에 대한 나의 처음 반대를 철회했다. 그것은 합의가 현재의 타이틀을 선호한다는 것이 확실했을 때.그 후 기사 내에서 사용할 용어에 대한 긴 논의가 이루어졌는데, 나와 다른 두 편집자[31][32]는 기사에서 "FGM"이라는 용어를 독점적으로 사용하는 것에 반대했다.타협안을 제안했는데, 거절당했고, 그 다음엔 1초, 그것도 거절당했다.어려운 분위기 때문에 일부 편집자들이 공감대를 주장하고 토론도 거부하는 등, 나는 RfC를 만들 것을 권하는 무임승차한 행정관에게 조언을 구했다.나는 그렇게 했고, 결과적인 합의는 "FGM" 언어를 선호했고, 나는 이전에 이것에 대한 나의 수용을 시사했다.제이크 (대화) 22:44, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

내 관심사는 제이크가 자신의 개인적인 관점을 계속 추구하기 위해 선택권을 제거하기 전에 사용하려고 했던 방법들에 의한, 일어난 일의 결과에 관한 것이 아니다.제이크는 타협안을 제시했지만, 그는 이미 만장일치로 시작할 내용상의 문제가 없다는 것에 동의한 편집자 그룹에게 타협안을 제시하고 있었다.그런 점에서 그들은 진정으로 타협하는 것이 아니라 설득력과 끈기를 통해 양보를 얻어내려는 시도였고 동시에 생산적인 방식으로 토론을 계속하고 있는 것처럼 보였다.또한 명확히 하기 위해, 어느 시점에서도 이 문제에 대한 논의를 거부하는 편집자들이 없었고, 오직 그 합의는 성립되었기 때문에 타협이 필요없다는 것에 동의한 편집자들만 있었다.그가 언급하는 두 편집자 중, 그의 POV에 구체적으로 동의하지 않았고, RfC 이전의 그의 건방진 편집을 부정하지 않는다.제이크는 공감대가 존재하지 않았다고 주장하려고 시도했고 지금도 주장하려고 시도하고 있지만, 공감대가 필요한 것은 만장일치가 아니라는 것을 잊어버리고 있다(다른 사람들이 지적함에도 불구하고), 공감대가 존재하는지는 자신만이 결정하는 것이 아니다.여기에서의 그의 반응은 Jakew가 복수의 편집자로부터, 여러 페이지의, 여러 시점에서, 가식적인 행동에 대해 경고를 받았다는 것을 바꾸지 않는다.이것에 대해 뭔가 조치를 취해야 한다.비엣민 (대화) 23:15, 2011년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 여기서 어떤 논쟁에 휘말리고 싶지는 않지만, 적어도 제이크가 그의 POV를 진전시키기 위해 인용문을 받아 발표한다는 것을 언급할 것이다.나는 FGM 기사에서만 그를 만났기 때문에 다른 활동에 대해서는 언급할 수 없고, 최근에야 그를 만났다.그러나 나는 다른 편집자들과 이 일을 하는 그의 관행에 대해 이야기를 나누었고, 언젠가 어디선가 이런 말을 하는 베트민들을 읽은 기억이 있다.나는 그가 문맥에서 인용문들을 꺼내어 편견을 심어준다는 것을 알아냈다.내가 고쳐줬는데, 그는 이걸 좋아하지 않아.나는 그에게 이것에 대해 경고했고 그는 "당신이 왜 이것을 끄집어내는지 당황스럽다."라고 말했다.그 반응조차 이상하다.또한 나는 그에게 연구에서 너의 관점을 뒷받침하는 것들을 찾아다니지 말라고 말했다.너는 단지 당면한 주제와 관련된 것들을 찾기만 하면 된다.나는 그가 그렇게 할 것이라고 느꼈다고 말했다.그는 그런 이유로 우리의 독창적인 연구를 그냥 사용해야 한다고 말하는 것은 이치에 맞지 않는다고 말했다.나는 논쟁하지 않았다.왜냐하면 드라마만 일으킬 것 같았기 때문이다.--헨리엣타푸시캣 (토크)19:11, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:79.97.144.17

79.97.144.17은 마이클 감번, 교수형, 그림 그리고 4등분된 유대인 인터넷 방위군에 대한 편집 전쟁(그리고 나서 고의적으로 3RR을 깨기 전에 중지)을 계속하여 그의 토크 페이지에 "Fuck all y'all"을 썼다(그리고 이것이 제거되었을 때 편집 전쟁 요약) - 여기에서 부적절한 편집 요약은 물론, 나는 일반적으로 생각하지 않는다.토크 페이지 토론에 참여하지 않는다.고마워. --τασουαα (알미라) (토크) 20:25, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 사람 자신의 토크페이지에서 하는 쓰레기 같은 이야기에는 너무 신경 쓰지 않는다.그는 분명히 그 IP 주소의 유일한 사용자인 것 같다.

나는 또한 무언가를 "혐오"라고 부르는 것이 불필요하게 천박하다고 인정하지만, 이전 버전을 우스꽝스럽게 POV로 특징짓는 편집 요약에 대해 지나치게 염려하지 않는다.다른 편집자에 대한 공격이 아니라 내용에 대한 논평이었다.

편집 전쟁도 다른 문제고 조사해야 한다.

79.97.144.17과 τασυυαα가 과거에 변형이 있었고, 둘 다 그들의 상호 작용과 관련된 이유로 차단되었다는 점이 조금 불안하다.~아마툴리치(토크)20:49, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

이후 문제의 IP와 교류하지 않았다.문제의 IP는 개인 차원에서 나와 교류하는 것도 금지된다.나는 우연히 그의 편집 전쟁을 우연히 발견했을 뿐이고 나는 이것이 분명히 명백할 것이라고 생각한다.나는 또한 명백하게 명백한 어떤 어리석은 복수를 하고 있지 않다. 나는 모든 수준에서 이 IP와의 상호작용을 금지함으로써 그에 따라 행동했다.내가 잘못한 것이 없으니 너의 마지막 진술을 취소해 줘.그리고 내가 이 실의 창시자였으니 제발 제3자로 나를 부르지 말아줘, 그건 좀...모르겠어, 이상해.오 그래, 더 나아가 우리의 과거 상호작용은 이것과 아무 관련이 없어, 나는 내가 보고한 것들 중 아무 것도 관여하지 않았다. --τασουαα (알미라) (토크) 20:56, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

제7대 레이닝겐 왕자 에미치의 PRODING에 관한 편집 이력이 꽤 말해주고 있는 것 같아, 이것이 교차하는 기여이력처럼. --제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 21:02, 2011년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:엑스포제이터

Veiled legal threat posed as a query?

Yogesh Khandke has posed a query regarding legality of WP hosted material - see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Map of India.2C the WikiIndia meet.2C etc. As a query per se it is probably valid but this user is one of a group of contributors who have of late been pushing some sort of agenda across various articles and which have included both personal attacks and legal threats. Given that the issue of how Indian law has no specific capability of being enforced on WP content (and that this has been explained in threads which Yogesh Khandke participated in), should this query be seen as anything other than genuine? I am concerned that there is a possibly sophisticated, concerted effort going on here. It has involved numerous ANI reports, article and user talk pages, DRN, NPOVN etc. And, yes, it may appear that AGF has gone out of my window. I apologise for that but this really is a genuine concern, based on what appears to be a pattern of argumentative (sometimes outright disruptive) editing that has emerged in particular during the last 6 - 8 weeks. I am fast losing count of the number of admins who have become involved in the overall scheme of things. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Yogesh Khandke has been involved in some sort of email discussion with EyeSerene and that some of the public conversation also had a legal tinge to it. It seems that Eyeserene is on a break until September. I will post a note about this on Eyeserene's page anyway. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is ongoing and has been adequately rebutted on the talk page. If, as with the troll blog, Yogesh Khandke proceeds to take this supposed problem to random other forums en masse then another block is in order. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, but without pointing any fingers, please keep this in mind. No legal threats is widely misunderstood, and sometimes the misunderstandings are extremely damaging.

A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

— WP:NLT

Threatening to indefinitely block a user for discussing the legal implications of copyrighted content on Wikipedia is a Bad Thing. That is to say nothing about disruptive editing practices outside of such discussion, of which I have no knowledge or opinion. causa sui (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to causa sui. Questioning the legality of material on Wikipedia is AOK. Hinting that you have battle lawyers at the ready in case they disagree with you is not. —Jeremy v^_^v^{Components:V S M} 06:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding. A legal threat is not any discussion of legality, it is the claiming of taking off-wiki action or providing on-wiki legal advice for off-wiki actions, and/or claiming to be an officer of the court giving a legal opinion with off-wiki validity (not just lawyers, mind you). The over-riding word here is "off-wiki". I do have perhaps a point of difference, which is that we should be careful with WP:GAME around WP:NLT, I have seen editors skillfully skirt NLT in often successful efforts to intimidate other users, and we should be careful not to ignore this WP:GAME issues even in the absence of WP:NLT violations.--Cerejota (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the discussion has indeed moved on at the WP:IND page since I raised the query here. There does appear to be a genuine concern expressed by several people and I understand that the issue has been highlighted to the WMF liaison, Moonriddengirl (Maggie Dennis). I remain uncertain of the original motives, especially since it has come to light that YK was involved in a similar earlier discussion & there is a fairly clear group of India-nationalist centric contributors working together at present, per their various talk pages and input at similar articles etc. But in this instance, AGF is certainly valid & in view of subsequent comments in the WP:IND discussion I was probably wrong to raise the issue here. My apologies. Right now, it is sometimes difficult to see the wood for the trees in this particular sphere of articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thread at User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#Question_regarding_India_from_some_Chapter_members. I note that someone else picked up on the potential POV undertow, which at least makes me feel a little better with regard to wasting everyone's time here at ANI. And so to bed ... - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supress an adress from pictures

Hi. I´m a new admin in es:WP. We received a "report of mistake" of a not registered user who says to be the author of these two pictures, uploaded in en:WP. Both pictures say: "thank to Violeta Sánchez Ramos adress (city) Country". She is now requesting to delet the personal information as she is in a judicial process. I´m not sure what to do in this case. An OTRS request, maybe? Can you hide the info anyway 'cause is not in scope? Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the image sources on Flickr I see that the images are licensed as NC so of no use here unless someone feels fair use applies. Agathoclea (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request here is not to remove the picture, but the detailed personal information given in the file comments. We routinely redact this kind of information upon request, so I hope that someone can help out here. Unfortunately, it appears that mere mortals cannot remove the information since it is part of the file history. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for speedy deletion; license is non-commercial. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pity that we have to - apparently Violeta Sánchez Ramos was even proud of that picture being here and pointed that out in the picture comments. Anyway there are a few worse items in the users upload list. I'll look at them again when I have a bit more time. Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible the twist of the files. Thanks all for your help. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. For the source images, [43], [44] I've requested that the Flickr user change license to "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" (Flickr license option 5). If this happens, the WP uploader can upload them again without further trouble, (without adding personally identity information to the file comments!). --Lexein (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y The Flickr user has updated the license for [45] and [46] to "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0" (Flickr option 5). If the deleter would be so kind as to undelete, please do so. Never mind, I'll re-up, sans personal info, for a clean history. --Lexein (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Done--Lexein (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Battle of Tripoli

Dwarf Gymnure

The Dwarf Gymnure article seems to have been redirected to a shock site, likely virus-laden.

66.69.21.25 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I cannot afford to replace my computer at this exact moment, I'm not going to take the chance of clicking that to see what happens...but I might try to check the history somehow or place an earlier edit back at the front. CycloneGU (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind...I can't figure out what happened here with very few 2011 edits...I'm not willing to click individual edits and locate the redirect, or guess how far back I'd have to go. Here's the history for anyone who wishes to try (THAT link is safe and doesn't load the article itself at all). CycloneGU (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything. I think the IP is lying. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I found my way to the edit page via the history link and reviewed it as well. I also found nothing. CycloneGU (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link from the Erinaceidae page initially. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, care to see if something is located in Erinaceidae? CycloneGU (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some way that they could hijack the link from there? 'Cause I know what I saw, and it sure as hell wasn't a rat-like hedgehog. I just want to make sure that I'm the last person to get that surprise. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly, it IS possible. Another article already had that problem. If this keeps happening all around Wikipedia, there will have to be something done off-wiki to catch the perpetrators; even that won't stop it, because the new form of "virus infecting" will catch on in that community. CycloneGU (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to run a virus scan to establish how dangerous the link is. I'll post the results later. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dodo above, caused by vandalism to a template: this might be some form of residual caching issue, since it can't be replicated. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So far, my computer has been fine. I'm running Comodo Dragon, if that's significant. What image did Dodo link to? The one I saw definitely fit GNAA's modus operandi. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a page redirect, which clicking anywhere in the browser frame would cause the issue. As for what page, it's been corrected and then revdel'd (meaning we can't see it, and the admins are not likely to post the link here, as that kinda defeats the purpose of the revdel I requested). I still have the links in question (still in my browser history), but no (for obvious reasons) I will not post them, nor email them. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:TenPoundHammer, IP 66.69.21.25 is not lying; to even suggest that is inappropriate, especially coming from an experienced editor such as yourself. Please strike that erroneous statement of yours, TPH. --64.85.220.98 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — 64.85.220.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Ah, you caught me User:Baseball Bugs. Your edit here tagging me as a SPA is spot on since I only chose a dynamic IP address just to point out a personal attack and request its removal! Since TPH, and BB, have failed to remove it, I have done so myself. --64.85.214.54 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — 64.85.214.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Self-tagging so you don't have to!)[reply]

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia off-wiki project

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but the James Randi Educational Foundation's blog has a supportive post that came out today praising an off-wiki initiative called Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. This initiative, from the blog post, appears to be encouraging skeptics to publish "skeptical" (i.e. anti-paranormal/religious POV) "references" on Wikipedia articles, and to engage in WP:COI editing of pages relating to the skeptical community. Whilst I self-define as a skeptic (and strongly support the JREF), this makes me extremely nervous, as it seems to be exhorting outside participation in large-scale POV editing of Wikipedia articles spanning multiple topics, and smacks somewhat of bussing in editors to perform COI edits in the name of their community. This would otherwise be worth disregarding were it not for the JREF's following and standing. I wonder if someone should write a polite message, preferably from the foundation, to the JREF and the post author suggesting they might want to be more careful? --NicholasTurnbull (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that post was very carefully worded so as not to suggest that anyone should violate any Wikipedia guidelines. "Guerrilla Skepticism is the act of inserting well written, carefully cited skeptical references into Wikipedia pages where they are needed, while still following the guidelines and rules of everyone’s online encyclopedia." If that is actually followed, then this will be nothing more than people editing articles in areas they're interested in, which is not in-and-of-itself a problem. cmadler (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore I expect any complaints will be mocked - Randi's a great guy but acerbic towards what he perceives as foolishness.. and I can't imagine him supporting verifiability over reality Egg Centric 18:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Guerilla Skepticism blog then it does seem kosher, if very badly named. Indeed the author of the blog had a discussion with User:Tom Morris, which was posted, where they actually discussed the unfortunate naming. I checked some of the edited articles, and it all seems generally fine. At the end of the day there is no issue with people bringing material from their perspective to the party - so long as it does not skew articles unduely. Just the name.... Facepalmthere actually could be something we could do here - get some of the chapters to do talks etc. with the movement --Errant^(chat!) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the post is here, which is a copy (authorised) of a conversation I had with User:Sgerbic on her talk page. The name "guerilla" does sound problematic but I think that Sgerbic is acting properly. I think when people have concerns about pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE topics on Wikipedia, we should try and engage them and hopefully nudge them towards the talk pages, WP:FTN and eventually productive, neutral contribution. One of the points that I think Sgerbic is going for is that a lot of minor articles have WP:UNDUE problems: while something like Homeopathy adheres to NPOV and UNDUE, articles on minor psychics and other "things that go bump in the night" type topics don't necessarily reflect the consensus of the scientific community... but there will be some potential BLP issues here. It's the majority opinion of the scientific community that psychic powers aren't real: the implication then is that all these people are fake, and some charlatans. Should our BLPs of psychic mediums point out that the majority of scientific opinion is that psychic powers aren't real? To include it seems to be giving undue weight to a non-biographical matter and to not include it gives implicit undue weight to the view that psychic powers are real. There are interesting issues here, but so long as skeptics - guerilla or otherwise - abide by the letter and intention of policy, I don't see how this is an ANI matter. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified User:Sgerbic. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it doesn't skew wikipedia articles towards a "pro fact-based research" POV, it should be fine.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, everyone is entitled to their own facts in Wikipedia. WP:V is policy. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A project to encourage "skeptics" to edit wikipedia - whilst following the house rules - could potentially offer big benefits to the encyclopædia; bringing in new editors who are more passionate about WP:V and WP:RS. Of course there are the "obvious" big articles (atheism, homeopathy, &c) which do not currently have a shortage of skeptical viewpoints; but there are more obscure articles out there, on fringey topics, which have been written by one or two editors who take that topic seriously and have (so far) evaded more skeptical attention. Everybody brings a POV, and everybody is an SPA at first; but we could do a lot worse than (for instance) enrolling a few EBM fans, giving them a copy of WP:MEDRS, and setting them loose to spend a few hours working on some of the more neglected alt-med articles. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: about the name "guerilla skepticism". As far as I can tell, this is a reference to the fact that within the skeptical movement, there are formal organizations, like JREF, Center for Inquiry, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and others. "Guerilla" then is more like "grassroots" rather than "guerilla warfare". At least, that's what the good faith part of me thinks. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing wrong with this blog. If it leads to an influx of intelligent genuine sceptics, great. If it leads to an influx of stupid followers of scepticism preachers, then it's going to exacerbate a problem that we already have at times: Lots of people pushing to write articles in a style that repels everyone but the most hardcore 'sceptics'. I have long wondered if the occasional pseudosceptic mobs form naturally or via a secret mailing list similar to the one a relatively prominent 'sceptic' editor once tried to initiate. (I am not going to name anyone or provide evidence as this would involve outing someone. I found the evidence on my own with little effort, so I am sure it's well known to everyone who was active in some of the pseudoscience conflicts before my time.) But this new blog appears completely independent of Wikipedia's old problem. I just hope that this isn't going to inflate the number of people who try to own the hagiographies of their respective scepticism idols. But we can worry about such problems if and when they arise. And celebrate improvements if and when they occur. Hans Adler 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would have expected that skeptics who visit wikipedia on some skeptic mission are more likely to indulge in 386-style editing of fringey articles, rather than hagiographies of people on the "right" side, even though that blogpost seems to lean towards the latter. We don't really need a dozen more people arriving at homeopathy on a crusade to replace the lede with "Homeopathy doesn't work. There's nothing in it"; but there are less-trafficked articles out there which would really benefit from a skeptical eye. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has had an active "sceptic" community for years. Their productive edits are encouraged; their unproductive edits are dealt with. When it comes down to it, when it comes to editing Wikipedia with an agenda it is difficult to hide it no matter how cleverly the canvassing is worded. That the author of the post in question has a blog which points people at articles should make it trivial to monitor potential trouble spots before they flare up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is different from editors with undeclared but rather obvious agendas how? FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept POV-pushing no matter how honestly it's done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a purely theoretical comment? I've not seen you getting your hands dirty at WP:AE. Some editors that I'd easily characterize as POV pushers have been doing it for years, and I don't see anything stopping them. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This at least makes a change from the plea from an ex-Wikipedia editor in a UK skeptic journal for skeptics to avoid Wikipedia! Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting user:Medeis

Revisiting familiar terrain

I'm forum shopping here. It seems a previous discussion on removing current block notices went nowhere. User:TransporterMan left me a note saying that removing uncontested block notices is fine, after I pointed out to a just-blocked user that it was not; I was unaware that there was no consensus on this minor point. For shits and giggles, look at the recent history of User talk:Wicka wicka, and you'll see that it is clear that we cannot agree. (And let's not re-block that user for edit-warring in this case!) What is the right forum to hash this out once and for all, if we can? This? If so, let's get to it. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the best place to take it would be back to the point of the most substantial discussion, that is, Village Pump (Policy), but even though I think that the current language leaves a lot to be desired that it at least constitutes default rough consensus on an issue which, the last time it came up, proved to be extremely controversial even in the way the primary discussion should be closed. I really wonder if it wouldn't be better to let sleeping dogs lie. For everyone's convenience, let me list the components of that discussion, as far as I can find them (these include current links to archive pages, BTW, which some of the other references do not):

• Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_8#Block_notices_and_BLANKING (26 Sep 2010 - 4 Nov 2010; last past discussion)
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_88#Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices.3F (23 June 2011 - 5 August 2011)
• User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_6#Wikipedia:Village_pump_.28policy.29.23Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices.3F (25 July 2011 - 26 July 2011)
• Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Removal_of_current_block_notices (25 July 2011 - 30 July 2011)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive226#Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices.3F_and_Require_all_new_articles_to_contain_at_least_one_source (25 July 2011 - 30 July 2011)

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:UP#CMT says that "Sanctions that are currently in effect...may not be removed by the user". But supposing a user does remove a block notice, what beyond superficial advantage does it offer? Their block will be visable in the log anyway, and anyone trying to speak to a blocked individual where they don't know that the individual is blocked will just be wondering why they aren't getting a response. WilliamH (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was, indeed, one of the primary arguments made by the "allow removal" faction in the recent discussions listed above. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a history of the discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 88#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?. I have done so to give editors a clear chronology of the closure of the discussion and the resulting consensus that the closure was incorrect. Feel free to add more to the notice if you want. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Cunard. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outrage!

That's too much edit warring from Aman4Bebo, a registered user. Should the semi protection at Kareena Kapoor be upgraded to full lockdown? StormContent (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can be discussed at WP:RFPP. In the meantime I will be blocking the user again, if someone else hasn't done it first. Daniel Case (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done He's out for the next 2.5 days. Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm heading right to RFPP. StormContent (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Has a backlog of about 4 days now. Anyone want to close some of the non-CU cases? I may have a go, but I've got one there now. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought only clerks could close cases. However, I did perform administrative action on one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for administrators is at WP:SPI/AI and it's invaluable for any admin helping out in the area. Included on that page are instructions for any administrator to request a closure for a case after all necessary actions are complete (see here). Oh, and as to the original request, I closed a handful yesterday and I'll see what I can do today also. -- Atama頭 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator can close an SPI case, but only clerks can archive them (as a more or less "make sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed" measure). –MuZemike 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have an explanation as to why there was such a backlog at SPI. In the Harmonia1 SPI, I Jethrobot had added a "collapse" template which completely broke the SPI page and essentially hid older cases (or at least, I couldn't find them). I replaced the template with other formatting and the SPI page is back. I'm now trying to resolve those older, forgotten cases. -- Atama頭 17:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat by Arjuna deekshitar

Hello. I am here to report Arjuna deekshitar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for legal threats. Apparently, the fact that I remove his personal analysis from Campantar would be considered terrorism and reported to police who would terminate wikipedia. After I replied and warned him about WP:NLT as well as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, his reply was to inform me that a notice has been sent to agencies world wide including interpol and FBI and they are on the look. My apologies if I just caused the end o' Wikipedia, but would an admin mind stepping in here? Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"My edits on the page are more or less consistent with facts". I wonder how that will hold up in court. :) --Atlan (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would hold up. More or less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it when people say "more or less" you can always guarantee that the second option is the accurate one? --Jayron32 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo

The article appears vandalized in a very strange and severe way. Even the Mediawiki interface is not showing up on it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Any help with the {{Taxobox}}, Grawp did it again (see Dodo or any other animal). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 02:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, its an include? Or something in the page itself? I reverted to an older version that seemed to fix it, but I can put it back. -- Avanu (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{{status_ref}}} is the problem, does somebody know how to fix it? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, problem at Template:IUCN. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:IF YOU CLICKED ON THE VANDALIZED PAGE. If you have, especially if you are running Idiotically Exploding and your AV software did not go crazy, I strongly suggest you kill your browser sessions and do a full scan of your computer. I tried right clicking for source... then left clicking to get focus... and before I could right click again, my AV software got very upset.

That said, I'd strongly suggest someone RevDel the affected versions of whatever template, etc is affected. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 03:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdel'd it. If it's really a problem, you could ask for oversight (warning the OS people first). Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acroterion. Depends on the quality of malware protection a user is running, as well as the browser. For instance, IE is a lot more susceptible to drive-bys like on the page that the whole article was linked to (necessary backwards compatibility for various older technologies of theirs). So, I guess to play it safe, I will submit to OS. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 03:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel is fine for that - it is not something that necessarily needs to be scrubbed even from admin eyes, and it might be useful for future reference. Also; I checked the link against my (work) automated tools - so long as all you did was click through nothing should have happened. --Errant^(chat!) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... both AVG and Chrome disagree. And it dragged both to their knees (speed wise) till Chrome was killed. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very disturbing that someone manged to mount that kind of attack. I can live with the NSFW pictures popping unexpectedly around here, but malware injection?? FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So allow me to ask the question to make me look foolish: Would this be considered illegal, that is the addition of known malicious scripts? Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, I can't see the script(s) myself because of the revdel. I doubt the Foundation has the inclination to file a police complaint, but who knows... FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I haven't seen the code but based on the report it would probably be illegal in the UK (IANAL but I work with the CMA). Other developed countries have similar but not identical laws. However, the jurisdiction thing could be vexing when you have a miscreant in country A, a server in country B, and a browser in country C. Don't expect meaningful legal action. bobrayner (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not foolish. This kind of injection is, AFAIK, illegal in numerous countries. By making such an edit yourself, you would be causing havoc on the PCs of anyone visiting the infected article. It might as well be a computer virus; those, as you know, are indeed illegal. CycloneGU (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the malware site was under the domain feenode.net (the homepage is a shock site with gruesome images and audio—don't go there!), which is apparently owned by GNAA (see [47] archive) Would an admin add this domain to the edit filter or the spam blacklist? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, ironically, by me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN

I had a look at that template myself because it was the only significant difference, but it was fully protected! So how did this happen? FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkay, I actually looked at {{IUCN2006}}, which is fully protected, but apparently it invoked something that isn't [48]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, attempts are still being made to insert that link. RxS (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got pwnd

I used Firefox 5, did not click on anything in that page, but still got infected with something that moves my browser window randomly around and fills it with some gory pic. It's fine for a while after I kill the process but then starts again. Avira can't find anything. Any suggestions? FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malware Bytes, Combo Fix or Dr-Web-CureIt...probably in that order. One of those will help. RxS (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing here, except I merely refreshed this page and NOD32 lit up with a quarantine warning and killed further loading of the page (in Opera 11.5; no damage thankfully beyond killing a Java instance). My suggestion is to remove all links to this the moment blacklisting is up on them. Nate • (chatter) 06:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, and I expect other users, are going to want a hint as to which Wikipedia page(s) had the exploit, so I can see if I visited them! --Lexein (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a HTML/Crypted.Gen and a TR/Meredrop.A.3590 according to Avira. I think I'll stay away from Wikipedia for a while given that I can get infected by just visiting one of its vanalized pages. Thanks much. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or avoid Javascript? Out of curiosity I tested WP with the OffByOne plain HTML3-only browser. The results aren't pretty, but everything basically works: log in, edit, etc., and page loads are fast. Of course just turning off Javascript in the per-site settings in whatever browser you're using will do the trick. --Lexein (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been taken care of; an edit around 7:03 GMT which was left by someone (not going to do a full link to the ANI history out of an abundance of caution) has just been rev-deled here. Thank you to DeadlyAssassin and GogoDodo for catching it. Nate • (chatter) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeadlyAssassin was reporting another matter, which I also happened to take care of. I found an open template that was the cause of the recent issue and took care of that, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the great work, folks. I've seen this and will present it internally. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be more than a thread on ANI?

This is a hugely serious issue, surely? If simply viewing a page on Wikipedia can cause ones browser to become infected (and if that isn't the case then I have misunderstood the discussion) then at the minimum there ought to be a banner on every page (say where the image referendum thing is at the moment) telling people about it. And more technical details too! Egg Centric 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a link to a web page, which had the virus. To get it, the link had to be clicked. Admittedly the link was partly hidden (I'd give details except for BEANs), but it doesn't look like anything serious technically for Wikipedia, to me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. The above gave the impression that it happened on page load. Yup, pretty much impossible to do anything about I suppose if we're going to allow both CSS and external links, never mind adding javascript to the mixture. Egg Centric 20:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I clicked a link from Google last night, saw the vandalism, and was redirected to the malicious page without clicking anything. What is going on? TihsReggin (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So just why, exactly, do we not semi-protect all templates, again? I understand the rationale for not semi-protecting all articles (I may not always agree with it, but I understand it), but I don't expect that many new users would be editing templates instead of articles; established IP users would presumably be familiar enough with Wikipedia to use the EditRequest template on the talkpage if they needed to have the template edited, and almost all template vandalism is done by people who either editing as IPs or have yet to be autoconfirmed... rdfox 76 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea, prevents regular users from editing, etc. TihsReggin (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Trading essential liberty for temporary security et cetera. If someone really wants to damage Wikipedia it can be done, but having as open a process as possible has worked well enough for a decade so far. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....I wonder if an account whose username is "nigger shit" backwards should be taken at face value. I get a whiff of the unpleasant odour of the GNAA here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes:

Sorry I couldn't follow up earlier.

• Oversight indicates that they see no need to totally blot the revdel, believing revdel is sufficient. I agree.
• Infections due to this will occur two ways:
  • A user loaded an affected Wikipedia page and clicked someplace on the page they were redirected to
  • A user loaded an affected Wikipedia page and didnt click, but their browser is set to read ahead and grabbed the infected page (speed enhancement thingy). This is a lot less common, but if your computer got infected and you didnt click, this is why.
• (I'll preface this by noting I've been a computer tech for 2.5 decades and deal with this stuff reguarly) IF you've become infected:
  • As suggested above, ComboFix is a good starting point, BUT BE CAREFUL, you really should know what you're doing if you run it. Google for it, look for the "Bleeping Computer" link and download via that site (which also contains instructions).
  • ComboFix is NOT the final solution. You should scan your system with such programs as MalwareBytes, SuperAntiSpyware and your regular up to date antivirus software. When you do so, make sure they are set to scan everything and not just infectable files. SAS, AVG and many other apps need those settings manually set in the advanced options, otherwise their "scan whole computer" buttons only "scan some of the computer".
• If browser pop-ups or redirects are still occurring, you will need to check various aspects of your Internet settings, browser plugins and so on. You may also have damaged xul/chrome stuff in Firefox, or stuff sitting in a Java/Javascript/Flash cache. Clearing all browser caches since the beginning of time is a good idea. This (for most browsers) does not clear your Flash cache - to do that, you can go here.Macromedia.com The tool to clear your flash cache is actually a flash app that resides on Macromedia's and Adobe's site.
• Any questions, please feel free to email me - or find a suitable, competent tech friend near you. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 00:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably how I got hit on Opera; I didn't click on anything but it does preload what it thinks would be the next page I would visit (say, a television station article would load the image page for the station logo), and if I Alt+Right or Forward, then it goes to that page. Somehow this managed to hit that behavior and there I am at the spyware page. Thankfully a scan with my AV/spyware showed nothing (and it was immediately thrown into the quarantine bin with the connection immediately aborted before the file fully loaded), so I'm OK, but it still shook me up quite a bit. Nate • (chatter) 10:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User:Lombshi

After having his user name changed and admitting it was no more than a simple mistake, the user was blocked as a "sockpuppet" although no proof of this was provided. Could this be a case of Checkuser abuse in bad faith? Sheep have wool (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's more likely that you are Lombshi. You're being a bit too obvious here. ;) -- Atama頭 18:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume Good Faith. Sheep have wool (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing for me to assume good faith, and another thing for me to be stupid. If I didn't assume good faith, you'd be blocked now. :P -- Atama頭 23:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking by Cossde

Cossde and his sock puppet Gira2be have been stalking me for a few weeks but it has gotten out of hand in the past 24 hours. Cossde has been having disputes with a number of editors recently (see Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Civil War, War crime, War rape) but has picked me out for particular attention.

Cossde/Gira2be's tactic usually consists of placing unnecessary ^{[citation needed]} tags on articles I have edited recently, often within minutes of my edit. These articles aren't part of any dispute but they have been targeted specifically because I created or made major contributions to them:

• Batticaloa Municipal Council - My edit at 21:00, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 04:50, 21 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Valvettithurai Urban Council - My edit at 22:12, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 04:47, 21 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Point Pedro Urban Council - My edit at 21:42, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 04:40, 21 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Trincomalee Urban Council - My edit at 19:00, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 19:16, 20 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Vavuniya Urban Council - My edit at 18:57, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 19:11, 20 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Upul Tharanga - My edit at 12:09, 14 August 2011, Cossde edit at 16:50, 14 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.

I opened a sock puppet investigation on Cossde and Gira2be on 19 July. Cossde was banned for 3 days and Gira2be was banned indefinitely.

• V. A. Alegacone - My edit at 11:45, 7 July 2011 , Gira2be edit at 19:03, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• V. Dharmalingam - My edit at 18:08, 9 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:03, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• Jaffna College - My edit at 16:43, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:02, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• K. Thurairatnam - My edit at 16:28, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:02, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• C. Suntharalingam - My edit at 13:26, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:01, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• St. John's College, Jaffna - My edit at 13:28, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 18:59, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.

Other articles that have been targeted by Cossde/Gira2be include Chundikuli Girls' College, St. Patrick's College, Jaffna and Kumarapuram massacre

I have asked Cossde twice ([49], [50]) to stop their personal vendetta against me but they have ignored me and continued. Cossde has clearly taken a dislike to me and is out to disrupt my personal enjoyment of Wikipedia.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do I have any say in this or is judgment automatically passed ? Cossde (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, this is just a report. Clarification from your side would be appreciated! L.tak (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

1. Please refer to all edits in the articles mentioned, I do admit I may lack Edit summaries in some, however most are self explanatory edits.

2. The said user has been making a massive contribution to articles about Sri Lanka. Listed here are a fraction of his/her work. Most of his/her work have been very constructive additions. However lately (as well as in the past) he/she has been creating/editing articles which are clearly aimed at creating a negative picture of Sri Lanka. This I believe is based on his own beliefs. Yet the aims are clear. His/her contribution to articles Upul Tharanga, Chinthana Vidanage, Manju Wanniarachchi and List of doping cases in sport show specif targeting of Sri Lankan sportsmen accused of doping without any contribution to doping at large, I makes one wounder as this his/her intentions. The edit history of Upul Tharanga is a clear log of his attempt to discredit the payer dis-proportionality (much like me :S).

3. Users User:Hillcountries, User:Arun1paladin and User:HudsonBreeze seems to be his pets, and I stress the word seems (dont want a law suit on my hands), yet I have lost faith in "system" to bring complaints (which seems to be the habit of the said user) - just wanted to mention here.

4. In the recently created articles (less than 48hr old therefore I could not edit them before as mention by the said user) of Batticaloa Municipal Council, Valvettithurai Urban Council, Point Pedro Urban Council, Trincomalee Urban Council and Vavuniya Urban Council the said user and his pet look alikes have, if you were to look into the edit history have engaged me in a edit wars of the simple request for more neutral RS as appose to the anti-government source he/she is using. The RS was requested since a allegation has leveled against the government of Sri lanka using a anti-government source. The same item was copy pasted in the other three articles. Instead of removing this I gave the editor a chance to provide an additional source.

5. As mentioned by the said user, I have noticed the activity very much similar to the above on countless time hence have intervened in articles of sensitivities of sensitive nature.

If clarifications are needed for any edits I will be happy to make them, at least now some one would listen. So that things will be done correctly rather than for the one's personal enjoyment of Wikipedia. Cossde (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non admin opinion Just my 2 cents (separated in different headings to ease discussion)

1. Cossde, I think it would be good if you reacted to the comment regarding WP:HOUNDing. After reading that page, do you think you are hounding user:Obi2canibe? If you are following his contributions, please indicate to what extent you are checking his pages and why, because I have the feeling you haven't answered that.
2. About socks/pets, however you both call them: please be very careful. If you have a suspicion, go to WP:SPI; if you decide not to, then don't make any suggestions here. The first line here strongly suggests Cossde was still socking, while his sock was blocked a month ago (and I would have appreciated if that confusion had not been raised)
3. A bit content based: the discussion seems to be about the use of ^{[citation needed]} tags. I must say that I feel the cn tags are legitimate (although section tagging; or a restricted use might haven been more useful) and I would suggest strongly O2C places references. That should easily solve some cases.
4. The suggested "putting people in a bad light" is a typical thing to discuss at talk pages concerned. (My personal opinion is that doping offences are for most sportsmen notable enough to be mentioned; also in a lede).

Hope this helps and think a -concize- reaction of both of you would be helpful. naive? hope Maybe that's even enough to resolve this... L.tak (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

1. Hounding no, following certain edits yes; non-neutral edits made regarding Sri Lanka.
2. Your are wellcomed to investigate me or any user that may appear to be a sock of mine ;)
3. I might take your advice on WP:SPI, will go there thx.
4. Could you please give me some more infor on section tagging, restricted use and O2C places references ?
5. Mentioning facts that are not in-dispute where not disputed. It was the special attention given to highlight the negatives, and only the negatives even adding it on to the summary section. Please have a look at the edit history of Upul Tharanga.

Cossde (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He Cossde, thanks for your reactions. As for the section tagging. If a whole section is a problem, you can also tag {{Unreferenced section}}. That might sound a bit less bity than having citation_needed-tags at >3 places... For Upul Tharanga (and there are more examples), the two of you seem to be in a edit war, with only (passive agressive) comments in the edit summary. On both of you rests the responsibility to have the discussion at the talk page if you disagree, which you both don't do. Furthermore, the argument in edit summaries tehre you provide seems to be a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which isn't fully valid. The discussion you both should be having is whether the addn is giving WP:UNDUE weight and how to solve that. As for the hounding, if I were you I would show a bit more restraint, because it can give people the creeps if you follow a major part of their edits; even if you don't do it specifically for that reason. Wikipedia is a big place and there's many other articles to edit/create/improve... L.tak (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obi2canibe's reply to L.tak comments/queries ^above^:

2. I accept that I may have given editors who weren't aware of our past history the wrong impression that Cossde was still socking. I was just trying to point out that the stalking has been going for while and that I had ignored it until now.

3. The ^{[citation needed]} tagging is, IMO, malicious and intended make life difficult for me. It has nothing to do with making the articles better. Inline citations are needed "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". None of the content tagged by Cossde falls into this category. For the politicians and schools I have used a global citations which are listed on the foot of the articles (I do not think they require inline citations). Cossde refuses to accept this. For the local authority articles I have provided an inline citation from TamilNet. Cossde belives TamilNet to be an "unreliable source" but a number of discussions have concluded that TamilNet is WP:RS. Cossde refuses to accept this and has re-placed the tags. All of Cossde's actions are just about hounding me. --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the discussion on TamilNet-sources, -unless it's done before already!- I suggest to take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, if that has not been done before. The editors there are experts at finding out and discussing that kind of thing. Until then, I think double tagging (tagging of an article (with citation needed), while already a ref is in place) is not appropriate. As for the other tagging, I feel it is legitimate: you can not possibly ask from another editor to look through a list of refs, and when something is unclear it is reasonable to put on a cn tag. You are not required to place an inline ref, but this way of adding refernces (only at the bottom), surely does justify the placement of the tag. Furthermore, I believe both of you are content-interested editors, who are interested in a fair representation of facts and happen to be interested in the same subject and I sincerely hope that you both will find a way to work together and discuss your issues. I see (again, I am not an admin) not much real hounding here, although I repeat that it would be helpfull if Cossde showed a bit more restrained in going through O2C's edit history for interesting new things (I assumed you did, maybe I am wrong).... From that assumption, I hope you can continue editing together! L.tak (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TamilNet has been discussed at least once on (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Tamilnet (http://www.tamilnet.com) and it was pointed that it is WP:RS according to Wkipedia guidelines. Cossde has continued their malicious tagging ([51], [52]) despite you asking them to show restraint. Anyhow, I don't think this is going anywhere. It's time to call an end to this thread.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to comment here but now I can't stop from doing that because Cossde has mentioned my name.Cossde is a proud Sri Lankan and I am a supporter of human rights.So naturally he finds me to be pro-Tamil.I live in Maharashtra ,a state in India.I don't even know where Hill countries or Hudson breeze live.Lot of patriotic Sri Lankans are too interested in wiping out the references of Sri Lanka's aspiration to make SL as a Sinhala buddhist nation-state and its war crimes & crimes against humanity on Tamils.So it doesn't make those patriotic sri Lankan as pets of Cossde (Arun1paladin (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Mmmm seems that I am being WP:HOUNDed too. Ar the plot thickens ...... Cossde (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment through suicide threat?

What is the appropriate action to take, if any, when an editor tells another one "I feel that you are harassing me. I feel that you are a wikibully. I feel that you thing you own wiki and have created a personal vendetta to track me and modify my contributions with subjective opinions. I would appreciate it if you do not have any contact with me. You make me want to kill myself. You are really a really depressing anonymous nobody. If you don't cease your harassment I am going to file a formal complaint against you." The personal attack and threat of a "formal complaint" seem to me to make "want to kill myself" an empty threat, but that's just my opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUICIDE. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, it's three days after that post, and the user is still editing productively. Don't you think perhaps it was just hyperbole? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. I also think that threatening to kill yourself because of someone's edits has as much of a chilling effect as legal threats, and should be dealt with similarly. (And "productively"? Are you sure?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking through his contribution history, his user page and his talk page, does anyone else think that he's not really here to contribute with any conducive use of discussion? Seems to be a soapboxer (at least from the user/talk pages). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's definitely given to the hyperbole. And I may be wrong about the productively bit :) However, I'm not of the opinion that "you make me want to chuck myself under a bus/stick pins in my eyes/eat kittens" type statements in the middle of what is clearly a rant would have any effect at all. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one. Assuming his complaints have no merit (a reasonable assumption I expect, and I am not going to bother investigating) then he's probably depressed... and yeah I know wikipedia etc is not therapy yada yada but I would still see if there was some way that he could be handled better. Certainly punishing him for making these sort of statements doesn't sit right with me - they're genuine distress and I don't think people should be punished for expressing that they are distressed. So yes - I would treat him differently. And I know that isn't fair on MSJapan, but that's what happens when we deal with humans Egg Centric 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less ignored it, seeing as how it was a "I think you suck, I'm going to tell you that, and then I'll tell you not to contact me again so I get the last word" type of post. Yosesphdaviyd's not distressed in the least - he simply wanted a way to edit the way he wanted without anyone telling him he couldn't. He has also in the past accused me of being racist, prejudiced, a "know-it-all", and probably a few other things that don't come to mind at present. He once claimed to be a Past Grand Master of a Prince Hall Masonic jurisdiction, which he is not. So, a lot of it really is hyperbole, and dare I say, untruth. The other aspect of this is that YD has created so many issues in his short time here, there's a lot of people looking at his edits besides myself. I actually figured I'd see if his edits held, and someone else reverted him, at which point he proceeded to WP:OWN said article. So there's definitely some problems.

As I said in a previous ANI, this user has the capacity to be productive, but he keeps going about things wrong. He needs a mentor, and it's to the point where he needs a mentor "forced" upon him, or he is going to get banned sooner or later. He hopped right in and created several improperly sourced articles, which led to a COI because of the article subjects and his username, which led to an AfD and a prod, which led to retaliatory POINTy prodding, a "retirement", a blocked sock (who, created to "avoid harassment", as its first edit voted on the AfD on YD's article - so much for avoiding harassment), and some other items here and there.

However, to his credit, after having to explain something very minutely, he did get my point of view on the topic, and also saw that I was correct. On the other hand, I should not have to write an essay on why an honorary alumnus is not a regular alumnus and ask at a WikiProject about it in order to make that small point. Also, the whole basis of why they were the same was based on the fact that schools keep separate lists of honoraries, and the fact is, why keep separate lists if they're the same? In short, the logic doesn't hold up, but having edit wars and OWN issues because of that is not a good use of anybody's time.

The pattern shows if the user is not mentored, he will be banned, sooner or later. I believe that it is in the best interests of the community to exacerbate either one action or the other. MSJapan (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm alive? lol - Actually MSJapan hasn't made me want to kill myself lately. He's stopped trying to figure out who I am in RL and we actually had a productive conversation where he patiently took the time to explore my reason and logic and explained something to me in terms I could understand. If he keeps being patient with me I may continue to live. Thank you so much for the concern. If you don't see any contributions by me for more than 72hours please call 973-555-5555 to make sure I am still alive. Thanks?

Signed, Jane's Got a Gun? --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, how about you post an update to ANI every 20 minutes to confirm you're alive? Any time you miss this we will assume you are dead. Egg Centric 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL @ Egg. Thanks for the morning laugh. That was good! --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yosesphdaviyd, regardless of the suicide issues discussed above, calling another editor a "depressing anonymous nobody" is unacceptable. So is suggesting that people who post on your talk page are instruments of Satan. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't collaborate with other editors your editing privileges may eventually have to be revoked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My previous interaction with Yosesphdaviyd was at COIN. He seemed reasonable then. I'm concerned about this hyperbole though. One thing that people forget when they are posting on the internet (in a chat, a forum, Wikipedia, etc.) is that it's difficult to determine intent. Nobody can see your face or hear the tone of your voice, they only have the words you're writing. So something that might be congenial when spoken aloud comes across as alarming when written down. I strongly advise Yosesphdaviyd to write more soberly when interacting with others, or more conflicts will inevitably result. -- Atama頭 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yosesphdaviyd has been a problem editor since day one, in my opinion. He's already had one sockpuppet blocked, one that was created when several articles he started were up for deletion, including one apparently about himself - he managed to convince the COI noticeboard otherwise, but I have doubts about that. I've also noticed a pattern of personal attacks from him - calling one editor "the Jap" or "cyber-bully", calling other editors racist (see [53], [54], [55]) or telling others to not trust me. His user page has already been deleted once as an attack page, and he's currently got a screed up on his talk page which is nothing but a veiled attack on others. Something really needs to be done about this one. However, he won't be responding here for a day because he was blocked for violating WP:3RR. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag so what you would do is go into the archives and pull out a contrib that was posted and almost immediately removed by me and use that evidence for what? lol omg I almost never say what I mean to say the first time, so when you want to dig into my page, please note the time that it was created and undid by me.

That aside, when people communicate, even through this anonymous forum of nobodys (meaning this isn't really you in your body - it's textual expression of personage by you) communication still yields a response of feelings and emotions by the receiver. Yes, I feel that some editors are depressing and some annoying, and if you never met one then Yay for you, and if you don't want to tell them that they are a drag then that's on you. But, as for me, I like to tell people exactly how they make me feel so that they can be aware and have the opportunity to change their interactions with me. If I remain silent and don't tell them how they make me feel, then I will continue to feel that way, which isn't good.

Don't know why I have to explain basic communication skills here as I would to married couples, but go ahead and take what I said home with you and do your best to always tell people how their words and actions make you feel, so that you won't feel like crap. And hyperbole is fine - it expresses a real thing, though veiled. Too many people leave work, home, dates, and other situations feeling bad because they failed to communicate how they felt. This anonoymous world is no different. There is a human person behind those words, those warring undo's, and all the other unhealthy and mean spirited stuff that goes on here. I think more of you anonymous wiki editors really need to tell each other how the other makes you feel. Go ahead and get if off your chest. And maybe then the other editor will have a heart, look at themselves in their computer screen and change.

I'm really starting too see that for some of you this is your world, your reality, your source of self-esteem, and that isn't healthy. Not by a long shoot. If you spend more than 3 hours here a day and you are not getting paid for it - you have a problem. Who would you be if there was no Wikipedia? Next Lent I recommend that all of you give up Wiki for 40 days, if not sooner. Detox! You take this far too serious. Seriously. Jesus Loves You!

Signed,

Dr. Yo

--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Satan comment is still on your talk page; it hasn't been removed. The other comment is from the diff that Sarek linked prominently above; I didn't "dig it up". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And by the way, repeatedly saying "God bless" or "Jesus loves you" doesn't automatically make you polite, especially if you do it at the same time as you insult other editors, say they have "problems", and tell them they need to get a life. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

For me, Wikipedia is a hobby I do in my spare time because I enjoy it. It's like lawn darts or cheese sampling. From late last year to the beginning of this year, I took a 6 month break just because my real life was too hectic, and I took a 3 month break earlier last year. So this sure isn't my whole purpose in life. But let me tell you... No, dramatic hyperbole is not okay. Making claims of suicide and whatnot, that's not okay. Being uncivil to other people, that's not okay. Wikipedia isn't like your blog where you can always just write what you feel like, it's meant to be a collaborative environment. You talked about there being a "human person" on the other end, but you should remember that also. You share this site with other people, other people you're supposed to be working with, and to flippantly say that people need to get a life when you say something objectionable is not going to go over very well. -- Atama頭 22:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eve online 'future developments' edit.

Want to denounce the User: 189.47.164.239

This user changed one individual data related to Brazil in the Wikipedia English Article “South America Life Quality Rankings” – “Population Below Poverty Line Ranking 2011 - The World Factbook” The mentioned user changed the original Brazil percentage by one that does not agree with the existing value in the source used to build that Ranking. Additionally, this user only changed that specific data and not the Ranking values associated with it leaving damaged and contradictory information to all Wikipedia users. Checking its history, this user seems to have been doing several similar incomplete articles’ alterations during today Aug-24-2011.

I put the following message on this user’s page: “Please stop modifying data with values that do not match with the real value at the source. You modified Brazil Poverty line percentage value in "South America Life Quality Rankings" article with one that is not the one that appears at the cited source. And if you do have a serious updating, please edit also the rankings values to not damage the article for all other Wikipedia users around the world.

Your behavior was denounced to Wikipedia administrators on Aug-24-2011.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southamerica2010 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on now. The user changed 2010 to 2008, and it's dubious either way since the particular source doesn't give a date for the document as a whole. Then they changed 26% to 15% for Brazil, which, yes, does not accord with the source and thus could be called vandalism. But that's not a reason to come to this board and ask for administrative action. We don't block after one such edit. You left them a note asking them not to do this again (and they haven't), and that's it. Don't overdo it, please. Perhaps an uninvolved editor (who knows how the templates work) can close this: there is no need for any administrative action. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: they made a couple more unverified and unexplained changes that I've reverted, and have left a level-2 warning. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, that's a pretty awful article. It looks like a school assignment, with as much graphs crammed in there just to make it reach the minimum page requirement. Do those 4 refs cover all that?. Anyway, yeah, this is kind of a frivolous report.--Atlan (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think mere denouncement of 189.47.164.239 is not enough. We should have a struggle session. Or does anyone have any effigies of 189.47.164.239 that we can burn? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can always consider farting in their general direction, but I think that we'd need the combined effort of hundreds of administrators to get anywhere near Sao Paolo. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We must have some admins in Brazil to do it... what we probably need to do is supplement Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks with a WP:Admins willing to fart in general directions. I would volunteer for it but I don't fart, it would ruin my cute girly image. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a second time this year this same user (189.47.164.239) wrongly modified one Brazil data in the “South America Life Quality Rankings” article. A new comment on its talk page was added and the data was reverted to the official value.

By the way, this article is used by several American Embassies in South America to allow potential investors and visitors to have an idea of South American countries realities and development. It also helps almost 400 million South-Americans to monitor their countries development, based on real numbers and figures provided by serious worldwide and well known organizations.Southamerica2010 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MFD listed under wrong date

I would sort this out myself but as I've both voted and commented on the votes of others I feel I shouldn't do anything to it myself. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:TreasuryTag is listed under 19 August at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion when obviously it ought to be under 17 August. Could someone take a look please (it may be it is better put under 18 August to allow more people to !vote if it is their practice to look at last minute things, I'm not sure, that's for an admin to judge) Egg Centric 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's correct. The page was created on August 17, see here. -- Atama頭 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you were saying the opposite. It looks like there was some refactoring going on, with the original nomination overwritten, and that confused Wikipedia, let me look into how that happened. -- Atama頭 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. What happened was that BWilkins put a note at the top of the MfD on the 19th reminding people to be civil, and included a datestamp with the signature. On a quick glance it looked like the original nomination was replaced which is why I assumed that there was a refactor, but the original nomination is still there, under that quote. The page was categorized by the first datestamp it found on the page, which moved it to the August 19 category. I removed the datestamp from the message. The WP:MFD page still hasn't updated, I hope it will eventually. -- Atama頭 00:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for the last time (hopefully), looking closer, that list is manually edited. So someone else purposefully put it under August 19. I guess anyone could have just fixed it, it was a minor clerical error. I'm assuming that whoever added it had also seen the BWilkins comment and assumed it was started on the 19th. -- Atama頭 00:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame User:One bot, which maintains MFD. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame me for being nice, and One bot for cleaning up behind me :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs protecting

User:Tuhinchat (edit talk history links watch logs) has been reported because he just did 4 reverts within a 24-hour period on Manish Tewari. I reinforced the message at AIV, and I'm about to protect the page. See you at RFPP. StormContent (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for 24 hours, that should take care of the issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable editing?

Could I ask for another set of eyes, or perhaps several other sets of eyes, on the activity of Squeekybird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? That account has made only two contributions, but I'd call both of them questionable...one was to create an attack page (now CSD'd as such), the other was to create a redirect for "Senior Staff Group" that goes to Knights Templar. I've already queried the user regarding the latter, but there's a little inner alarm bell going off that moves me to request a bit more scrutiny here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

575broadway - possible spam or COI

Most (maybe all) of this users contribs insert a reference to Interview Magazine or the magazine Art in America. Both magazines are owned by Brant Publications, whose address is at 575 Broadway according to this. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant 575broadway (talk · contribs) ? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Absconded Northerner

A dispute emerged between this user and me in the last 24 hours over a matter on Talk:Andrea Petkovic. My concern is that this user has now began to revert my edits on another article, Bernard Tomic. Observing historical accuracy, I amended text to replace "his parents left Croatia" to state that it was Yugoslavia. User:Jenks24 reverted but I restored my edit and wrote to that user. In the meantime, User:Absconded Northerner has twice resored the original. My irritation is down to two things: 1) I compromised when I made an amendment to my original piece here, 2) it was ignored by Absconded Northerner who took the liberty of reverting my modified version back to the original and all based on the original scanty evidence that "Croatia not Yugoslavia is what is on the source". Sources do often get things wrong or innacurate, even the reliable ones. It was at this point I used rollback and at that time I felt I did so accordingly, perhaps to have used it with Jenks24 was wrong and for that I apologise - he has modified my version and I am happy with that. Concerning Absconded Northerner, can I suggest disciplinary action from an admin as not only did he cancel my contributions citing negligible evidence - the only proof for my claim would have been statement of Croatia's independence in June 1991 coupled with the same source stating October 1992 had been "years" since the parents left the place! I stated this in my summary but this did not stop Absconded Northerner providing me with two template warnings in breach of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars which he by his own admission knew to be the policy as confessed here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point to be made: WP:DTTR is not a Wikipedia policy. It's an essay, outlining a suggested best practice. Nothing more. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that he would have continued an edit war had Jenks24 not intervened. I shall be watching Absconded Northerner's edits very closely where his activity clashes with mine. Any more proof of bad faith and I shall add to this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say you will be watching AN's edits, Evlekis. While that is probably not what you meant, it could be interpreted as hounding. Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned user over edit warring templates back into your talk page. I've also notified them of this discussion. --Taelus (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see nobody bothered to notify me about this. The person edit warring was Evlekis, a user who has in recent days a) Ignored policy on Reliable Sources, substituting his own "In my opinion" policy instead; b) Abused his rollback privs (here, here, here and here); c) left abusive edit summaries such as this, and generally demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of any WP policy - up to and including accusing me of violating a non-existent policy.

Please can an admin remove his rollback rights and issue a proper warning to Evlekis about his incredibly disruptive and tendentious editing. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification from a different user came after I posted this message. Another policy of which Evlekis is ignorant, it seems. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Taelus - the "edit warring" - which wasn't edit warring - was a mistake. I meant to revert Evlekis' warring at Bernard Tomic and hit the wrong button. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, mistakes are made, i'm just informing you that you were close to passing 3RR. As I said below, discuss with involved users on relevant talk pages. --Taelus (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know - and I wouldn't have made another revert. To be accused as follows: "There is no doubt that he would have continued an edit war" when the accusing user had been doing just as much reversion strikes me as a massive case of the pot calling the kettle black. That's what pissed me off here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Filing party has already been warned for misuse of rollback tool. I don't see the need to revoke any users rollback tools at this stage. Other than that, as this is a content dispute, discuss at user talk pages and/or the article talk pages before editing. --Taelus (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Evlekis and I have discussed this on my talk page and we appear to have come to an acceptable compromise for the Tomic article so I am confident that the edit warring (if that's even what it was) will stop. Evlekis has also apologised for inappropriately using the rollback tool at the Tomic article, so I see no reason why his rollback access should be revoked, seeing as he has apologised and said he won't do it again. Yes, Evlekis shouldn't have used rollback like that and AN shouldn't have templated him. Either way, both these things are in the past and both have been apologised for. I don't see any need for admin action here and if this does need to be discussed further, hopefully Evlekis and AN can sort this out amicably at each others' talk pages. Calling for this thread to be closed: The content dispute has been resolved and, while both parties have made mistakes, there is nothing here that necessitates a block or other admin intervention (in my opinion). Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second the call to close. There is nothing further to be gained here, both parties know what they need to know, and no administrative action is required here as things stand. --Taelus (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've just logged back on for a few moments and have read the above statements. This is just to confirm that I acknowledge the decision on administrative outcomes and I have no further information to add. Many thanks Taelus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Addition of self-published sources to Lordship salvation controversy

208.40.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a long history going back to 2009 of adding self-published sources (such as Lou Martuneac, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Xulon Press, 2010) to the Lordship salvation controversy article. After repeated warning on his talk page, he or she continues to add them in. He or she was blocked for edit warring a few days ago, but continues to add Xulon Press books. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag

Problems with IP: 122.176.58.109

I'm having a problem with an IP: 122.176.58.109. He removed reliably sourced human rights content from Laos, here [63] with the edit summary "Go to USA's page and include guantanamo bay in its politics section before doing it here, pusillanimous assholes". He blanked the entire section. I reverted with a level 2 warning to him [64]. He's reverted back, and is now on my talk page [65] and appears to have been delving around my history. His talk page is a long series of similar warnings from other editors. I'm here to see what we can do to stop this? Mattun0211 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP has a history of disruption, though he has only reverted once, and only seems to have brought up one issue with you on your talk page which I could say is not a particularly in depth "delve" into your history. I would move to give the IP a direct final warning that another foot out of line is going to result in a block, giving his edit summary alone is unacceptable. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 10:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP does need some non-block related intervention in his editing styles, I don't think he has heard of terms like "neutral" or "POV" [66]. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've issued a final warning.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author needed

I am looking for a person to author an article. I’ve vetted and collected the WP:RSs. It’s actually two articles, Keith Raniere and NXIVM, but maybe they should be merged because it’s hard to tease the two apart. Everything needed is on the discussion page of the article Keith Raniere. I will help any way I can, but I don’t want to write it myself.

Do you have any advice as to how to find a person to write an article? The research is already done. The person should ideally be a good Wikipedian who has never heard of either Keith Raniere or NXIVM. It would be best if s/he doesn't care at all about him and it, just use the sources to present the facts.

This might be very important. Chrisrus (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REQUEST. —DoRD (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind attention. However, this WP:REQUEST seems to be about articles that don't already exist. The articles that need to be written are Keith Raniere and NXIVM, although I think they should be merged. The problem is clear when you compare the articles to the sources that I've put on the discussion pages of Keith Raniere, but any WP:RS about it is also about him. We need someone to familiarize themself with the sources that we have there, and any other appropriate ones, and write the article(s) based on what's in those sources, only. Basically, what's needed is not to have new articles written, but rather existing articles written right.

Having said all that, I was able to provoke a recent spate of improvement at the article. Chrisrus (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. Perhaps WP:MAINT is what you're looking for. In any case, the help desk is a better venue for this sort of question - ANI is for incidents requiring the attention of administrators. Hope this helps. —DoRD (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fly_by_Night is vandalising people user pages

User: 68.40.235.153

K this user keeps editing LA Ink episodes along with Star Wars: Clone Wars all of which contains editing that should never appear like changing colors. can you block this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.108.115 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions list, you don't seem to have tried to make contact with the user; either about the multi-coloured text or about this AN/I post. (When you edited this page it said, in a big orange box, that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion"). Why not go to the user's talk page and mention Wikipedia's manual of style; you might like to make a similar, but more general, comment on the article's talk page. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sock needs blocking

Please block 88.147.14.203 as a sock of banned editor User:Mikemikev. He's attacking again the same article as always. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the same user as this 88.147.30.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), editing from Brussels.

I don't think this is Mikemikev. It is probably the same user that was blocked for edit-warring last year as 88.147.47.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (note the racist comments on the talk pages are different from Mikemikev's style). He also edited as 88.147.17.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (One of the edits here contains a sentence in French, so with the anti-french insults, the user is probably Belgian.) Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another recent example. 88.147.36.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)Mathsci (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My calculator and the WHOIS says it's a /19 block allocated to wireless broadband users. Too big for a rangeblock if the activity persists? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for the I.P. user 198.164.211.80

The I.P. user 198.164.211.80 has been doing disruptive editing for months: [67], it introduces objetive & unsourced information in articles related to the band Deftones such: [68], [69], [70], [71]. It also removes verified information from articles related to the band Muse such: [72], I've previously been given warnings and invited it to discuss it's point of view but it just don't wants to discuss, it's edits violates the NPOV policies and since it don't wants to stop it must be blocked. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding anything unsourced. I am simply reverting the red link account above who keeps trolling the same pages repeatedly and removing previously discussed, and many time cited, content. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been cited many times why don't you just found a reference to add your edits?, actually if it was previously discussed why there are like other six users reverting your edits? actually if you go to the 2007 version of this deftones article[73]it mentions the genres that im adding. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's using a sock puppet acount, [74], really this genre warrior must be blocked, all it's I.P.s Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Mr. Carnataurus... this is your IP. And this is your IP. And this is your IP. You've been [[WP:STALK Stalking me for any weeks and undoing my edits... even valid edits, and there are hundreds, to other articles. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is another IP Used by Carnataurus to stalk me. All Mexican locale... all using same broken English edit summaries. All being extremely uncivil. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as far as i'm concerned those are diferent I.P.s each one, just acept it, everybody knows that you'r trolling, in the last half of hour, two users aside me have reverted your edits. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

187.154.x.x does make a good point. All four IP addresses are registered to the same ISP and geolocate to the same city. There's more than enough overlap between articles and similarity in edit summaries to say it passes the WP:DUCK test. If I were a betting man, I'd lay money on your complaint here coming back on you. Of course, someone could always hoist the Checkuser flag to either confirm or reject the hypothesis. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put out a plea for help last week because the Mexican IP (and accounts like Carnataurus) just kept coming back and undoing any edits I did. It was very disconcerting. Some advice was given to me at the time... I just didn't follow up. And I should have. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, showing all these I.P. you only shows how much you've been trolling other articles. if those I.P. are or not mine, you can't prove that, actually i would never notice the edit war if you weren't edited album articles, then i see the mess that you were doing and i decided join in. In the other hand i can bet that this i.p.[75] is your parallel i.p. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that user 198:164:211:80 is making a lot of unjustifed edits and deletions, several of which I have personally reverted. A block may be warrented, but that is for an admin to decide. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's what im about, it is the one doing all these edits and drivin everyone at Deftones articles crazy. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forgot that the troll that is introducing unsourced information again and again are you, not me, im trying to keep the articles as they'll always been. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dbiel you made an unjustified reversion to 1 of my edits. And my edit was valid since it followed both the consensus of the talk page asn well as the ghosted instruction on the page itself. You failed to read the talk page and added unreferenced content... which the talk page, and the hidden instructions, both say will be removed as part of the Featured List push for the article. Please read the talk page on the list of you want more clarification. It's all right there.

And Carnataurus... did you not do a geolocate or IP search of the 2 IPs you listed? They come from 2 different servers. Similar (sort of) ISP. But completly different servers in a Region which has over 3 million clients of the 2 different ISPs. Always use the geolocate tool when you think two people are the same... especially when they are not. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are various reazons for that, could be that you have a friend, you own an imported computer, you own an imported router, you used an special software... the list is long, however, no one of us is wrong in the fact that you are doing persistent disruptive editing. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that when I post a reply to Dbiel on my talk page. The reply from Dbiel comes from the Carnotaurus044 account????????? 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in it's talk page, Can anyone just block this user and give it a rest?Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request from 198.164.211.80 to Wiki admin who reviews

If an administrator sees the need to block me that is in their right. But I have raised some valid concerns that they will also have to investigate such as A) Why have so many Mexican based IP edits been targeted at undoing all of my edits repeatedly...the same edits you are undoing. And Also, B) why is it that when I posted a question to Dbiel on my talk page the response to my question to that account... came back from YOUR account. As an IP editor I am under scrutiny as anonymous editors are not treated the same as accounts. But it would seem like your Carnataurus044 account, Your User:Massivesquid account and your series of Mexican based IP addresses have all been on a single purpose to stalk me and negate any/all of my contributions to this project. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dbiel, I, the Mexican user, prove you're robot and the other located I.P.s are there just because you're messing with the Deftones articles, you're the problem that started all the other problems, without you, nothing never would happen. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will determine whether you are the Mexican IP range that has been stalking me. I do not believe you are Dbiel. But you spoke as though there was collusion between your edits. Especially where I asked Dbiel a question... and YOU answered as if you were him. That does not Concern me. But a long range of Mexican based IPs have been stalking me, you have been stalking me and your alternate account Massivesquid has also stalked me. And so those concerns will be looked into as part of your pursuit to try and get me blocked... accusing me of vandalism in my edits, when I was simply restoring content that you were removing even though it was content which was covered on the talk pages of the articles concerned. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just, turn off your computer, you need some air. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have remained faithful to WP:CIVIL throughout your accusations. Please do the same. Thank you. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pretend being a victim, nobody is buying that, anyone who check your history will see that it's filled with pointless unsourced reverts & trolling, things that are against WP:CIVIL, just face the consecuences of what you do. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see, both of you are edit warring and could both be blocked if you keep it up. Dispute resolution, anyone? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair and reasonable. I had no real dispute with added content... but did dispute the constant removal which went against previous talk page consensus. I can police myself to not re-add content blanked by the other user... if the other user can agree to use the talk pages from here on in. I am still concerned about being stalked by the Mexican based IPs. But since I do not know how to request a proper RCU for the IPs and the 2 accounts posted above... I will be AGF that those Mexican IPs won't stalk me anymore while Mr Carnataurus pursues the concensus he is trying to get in his own edit agenda. Thanks Heinstern. Take care. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old, unedorsed RfCU

Can some admin delete this? It should not be controversial. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again)

User:Buffs refusing to stop posting to my talk page

On at least six other occasions in the past stretching over two years, I have asked User:Buffs to stay off of my talk page. Twice in the last month Buffs has ignored this request and posted to my talk page anyway. The first of these two was July 29 [77] where he concluded his posting saying "All you seem to care about is whether people have checked every bureaucratic box". The second was today [78]. I posted to Buff's talk page once again requesting he stop posting to my talk page (see User_talk:Buffs#Stay_off_my_talk_page). His response was to state that I don't own my talk page.

Wikipedia:Harassment states "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making ... repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" and "This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. " His postings to my talk page are most emphatically unwanted correspondence.

Would an administrator please step in and warn User:Buffs that his behavior is inappropriate, and that I can request he stay off my talk page and expect such a request to be honored? Buffs has been informed about this request. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that seems a rather low frequency compared to what we normally call harassment. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a ton of history here. I could go on for pages and pages about the history behind this. It's not necessary. The point is, I've asked him to stop posting my talk page and he refuses to honor that request. Regardless of anything else that has gone on before, if I ask him to remain off my talk page it should be a request I can expect to be honored. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, HS has decided to parse policy to his own end and ignore the rest of it. "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making ... repeated annoying AND unwanted contacts". Two postings within the past six months (or year?) hardly constitutes any form of harassment. HS is handing out very bad advice to people who have come to his talk page seeking guidance. To let noobs think that his extremely poor interpretations are the actual rules of Wikipedia is to do a disservice to our community as a whole.

I recognize that HS has the right to request that I not post on his talk page, but I also have a right to ignore that request and do what is best for WP. To leave those interactions alone only serves to perpetuate a myth about WP image use and hurt our community as a whole.

I have limited almost all interaction with him, but he continues to create a hostile atmosphere, directs noobs in the wrong direction, continues to act as if his views are actually policy (when they aren't), and refuses to learn anything about what items are eligible for copyright and which ones aren't. I have offered help and, instead, he insists on treating every image with a labeling error as if it is copyrighted no matter what its status actually is.

I haven't taken unequivocal action to ban him from my talk page. He could try discussing it with me there instead of elevating it just so he can have more DRAMAZ and claim how badly he's being treated (just check out his user page to see how much he likes the drama). Buffs (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not surprised that you are bringing your continued disagreement with my actions into this request. Our long standing disagreements, while providing history regarding this request, are not something that should in any way have a detracting effect on this request. I asked you to stay off my talk page. You have previously acknowledged that request and agreed to it (last paragraph) and are now in violation of your own agreement. It's a simple request, and a reasonable one. Your posts to my talk page are distinctly unwanted. If you have continued problems with my edits, you can take them to appropriate WP:DR paths. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, like the part of WP:DR where it states "Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so. This can be done on the talk page of the article or on the user page." I'm trying to take care of this at the lowest level instead of elevating it; while I avoided your page as much as possible, at some point, you have to be served notice that your behavior isn't acceptable and your talk page is the required place. Not really interested in OMG DRAMAZ that you seem to be, just in getting you to stop disruptive behaviors. Have fun at ANI; This thread will be easily closed in less than 24 hours. Buffs (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is ridiculous. You have been asked multiple times to stay off the Talk page. Your continued refusal to do so is nothing other than harrassment. Find some other way to spend your time, or you will wind up being blocked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but the admins responding to this have basically said this isn't going to result in a block. You aren't an admin and can't threaten a block, so this seems to be quite the empty threat. Buffs (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, I think this comment is a good example of something you should have handled differently. If you feel it's necessary to monitor all of the conversations on Hammersoft's talk page, but they have specifically asked you not to comment there, then you should have contacted Muqman52 directly at their talk page to express your differing opinion. That's Civility 101. — Satori Son 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I guess I "should have contacted Muqman52 directly at his talk page to express my differing opinion". Buffs (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we don't routinely treat violation of these so-called "talk page bans" as harassment is so that harassment actually means something. The diffs in question are not harassment in and of themselves, especially a month apart. It takes rather more than that before we start issuing formal restraint orders to people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me to clarify; I am not stating any case that what he is doing is or is not harassment. That's not the point. I cited the harassment policy to sustain the case that it is a reasonable request to ask someone to remain off of my talk page, and to expect that person to comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But if they refuse to stay off the Talk page, are you saying there are no remedies? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content[1] is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular page." Buffs (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Buffs, you assert that I came here seeking "dramaz". Yet, you know that posting to my talk page when you have previously been asked not to do so multiples times is deliberately provocative. The best way to avoid this "dramaz" is for you to not post on my talk page. It's really that simple. Just stop. It's easy. Don't click "edit this page". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ok...sure. It's all my fault that I tried to communicate with you (just like WP:DR says) and that justifies you plastering this all over WP and sullying my name. Your extent of WP:DR was to post to my page once and then immediately elevate it. I never "reported you up the chain". YOU made a conscious decision to elevate this and cause more drama. You didn't have to do that at all. Buffs (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked User:Buffs for 31 hours, after reviewing their comments at this thread and on their talkpage. They seem to be very willing to wikilawyer their "right" to edit Hammersoft's talkpage, when there is a fairly clear consensus that they should not do so - and especially when there are other avenues to pursue any perceived issues with Hammersofts editing. My rationale for the sanction is disruption; the effort being expended on attempting to resolve this issue is far in excess of any concern that it may be addressing, with no apparent change in the viewpoint from the party concerned. As ever, I welcome review and amendment/reversal of my actions if thought appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have disputed this block on the talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Responded there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So did I. Bishonentalk 23:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  I'm sorry, but what the hell!?!? No one can even point to a policy or guideline I've violated. Hammersoft does not own the page, PERIOD!!! He cannot dictate by royal decree what is done on his page. He doesn't get to dictate what others say. Like I said earlier, I've posted twice in 6 months. These actions do not violate any policy or guideline. If anything, HS deserves to be blocked for WP:OWNing his talk page (at least that is a violation).

  My block history has been nearly spotless to this point. I had a a single block for a 3RR violation, which I acknowledge I was in the wrong at the time (however, though the rules have been changed since then to exempt reversions of vandalism). I have had a blemish-free history for FOUR YEARS.

  This is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot simply make up rules and arbitrarily enforce them. This used to be a community ruled by consensus, not by dictators blocking on a whim with no backing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I never swore. I never called people names and, yet, I'm blocked for...what? One admin doesn't like me personally? One admin doesn't like the rules of Wikipedia? This is ludicrous!!! Buffs (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, he doesn't want you to post on his talk page; don't post on his talk page. There's no conceivable reason why you should continue to do so against his wishes. Why is it so important that you enforce your rights to the point of making it uncomfortable for others? Just stop dealing with him. Take his talk page off of your watchlist. Seriously, why is there such resistance to this. What is so important that you do this; forget being "allowed" as the perspective on this, even if you are "allowed", that doesn't mean its still best to do so. There's lots of things people have "the right" to do which is still a bad idea to do. It seems like a no brainer that if people don't want to interact with you; that you stop trying to interact with them. --Jayron32 03:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I can certainly think of "conceivable reasons" for posting on a user talk page after having been "banned" from it. Furthermore, regarding the punitive block, I thought warning shots were supposed to be across the bow rather than beneath the waterline. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel that Buffs and yourself should review the section immediately below Wikipedia:UP#CMT, which is the guideline Buffs believes they should be referred to. As for warnings, Buff questioned the ability of the admin who ended up unblocking him to sanction him when the issue was raised. Other editors warned Buff regarding their actions immediately above and on their talkpage, and their response was to wikilawyer the wording of WP:OWN... There is a difference between not being warned and not acknowledging or agreeing with the warnings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says "probably sensible". Normally things that earn editors 31hr blocks for first offenses (or at least first ANI reports) are worded rather more strongly than that. Had Buffs boldly declared "the guideline doesn't specifically ban me from commenting there so I shall do as I please" then it's certainly be wikilawyering, but he didn't. As for "not acknowledging or agreeing with the warnings", are you referring to the warnings from Hammersoft? Because again, the guidelines discourage rather than prohibit posting on user talk after "bans" of the type Hammersoft handed out precisely because of the existence of cases where that's not in the best interests of the project, and Buffs made a reasonable argument for why he did so. On the other hand, he received no warning at all for getting a 31hr block, especially one apparently justified on the grounds that he'd dared to defend himself on ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was more like a mafia reminder (you know, break all the guys knuckles on one hand with a nutcracker and say "this is just to remind you not to piss off Jimmy the Fish"). Buffs kinda drew the line in the sand "you can't block me for that, nyah nyah nyah", and well, he's been proven wrong. I just love how he tried to use WP:OWN for his benefit. I thought we were all nice saying "listen, don't post there" and suddenly he started acting like a WP:DICK about it. Well, guess what Buffs ... you can and will be blocked for it, capische? Maybe it wasn't the right way to do it, but the continued wikilawyering about it pretty much reminds us of ends justifying means ... he still doesn't get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is he to "get", exactly? That while policy says that staying off people's talk pages when asked to is a sensible way of avoiding conflict, what that really means is "do it or get blocked"? And as for the analogy, do we really want admins to intimidate editors into behaving? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, intimidation is not useful. I was using the analogy humourously. Realistically, this whole discussion should be over by now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I receive rude, uncivil, vulgar, obscene, and other darkly amusing comments on my talk page all the time. I don't own my talk page, so I don't play the OP's "stay off not-my page" game. If the OP can't handle the occasional heat, maybe he ought to find another kitchen. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Occasional heat? As you very well know, there's a very long standing dispute between myself and Buffs that has never amicably resolved. This 'heat' has been going on for years, not 'occasional'. I attempted to disengage, and Buffs previously agreed to not post on my talk page (last paragraph). There is absolutely no need for him to post comments such as "All you seem to care about is whether people have checked every bureaucratic box" yet he chose to do so. What I sought here was to have Buffs informed that his behavior was inappropriate and that he stay off my talk page. That has happened. Whether he takes the admonition to heart and abides by the request remains to be seen. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to claims by Buffs that I needlessly escalated this; not so. I, for the 7th time now, asked Buffs to stay off my talk page. His response made it clear he had no intention of honoring that request. If there is a more appropriate place to take such disputes when they've reached this state than this board, I'm certainly open to being advised of such. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, twice in a month, that's just unbearable is it? There is no absolute right to "ban" someone from your talk page, it comes down to common sense, which apparently needs to be explained to both of you. Franamax (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What common sense would that be? I've asked him seven times to stay off my talk page, and he refuses. What do you think I should have done? Just kept silent and taken his deliberately provocative posts? My request is reasonable; stay off my talk page. That's all I'm asking for. I don't expect his opinion of me to improve. I don't expect him to apologize. I don't expect anything of him, but to stay off my talk page. So please tell me what common sense it is that I should be expressing? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, what you've said in the past is you don't want any opposition to your edits (from me and others). Buffs (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be open to using the talkback function? Buffs (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, earlier above you asked for a specific policy to be cited to show how you were violating a rule. While I don't think blocks, bans, or discipline necessarily require a rule to be broken (after all one of the rules is "ignore all rules"), if it makes you feel better, consider the following:

• Wikipedia:Civility - "If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead" (like just leaving the guy alone)
• Wikipedia:Harassment - a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person
• WP:POINT - you're being pointy about the WP:OWN policy, it is one thing to acknowledge a policy, and another to flaunt it

I'm sure I could find more things, but why? Just using a little common sense here is the most important bit. I had to deal with an editor once who absolutely went quite nuts whenever I tried to interact with him on his user page. After 2 times, I left a polite apology and promise to leave him alone. No more drama, and its easy. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now THIS I have no problem with: disagreement, but a civil discussion.

• WP:CIVIL: I have offered numerous olive branches to HS. They have all been ignored, deleted, or outright rejected. I've offered discussion pages. I've offered to look at images for him so he doesn't even have to get involved. EVERY offer has been rejected.
• WP:HARASSMENT: Where is the offensive behavior?
• WP:POINT: Doing what I can to prevent newer users from acting upon extremely poor advice and/or preventing someone driving away editors/their contributions isn't pointy, it's what we are all supposed to do. Buffs (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. If every offer has been rejected, then move on.
2. The harassment behavior is evidenced mostly by the fact that Hammersoft has asked you to stop and you have not.
3. You say you're 'doing what you can to prevent newer users from acting on poor advice'. Please give 1 specific example that REQUIRED you to specifically intervene on Hammersoft's page, rather than talking to such a user on their own Talk page, or at an article's Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below, no point in fragmenting the conversation. Short version though, I cannot change his problematic behavior without communicating with him. If a person repeatedly bites the newbies, it doesn't help the situation to always talk to the noobs. Buffs (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The overall point is, you have not been personally assigned to fix Hammersoft's problematic behavior, and while your intentions might be helpful, they are not working toward a productive end. If there is an problem, talk to another editor, or use Dispute Resolution methods. But there's no need to bother him directly if he says to leave him alone. -- Avanu (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed ban of User:Buffs from User talk:Hammersoft

There is a quite simple solution, going forward. It is within the remit of the community to ban a user from any page where there is the potential for disruption; I therefore propose, "Buffs (talk · contribs) is banned from editing the page User talk:Hammersoft (and any subsidiary or related ages), indefinitely, for a minimum of one year. Any concern of User Buffs regarding edits by User Hammersoft should be conveyed either by a third party to User talk:Hammersoft or initiated on a dispute resolution page - notice again being supplied by a third party." I further propose that, "User Buffs may not use another editors talkpage to initiate contact/discussion with User Hammersoft, and limit interactions with User Hammersoft on other talkpages to issues within discussion only. This restriction is to run concurrently with the User talk:Hammersoft ban." Please indicate support or opposition below.

Comment from "recipient of said ban": there is no policy which states that the community may ban a user where there is the potential for disruption. Discussion, by definition, is not disruption. I haven't broken a single rule on WP nor have there been any blocks enacted on me (except this one above...which was rapidly overturned due to a lack of evidence/). One user cannot enact an arbitrary "ban" and admins should not enforce any attempt to do so through punitive blocks. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both restrictions, as proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure, since I tried to deal with this previously a year or two ago. If it is still going on, then the situation is not going to get better. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Unnecessary and unwarranted. Bish said this discussion was a waste of the community's time, and you do this? The point has been made to Buffs, and that's all that's needed for now. Just let this threat die. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Formal interaction restrictions should be used sparingly where it's seriously disrupting the project. I don't believe that's the case here. Buffs should be admonished not to test his luck as regards use of Hammersoft's talk page, but that's all that's required. A formal interaction ban here rather seriously steps over what the user talk guidelines actually say. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose, also be aware that the precedent will be used to ban the tagspam from my talk page; i expect the support votes to confirm. Slowking4: 7@1 x 17:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It may not be harassment but its clearly provoking after User talk:Hammersoft has clearly asked him to stop. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I doubt this will end teh dramahz. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I just looked into this myself, clearly a ban is warranted. I agree there seems to be no malicious intent here, but really this has to stop. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - OP needs to shrug it off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? That goes against all that WP:CIVIL stands for.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has an issue with someone else, they should be free to post on their talk page. And the recipient is free to ignore it. This stuff about being "provoked" is the old "look what you made me do game", which is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what I've done that was uncivil. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• support anything truly serious that Hammersoft needs to be told about, someone else is likely to tell them, or it is only serious to Buffs. I would make an exception fo {{TB}} without any summary text, because in the end this is a collaborative environtment, but TB allows you to ignore or respond as you see fit. This exception, if abused, should be then disallowed.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no problem with this option, but I still oppose the ban. It allows me (or anyone else) to make a point without unduly being on his talk page. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• support Talk page bans have come up for years on wikipedia. In the past, I've generally seen them enforced, which would indicate at least some community support for them despite the fact that we don't have a policy specifically written about them. Many people have ended up banned from other people's talk pages, and consider it a specific form of interaction ban. Which are also routinely applied around here. There is often little need for anyone specific to be editing anyone else's talk page. Most discussions about articles can happen on article talk pages, other discussions on noticeboards, and you really would only need to go to someone's talk page if you wanted to discuss something particular about their editing behaviour in general. And if they're having genuine issues, someone else can discuss that with them. Conversely, I think this should be reciprocal, and hammersoft should also not be posting on Buffs' talk page either. The drama potential there is too high--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying we can't ban someone (anyone) from a talk page. I am saying that it cannot be arbitrarily decided by a single user. All I want is for HS to stop intentionally directing users to do things that run contrary to copyright law and NFCC. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, I strenuously oppose a ban of anyone on my talk page (except those who are banned from WP altogether) Buffs (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I typically believe in a very wide latitude for people and many chances, but in the case of a simple request of "stay off my userpage", it is easy enough to comply with, and unless there is a legitimate reason that Buffs specifically needs to notify Hammersoft about something, I don't how honoring the request to leave Hammersoft alone is unreasonable. Buffs makes the case that Hammersoft does not "own" his userspace, and while this is true to some degree, the Wikipedia:User pages guideline says that userpages are for "facilitating interaction and sharing between users". It sounds like these forced interactions are not helpful for Hammersoft, so why continue? Buffs doesn't "own" the space anymore than Hammersoft does, so how can this be a forced interaction by one editor onto another? If this were a dispute in a Article Talk Page, I might simply ask them to find separate topics to work on, but a User Page is a special place that we don't "own", but we do get to call 'home'. Simply leaving someone alone should an easy request to honor. -- Avanu (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:HA. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we here? - If user X says that User Y is no longer welcome to post on X's talk page, that is the end of the story. If Y persists, then Y gets blocked. This is not a support/oppose case. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It is one of our policies that explicitly states that NO ONE OWNS A PAGE; no one person can dictate explicitly what is on a page. Even WP:USER explicitly acknowledges this. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. We have a policy explicitly prohibiting that kind of behavior: WP:OWN. Buffs (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It has nothing to do with ownership, that is a red herring of an argument of yours. User talk pages are for simple communication with other editors, but this isn't a perfect world and people sometimes get into disagreements. If one editor no longer wishes another to communicate with them, then that person should honor that request; to do otherwise is rather dickish. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have largely honored that request and have made a grand total of FOUR edits in the past year out of almost 1000...and two were to correct errors in the first post. ALL of these were to advise a person asking for help what to actually do. Buffs (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both ban of Buffs commenting directly about other user, and Tarc's comment immediately above. The what policy have I broken? nonsense needs to stop. In an ideal world, the other editor might have a personality which can shrug off unwelcome provocations (and intruding like that is a provocation—what comment is so vital for the encyclopedia that it needs to be posted on a user's talk page by Buffs?). However, there is no policy which says all editors must be thick skinned, and the community needs to support its editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTCENSORED? Buffs (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but comments like that merely support the need for the ban. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sorry, but your comment makes no sense. You say "There is no policy which says all editors must be thick skinned." I point out that there is a policy which says exactly that. Your response is (I guess) "because he contradicted me in public, it's clear to me that he should be banned". WTH? Buffs (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I cannot support any ban that is based upon what MIGHT happen. While I generally subscribe to a personal philosophy of "Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty, and the pig likes it" when it comes to avoiding conflicts both on the Wiki and in real life - some battles aren't worth the effort of the undertaking - I cannot in any way subscribe to the viewpoint that an editor should be banned for what MIGHT happen. Lightning MIGHT strike me if I go outside, but probably NOT. I feel that the proposed action creates an awkward precedent and unduly compromises the efforts in good faith of editor Buffs who has been active on the Wiki project for several years. I vote in support of editor Buffs. Thick or thin skins doesn't really enter into it from my viewpoint. You can't convict for a crime that MIGHT be committed but hasn't YET. Mark Sublette (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you are aware of what the 'ban' proposal is above. It is only saying thet Buffs needs to stay off Hammersoft's personal Talk page. It isn't a 'ban' beyond that. -- Avanu (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Talk page ban, as two comments in six months do not indicate an ongoing disruption, no matter perception of the distant past, and there has been a reasonable compromise offered that will solve the issue Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as unnecessary. Going back to Jan 2010, there are all of 4 or 5 interactions. Buffs shouldn't be harping on the point, but you don't own your talk page, pure and simple. There is no systemic attempt to create an unpleasant environment. Buffs has been counselled on appropriate use, viz not furthering the interpersonal dispute, and can be counselled and/or blocked on future activity. Hammersoft can remove whatever they want, so long as it doesn't falsify a thread. This would set a crazy precedent. Franamax (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an easy one. Oppose per Tarc. Let me make this even more clear - I'd like Buffs to stop venting his WP:OWN argument, as it's tangibly irrelevant. This is simple enough - somebody asks you to stay off of their talk page, you do it. If you want a guideline, go read WP:DICK and WP:CIVIL. (I don't think WP:HA really applies here.) — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

How about just allowing only a {{TB}} template for all future communications. HS can chose whether to participate or not. If it makes anyone feel better, I'll even pass that request through a third party. It is not obtrusive and allows HS to do with it as he wishes without any further communication? Buffs (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the proposed alternative of a self-imposed use of only a neutral Tb template as User:Buffs has offered, as this is a tacit agreement by him to not post anything more and a ban need now not even be considered. Note, I do not agree that WP:IAR can be used to trump WP:CIV, as Buffs can always get an intermediary to post something more than a Tb at User Talk: Hammersoft if it must be posted, as there may be times where the two might actually need to discuss an issue. And by Buffs offering to post nothing more than a neutral Tb template, such will invite User:Hammersoft to a discussion that he may then himself choose not to join. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure this would be helpful. User talk pages are for messages intended for that person alone, or for responses to other particpants in a thread. In the latest case (the "Kingdom" image), you could have tagged up the image and just made a note in the thread on HS's page "Image is not copyrightable, fixed cover page [diff]" and throwing in "per [Cornell copyright link]" is always a good idea so that everyone can learn that stuff. It's the tone and persomal commentary that raises problems. Linking through a talkback to the same type of thing doesn't solve any problems. Franamax (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is quite worthless - I don't see the improvement from the perceived "harassment" involving posting directly on HS' TP. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there I was

...driving down the street, going 45 in a 45 mph zone. It's a nice, clear sunny day without a cloud in the sky. Without warning, a policeman pulls me over and says, "I'm going to have to arrest you."

"You can't do that. I haven't broken any law."

"Well, you were going too fast on this street."

"The speed limit sign says 45"

"Yeah, well some of us don't like that you are going that fast. This guy here lives on the street and called to complain that he doesn't like it when you go that fast. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

"Well, I'm sorry he doesn't like it, but that still doesn't mean I broke the law and that you can arrest me."

"Oh yeah? Get out of the car! Put your hands on the hood"

The officer proceeds to arrest me and throws me in jail. Three hours later a judge throws out the case, but several of his neighbors still don't like it and band together to block off the street solely so I can't drive on it. They don't try to get the speed limit changed. They don't try discussion, they simply say, "Jimmy doesn't like him driving on that street, so he shouldn't ever drive on it." Buffs (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely in poor taste to continually make an appeal to whether you have broken policy, when in your first response above you quote Ignore All Rules as a defense of doing whatever you like, to quote you:

I recognize that HS has the right to request that I not post on his talk page, but I also have a right to ignore that request and do what is best for WP. To leave those interactions alone only serves to perpetuate a myth about WP image use and hurt our community as a whole.

In what possible world are you REQUIRED to post on a specific other person's Talkpage in order to accomplish the goal of helping with Wikipedia? You could EASILY fix this by just agreeing to leave the guy alone, but instead you continue to give arrogant responses to the rest of us. Please, stop being a WP:JERK, and stop justifying poor and uncivil behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Since when did this devolve into name-calling (pretty sure I haven't called anyone a "jerk" or a "dick", but apparently it's ok to do that to me. I guess we're going to ignore WP:CIVIL today...pretty sure that's another policy...)

but to answer your question, no, I don't think that WP:IAR gives me the right to do "whatever I want", but it does allow me to post on his page no matter what his request is. It certainly isn't a blockable offense to disagree with someone.

So, let's just stick with either proposal above and stop the name calling, ok? Buffs (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure you understand the difference here. It isn't namecalling, but a description of the behavior you're exhibiting. I have no idea about you beyond this page, but I can tell quite quickly that you are being stubborn and dickish, mostly because you won't just say "OK, I'm sorry for the trouble, I'll leave the guy alone." This is a easy one, Buffs, and rather than work to solve the problem, you're choosing to be the problem. I'm not against you personally; I don't know you. But I do clearly see what the problem is here. -- Avanu (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Few things are required, but I believe that HS is WP:BITEing the noobs by giving them bad advice. In the past year, and the only two instances in which I've posted on his page, both were in response to him telling a person that YOUR IMAGE ISN'T ALLOWED ON WP!!! I REMOVED IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT IMAGE HERE!!! when in fact, both images were entirely permissible. HS knows better, but has decided to ignore what copyright actually covers and what it doesn't and, instead force newer users to jump through hoops and spend hours reading through WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, WP:IMAGE, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:FUR, U.S. copyright caselaw, and others only to decipher that there are two lines that need to be fixed in their image to make them usable on WP in the capacity they want. To use his fishing analogy ("I consider it teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish"), HS really wants them to hand-whittle a pole, weave a line out of small vines, and bend their belthook into a hook instead of telling to just switch which bait they are using.

In short, he's not only giving bad advice, but making WP more difficult to use.

So, no, you apparently don't see the entire problem. However, I am willing to cease all communications with Hammersoft on his talk page, with the exception of a generic {{TB}} template if you, or any another user, feels it's appropriate (they will be passed through a third party). Buffs (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avanu is correct. When an editor repeatedly points out that everyone commenting at ANI is wrong, there is a high probability that the editor is mistaken. Establishing a perfect system of government is not one of Wikipedia's aims, and persisting with this unhelpful discussion is only providing evidence that something stronger than an interaction ban is required. There is no requirement that an editor agree with outcomes at ANI—by all means state once or twice that the reasoning is not accepted; however, to not accept the outcome is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, sorry, but I never said "everyone was wrong". In fact a sizable number of people agree with me. The rest of it, I just don't understand what you are talking about. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs, I don't see a reason that you would ever have to speak to Hammersoft on his Talk page again. Just leave him alone. If there's an issue with his conduct toward other editors, talk to that specific editor, or bring it to dispute resolution. As for your defender of the Wikipedia award, I don't see how this type of interaction qualifies - diff, since Hammersoft asked you not to post there, and he was actually accurate in describing Wikipedia policy. It may not always be convenient to follow policy, but it is there for a reason, unless you can get it changed. -- Avanu (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His description of policy was accurate, but his application was not. I could describe WP:DEL and then nominate an article for deletion. But while my description of policy might be 100% accurate, nominating George Bush for deletion isn't appropriate. Likewise, telling a relative newbie that he can't use a specific image on his user page when, in fact, he can, is disruptive to WP. The only problem with the image was that the description tag was wrong and it was categorized as a non-free image when it should have been a public domain image categorized as {{pd-textlogo}} image. I have tried on numerous occasions to educate him on the matter, offered to help (drop me a link on my page and I'll fix it/take care of it). His answer is effectively, "no thanks, I prefer annoying other people and forcing others to make changes, but actually making the changes myself is beneath me and/or I just don't have time for it since I am doing much more important WP work". He has also stated that he actively refuses to make any distinction between non-free and PD images that are mislabeled and he has no desire to learn or apply differences accordingly. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're doing analogies here's one. At "Wikipedia Beach" there's a law that says that it's against the law to pick "foo oats". A policeman sees a group of tourists picking what looks like "foo oats" and goes over and warns them. All this is witnessed by a local botanists who then examines the oats and determines that they are actually "bar oats" and therefore lawful to pick. The botanists then confronts the policeman. Instead of politely telling him that the oats are in fact "bar oats", he instead yells at the policeman and accuses him of bullying the tourists, says he knew that they were "bar oats" all the time and just sadistically enjoys "biting the tourists". In this case the policeman would be well within his rights to tell the botanist to get out of his face. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the policeman can't arbitrarily prohibit the botanists from going to the police station and filing a complaint... Buffs (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If said botanist kept going to the police station and filing charges of harassment and brutality against police officers for simply doing their jobs and keeping people from picking what are marked, correctly or not, as "foo oats", it might get to the point where his rants are ignored and his reports are filed in the round file. The fact that he might be right will be lost because nobody likes listening to jerks, no matter how right they are. What the botanist should do is "assume good faith" on the part of the police department and inform the city counsel that there some patches of "bar oats" incorrectly marked as "foo oats". Also, nobody should ban him from the police station but they can tell him to stop screaming in the officer's face. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the point though. Currently the question is why you feel compelled to post on his User page, even when he said leave him alone, and honestly, dispute resolution can be solved outside a User page. He's made it clear that he doesn't want the interaction there. We give people wide latitude on their own Userspace, and there are plenty of alternatives for dispute resolution. -- Avanu (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the point. HS is continuing problematic behavior and I do not wish to elevate it as a first resort. There is no reason to go to ANI or other places when a simple, reasoned discussion can occur. HS simply doesn't want to fix his own behavior and has gone so far to say he won't help WP/noobs simply because I was the one asked (even if I offer to reduce his workload!).

Addressing your WP:HA comment above, ("The harassment behavior is evidenced mostly by the fact that Hammersoft has asked you to stop and you have not"), my point is that he does not have the right to restrict access to his talk page in the first place. Since that is the basis for the block/ban in the first place, it isn't valid. Note that WP:DR starts at the user/article talk page.

However, for the sake of keeping the peace, I'll refrain from now on from posting to his talk page (as described above by solely using {{t1 TB}} templates posted through a third party...who obviously have to agree to the contact). Buffs (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go one step further as a sign of good faith. Since I cannot ask him if this is acceptable (he's left me no means by which to directly communicate with him), would you be so kind as to ask him? Buffs (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with just 100% leaving the guy's Talk page alone? No Talkback templates through third parties, just saying, OK, done? You make a promise, the AN/I purpose is ended and everybody moves on. -- Avanu (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say the issues continue and he continues to bite the noobs. Since I cannot talk to him on his talkpage, I cannot take it to any form of WP:DR since I am required to inform him of the WP:DR process (i.e. ANI, AN, ArbCom, etc). It's a catch-22. If I cannot communicate with him at all, I am unable to perform any dispute resolution! Then there is the principle of the whole thing: he doesn't own the page in the first place and cannot dictate who can and who can't contribute on the page. I didn't contribute to it to make a WP:POINT, I did it to correct his problematic behavior and to try and stop him from being a WP nuisance/biting the newbies. I admit I took a risk of some blowback here, but I'm trying to give him every opportunity to fix the problems before escalating. If he's not going to stop, then WP:ANI is the next option. Buffs (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not required to inform Hammer. Apply some common sense. No "catch-22" - Hammer's request freed you of any responsibility to do so. If you have concerns about Hammer's editing (I don't see much discussion of that), then you should bring them up so we can see if they hold water. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surfacing to make a comment. Buffs, I've read through pretty much the entire thread here. If Hammersoft is biting new editors (I prefer not use the word noob since it tends to have derogatory undertones), then someone else will bring it to his attention. He has asked you to not post on his talk page, granted that you only have limited postings to said page, then by common courtesy you should abide by his request even though by policy you are not required to do so. Your continued defence of your position isn't going to get you anywhere and flogging the horse further is only going to earn the ire of the community and an increasing barrage of wikilinks and ultimately blocks and topic bans. Just leave it be, move along and let this thread die. --Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, IAR is to be invoked when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia. Please elucidate what rule you believe needs to be ignored to improve Wikipedia. If you are trying to improve an article, fix the article. If you want to open a discussion about an article, do it on the article's talk page. Neither of these requires you to post on Hammersoft's page, as he's asked you politely multiple times to stop posting there. By doing this you only antagonize Hammersoft and create a non-collegial editing environment. Your responses to every support demonstrate that you don't get the point. Furthermore your narrative that starts this section only works if it is a residential street. Neighborhoods are allowed to petition the city government to request a "No-Through-Traffic" if there is a reasonable demonstration that the street is being used as an access corridor. Hasteur (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear majority above for a ban on him talking to him on his talk page. Its really simple just stop. There are plenty of other avenues to go down if an issue arrives that don't Require Buffs to go on his talk page such as dispute resolution. Take him off your watchlist ignore him if he is doing wrong then another editor can deal with it. The more buffs protest the more i feel there is more to this hes asked you nicely and you refuse to listen stop antagonising him. As i said there is no need at all for you going on his talk page. Warburton1368 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Buff's course is clear. Since the other guy doesn't want complaints on his talk page, then instead of going to the other guy (which would be the normal procedure), Buffs should bring it here. A few extra trips to ANI might make the other guy rethink his stance. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all. I have been and am always open to collegial feedback on my edits. I am not open to Buffs posting to my talk page, since interactions between he and I virtually always result in decidedly the opposite. Buffs has his own opinion of my edits and he is certainly welcome to them. I am well past undertaking any effort to correct him. If he feels it necessary to report me to WP:AN/I for some perceived infraction, he is welcome to so far as I'm concerned. In fact, I encourage him. He won't take my word for anything; getting outside input regarding his opinions may be helpful to him. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP problem here is: WP:Hear. - Shell (Nut Case) (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First and foremost, I echo Avanu and Hasteur's comments. You aren't seeing the "big picture" here - stop referring to rules and policies, because this matter is clearly covered in a blanket-style way by WP:CIV. What I mean by the "big picture" is, why, out of the 2000+ editors who are regularly active on Wikipedia, do you need to communicate with HS? Maybe he's stupid, maybe he's judging you and just doesn't like your face, but so what? It's just civil and common-sensical to follow his request. Isn't it just easier? And, again, you say one can't block someone just because you disagree with them. Well, that isn't quite right - virtually every block reason is based on a disagreement, to a certain extent. Obviously, this isn't quite one-versus-one, but here there are 20+ editors who agree that you should stop editing HS' talk page. Go read WP:CONSENSUS. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I count 11 vs the 7 who support me, but I'm not really good at numbers. Perhaps my math is way off. And no, we don't block editors solely for disagreement. We block them as a preventative measure to prevent further policy violations. Perhaps you should read WP:BLOCK...and note that I haven't posted on his page. Buffs (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But editors are blocked for disruption, tendentious editing, wiki-lawyering, exhausting the community's patience, excessive levels of not listening. Buffs, all thats' required is that you undertake not to post on Hammersoft's talk page except in the case of official type notifications like ANI notifications etc. If you agree to that and Hammersoft agrees to that then this discussion that is just going round in circles can finally come to a halt. --Blackmane (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if we'd all just follow the fundamental rule of all social spaces, we'd not have this problem. If someone tells you not to post on their talk and you do so anyway, you're in violation of that rule, pure and simple. I don't care if policy allows it or not. It's still being a dick. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a pretty brutal analogy. The proper addition would be "On my way to the 45 MPH zone, I cut through the parking lot of a variety store - the same way I have a few other times. A year ago, the store put a "no trespassing, other than immediate customers" sign out on the boulevard. 6 months ago the proprietor stopped me and pointed to the sign. A week ago, he did that again. Nevertheless, I continue to take the shortcut - it is, after all, the fastest way to the street I need to travel on". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is completely flawed. The store owner legally owns that property and can control who he wants on it. The street is completely open to everyone. WP:OWN applies to all of WP, not just some of it...this explicitly includes user pages. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question. How is your personal crusade to retain access to Hammersoft's User Page benefitting the encyclopedia MORE than it is working against it? We've given you a lot of easy alternatives, but you insist that your approach is the right choice. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs Your badgering your point and to be honest its pointless. Your insistence is over the top and is provoking a reaction which is unnecessary. Take the easy option and accept not to post on his talk page no he dosent own it but its his way of communicating and if he feels provoked or harassed then he is correct in asking you politely not to post on it. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Buffs

I propose: Give Buffs a trout, Buffs promises to not post on Hammersoft's page again (no exceptions)

• Support - Buffs is right that we don't own *anything* at Wikipedia, but poking people because we can is a lame reason to do it. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As per Avanu.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Avenu. If "because I have the right to" is the best reason you have to do something, that's a good sign you probably shouldn't do it. --Jayron32 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support just because others persist in the toxic environment of noxious warnings on talk pages, dosen't mean we should. but now that it's clear what "harrassment" is, expect more of the same drama here. there are many i never want to have to read on my talk page. Slowking4: 7@1 x 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support (although it is a bit of a waste of fish) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but lets make it a whale instead. --Blackmane (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but with low expectations of the disruptive behavior changing. Buffs should be reminded in the very strongest language that further reports of this behavior will be treated with significantly less Assumptions of Good Faith by the community as he's been warned before. Hasteur (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Wikipedia is not a battleground. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions is odious. Use the whale. Bishonen talk 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Support Provoking behaviour isn't on.Warburton1368 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned. Buffs has been trouted and requested / urged / invited to promise not to post to H's talk page again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:BLP policy at Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn

User:Borgmcklorg made comments on the above talk page, labelling DSK an 'attacker', with 'a history of this kind of behaviour'. I redacted them and left a note on Borgmcklorg's talk page explaining why - however, he/she has reverted this [79]. Can someone please take appropriate action to see that Borgmcklorg conforms with WP:BLP policy - I don't think that this is simple edit-warring, given this [80] comment elsewhere on the talk page, labelling contributors as 'Strauss-Kahn's PR agents'. This is a high-profile article, and we need to maintain appropriate standards on the talk page too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A strange note here, yes, I used the word attacker once (in the last of four sentences), it seems quite undeniable in general. Likewise, Strauss-Kahn's team (described in some detail in several articles in major media) are exactly as I characterised them in the last comment (dirty lawyers, ex-government 'intelligence' people, etc.). AndyTheGrump might just lay off, it is hardly a major violation. Interesting that it is on this topic in particular. Furthermore, I object to the username (AndytheGrump) and have expressed that in the past. It is a threatening and aggressive username, and should have been blocked under Wikipedia username policies.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find Borgs to be highly aggressive in their assimilation policies, and thus you should be blocked indefinitely. In other words, are you serious about your username concern? Can you provide one iota of proof that it violates the username policy, or are you simply attempting to discredit someone with whom you're in conflict? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, what is threatening about admitting to be a grump? Did Borg have nightmares about one of Snow White's diminutive friends as a child? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, both of you, but Grump by name Grump by nature seems to influence your approach. No offence intended.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you state that this is hardly a major violation - I presume that is an admission that it is a violation? so how about withdrawing it, rather than repeating it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, will not recognise that.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major violation. Wikipedia's talk pages are not forums in which to discuss the subject, nor to air one's opinions of the subject. AndyTheGrump was right to remove your comments on grounds of avoiding harm to living persons, you were wrong to reinsert them, and that's basically it. If you think the article in question would be improved by including what reliable sources have suggested to be evidence for the prosecution then so be it, but you are obliged not to accompany any comments you make to that effect with personal opinion on the subject nor the outcome of the case as you see it. If you are unable to do so it would be better if you found a separate forum in which to air your views. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which 'separate forum' do you have in mind? If you read newspapers, you will see that all of my comments are supported by reliable sources.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borgmcklorg; I've hatted the section. Keep your opinions to yourself, please, when discussing an article. If all you are at the talk page to do is soapbox then please be aware it is not welcome, or productive. Perhaps this can be the end of it. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, it is not soapboxing and to say it is just a method of denigration. Other comments have been deleted here, too, all I was doing on the discussion page was reiterating points that have been in the major media (as was the NYT article about Strauss-Kahn's almost secret defense team consisting of lawyers, detectives and publicists). Was not expressing personal opinions.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is just as much soapboxing (on behalf of S-K), and the current version of the Wikinews article (with a big loud link on the top page of Wikipedia) is even more so (disgraceful POV wording and inaccuracies). If you'd like a debate on that, I will gladly take it up point by point.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)=[reply]

NOTE: Borgmcklorg has just reinserted his/her policy-violating comments, combined with a personal attack on editors. [81] Evidently he/she has no intention of doing anything but causing trouble. Time for a block? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked for 31 hours, with a rationale of WP:DISRUPT in respect of violation WP:FORUM after having consensus found against them making their comments above. Should this short term block not deter them, I would suggest making the next one indefinite - for as long as they disregard consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should be aware that AndytheGrump, ErantX and others (OfftorioRob, Wikiwatcher1) have for many weeks engaged in WP:Ownership and Tag-Team intimidation of others who edit this article (and DSK's bio). Virtually all of their edits tend to present a beneficent POV about of DSK and thereby cast doubt on the credibility of his (BLP) accusers (of which there are least six named in reliable sources, including Diallo, Tristane Banon, her mother, Piroska Nagy, the Mexican maid, etc). By this point, asking about the tag-team's bias (and possible motivations for it) is reasonable. This has been amply documented elsewhere. Among other WP:Crush ploys, the tag-team will insist on ever-increasing explanations for inclusion of any point written -- and then turn around and accuse new editors of 'coatracking' based on the very explanations that they demanded. It is clever-by-half, and does a disservice to WP readers. Benefac (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should note that the above statement is off-topic for this thread, unaccompanied by any evidence whatsoever, and in my case at least (though I'm sure the same is true of the other editors named), demonstrably false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Jm1106

I'd like to ask for input/advisement on one issue and help with a second one.

Was this a good block?

A brand-new user, User:Jm1106, began her editing career by inserting about 40 external links into towns in eastern Massachusetts. Town info from the local paper, here's an example.

In my opinion these are good links. Other users don't agree (there's an ongoing discussion here). But even if they're not OK, they're arguably OK. Arguments supporting the links may be wrong, but they're not nonsense or madness.

User:Jm1106 might be an agent of the Patriot Ledger or its parent, out to promote newspapers. I doubt it, but other people think she probably is. Maybe it's 50-50 odds. There's no way to know for sure. But even is she is, if the links are good (or even arguably good) that's not necessarily a deal-killer. (BTW the links were restored and are in the articles now.)

Regardless of either of this considerations, she got blocked for this.

Now, of course I understand that a brand-new editor inserting a bunch of external links raises a red flag. That's fine; it should. However, And we're busy; we have to work fast here. So it's understandable that the person was blocked. (I guess. I wouldn't have done it. But whatever). But in my opinion this was a false positive, and and bad block. And the person was blocked with no warning or engagement of any kind, with no real explanation (just the phrase "Spamming or advertising), and forever. Which makes it that much worse.

But a bunch of other people disagree: The blocking admin (User:SchuminWeb) sure does, and admin User:JamesBWatson I'd say. Non-admin User:Thparkth called it "a good block, properly executed", and User:Wikiklrsc agrees I gather.

To my mind, this is nuts. Aren't we supposed to be welcoming new users? But maybe I'm wrong. I've stated my case and other involved people have stated theirs, so I'm just asking for the collected wisdom of the solons who inhabit this board: was this a good block? (I'm not asking if it was an understandable mistake but if was actively a good thing? Is the kind of block we should be making, and encouraging our new admins to make? Is the lack of warning a regrettable oversight, or actively a good thing (e.g. warnings would have been a waste of time or would have been coddling the user or whatever)?

(By the way and FWIW, since my attempts to the user unblocked in a timely fashion failed (see below), the user came back, saw she was blocked, and objected to having her attempts to contribute met with a block and kissed us goodbye. This is exactly what I feared and expected if we didn't act with a little alacrity. It looks like we just pissed away a useful new contributor. Granted, she could be yanking our chain (but I have no reason to think that). And granted, there was no way to prove to she was legit before the fact. Still, does this new info make a difference? Is the "good block!" camp still in high-five mode? I'm just asking.)

Request for unblock

I requested the blocking editor to undo (or at least explain) this block, and didn't make much headway there. I then made an unblock request on the blocked user's talk page. This was rejected on the grounds that only the blocked user can use {{unblock}} on her page. (I maintain that whether or not this is technically true, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY overrides this for an otherwise-valid non-trolling request especially when we're trying to quickly avoid pissing a away a new contributor before she returns and see's she's blocked, but but OK, fine, whatever, I'm not here to fight about that.)

So since I can't use {{unblock}} on the user's talk page (I guess), I'm making my third-part request here: will someone please unblock this person?

A couple of points:

• This may be moot, since the user has stated "I guess that's all the Wikipedia contributions I'll be making". But you never know. An abject apology might help. It's a matter of principle also.
• The person declining to unblock didn't look into the merits of the case, but I see indications that he has since, and thinks the block was valid on its merits. That's very different. But the unblock-decline doesn't say that. I'm not sure if one is allowed to edit the unblock-decline reason days after the fact (I hope not), so my third-party unblock request here is valid, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a couple of notes on your talkpage Herostratus - you've handled this rather poorly, and your own actions probably actually helped lead to the editor leaving. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible. I did my best. I'm all ears as to what I have done differently. I was trying to get the user unblocked before she knew it. I think you may be way, was overestimating how likely good-faith brand-new users, upon being being blocked (without warning, engagement, or explanation), are likely to say "Oh, well, it's just the Wikipedia whack-a-mole game, I'll just use the template they provide and read through the material the point to and go through the litigation required and so forth, all in good spirit" and way way underestimating how likely they are to throw up their hands in horror, disgust, amazement, and trauma and just go away. Being blocked from a website is a very very traumatic experience for most people. Most people have never been arrested and so forth, and a lot of people have never been suspended from school (or even had detention!) or anything like that, or been called on the carpet for a serious chewing-out by their boss and so forth. Most people are very good about following the rules of whatever situation they are in and for the average person this is probably the worst punishment they have ever had, OK? This is quite possibly the first time someone has told them "You've broken the rules, and badly, and you're in serious trouble here", at least as an adult. I know for a Wikipedia insider it's all part of "Under the spreading chestnut tree/I blocked you and you blocked me", but can you not understand that most people don't live in that world? Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The person declining to unblock didn't look into the merits of the case" is not correct. I did look into the merits of the case. Since the user had not requested an unblock I procedurraly declined the unblock request placed by a third party. I did not say "and I have not looked further into the case, so I don't know whether I would have accepted an unblock request if the blocked user had made one", which for some reason Herostratus evidently thinks was implied. I simply didn't mention what I would have done if the user had requested an unblock, because the question didn't arise. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, but was going by your unblock reason ("If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. So far that has not happened" and your first response when I asked to you reconsider: "'Pettifoggery'? 'Bureaucracy'? Why unblock an editor who has not requested an unblock? If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. This certainly looks like you didn't look into the merits of the case or, if you did, considered them moot. If you looked into the merits of the case, well for goodness' sake why didn't you say so? I can't know what's in your mind, and if you had declined the block on the merits that'd have been different and we probably wouldn't be here -- I'm not inclined to try to overturn a block and an on-the-merits unblock-decline, if there's even a mechanism to do so (I might have brought it up as something to review in general, as part of the first section of this thread). Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's something oddly familiar about that red-link user's ID. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 12:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got anything more, Bugs, then spit it out; I'm going to unblock the user in a few minutes if all you have a vague sense of unease. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblocked. As I've noted elsewhere regarding other similar situations, this is not so much a bad rogue block, as it is a symptom of a systematically poor approach we have to new editors breaking the rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked? Despite the fact that several other admins and some other editors have indicated that they think the block was appropriate? I don't see consensus for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be misreading policy, but a reversion can be done without consensus. He is simply responding to a good faith request from a third party. Personally, I think the block is understandable, but also WP:ROPE should be considered...--Cerejota (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and WP:BITE too...--Cerejota (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither claiming consensus for or against. An unblock was the right thing to do, so I did it. Normally I'd check with the blocking admin, but since he made it clear he wasn't going to discuss it, I went ahead and unblocked. If this was a good block according to policy, then the policy is bogus and needs to be changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, "Answerbook" is not a "local paper" - it's a link to enterprisenews.com/<TownName>, which publishes the AnswerBook. That could very easily be considered advertising. From the paper's about: "The Enterprise is an afternoon daily newspaper published in Brockton, Mass. It is considered a newspaper of record for Brockton and nearby towns in northern Bristol and Plymouth counties, and southern Norfolk County."

So the question becomes why this paper is somehow more trustworthy than other papers, and the simple answer is that it is not. In my community, there are two papers, the major paper and a local weekly nobody reads. I think that this paper is the latter, and its competitor is the major: "The Patriot Ledger has been the South Shore's newspaper since 1837."

Therefore, there is no reason to be linking to it repeatedly for every town it covers (and the editor missed quite a few). There is likely a COI behind this, seeing as how this just came out both on enterprisenews.com and patriotledger.com (the competitor, owned by the same company) not one day ago. This is the very definition of linkspamming. I would imagine that the user won't make any more contributions, as the user has no more to make, having finished spamming the articles in question. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a Captain Obvious! statement that not everyone would notice - the user went in alphabetical order through the towns, and by county as well, if I don't miss my guess. They were clearly using a list. This was not good-faith editing by any means, and while perhaps it could have been handled differently, I think the block itself was good. MSJapan (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the block wasn't good. The block notice was the first post to their talk page. We are supposed to discuss/educate/warn new editors first. You could very well be right about their motivations, but you could also be wrong. We shouldn't block if there is any possibility of it being a misguided but good faith editor. In fact, even if it was certain that this was someone affiliated with the website, a block would not have been appropriate until we explained that that isn't what we do here. If the link adding continued after a talk page warning, then a block might be in order. But "good block" doesn't mean "they were probably spamming, so let's block just to be safe". "Good block" means "we tried explaining and it didn't work, now we now they're spamming and unwilling to abide by our policies". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, methodology could have been different, but the end result was likely correct. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it[s a very reasonable procedure for someone to find a source, and use it where it applies. It's a much more effective way of sourcing articles than taking an individual random article and finding a source, then taking another unconnected article, etc. Doing things alphabetically is also a good idea. To the extent we have information on local things, we need to use local sources. I don't necessarily support using them for notability in some topic fields (such as high school sports), but when we're dealing with an article on a town they're usually the best sources. We need to assume some degree of good intent from new users; even if their initial purpose or actions are not what we ideally would want, most of them can learn. Indefinite blocks of users should really be deprecated except for vandalism or repeated copyvio. Adding external links is not in that sort of category. I totally agree with Floquenbeam, but I';m saying it again to make plain how important I think this is. Without new editors, Wikipedia will first stagnate and then die, for none of the present editors will be around forever. The rule that a blocked ed. has to ask themselves is pure BURO. It is very good practice to remove things that would unfairly discourage a new editor. Remove, and apologize also. The statement that an admin considered the "merits" when they admit they just considered the formalities seems confused. The merits are whether the original work was block-worthy. It wasn't. But it's the sort of thing that's blocked here all too often. It's a disgrace, and anyone who has tried to work with new editors is surely aware of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think AGF applies, and I don't think this was a new editor. I noticed the previous edit (before rv) to Abington, Massachusetts was by User:Patriotledger who added the exact same EL Jm1106 did. I think that was what Bugs was referring to earlier by "familiar". Alexf blocked PL for spam (and I'd say an obvious COI, as the Patriot Ledger is the other paper, and the publisher of the link). Therefore, "I have no beak and I must quack"; I would say it was the same user coming back from a different IP. Why else would two "new editors" start with the same edit on the same article two days apart and get the wl correct on the first shot? RFCU, perhaps? Again, it might have been handled differently, but there may have also been some good intuition. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was believed to be a sock returning in defiance of a ban, either that should be the reason for the block or the user page should be tagged appropriately to note that it is a sock. In that case, there was poor communication here. If this is a new contributor, it's appalling to block without advising them of the problem with their behavior and allowing them to stop. In that case, there was poor communication here. Either way, communication was poor. (And as a matter of principle, I agree with User:DGG. We can't lose sight of how important it is to bring in new contributors.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSJapan has made a very key finding and point here in the User:Patriotledger and User:Jm1106 saga. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long term vandal needs stopping

Today, I discovered that Tokusatsu (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) had been, once again, vandalized by an individual I have classified as the Saban troll based on how he at one point replaced pages with screeds against Haim Saban (example here).

Due to a series of edit filters, he has not been able to replace whole pages with his screed (failed attempts here). However, he has been putting his attention to other articles, such as Meryl Streep (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), Charlie's Angels (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), the last two of which were protected (along with a series of other pages last week). Today I discovered that he made changes to Rhoda Montemayor (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), an actress who portrayed Power Ranger, that made her Catalonian instead of Filipino, and removed any mention of her Power Rangers role from the page. Based on his editing patterns and the fact that all of his IP addresses are similar, I have narrowed down his IPs to the following ranges:

• 67.70.152.0/22 (67.70.152.0 - 67.70.155.255)
• 70.48.112.0/22 (70.48.112.0 - 70.48.115.255)

This individual cannot be reasoned with. There was once an abuse report put in that made him go away for a period of time, but Bell Canada just does not seem to give a shit and he keeps getting service from them. If the ISP will not stop him, then the only recourse we have is stopping him ourselves, once more.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how ISPs don't seem to give a shit about what their PAYING customers get up to on wikipedia aint it? 2.121.29.24 (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they get their money, I don't think the ISPs really care. –MuZemike 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out 70.48.112.0/22 has been blocked for 3 months by Black Kite, but 67.70.152.0/22 has only been blocked for a week by Materialscientist. Seeing as this guy has been at it for years now, can we extend these blocks into mid 2012 to give us time to report his ass to Sympatico?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been brought up at WP:ABUSE? If the user is active only on those IP ranges, and they both belong to the same ISP, it should be a relatively straightforward matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought up at WP:ABUSE on the previous ranges he utilized (Wikipedia:Abuse reports/64.231.0.0/16). He was stopped for a while, but he has been back in action on these new ranges, several more of which can be seen in the edit filter's log.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question at this point is if the old blocked IP range is still active? If so I'd say a long block would be appropriate... and if that's not available then is there a way we can update abuse filter?
We need to have zero tolerance for this kind of long term vandalism, where it's quite clear it's no longer just "messing around". I hope this thread doesn't get ignored, because notwithstanding all the very exciting ANI drama, in a better world this is the kind of thing that ANI ought to be actually handling regularly, and individual page squabbles should be the rare exception. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse filter is doing its job. However, there are other edits that it does not cover that are going through that allow us to identify this guy. He's on the two ranges I listed above, both of which are blocked for now. The edits to Tokusatsu (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), Meryl Streep (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), and Rhoda Montemayor (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) and the others are ones that are hard to track and I doubt can be blocked by an abuse filter. Blocking this guy for a year or two would probably help things out better while we contact Sympatico, again, to get him blacklisted or whatever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Threeafterthree

User:Threeafterthree has for some time objected to links to the website of John C. McAdams, a Marquette University professor who has published a book on the JFK assassination and whose website is widely recognized as an excellent resource. McAdams' credentials are detailed in his WP article. Threeafterthree has periodically removed links to this website with merely the edit summary "per WP:EL" and has generally refused to discuss the issue. On the few occasions he has engaged in talk page or noticeboard discussion, he has made broad generalizations about the quality of the website or about McAdams himself, abandoning the discussion before substantiating any of these generalizations in any way. He will then generally wait a few months and remove the EL again.

After I restored a couple of such links today, Threeafterthree retaliated by

• going on a deletion spree of McAdams links
• reverting me on an entirely unrelated article which he does not appear to be currently editing
• libeling McAdams in an edit summary which I've deleted
• Replacing links to McAdams with links to [ www.prouty.org/mcadams/ a website] (his own?) devoted to the late L. Fletcher Prouty, a former USAF officer who has become a hero to conspiracy theorists for his rather bizarre allegations regarding the JFK assassination, the CIA, etc. The page linked to is basically an attack page directed at a BLP, calling McAdams "Laughing stock of the Internet". Not only that, it is an attack page directed at me personally, with a picture of myself apparently taken from Wikipedia cyberstalker Daniel Brandt's hive mind hit list and (obviously false) allegations that I'm a Nazi.

This is really beyond the pale, something I'd expect from a drive-by anon, not an editor who has been here almost six years. Contentious editing and refusal to discuss is certainly one thing, but I would think libeling a living individual and posting an attack page directed at a BLP and another editor demands some sort of serious and immediate sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have notified User:Threeafterthree of this discussion here. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just started looking into this, but it looks pretty bad. Even if the links added by Gamaliel were inappropriate (not saying they were but even if they were) replacing them with links to attack sites falls in the realm of disruption to make a point, and following him to another completely unrelated article and reverting him there as well would appear to be WP:HOUNDING. I'd be interested to hear how Threeafterthree could rationalize taking such actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with Beeblebrox on this one. Unfortuantely, this does appear to be a POINTy series of actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try AGF. Single reverts where other editors appear to share his concerns != "beyond the pale." Recommended cure is a cup of tea - making mountains out of relative molehilss does not not benefit Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to posting an attack page directed at me and a BLP is for me to AGF? Since you don't take WP policies like BLP and CIVIL seriously in this comment, I don't think this comment should be taken seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Collect? Personally, replacing Wikipedia links with links to an attack page that libels another editor (and has major BLP concerns) sounds more like something that deserves an immediate block. Looking more into this now. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Collect. Attacking another editor and reverting all their edits cannot be explained away with a smile and a nod. I'm sure you've heard the old saw before that AGF is not a suicide pact. We should not ignore what appears to be a deliberate attack by one long-term user on another one because of the (extremely faint) possibility it was an innocent mistake. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this is a mistake, especially adding the attack page. Threeafterthree removed MANY external links recently, there is not way they would "innocently" add such a blatant WP:ELNO page. None. This was intentional and hostile. The crap on the attack page directed towards Gamaliel, since threeafterthree linked it to WP, should earn them something beyond a trout. Ravensfire (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the attack page was added to the L. Fletcher Prouty article. Would someone mind judging if that's a viable EL? Ravensfire (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It plainly isn't (although neither was the link that it replaced). I've removed both. As for threeafterthree, the most cursory examination of his block log is telling enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allright then, we seem to have a general agreement here. I'm going to indef block Threeafterthree. This sort of attack editing has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. I note they were let out of their last indef block merely because the blocking admin was out of town when they appealed it. As it happens I will be unavailable after today for five or six days, if a consensus to unblock becomes clear I do not ask for the block to be held pending my return, but I do ask that it be a consensus, not just one admin's opinion upon reviewing what I anticipate will be a convoluted tap-dance of an unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am late to the party, but for the record, based on the presentation of the case above I am endorsing the outcome as the only conceivable one. Hans Adler 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur w/Adler. As to the AGF discussion, a point that is important to stress is that it is a rebuttable presumption. When an editor's actions rebut the presumption, as I agree was the case here, one should not be "assuming good faith" any longer.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think some of their recent actions bring credit to neither User:Threeafterthree nor User:Gamaliel. I think both have removed relevant and appropriate links (that appear to differ from their own personal viewpoint). Gamaliel, really, removing and blacklisting prouty dot org "the Fletcher Prouty Reference Site" from the article on Fletcher Prouty? How is Wikipedia supposed to aspire towards accuracy and NPOV when we can't link to the subject of the article's own words? That a notable person who is the subject of an article has "non mainstream" or "fringe" opinions does not by itself seem reason for wholesale removal and blacklisting of any links to their own words. (We have articles on people IMO a lot wackier than Prouty -- Lyndon LaRouche comes to mind -- and are able to have reasonably balanced articles on them without such drastic tactics.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread appears to being fading into obscurity with no resolution. I will say, first, that I feel that an indef block is wholly correct. But in order to attempt to achieve a consensus on unblock I will comment below the current extant unblock request on the users talk page, and hope that other admins will add their opinions as they see fit. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by User:Evlekis

This user has just claimed I have "severe learning difficulties". I don't. I've had enough of this user's attacks against me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Given the discussion above this one, you would expect the user to have learnt exactly what a "collaborative editing environment" is. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting that 24 hours ago another user has expressed this opinion of AN based on a discussion completely unrelated to the one that I am currently having with AN. Hans Adler 18:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody got a cleanup bot?

I don't do IRC, or I'd ask there.

An indefinitely-blocked user went on a spree of creating inappropriate welcome message, as his lengthy contribution history attests. Is there an easy way to delete these pages en masse? They all appear to be where his is he only edit to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the other 20 or so disruptive accounts, and about the 5th one who has been using vandalbots to fap over Nazis. All such accounts blocked and IP blocked. –MuZemike 06:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All socks I have blocked are all Confirmed as Felipe Garcia (talk·contribs). –MuZemike 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I ran into a slight variation of that name about a week ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know (I didn't know for a long time), there is a mass delete tool for this. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Tag (again, sorry)

Excessive inappropriate userspace content

Please see contribution history and userspace content of Guney azerbaycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User is using Wikipedia user space as a means to promote/publicize his own political cause, and this recently entered the article space. I don't know if anything here is grounds for an immediate block or deletion of the user page, but I would like an admin or someone more comfortable with addressing this sort of issue than me to take a look at it. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I CSD's the userspace as G11 for promoting/soapboxing. I also CSD A10'd the article for duplicating an existing topic.--v/r - TP 15:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user name is a policy violation too: Google Translate states it means "South Azerbaijan" [84], and from the talk page, the user is promoting the South Azerbaijan Independence Party. I know nothing of the merits of the cause, but it appears inappropriate for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. South Azerbaijan is a region. If it was "South Azerbaijan Independence Party" it would be a violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gun Powder Ma engaged in Baiting and personal attacks, also revealing locations of other users

User:Gun Powder Ma, who has been warned and blocked for personal attacks before, appears to be engaged in WP:BAIT, with another user, GPM also openly posted the location of the user on his talk page, (the city where he was residing) which can be considered subtle intimidation. It occured Today, on August 25 2011.

This occured on User talk:BlueonGray today on August 25, 2011.

First he engaged in baiting- " Unlike you I don't need to remain silent on my identity, I have nothing to hide. :-)" and then he posted the users ip address, "Greetings to 98.142.247.157"

Next he openly posted his location "Pity for you. Greetings to Toronto. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

He has quite a history of personal attacks and getting away with them, and he has posted other user's real life locations, potentially leading to harm

On Talk:Roman_metallurgy/Archive_1#Dubious_iron_production_figures- (these are from one year ago)

"(talk about WP crowded by nerds and singles). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)"

"I know it rattles your Han national pride big time that modern scholars find the Roman Empire outproducing all other ancient empires by two-digit factors, but if you cannot even stomach harmless estimates move back from Baltimore, USA, to where you've been making cheap propaganda for all along. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)"

Talking about low ball: although you might not have even noticed yet, but in most places on earth, and I subscribe to that view heartily, people who do renrou sousuo are considered outright shit. User:Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He then proceeded to replace "shit" with "idiots", and then "as having no life", and then "morally defective

I request a block be imposed upon User:Gun Powder Ma. He's been warned to keep civil before and continues to engage in baiting and mockery. (and revealing the locations of other users potentially leads to real life harm).DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he does seem to step over the line sometimes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I won't argue that GPM is a bit...shall we say...abrasive, how is what he did any different than another user (myself, for example, since I do it often) posting a {{shared IP}} template on the IP's Talk page? WHOIS information often contains location data, especially when it involves an address range registered to a school, and posting WHOIS info on a IP user's Talk page is specifically described as NOT being WP:OUTING by that policy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also just now saw that the original reporter had not notified GPM of this discussion. I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You beat him by 18 seconds. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually we posted our notices on the exact same second

People deliberately sign up for accounts to avoid detection, since they don't want to be outed. Ip addresses are given warning that it will be recorded publicly in the page's history. User:Blueongray presumably signed up for an account in order to remain anonymous, but GPM essentially rubbed his location in his face in a taunting, mocking way- he put "Pity for you" right before he mention his location.

also, User:Intranetusa and GPM did not just have the argument here on wikipedia. It spilled over from China history forum, and I don't know where GPM got Intranetusa's location, but he did get it and openly posted it on the talk page, Intranetusa mentioned he lived in Maryland on his userpage, but GPM then posted his city and told him to essentially get out of the USA, called him a "Shit", and accused him of "national pride", which violates ad hominem in personal attacksDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Somehow, I completely missed that he'd posted that on a registered user's Talk page. And unless I'm mistaken, that does violate WP:OUTING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Isn't this WP:OUTING? Shouldn't User:Gun Powder Ma be blocked? I'm a bit new to the mop, but how specific does a location have to be before it's considered outing?--v/r - TP 18:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid so. The pertinent part of WP:OUTING: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.". I don't think anyone can make a good case that GPM's actions were either unintentional or non-malicious, given both the content and context of the remarks. This is, of course, merely my (non-admin) 2p. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that holds me back is that WP:OUTING says "home or workplace address".--v/r - TP 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, most of these quotes of mine are over one year old (!) and have to be understood in the context of the debates then which today, I venture, hardly anyone can reconstruct nor cares much for anymore. It hardly needs to be mentioned that unearthing one-year old quotes to make a point is widely seen as unconstructive 'dishing out' and as such WP's spirits. I have been over five years editing, with over 10,000 edits. If a couple of these were less than amicable, I apologize but the percentage which is low has to be taken in account.

Second, it is quite absurd to suggest I would "intimidate" BlueonGray, the IP is recorded in this article which BlueonGray, a classic single-purpose account (1) has been editing disruptively solely since March. Each day, many thousands of anonymous IPs edit WP, you know. I only wanted to suggest to him that it did not went beyond me that, apart from his username edits, he has also vandalized the article anonymously. If he is not this IP (and thus does not live in Toronto), this is just as fine with me. Hope that settles it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

five years of editing with repeated warnings and blocks over that time. After a while, the message has to sink in. Otherwise you'll just attack another editor, apologize, and avoid a block. Since you've been warned already about personal attacks, an apology just doesn't cut it.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained why you outed Intranetusa, and the "context of the debates" is very relevant, since you appear to have brought over fights from China history forum and allempires.com onto wikipedia in your tangle with Intranetusa, exactly the same thing you accuse BlueonGray of doing with the newspaper article and Duchesne. You have displayed WP:BATTLEGROUND and I can find your posts on allempires.com and chinahistoryforum to prove it if you wish.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Gun Powder MA did bring up a point which I missed in that most of the diffs you provided were a year old. No misrepresentation on your part, you did begin by saying he had a history of this behavior I just didn't notice the dates. I also don't think the first quote was really all that baiting. That said, Gun Powder MA, posting the IP address and location of a user is clearly uncivil whether or not it was easy to obtain.--v/r - TP 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You should be aware that DÜNGÁNÈ was one year ago part of the whole dispute. This should not explain anything away, but users participating in this ANI should be aware that he not some neutral user but a party. I did not really interacted with him in contents work since, but he seem to monitor my page to take advantage of trivialities such as these. Enough said. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I was monitoring your contributions, I would have barged into the debate on Indian inventions (only found out after Aua mentioned it at medieval islamic inventions) and other things relating to Persia which I just found out you have deleted, I would also have noted your manipulation on Talk:Plough#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough, which only came to my attention after the fact. This incident only came to my attention after I noticed how frequently Dechesne's citations appeared on different articles. Not only that, I was not involved in the dispute on Roman metal production figures, which you dragged over with Intranetusa on ChinahistoryforumDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dredging up diffs over a year old doesn't indicate a continuing problem: it points up a lack of one William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you actually cared about "user's real life locations, potentially leading to harm", instead of just using it for point-scoring, you wouldn't have reposted location or IP in such a visible place William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's not true. Some folks panic and they dont realize they are making a situation worse when they ask for help. That or they don't know the right way to handle it.--v/r - TP 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the diffs are over one year old points to a lack of vigilance that his grossly offensive attacks were not spotted and reported. Also, GPM did not explain why he felt it was nessecary to post the location of the ip addresss. He originally just posted the address itself, then proceeded to post "Pity for you. Greetings to Toronto".

If GPM meant good intentions, he would only have posted the ip address. Instead, he traced the ip to the actualy city and posted its location. That is clearly malicious.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if posting "Toronto" is such a terrible thing, why have you done it (again?). The obvious answer is because it really isn't terrible at all. Pointing out to an anon that they are geolocatable is actually doing them a favour William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "favour" would this be? What possible reason could he have had for revealing my location other than as a suggestive threat in order to shut me up? I merely nominated the biographical entry for Ricardo Duchesne for deletion on the grounds that Duchesne does not meet the criteria for scholarly importance and influence. I pointed out that Duchesne's most successful scholarly piece has been cited a paltry 12 times. To this, Gun Powder's response was to reveal my location and to threaten to have me blocked. What "favour" would he have been doing by publicly disclosing my location?--BlueonGray (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the principal of the matter. Gun Powder MA's intention was to scare another editor and make them hesitate the next time they choose to edit. Whether it was effective or not or minor is irrelevant.--v/r - TP 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueonGray signed up for a reason, presumably that he wanted to conceal his ip address. He was no longer an ip address when GPM posted his location. Its not "doing him a favor". if GPM wanted to "do him a favor", he would have said nothing about his location since BlueonGray's ip address was no longer visible.

GPM said "Pity for you", which could be an insinuation that something bad is coming his way, constituting phsycological intimidation (like telling BlueonGray to drop his dispute or else).DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should be taking civility seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty obvious from the above that D is very vociferously anti-GPM. And dredging up year-old diffs says that this has been simmering for a long time. So could D explain where his animosity against GPM comes from? It clearly isn't this incident; this is just an excuse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith and chill out, we should be valuing the evidence not the contributor in question. If all we have is year old diffs then there isn't a particular problem. If things are still occurring now maybe we need to take them more seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can equally be as pertinent that User:William M. Connolley is desperately trying to defend Gun Powder Ma. the two acted together on the list of inventions in medieval islam article, not only that, GPM has canvassed William Connolley against me before (GPM withdrew his complaint since everyone agreed that I did not attack him), which might hint that GPM knows Connolley supports him. If William M. Connolley did not attempt to defend GPM and claim that GPM's clearly malicious post was doing a "favour" to BlueonGrey, and then he claimed I have a vendetta against GPM, his point might be legitimate if he gave evidence. But the moment he defended GPM's malicious attack as a "Favour", outs him as clearly pro GPM, possibly his friend, since he defended him against an indefendable offense.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, this is now the second or even third time, DÜNGÁNÈ, that you post on some talk page or noticeboard the same one-year old quotes which is a clear case of WP:ADMINSHOP and should bring your actions themselves into close scrutinity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where else did I post your attacks on User:Intranetusa? Where else did I post those "one year old quotes? Can you provide a link showing me posting those exact quotes somewhere else?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just saw that User:William M. Connolley made a dubious edit to the entry on Ricardo Duchesne, the entry which is currently under discussion for deletion and which Gun Powder Ma is trying (with very weak evidence) to preserve. Connolley's edits provided a more flattering, even though misleading, portrait of Duchesne. I have edited that entry in order to provide greater detail and accuracy.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also, GPM's outing of User:BlueonGray happened today, not one year ago.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of assuming good faith about other editors actions applies to you as well as it does pointing the other way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eraserhead1. This discussion should focus on the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location in the middle of a discussion over whether to delete a biographical entry. There is simply no ethical justification for revealing a registered user's IP address and location. The only conceivable reason would be as a suggestive threat in order to shut that user (i.e. me) up. I fail to see how that could possibly be interpreted in a more benign light.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For people who are unaware of the wider dispute: User:BlueonGray is demonstrably a single-purpose account who has been ever editing only this one article, invariably negatively. He is identical in name with one BlueonGray who actually 'debated' Duchesne this February on a Canadian site in a resentful manner: For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM). Nine days later Wikipedia's BlueonGray registered and began editing the article disruptively. On his talk page, Wikipedia's BlueonGray refuses to acknowledge whether he is the same person, desspite my repeated requests. The whole Afd he has launched can be thus regarded as a thinly-veiled case of WP:Battleground, namely Wikipedia is not a place to...import personal conflicts. This is what I was referring to with "Pity for you". It's a pity that he misuses WP for his own personal crusade against Duchesne. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location. There is no justification for that kind of conduct. It is egregiously unethical and a transparent form of intimidation and harassment. We have seen above that you have a history of this sort of behavior. The issue with the entry on Duchesne is scholarly noteworthiness, which is deafeningly lacking. The issue here is the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location, which again is deafeningly lacking. Stick to the issue.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same charges can be levelled against User:Gun Powder Ma, who also violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, and demostrates attributes of a Single purpose account. User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of importing personal conflicts from internet forums like chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com

search Gun powder ma on chinahistoryforum

search Tibet Libre on chinahistoryforum

search gun powder ma on allempires forum

Gun Powder Ma at allempires forum talking about the Moveable type article- "Forget Wiki. If you feel comfortable, I am going to edit the whole article for you. Then you can quote again from Wiki."

See User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off Wiki Forums for more evidence.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it can easily be agreed that violation of WP:OUTING is a serious issue, and one that should be clearly indicated as having serious consequences to the violator. It is also readily apparent that this is being brought to the attention of admins in pursuit of a dispute between editors involving the violator where sanctions would remove a party to that dispute for the duration of any block and possibly effect the outcome of the issue. The matter raised, including the baiting and personal attacks alleged (and the former again fairly apparent), is however a year old and there is no more recent indication of such violations. Notwithstanding GPM's less than stellar block log I cannot see that there would have been a sanction for more than a matter of weeks (and likely much less) had the concerns been brought forward at that time, so sanctioning the editor now is senseless. So, I propose that Gun Powder Ma should be warned that any repeat going forward of a violation of WP:OUTING will result in a substantial block, regardless of when it is brought to notice, and that further issues of baiting or personal attacks regarding the editors involved in this dispute will likewise be dealt with severely. Then, I suggest, we can let this particular concern lie and allow the various parties to resolve their ongoing dispute via the correct resolution processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous outing and personal attacks were a year old, but the outing against BlueonGray occured today at User talk:BlueonGray. GPM outed users twice and the most recent one was today, not last year. Also his other comments on BlueonGray's talk pages were less than friendly, they brought to mind an indication of gloating and a threatening matterDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this outing stuff. But what about WP:BLP, which we're so proud of? As GPM has pointed out, BoG is a SPA unhealthily obsessed with Ricardo Duchesne. What about stuff like [85]? That page has also suffered from IP BLP vios like [86], so wondering if BoG is that IP is entirely valid. Given that this is being considered "outing" I can only presume that is an admission that BoG did indeed make that edit. Or there are edits like [87], which are unquestionably from BoG. If anyone is being sanctioned here, BoG is the obvious one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

claiming that User:BlueonGray has no right to edit the article on Ricardo is a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. BlueonGray is free to edit any article he wants. WP:OUTTING also says its considered as outting "whether any such information is accurate or not", which shows Connolley does not understand what is considered outting or not, GPM posted a location (the city where BlueonGray was residing) on his talk page, which was completely unnesesarry. And so what if the ip was BoG? He didn't deny it. We don't even post the private info of vandals, no one at all is allowed to threaten other users with private information.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not even trying to hide your partiality. I am new to Wikipedia. I was disturbed that a biographical entry had been created for a total and utter mediocrity like Ricardo Duchense -- someone whose greatest scholarly work has been cited a paltry 12 times. My initial interventions were admittedly amateurish. Since then, I have been learning about the mechanics of Wikipedia and am now working to evaluate the entry on Duchesne according to the community's criteria of scholarly noteworthiness. That much should be recognized. I pointed out that Duchesne does not meet the criteria of a noteworthy scholar, something which he has failed to prove otherwise. To this, Gun Powder's reply has been to disclose my IP address and location, in a clear and obvious attempt at intimidation and harassment. You now are playing legal defense for Gun Powder.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making unjustified edits to the entry on Ricardo Duchesne? I correctly listed his multiple concentrations, as well as his dissertation supervisor, who was not H. L. Harris. Why would you undo those? For what reason, if not out of obvious partiality?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can speak of "hide your partiality" and then go on to describe Ricardo Duchense as "total and utter mediocrity". I certainly agree you've been editing the article as though you believed that - your biases are all to obvious. But the vandalism you did as the IP isn't acceptable, and GPM was quite correct to link that IP to you. It is quite clear that you should not be editing the article at all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you call User:BlueonGray "anti Duchense", then GPM is equally as "pro Duchense", since he wrote the entire article, it resembles more of a platform glorigying Duchense's views rather an an encyclopedia entry on him, with GPM engaging in WP:PEACOCK/ puffery- A search for Ricardo Duchesne on wikipedia reveals that in all the articles he is cited in, the citations have been added by none other than Gun Powder Ma himself

Gun Powder Ma calls Duchesne's work an "influential critique" on another article, violating WP:PEACOCK

below this is a list of times GPM inserted Duchesne's work into multiple articles on history and "multiculturalism"

[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]

GPM calling H. S. Harris the "foremost Hegelian scholar" he changed it to "most influential", which still violates WP:PEACOCK, however, I've just removed it, he might change it back.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These revelations are simply jawdropping. While Gun Powder Ma, William M. Connolley, et al have been arguing that BlueonGray has an unhealthy obsession with Duchesne, it is clear now that BlueonGray is only reacting to GPM's single-handed efforts to promote Duchesne's polemical views, reviews, and articles all over the encyclopedia. If GPM has a conflict of interest to declare in relation to Duchesne, now would be an appropriate time. Quigley (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that D has started to maintain a list of GPM's off-wiki contributions User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off_Wiki_Forums. That hardly seems proper William M. Connolley (talk)

GPM has repeatedly dragged disputes from off-wiki Chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com into wikipedia, which was how his encounter with User:Intranetusa started. this is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUNDDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duchesne is a mediocrity. That much is transparent. No, my initial interventions were not acceptable. However, I can admit fault and then work constructively according to the community's principles. I created a user account precisely to remain anonymous. There is simply NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for disclosing my IP address and location. Similarly, your weak and empty defense of Gun Powder's unethical actions has no justification, either. Duchesne remains a mediocrity of no scholarly importance and revealing the IP address of a registered user as a way to shut that user up remains unethical.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

calm down with the capital letters. However, BlueonGray is right in that the main issue is GPM revealing his location in an intimidating manner, and William N. Connolley only seems to be trying to deflect that issue. If GPM even posted the location of a prolific vandal on his talk page, it would be considered outting and GPM would be penalized. It doesn't matter who the contributer is, if someone outs him, its considered outting. We don't out anyone, whether positive contributer, vandal, disruptive page mover, or even trolls.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the use of caps.--BlueonGray (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I appear to be the only admin taking any interest in this thread, here is my opinion. No admin action is needed. This has spiraled into a bickering contest of Gun Powder MA and Mr. Connolley vs Dungane and BlueonGray. The content issues and civility issues should be discussed on other noticeboards or dispute resolution. The only issue here deserving admin action is incivility by Gun Powder MA, which only one recent diff has been provided and is quite trivial to be honest, and the outing. The outing consists of an IP address that BlueonGray was not careful with in his editing and a very broad location that isn't specific enough to be personally identifying. I feel threatening behavior may have occured and so Gun Powder MA should be warned not to engage in anything close to outing anymore. Does this about sum it up?--v/r - TP 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with admin TParis, and I hope this nonsense with bringing the issue with the AfD on Ricardo Duchesne onto here will stop. The thread is nearing unreadable. I will stop adding more issues that don't have to do with the outting to this thread, and I recommend everyone else as well. We will carry on the dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to be clear that I filed this report since I found GPM's attitude toward User:BlueonGray to be unsettling and threatening, and BoG is a new user, not that familiar with wikipedia rules. I also agree with BoG on his AfD. I have left alone other users like User:Teeninvestor who engaged in disputes with GPM, and did not defend them, since Teeninvestor was not a new user, neither did I agree with some of his edits on the Manchu Qing in China.

If I was "violently" against GPM as William M. Connolley claimed., I would have butted into the dispute between GPM and Gnip here- Talk:Plough#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough and into this dispute GPM had over here on ANI recently. Can he explain my absence from those disputes if I was that antagonistic toward GPM? I was actively editing at the time of those disputes. If I was stalking GPM I would have showed up at these disputes, I only got involved with GPM in the other ANI incident since I was watching User:Aua rather than GPM. I hope this is the end of the mudslinging and bickering, and I'm taking a wikibreak for a day due to diarrhea. This is my final comment for the day.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dungane has crossed into WP:HOUND territory. It is plainly obvious that he is desperate for a block against GPM, with whom he seems to have serious beef. Digging up diffs for over a year ago is an unmistakable sign of hounding, I have seen people sanctioned for something like that. As for the accusations of WP:OUTing, since there is no mention of home or workplace or anything remotely close to that, I don't think they stand up to scrutiny. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GPM was far more desperate for a block against Dungane (Referring to myself in third person) at this previous ANI thread when he was clammering for a "disciplinary block" for describing his editing pattern to another user. When another User:Quigley came to defend me, GPM described him as having a "Grudge" against him, and User:Quigley exposed the fact that GPM had a vendetta against me, GPM called his comments "largely irrelevant"

Not only that, GPM notified four uninvolved Users, presumably to vote against me [97][98][99][100]. I think its rather safe to say that GPM was rather unnaturally obsessed with getting me blocked.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Athenean collaborated with GPM in getting User:Teeninvestor banned from wiki- see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor, and Athenean and GPM also collaborated to push the same POV on Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic Macedonians of Greece.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Athenean. I have had only positive interaction with GPM on Wikipedia. What he is accused of here seems out of character to me. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, my experience with GPM has been one of continual POV pushing over other's added refs. Like a few other editors, he's always right, no matter what anyone else thinks, editor or RS, and he'll cheerfully edit war to demonstrate this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new has been brought to this discussion since my last message. Is this over?--v/r - TP 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its over if we all agree that this kind of attitude toward User:BlueonGray and any other user won't be tolerated again.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll say that outing, or attempts to intimidate other editors by revealing their general location, is wrong. Aside from that, content issues should be discussed on relevant noticeboards.--v/r - TP 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of other behavior, the filibustering by both Gun Powder Ma and BlueonGray on opposite sides of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne is turning that AfD into a mess. I tried to clean up the worst of it with collapse boxes but it just grew back again. I think both editors have had plenty of opportunity to make their case on the AfD and should go find something else to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm done. I've tried to avoid repeating myself. At this point, I don't think anything more can be said, so I'm finished there. My apologies if I dragged the case too far. I just wanted to be thorough.--BlueonGray (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pigsonthewing repeatedly modifying closed discussion at WT:RJL

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) insists on modifying a discussion that I closed at WT:RJL: [101] [102]. For the record, I closed this discussion because certain users decided to use unnecessary rhetoric to disrupt the discussion, and I wanted to shut it down before things got worse. Could some other admins look into the situation? --Rschen7754 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due acknowledgement of WP:AGF, it was a bad faith attempt to close and this is a bad faith AN/I listing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my subsequent comments, the ongoing, contentious discussion was closed prematurely, by an involved editor, with a PoV summary. I undid the closure per WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is considered acceptable for "involved" editors to close smaller-scale discussions like this; 2) even if not, WP:IAR applies as that discussion was spiraling out of control and becoming uncivil; 3) my closure supported the consensus of the editors who wanted the discussion over and done with. --Rschen7754 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[103] - abuse of rollback. --Rschen7754 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally acceptable to use rollback in one's own userspace. —DoRD (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include reverting messages you don't agree with on your user talk? --Rschen7754 00:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is just taken to mean they read the message. Doesn't mean it isn't a bit rude though. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody interested in looking at this? --Rschen7754 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion doesn't really look ripe for closure to me. I see it still actively being discussed, and not just sniping (though certainly there is that, too). Heimstern Läufer(talk) 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to the last section, where there's another attempt at an entirely different proposal - I'm referring to solely the one above it. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editors should find another, uninvolved editor or admin to close things, as involved people closing things blows up drama fests rather than calming things down. We could warn both of you for pushing things, but the best thing to do is for both of you to just stand back a ways and calm down. Please disengage a bit (you too, Andy). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in closing the discussion? --Rschen7754 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped to resolve a related matter without bringing it here, but I've been rebuffed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bt8257 ignoring manual of style

Bt8257 (talk · contribs) has many several edits to NBA playoff articles and while the edits appear to be good faith, the editor is capitalizing every word of the section header. Fair enough, I figure I should leave a message on the user's talk page explaining the manual of style, and perhaps they'll even be nice enough to clean their edits up. [104]. Bt8257 promptly deleted my message [105] (yes I know a user can do that, but one would think it shows that they have read it), and is continuing to capitalize the section headers [106]. I don't want to start an edit war. I'm not sure if this is an exception to wp:3RR, or if editing after clearly being given the link to the MOS guideline is considered vandalism. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 3RR exception for obnoxious pigheadedness, but it wouldn't hurt to revert a time or two more while explaining to him that these edits are not productive and will not stand. I reverted a few for you. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CC NC = speedy? WTF?

The above too-rapid process {discussion and resolution here) brings up the troubling question: Why is CC non-commercial a reason for speedy delete? Why is time of such importance, when the license can quite easily be updated at the source (Flickr), and then reflected here? Help me understand. This is one kind of over-zealous process that sends new editors away. --Lexein (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an administrator, but my feeling is that CC-NC is speedy deleted in the same fashion as any other file that does not have a compatible license. CC-NC doesn't necessarily come from Flickr either, so it should not be assumed that the source can be easily 'updated' (even it it's from Flickr, nothing guarantees the original uploader is ready to 'update' with a free license). Regardless, non-compatible license = delete, whether it's outright All Rights Reserved or CC-NC or any other non-free variant. Is it over-zealous? I don't think so, licensing requirements are made pretty clear on the upload form either here or on Commons, and new editors are not exempt from the rules. My two cents. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All rights reserved" can easily be updated at Flickr as well. The problem here seems not to be that CC-NC is speediable (definitely a word), but that files are being deleted without checking if they can be relicensed. However, I would imagine the turnaround for relicensing is not sufficiently rapid on average to consider making an exception for Flickr-hosted works. If you disagree, it'd be worth making a solid proposal. For what it's worth, I don't personally believe CC-NC is any freer than full assertion of copyright, but IMO that's tangential to your real point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: CC BY-NC is probably compatible with CC BY-SA to some extent. If it was CC BY-NC-SA, it'd be a different story. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(It was CC-BY-NC-SA at Flickr - see my reply below.) --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that "speedy" doesn't necessarily mean "very urgent". What it usually means that "A clear boundary has been crossed, so we don't have to spend a week haggling over it".

If a new article's only contents are "Jenny is cute :-)", it doesn't harm any third party, and probably doesn't even harm wikipedia because few readers would ever find it; but it is so clearly, definitely outside our rules that we can skip the whole AfD thing and go straight to pressing the delete button - even though that might dismay Jenny. If an image has a license incompatible with our current rules and there's no wiggle room for interpretation or discussion, then I'd be happy with going straight to the delete button.

Our other deletion mechanisms tend to involve a few days delay, but that delay is not there solely to allow something broken to be replaced with something working - the main purpose for the delay may be for community discussion, and the reprieve is just a fringe benefit for those who've created broken-but-probably-fixable things, who may then be able to turn the content around whilst the rest of the community has the opportunity to discuss it. Of course, some kinds of flawed content sent to XfD are not fixable within a few days; most might not be fixable at all.

If good new users are being "scared off" after breaking a rule, the most important part of the solution is to find some way of breaking the news carefully to new users, and advising them on how to stay within the rules next time - perhaps cuddlier templates could be a good start. We could even try to improve guidance on uploads to prevent the problem before it ever happens. However, I would not be keen on lowering our standards by letting clearly noncompliant stuff hang around for a while for fear of biting hypothetical well-intentioned uploaders of noncompliant content. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for their responses. The (now archived) CC-BY-NC-SA speedy deleted images discussion was not a completely pure example {discussion here) it was complicated by a request for personal information removal.

Is {{Holdon}} - specifically {{Holdon Contacting Flickr user to change source license}} an appropriate brake to allow time to rehabilitate image licensing? IMHO such time should be allowed, especially for Flickr images. The user-deterring aspect of this is that deletion is easy, and a one-step process (tag), but uploading is verbose, multistep, and slow, by comparison (especially since deletion destroys article usage information). Of course, if a Flickr user can't be reached, then the deletion should just proceed after some period of time. Is a week too long?

I wouldn't mind if there were a task force specifically for rehabilitating, rather than deleting, images for which license rehabilitation has a path. --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's evidence to suggest that Flickr editors are significantly more likely to relicense promptly than anyone else who is asked to relicense for Wikipedia, I don't see grounds for an exception here. Of the numerous Flickr photos with non-free licenses - mostly on football players - that I've seen people going to the authors with for relicensing, I can't remember any of them actually getting it, at least within the sort of timespan that we'd consider acceptable in a general case. Whether the relicensing is from BY-NC or from all rights reserved is not really relevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question was, is {{Holdon}} an appropriate brake to apply in general, and in the case of Flickr license change requests? The other question, is "Speedy" even necessary for CC-BY-NC-SA, or can some time be taken for it to be corrected? To answer your conditional, in my opinion Flickr users are likely to adjust license, because communication is easy, and in my experience, 8 of 11 Flickr users have changed their licenses upon my polite request: 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7, and the most recent ones 8a, and 8b. Of the remaining three, two never replied, and one refused to use CC or public domain, preferring "Wikipedia only." (By the way, here are two OTRS licenses I've obtained: a, and b. ) --Lexein (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes and yes. A file with an NC restriction is incompatible with Wikimedia, and is a valid speedy delete candidate. However, if someone places a Holdon tag, clearly stating that they are attempting to have the author relicense, I would hope that the people monitoring those deletion processes would allow time for that to happen. What I hope, and what I expect they will do are probably very different things, however. Resolute 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a file is speedy deletion and permission is indeed obtained, you can go file an Undeletion Request and the OTRS permission (or new Flickr license, depending on the situation) can be added. Instead of using an Holdon template, there should be an OTRSPending template that not only acts as a holdon, but tells us that permission is being sought. That is another idea. As for why the images are speedy deletion (anything with NC or ND is subject to this), this explains why. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. That's an interesting historical nugget from Jimbo, and the following policy/guideline thread as well. I haven't tried WP:Requests for undeletion yet - sounds like I should just get used to the idea of it, and stop worrying about delaying deletion. . --Lexein (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in the original discussion. The speed of the deletion was not due to NC. I agree that normally time should be given to allow that licence request. Thanks for making the effort of getting those pictures back. I was sadend of the loss of those pictures myself. Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improper split, attribution issue, duplicative articles

I'm not sure if AN/I is the best place for this, but if it isn't please direct me to the appropriate notice board. Just under 6 years ago, List of disco artists was split, without proper attribution, into List of disco artists (A-E), List of disco artists (F-K), List of disco artists (L-R), and List of disco artists (S-Z). However the pre-split article was left intact. In the intervening years since the split, the un-split article has received over 500 new edits, and each of the splits have also received substantial editing. How should the articles be dealt with at this point, both to deal with the attribution issue, and that the split and pre-split version are duplicative? Monty₈₄₅ 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You need an admin who has nothing better to do than history merges. I nominate LadyofShalott, naturally. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Article ex- and import work here on enWiki? Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think these can be solved with any need for all of that. It seems as though the content was copy-pasted out, but the original article was never redirected/repurposed to be a directory of them. This leaves us with two easy solutions:

1. Move anything on the A-E, F-K, L-R, and S-Z lists onto the bigger list, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and redirect the others to the bigger list. Or
2. Move anything on the bigger list out to the smaller lists, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and repurpose the bigger list to serve as a table of contents of the other lists.

I don't know which of these two is preferable, so it should be discussed on the talk page of one of the lists. No explicitly administrative work is required, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either of these will work. Since the current state is separate articles, I think it would be least confusing to follow WP:Merging with discussion at Talk:List of disco artists, with notifications at WP:WikiProject Music and/or relevant sub-projects. Similar lists are at Lists of musicians. I will add dummy edits and {{Copied}}s for the original split. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amsanilkumar and AfD for Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara

Moved from WP:AIV at request of User:Daniel Case. Amsanilkumar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is repeatedly removing the AfD notice from the article they created. This continues past a final warning. The user is also using a sockpuppet account Amsanilkumar77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and regularly edits from 203.124.18.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please see edit history of Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara for full details. After several days, it appears the user has no interest in either addressing the issues raised in the AfD debate, nor in taking part in it. Could an admin take a look and if necessary block the accounts and the IP address? Thanks, Claviere (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a block on two warnings, the first of which was placed above other content on the talk page, rather then at the bottom where new warnings usually go, and skipping over the level 3 warning... If the editor didn't see the first warning due to the placement, then the block would be on the basis of a single level 4 warning, removing AfD tags doesn't seem serious enough to justify that. Monty₈₄₅ 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CC NC = speedy? WTF?

The above too-rapid process {discussion and resolution here) brings up the troubling question: Why is CC non-commercial a reason for speedy delete? Why is time of such importance, when the license can quite easily be updated at the source (Flickr), and then reflected here? Help me understand. This is one kind of over-zealous process that sends new editors away. --Lexein (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an administrator, but my feeling is that CC-NC is speedy deleted in the same fashion as any other file that does not have a compatible license. CC-NC doesn't necessarily come from Flickr either, so it should not be assumed that the source can be easily 'updated' (even it it's from Flickr, nothing guarantees the original uploader is ready to 'update' with a free license). Regardless, non-compatible license = delete, whether it's outright All Rights Reserved or CC-NC or any other non-free variant. Is it over-zealous? I don't think so, licensing requirements are made pretty clear on the upload form either here or on Commons, and new editors are not exempt from the rules. My two cents. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All rights reserved" can easily be updated at Flickr as well. The problem here seems not to be that CC-NC is speediable (definitely a word), but that files are being deleted without checking if they can be relicensed. However, I would imagine the turnaround for relicensing is not sufficiently rapid on average to consider making an exception for Flickr-hosted works. If you disagree, it'd be worth making a solid proposal. For what it's worth, I don't personally believe CC-NC is any freer than full assertion of copyright, but IMO that's tangential to your real point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: CC BY-NC is probably compatible with CC BY-SA to some extent. If it was CC BY-NC-SA, it'd be a different story. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(It was CC-BY-NC-SA at Flickr - see my reply below.) --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that "speedy" doesn't necessarily mean "very urgent". What it usually means that "A clear boundary has been crossed, so we don't have to spend a week haggling over it".

If a new article's only contents are "Jenny is cute :-)", it doesn't harm any third party, and probably doesn't even harm wikipedia because few readers would ever find it; but it is so clearly, definitely outside our rules that we can skip the whole AfD thing and go straight to pressing the delete button - even though that might dismay Jenny. If an image has a license incompatible with our current rules and there's no wiggle room for interpretation or discussion, then I'd be happy with going straight to the delete button.

Our other deletion mechanisms tend to involve a few days delay, but that delay is not there solely to allow something broken to be replaced with something working - the main purpose for the delay may be for community discussion, and the reprieve is just a fringe benefit for those who've created broken-but-probably-fixable things, who may then be able to turn the content around whilst the rest of the community has the opportunity to discuss it. Of course, some kinds of flawed content sent to XfD are not fixable within a few days; most might not be fixable at all.

If good new users are being "scared off" after breaking a rule, the most important part of the solution is to find some way of breaking the news carefully to new users, and advising them on how to stay within the rules next time - perhaps cuddlier templates could be a good start. We could even try to improve guidance on uploads to prevent the problem before it ever happens. However, I would not be keen on lowering our standards by letting clearly noncompliant stuff hang around for a while for fear of biting hypothetical well-intentioned uploaders of noncompliant content. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for their responses. The (now archived) CC-BY-NC-SA speedy deleted images discussion was not a completely pure example {discussion here) it was complicated by a request for personal information removal.

Is {{Holdon}} - specifically {{Holdon Contacting Flickr user to change source license}} an appropriate brake to allow time to rehabilitate image licensing? IMHO such time should be allowed, especially for Flickr images. The user-deterring aspect of this is that deletion is easy, and a one-step process (tag), but uploading is verbose, multistep, and slow, by comparison (especially since deletion destroys article usage information). Of course, if a Flickr user can't be reached, then the deletion should just proceed after some period of time. Is a week too long?

I wouldn't mind if there were a task force specifically for rehabilitating, rather than deleting, images for which license rehabilitation has a path. --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's evidence to suggest that Flickr editors are significantly more likely to relicense promptly than anyone else who is asked to relicense for Wikipedia, I don't see grounds for an exception here. Of the numerous Flickr photos with non-free licenses - mostly on football players - that I've seen people going to the authors with for relicensing, I can't remember any of them actually getting it, at least within the sort of timespan that we'd consider acceptable in a general case. Whether the relicensing is from BY-NC or from all rights reserved is not really relevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question was, is {{Holdon}} an appropriate brake to apply in general, and in the case of Flickr license change requests? The other question, is "Speedy" even necessary for CC-BY-NC-SA, or can some time be taken for it to be corrected? To answer your conditional, in my opinion Flickr users are likely to adjust license, because communication is easy, and in my experience, 8 of 11 Flickr users have changed their licenses upon my polite request: 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7, and the most recent ones 8a, and 8b. Of the remaining three, two never replied, and one refused to use CC or public domain, preferring "Wikipedia only." (By the way, here are two OTRS licenses I've obtained: a, and b. ) --Lexein (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes and yes. A file with an NC restriction is incompatible with Wikimedia, and is a valid speedy delete candidate. However, if someone places a Holdon tag, clearly stating that they are attempting to have the author relicense, I would hope that the people monitoring those deletion processes would allow time for that to happen. What I hope, and what I expect they will do are probably very different things, however. Resolute 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a file is speedy deletion and permission is indeed obtained, you can go file an Undeletion Request and the OTRS permission (or new Flickr license, depending on the situation) can be added. Instead of using an Holdon template, there should be an OTRSPending template that not only acts as a holdon, but tells us that permission is being sought. That is another idea. As for why the images are speedy deletion (anything with NC or ND is subject to this), this explains why. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. That's an interesting historical nugget from Jimbo, and the following policy/guideline thread as well. I haven't tried WP:Requests for undeletion yet - sounds like I should just get used to the idea of it, and stop worrying about delaying deletion. . --Lexein (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in the original discussion. The speed of the deletion was not due to NC. I agree that normally time should be given to allow that licence request. Thanks for making the effort of getting those pictures back. I was sadend of the loss of those pictures myself. Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improper split, attribution issue, duplicative articles

I'm not sure if AN/I is the best place for this, but if it isn't please direct me to the appropriate notice board. Just under 6 years ago, List of disco artists was split, without proper attribution, into List of disco artists (A-E), List of disco artists (F-K), List of disco artists (L-R), and List of disco artists (S-Z). However the pre-split article was left intact. In the intervening years since the split, the un-split article has received over 500 new edits, and each of the splits have also received substantial editing. How should the articles be dealt with at this point, both to deal with the attribution issue, and that the split and pre-split version are duplicative? Monty₈₄₅ 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You need an admin who has nothing better to do than history merges. I nominate LadyofShalott, naturally. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Article ex- and import work here on enWiki? Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think these can be solved with any need for all of that. It seems as though the content was copy-pasted out, but the original article was never redirected/repurposed to be a directory of them. This leaves us with two easy solutions:

1. Move anything on the A-E, F-K, L-R, and S-Z lists onto the bigger list, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and redirect the others to the bigger list. Or
2. Move anything on the bigger list out to the smaller lists, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and repurpose the bigger list to serve as a table of contents of the other lists.

I don't know which of these two is preferable, so it should be discussed on the talk page of one of the lists. No explicitly administrative work is required, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either of these will work. Since the current state is separate articles, I think it would be least confusing to follow WP:Merging with discussion at Talk:List of disco artists, with notifications at WP:WikiProject Music and/or relevant sub-projects. Similar lists are at Lists of musicians. I will add dummy edits and {{Copied}}s for the original split. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amsanilkumar and AfD for Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara

Moved from WP:AIV at request of User:Daniel Case. Amsanilkumar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is repeatedly removing the AfD notice from the article they created. This continues past a final warning. The user is also using a sockpuppet account Amsanilkumar77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and regularly edits from 203.124.18.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please see edit history of Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara for full details. After several days, it appears the user has no interest in either addressing the issues raised in the AfD debate, nor in taking part in it. Could an admin take a look and if necessary block the accounts and the IP address? Thanks, Claviere (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a block on two warnings, the first of which was placed above other content on the talk page, rather then at the bottom where new warnings usually go, and skipping over the level 3 warning... If the editor didn't see the first warning due to the placement, then the block would be on the basis of a single level 4 warning, removing AfD tags doesn't seem serious enough to justify that. Monty₈₄₅ 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams - Off2riorob

Stephanie Adams (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

User:Off2riorob may have the best of intentions, but his editing pattern as shown here is strange, to say the least. In what is now the latest edit, he terms Fasttimes68, who has been editing since 2007 a "meatpuppet". Some others should take a look (and at the discussion page). -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What administrative action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A careful viewing of the edit history and the discussion, with an eye to a block, or at the least a warning that you're on the verge of a block, for (i) the (as yet) unsupported allegation that one user is a meatpuppet of another, (ii) CIR for (a) your perverse refusal to read footnotes that supply information that you first demanded within the text, and (b) the unilateral demand that for something to be worth mentioning in an article it should be worth mentioning in the "lede" of that article, and (iii) general appearance of would-be ownership of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Well, fasttimes68 doesn't have that many edits, and a good percentage of them are about Stephanie Adams. Off2riorob does a lot of blp policing and is not a huge fan of playmate articles, but his actions seem to be in good faith.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell is a meatpuppet? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Meatpuppet - a meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

considering that content has been in the article for quite some time, then i can hardly call it disputed. Perhaps you should discuss first before reverting? im still willing to discuss as others probably are. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, something can be in an article for a long time and yet become (or indeed have been) disputed. Removal of misinformation and some other material is fine, even if there's been no dispute. But yes, he should have discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Bold Revert Discuss cycle properly shows discussion as after the B and after the R. I see nothing out of process. My76Strat (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpfully pointing toward an explanation of "meatpuppetry", which clearly shows that you are wrong. (I quote: Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. [...]) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, im no ones meatmuppet. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Rob frequently removes info about sexual orientation from BLPs. Possibly a good thing. We need to develop more guidance on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Fasttimes68 has replaced it again - there is a OTRS complaint about this, and its clearly undue to say lesbian, lesbian , lesbian (thrice Dorothy) in a line and a half - but I am loggin of as I have had enough for tonight. Off2riorob (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see you on the talk page then.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I can see Robs point here. Regardless of the facts (if there are any), there is no way that using the word 'lesbian' three times in the same sentence can be justified. Someone needs to get of their soapbox... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to rewrite it so that the word doesn't appear three times in a line and a half. (I'm also happy to have all the "personal" stuff removed.) AndyTheGrump, here are the facts. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually, we should name that section "Lesbian life" :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fasttimes68 beat me to this, but not at all in a way I'd have done. What is now the current version is mine and I don't think it's bad. Again, I am open to reasoned argument that all this "orientation" nonsense should be cut, and need very little persuasion to have it cut together with other "personal" stuff whose sourcing is much worse. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the main user that is insisting on this lesbian labeling - you added, lesbian lesbian lesbian - the only other personal data is that she is married to a man with a child, do you object to that detail? Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit the usage of the word was heavy. But it doesn't warrant removing the information from the article altogether especially since you were asked to discuss the issue on the talk page. And the meatpuppet calling was a bit over the top as well. -- Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You,(User:Hoary) are the primary contributor to this disputed BLP with multiple OTRS reports - you appear to have got into some kind of six year issue here after early discussion with someone claiming to be the subject or their supporter and it has become personal for you - the subject objects to being portrayed as a lesbian and you war to add, lesbian lesbian lesbian - wiki is not a user ego game to beat the living subjects of its articles. You win, the subject didn't want to be portrayed as a lesbian and you managed to add lesbian lesbian lesbian in a line and a half . Off2riorob (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesnt want to be identified as a lesbian anymore, but she did in the past and was an activist for lesbian issues. it is notable in this BLP. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the WP:BLP that supports your "lesbian activist" claim. Off2riorob (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that I'm listed as the first editor. However, if permablocked "Goddessy" were listed with her aliases and IP numbers, and if the other throwaway accounts and movable IPs were lumped together, I wouldn't be number one. There's no "issue". The subject -- of whom I'd never heard until, years ago, I saw a plea for help at AN/I, BLP/N or wherever -- has a history, clearly visible in versions of the talk page that precede their recent blanking, of wanting the article to say just this or that. Now, is her personal life notable or isn't it? If it is, provide readers with what is reliably sourced and do so in a straightforward, unsensational way; if it isn't, pull it all out: orientation, engagement(s), husband, kid, aunt(s), whatever. Or discuss the proposed different treatment: I am open to reasoned argument. When the current little spat is over, I'll happily take her article off my watchlist for a year or longer. And I apologize for my appalling use of the word "lesbian" three times in one and a half lines. (I subsequently fixed this.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the content issue, using an edit summary of "Meatpuppet revert"[107] is inappropriate unless Off2riorob is plannning to file an SPI case to establish that the account is question is an actual WP:MEATPUPPET, the definition of which he does not seem to know correctly. Will Beback talk

I agree. An apology is in order. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim.Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the footnotes you would see support. or perhaps you deleted them befoe reading them? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article.Meatpuppet reverters should apologize themselves. User Will Beback has got a "hard on" for me at the moment and can't stop chattin to me at every opportunity, sadly I am just not interested, sorry Will. Off2riorob (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary and I were not working together. However both of us are still confused at your odd commenting inside the article.-Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ad hominem reply. Regarding, WP:MEATPUPPET, please actually read the link policy. it dos not say what you think it does. What you may be thinking of the essay, WP:TAGTEAM. Will Beback talk 06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a meatpuppet revert is similar to a tasgteam tweak, little difference really. Off2riorob (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment. Off2riorob is one of the few Wikipedia editors who have undertaken the thankless task of trying to clear up all the garbage that has been inserted into BLP articles throughout Wikipedia. His efforts to remove sketchy information are constantly resisted by editors who really should know better. A little more administrative support for his efforts would be very helpful in improving Wikipedia's wretched history regarding its treatment of BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:MEAT states that meatpuppet is a deragtory term. Unless you have any proof that meatpuppetry is going on, then you need to stop with the breach of civility. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is in the eye of the beholder - one persons civilly issue is another's honest comment. At least the user over the last few years is a single issue account adding disputed content to a BLP articleOff2riorob (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to change a policy in the midst of a discussion so as to vacate the other party's point.[108] It's underhanded and manipulative. Will Beback talk 07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to have your attention brought to an issue that requires attention and improvement as I did it - I say - whenever is good for improving issues. Off2riorob (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be some pointy logic. Your contributions to the article itself are completely appropriate to me. The problem is your comments to the other editor. Appologize and move on. Don't turn this into a dramafest. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, you accused people of being "meatpuppets", which the policy said is a derogatory term. When confronted about it you didn't apologize or offer proof, you simply changed the policy so that it's no longer says that it's a derogatory term. That's gaming the system in a brazen way. Will Beback talk 08:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Goddessy.com" is not RS. It is not remotely near RS. It may be SPS at best. The cite given appears to be a compilation of quotes from some RS sources, and lots of stuff from not-remotely-RS sources. The claims do not meet WP:BLP. Off2riorob's edits are both proper and required by WP:BLP "Meatpuppet" may be inapt, but the concept that two users co-ordinate insertion of a non-RS source and contentious claim into a BLP is part and parcel of what is properly being discussed at the ArbCom case on BLPs. When one of them is a user with relatively few edits (say, under 200) then the concept that the newer user knows the older user might actually arise. Heck, an IP with only 300 total contributions might fall in that category. By the way, SPI will never find a "meatpuppet" and is not to be used for such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Fasttimes68 was coordinating insertion of something or other with another user? If so, please name the other user and provide your evidence for this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A subjects website can be used in a BLP if it is not unduly self serving. __Fasttimes68 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob asks above: If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim. Good point. It has been claimed (notably, by somebody identifying herself as an employee) that she was a "spokesmodel" for LGBT stuff. I never understood the notion of "spokesmodel", and said so in the article's talk page. My interlocutor got quite indignant: being a spokesmodel was pretty significant, she insisted. See this section and the following one in that talk page archive, as well as other stuff there. Now, was she a spokesmodel to a significant extent? I've always doubted this. However, a statement about a given period that was true in 2007 is also true in 2011; or if it's not true in 2011 it also wasn't in 2007 either -- and all in all a look in these recently blanked talk page archives will show you that the biographee has long believed not merely that the article should avoid defamatory material and invasions of privacy (demands with which I'd have no argument at all) but beyond this that she should control what the article says. So the OTRS stuff (to which I am not privy) starts to look like ghost-writing: the biographee badgers well-intentioned editors to do as she says, effectively creating an autobiography. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) some typos fixed 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in 2003 she was a lesbian, and in 2009 she's suddenly straight with a husband and child? Something doesn't add up. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise - it is very clear what is up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Please see Vita Sackville-West, who had two sons. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but - dead and incomparable. Off2riorob (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also bisexual, not lesbian. Real lesbians don't get married to men and have children with them, at least not after they've supposedly come out. Bisexuals might. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 07:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions, which might be of interest on some other website. I'm not quite sure which. Perhaps teletubbies. (Was there a problem with Tinky Winky?) Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbians, by definition, do not have sexual relations with men (unless they're getting paid for it). Teletubbies, last time I checked, are fictional characters. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category Category:LGBT parents; see e.g. Ann Bannon. Your "definition" of lesbian, which can be an adjective, is just as odd as Off2riorob's definition of meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, people. (A) Self-identification as being inclined one way and/or the other is one thing, (B) actual "sexual relations" are another. The relationship between (A) and (B) may be an interesting matter for academic or other discussion. But this is not the right place to discuss it, or (B); and let's not get carried away with (A) either. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus people, how many years will it take before people learn to ignore Bugs's off-topic crap on ANI?

There are two issues here:

1. The content dispute, especially because this is a BLP
2. The meatpuppet comment

The two are orthogonal. The latter could (and should) be resolved right now by Off2riorob apologising to Fasttimes68 for calling him a meatpuppet (that is, a real-life accomplice who tags teams with someone to edit war). The former looks to be heading for an RfC, but in the interests of BLP it would certainly be best for controversial material (specifically sexual orientation, past or present) to be removed from the article until consensus is reached as to whether it's adequately sourced.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your typical personal attacks, the last part of your statement is on the money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, your #2 is too narrow. There's an Off2riorob issue. Off2riorob demands (by writing questions directly in article text, and with no edit summaries) that material is made explicit in the article text. When reminded (via edit summaries) that the information is provided in the footnotes, he reverts. We all make mistakes, and if he either sleepily wrote "[[Who?]]" instead of "{{Who}}", or whatever, fine; but he reverts to the mangled state he created. After all that, he deletes. And again. Fine, he could have changed his mind -- but there's no sign of willingness to communicate, or of curiosity about what has so recently been hidden in the talk archives. Plus he writes up a fantasy about Will Beback's sexual attraction to him. Plus he mis-cites a policy page (well, I've probably done that too) but then promptly tampers with the policy page to make it say what he wishes it had said. If the problem is that he is overstretched (and I am being very charitable here), then he should realize this and lay off. And if he doesn't realize it, then he should be told it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That diff [109] should get Off2riorob a little time off from editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that Off2riorob works hard on BLPs, but that diff - combined with changing the policy to suit what he said rather than simply backing down - leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. I agree with Chris Cunningham that there are two separate issues here. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read this ANI thread, but I don't see anything wrong with what User:Off2riorob has been saying up to this point in this discussion, particularly if it's taken in context. If the editor's incorrectly accusing people of team tagging fine, but the specific term "meat puppet" has a very specific term on wiki and attempting to turn that into a dirty word is fucking ridiculous. If you've got a problem with what's going on then talk about the content, not the words. I don't see any substantiation of anything untoward here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that "meatpuppet" has a very specific meaning here: it is a meaning which is analogous to "sockpuppet", but for third parties. And if you call someone a sockpuppet on here then you'd better have evidence, because doing so otherwise is obnoxious. "meatpuppet" is most certainly not any less pejorative than "sockpuppet". Off2riorob should be advised that if he's currently using "meatpuppet" to mean "anyone engaged in tag-teaming" then he's using it wrongly and should stop doing that before he needlessly offends anyone else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• - Anyway, I have had a warning note about a couple of points in regard to my contributions last night which I accept were a bit violating - I have just read the meatpuppet description again and I apologize to User:Fasttimes68for referring to him as that - his edit didn't warrant that accusation, I didn't mean it like that anyways.I should likely apologize to Will Beback as well, using "hard on" to describe his actions in a dispute about sexual content was "inappropriate" - Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. Thank you. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization as a lesbian

Behavioural issues aside, there seems to be another, more important BLP issue here. There seems to be no dispute that Stephanie Adams declared herself to be a lesbian about 8 years ago. She is in the category "LGBT African Americans". She has since married a man (and reportedly had a child). Although we can speculate as to whether or not she is still a lesbian despite her current circumstances, WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that as far as sexual orientation is concerned, only self identification will suffice for inclusion in categories. There was a similar situation recently with an actor (Luke Evans (actor) who had been openly gay until recently when they were reported to be dating a woman. Much argument followed about whether or not the LGBT category should be retained or removed.

The situation with Adams is much clearer. She has declared herself to be "straight". This 2009 interview was easy for me to find (skip to about the 7 minute mark). Since she has no longer self-identifies as a lesbian, it seems logical that the category should be removed, but this was a cause for much argument in the Luke Evans case. Although this is a content issue, perhaps raising it here will bring fresh eyes to the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask to remove the cat - "LGBT African Americans" but the request was rejected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for the category to be removed, or Adams from the category? As for removing Adams from the category, there is IMO enough RS that she does not consider herself to be a lesbian so she should be removed from the cat. As for keeping the category itself I havent formed an opinion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the gender/sex that a person chooses to have sex with part of an encyclopedia? Would you create a category of people who have sex with animals, like that guy in Australia who married his dog? I've never picked up Britannica and went looking for who is on recorded as being gay that year? Where's the category for heterosexuals in San Francisco, Atlanta, and Greenwich Village if we are talking about minorities. What a strange strange category . . .

Signed,

WTH? Jesus Loves You --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have that category: Category:Zoosexuality in culture -- Atama頭 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob cautioned

(multiple edit conflicts) I have cautioned Off2riorob that continuing to misuse the term 'meatpuppet' to describe good-faith editors with whom he has a disagreement is just not on, as is any future attempt to rewrite policy pages to support his position in the middle of a disagreement. I have also advised him that WP:BLPN exists to help resolve these sorts of issues, and that he should seek the assistance of other, neutral editors sooner rather than later should he encounter problems like this in the future. (It is also worth noting that the exemptions to 3RR provided by WP:BLP apply even if one's opponents are editors in good standing; there's no need to invoke accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry if one is – in good faith – clearly and explicitly applying WP:BLP's provisions.)

My caution to Off2riorob is issued without prejudice to either side of the question of the content in the Stephanie Adams article. I hope that the participants in that discussion are able to resolve matters satisfactorily now that there is additional attention on the page. (Speaking as an editor, I think it seems odd and excessive under any circumstances to say 'lesbian' three times in one sentence—regardless of the sources employed.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that someone is a meatpuppet does not automatically imply that they were canvassed for that purpose. I think some people are confusing themselves by forcing such an association. My76Strat (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're a meat puppet of Off2Riorob just for agreeing with him here. Want fries with that? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense that is true, but I would not edit war, or indiscriminately rebut an opinion simply to follow his lead. And I prefer a more civil approach in all regards, but am in no position to require it. For those who like to encroach a line, I think it is counterproductive and ill-advised, But Off2riorob knows where that line exist, and has not crossed a threshold. It is a bit patronizing to issue warnings when conduct is in accord. IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you understand what 'meatpuppet' means as the term is used on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a robust read, I would have to retract the most part of my comment. It seems that solicitation, and response to solicitation is a requisite. My76Strat (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure by what policies Off2riorob often justifies his actions in; or if he means to use the term "meatpuppet" to justify his silencing of criticism or edits he does not like. We are encouraged to go to others for help when faced with a problematic editor or a dispute -- yet this is the sort of thing he discourages. Perhaps Off2riorob sees posting on another established user's talk page for help as meatpuppetry, in which case his definition is very curious indeed. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fasttimes68 and anti-Adams blogging

I was doing some digging into this and found a blog from Fasttimes68 here where he describes Stephanie Adams as a twat. Ironically, in the ten or so minutes from me finding this and deciding to post about it, the blog entry has disappeared, though it does show up in a google searches. The blog was about a lawsuit Adams filed against a different blogger and is titled Stephanie Adams is a twat. Fasttimes68 also just left a note on User talk:Silver seren here linking to yet another extremely anti-Stephanie Adams blog. I don't think someone who is so obviously biased against a subject should be editing an article on her. AniMate 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a policy stating someone with bias cant edit an article. Or try to create a new policy. This is yet another red herring. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:NPOV? Since you are clearly biased against the subject, going so far as to create a blog entry calling her a twat, you aren't neutral here. AniMate 15:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll see AniMate's WP:NPOV and raise it with WP:COI. Then I'll trump all of them with WP:CCPOL. I think they're all quite clear-cut. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help yourself. I am in no way connected to the subject. Never met her, communicated with her.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there is a difference between neutrallity on a subject vs. neutrality in terms of edits to an article. Edits should be neutral. I think the article reads very neutral at the moment. If you disagree, take it to the talk page.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that with our BLPs, we have to be extremely careful, and since you have expressed strong opinions against this subject elsewhere, why not let other people take care of the article? Wikipedia is a big place. You can find other subjects to work on that you don't consider to be twats. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mull over your diplomatically worded request :) In any case I'm perfectly happy to let others do the edits and stay on the side in discussion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastimes68 has 200 edits over a few years here - half of them are focused on Stephanie Adams or discussion related to her. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks I'm catching the scent of fish. The sockeye, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeSPIse him then? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out you guys. Unless there is credible evidence that this is someone sock you shouldn't be making these vague implications. Off2riorob was just warned in the section right above this about calling editors meatpuppets without proof. The same goes for calling or implying with not particularly clever jokes that someone is a sock. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely suggesting he might be a salmon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy barring individuals with strong opinions from editing articles, however we expect that editors holding such opinions – particular those who have clearly and publicly linked themselves to such opinions – to strive to edit in a manner that is utterly above reproach in its compliance with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's core content policies (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP). We also strongly encourage (though we generally do not compel, in the absence of other difficulties) those editors to make even more use of consensus-building techniques and discussion of changes in advance on article talk pages than they might otherwise consider absolutely necessary. WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are editing strategies that these editors should try to avoid.

Please also bear in mind that holding a strong opinion on a subject does not constitute a conflict of interest (within the general meaning of the term, or within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policy).

Finally, there's a difference between SPI (a sockpuppet investigation) and SPA (a single-purpose account). FuFoFuEd may be making an error in his use of acronyms, but should in any case be much more cautious in making accusations that he is unprepared to support. While I have not specifically evaluated Fasttimes68's editing history, I note that merely having a narrow focus for one's editing is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is only when that narrow focus extends to counterproductive conduct (especially advocacy of one sort of another) which interferes with Wikipedia's goals that SPAs are a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask an editor who conducts off-wiki attacks against a living person to leave that person's WP BLP alone. User:Bill Huffman is an example. He runs an attack site on Derek Smart. ArbCom asked him (not ordered him) to leave the Smart article alone. He has since abandoned that account and started another one (which name is unknown to me), but, as far as I know, is holding to the agreement not to mess with the Smart article. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Fasttimes not to edit BLPs of people he disparages in his blog. How does it make WP look when it comes out that we allow people who bollock real people on the Internet to edit their BLPs? Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cla68. I've started a thread at WT:BLP to discuss whether it would make sense to add a paragraph to the BLP policy saying that individuals running attack sites or disparaging blogs on living people should not edit their biographies in Wikipedia. --JN466 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a clarification, the issue was volunteering to not make any comments/suggestions on the talk page, not the article itself. I no longer edit the talk page (or anything related to the article). I have never "messed with the Smart article" itself, contrary to Cla68's apparent implication. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, you made content suggestions on the Derek Smart article talk page, which other editors then implemented. So, yes, you did "mess" with the Smart article. That's one of the reasons why topic bans usually include article talk pages also, because article talk pages are where content decisions are often made. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's complete this story Cla68, you failed miserably in your attempt to argue to the arbcom that I tried to influence the Derek Smart article in any negative way. You were apparently so desperate to convince the arbcom that I needed some sanction, that you made up the blatant lie that I claimed on the website http://flamewarfollies.com that Mr. Smart had a PhD from Warren National University. Since I edited the WNU article you argued to arbcom that I should be banned from editting that article. [110] I think that this shows that when it comes to at least me, your opinion statements cannot be trusted. Bill Huffman (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fasttimes should be banned from editing the adams article, because he has some bizarre affectation about it. Trout rob for slight impertinence. The fact that someone is/was a lesbian, however, is not a blp "issue" until this is still the 19th century.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 5:21 am, Today (UTC+1)

Off2riorob's incivility

Off2riorob is a positive force in the community, and I commend Off2riorob for his diligence, but his comments to editors who he has disagreements with are generally very abrasive. I have never known Off2riorob to disagree politely or pleasantly or to make editing a happy affair. While I respect his contributions, his civility is sometimes lacking.

I first encountered this editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Pei Ling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Seah, where he made such misinformed arguments about WP:NOTABILITY in response to comments that she fulfilled WP:GNG with such remarks as "Tin Pei Ling is not notable because she fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not been elected yet." Off2riorob made such remarks about a now quite prominent Singaporean politician: "This person is currently of minor note - is they win they will be notable, the WP:GNG is for desperate claims She is currently a not notable political candidate." The articles were later speedy kept because they passed WP:GNG with flying colours, and Off2riorob's novel argument was found to be faulty -- contrary to his belief, WP:GNG always supersedes everything else. I have come to the impression that many times, he vigourously opposes something not out of policy, but out of his personal distaste for a topic; which is fine -- he doesn't have to be such a dick while doing so, selectively removing talk page comments.

Off2riorob removed my comment from a talk page where I expressed a concern about the conduct of certain editors with a conflict of interest, especially because I was concerned that articles were being abusively managed by public relations managers or hired editors -- suspicions that continue to have rather strong basis in them. Off2riorob remains unapologetic.

Calling a user that has edited since 2007 a "meatpuppet" is only one of many gaffes that this user has made, who generally does not like to apologise or admit to mistakes. This is disconcerting in an editor. I am so glad that Off2riorob is so motivated to defend WP:BLP, but at the same time he neglects WP:COI -- and seems to reward or defend conflict of interest editing. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that GNG supersedes everything--see WP:EVENT for a counterexample--but otherwise your analysis is spot on. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I'm wondering if this bio could survive a challenge at AfD. Neither playboy bunnies nor blog editors have fared well there... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing the BLP policy provokes edit warring. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, censorship was the concern back when it was implemented but people argued that it would be applied reasonably; the policy is now subject to policy creep. Like vandalism, should have a stricter definition of what constitutes a BLP violation; the rest can fall under "content dispute" or "discretionary tastes dispute". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, while we should avoid slander and libel on talk pages, I propose that the standard for discussion pages be set a little less strict than article space, so as not to unreasonably chill discussion. There is something wrong with the current implementation of BLP policy if it leads to users cautioning others against making valid and particularly astute observations. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG certainly does not trump everything, indeed it is regularly interpreted or ignored in light of making a good decision. You really are on a crusade against Rob aren't you? --Errant^(chat!) 08:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I was one of, if not the first user to draw attention to User:La goutte de pluie's returning contributions and one of the first to suggest/request recall of his Administrator status .. and the subsequent removal of his advanced administrative privileges, I am not expecting any good luck messages from him. If the user wants to communicate to work things out in an attempt to move forward and leave any disputes behind I am open to that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with it. I hold no grudges against User:Strange Passerby (who was far more vocal than you ever were), but you are simply an incivil editor. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Incivility"? He certainly has an odd way with words, yes. Hours before he had made a series of edits to the article and written comments above that speculated about Will BeBack's dick, he'd sent email to me that said in part: I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focussing on such sexual trivia. Well, some people's rhetoric does make much reference to appendages and orifices; I don't much mind that. What I do mind is that, erections or erectile metaphor aside, this allegation of his was and is utterly wrong. It shows that he either didn't read or didn't understand the message that I'd sent him in reply to the one in which he started a short and ultimately unhappy correspondence. (Oh, conceivably he read it and understood it but disbelieved it; but if so then he failed to explain this.) His first message was amicable enough (if hard to understand in places), and I think that my reply was thoughtful and polite. But my effort turned out to have been a waste of my time. In this matter, as elsewhere, I got the impression that Off2riorob doesn't like to read, yet careful reading and thought and discussion are essential to the kind of work that he seems most keen to do. Incivility is less important than incompetence, and I see incompetence, however well intentioned. This is exacerbated by his reluctance to admit that he has goofed. I suggest that he takes a month's break from following up OTRS complaints and that he works on adding sourced, worthwhile (and of course non-titillating) content to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Heres my full email post to you - all of which you rejected quite strongly in your email reply to me, and then added to the BLP content that multiple users have objected to, your lesbian, lesbian, lesbian sentence. Also as I requested and you refused to support the removal of the BLP-LGBT categorization has also been removed after investigation and wider exposure.

• Hi (User:Hoary), just in private as there is a lot of heat about this bio and I want to keep out of it on wiki.Regarding the subject 1992 playboy interview "I am a lesbian" .. the subject seems to be retracting - can we not allow her to do that? And add something not specifically labeling her but a couple of comments about her support for LGBT issues? It is clearly quite normal for playboy models and such like to be portrayed as whatever sells the most, she clearly is not lesbian now as she's married. Are you open to resolving this in this way? We could remove the lesbian claim and add - In (whenever it was) Adams was a gay rights advocate and appeared on the cover of the Village Voice for Gay Pride Week, in addition to being a guest speaker at The Heritage of Pride NYC Rally for Gay Pride. also if we replace that can we also remove the BLPCat that asserts she is a LGBT African Americans - perhaps it seems likely she never was and it was pure promotion and sales - could you consider these solutions - nothing will be lost to the reader, she is only of limited notability anyways - Rob - Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have already said, I didn't agree with all of the content this first message of yours, but I didn't think it was at all rude. Where I disagreed with it, I did so politely (I believe) and with explanations. If my explanations were inadequate, you didn't bother to ask for an elaboration -- you instead sent a second, less coherent message (within which you incidentally fantasized about my dick), and you then went straight into the article, first demanding information (most of which was already in the footnotes) and then deleting. Yes, yes, one interim version of mine indeed used the word "lesbian" three times in one line and a half; you have already said this, repeatedly, I have already said I regretted it; the recent edit history of the article (which I encourage anyone to examine) makes it clear that I reworded it promptly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "when" request to the statement in the article that said Adams idnetifed herself as Lesbian - I think the fact that its in the citation is still not a correct position - to assert such without a date in the article text is extremely vague indeed, a simple date of when the subject did that is clearly beneficial to the readers understanding of the timeline, this is especially true in this case where the subject had later in a citation self identified as straight and basically retracted the historic self identification. You also objected to the removal request of the BLP LGBT categorization.(since removed) Your adding lesbian, lesbian, lesbian to a single sentence was imo a backlash to our discussion , something that should not have occured in a BLP. - Do you give permission for me to post your email replies? Also , I assure you, the expression, I don't know why you have a hard on for this content is in no way a fantasy about your dick, its just a quite common English idiom. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After User:Hoary responded to me strongly disagreeing with my request for compromise I sent this reply which includes the comment he posted above, as he has posted a snippet from a comment I think its important to see the snippet in context.

• (my full email reply to him that User:Hoary has posted a snippet from above) - I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focusing on such sexual trivia - there are no reports that she has ever had girlfriends of note - never lived with a long term woman - its just silly to insist on including this trivial likely falsehood - in 1992 Adams said she was a lesbian, there are no reports of any relationship but wiki has to keep it because it is important to you, but now she is married to a man with a child sorry but such insistence of demanding crap like this has got to be included is beyond me.

User:Hoary has been the major contributor to the Adams BLP since April 2005 and had imo become "involved" after a series of disputes with the subjects representatives, in a position of keeping the disputed content in the article because the subject objected to it and not wanting the subject to have any "control" over the content. His "backlash" addition of lesbian, lesbian, lesbian and his refusal to remove the LGBT BLPCAT after the subject had self identified as straight is as an example of that "involvement" - Combine User:Hoary's "involvement" and User:Fasttime68's off wikipedia attack blogging against the subject and my attempting to come to the defense of the subjects bio from a neutral uninvolved position... well I get accused of all sorts and I am well used to it with some of the reactions I get when I attempt such work. I am not perfect, but I do apologize when I make mistakes and am all the time evaluating, re assessing in relation to discussion and consensus and updating my positions in regards to policy interpretations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects should not have any control over the content of their article. That would be called a conflict of interest. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He apologized. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great. Lets consider this section closed then. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fasttimes68 topic ban proposal

It is proposed that, based on the discussion above, user Fasttimes68 be banned from editing the Stephanie Adams article, including the talk page. The article is currently undergoing its second AfD.

Support

• Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to propose this ban, you should at the very least provide some germane supporting evidence and not just cite "see above" which is an unreleated topic. It's just lazy.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) A user with a website saying "so-and-so is a [obscene expression]" is unlikely to be able to edit fairly. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pure speculation on your part. Let the edits speak for themselves.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got a source saying "she announced she was no longer homosexual". You've got to be kidding. What did she do, take a "straight pill"? Or are you citing this stuff to try to make a fool of her? (or a tw*t, perhaps?) ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I ever learn of a straight pill being discovered, I'll post about it in your talk page. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be interesting info. I was issued mine at conception. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Draco^E 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) By all means, let the edits speak for themselves: user Fasttimes68 hasn't created a single new article since joining the project in 2007. He has a total of 223 live edits (plus 7 deleted ones), and the majority of them are concerned with Stephanie Adams. Time to get a life.[reply]
  • Nice ad hominem attack. Maybe you should read up on WP:NPA --Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you dispute the facts? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont dispute them, however they are completely irrelevant. That and possibly the "get a life" comment borders on a personal attack.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's just a snippy comment along the lines of "grow up" and such stuff as that. As personal attacks go, it's pretty lame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To demonstrate irrelevancy, perhaps you could explain why you referred to the subject as a "tw*t"? I don't know where you are, but where I come from that would be considered outrageously obscene. What does it mean to you? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Red Herring. The articles I've not created or the # of edits I've made or the fact that the majority are on this BLP have no merit as to the quality of the edits and discussion. It's funny that your user page says not to feed the trolls, yet all you seem to do here is WP:BAIT--Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're labeling yourself a troll??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Srsly? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• He's nowhere near as bad of a problem as the endless self-promotion in the archives of that page. He even supports the (marginally wp:notable, IMO) article deleted. He stated that his concerns were with promotion and COI, and if you look in the archives, they are amply justified. The attempt to put an exclusively positive spin on all the activities of that person by OTRS pressure should not be tolerated. Furthermore the demands on what is "positive" seems to vary depending on, shall we say, business circumstances. Now HJ Mitchell is probably going to censor half this post claiming BLP violation, but you get the idea. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The actions of the editor are not anywhere near justifying a topic ban. It is not against policy to hold mistaken positions, so long as you do not edit tendentiously. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is somebody who's been blocked once, over two years ago, and has received a grand total of one warning since. Yes, the warning was for something stunningly asinine, but it was not obviously Adams-related, it was short and simple and perhaps merely a drunken aberration, and it happened months ago. Some aspects of this person's editing are worrisome, but there's nothing banworthy here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not even close to being justified. Absconded Northerner (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This proposed ban has no grounding in policy or practice, and is a continuation of a content dispute by other means. Quigley (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Completely unnecessary, and I'm the person who found the blog. AniMate 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No justification for this at all. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Way too extreme. Opinions off-wiki aside, we judge by the content of the edits, and there is nothing out of line with the edits made so far. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-Admin. Opposed, but hopefully following deletion-and-redirect, which seems a likely outcome at AfD, this circus won't recur. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other/threaded comments

I support this but it may become mute if deletion or redirect is supported. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant "moot". Cheers, elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both work - if it gets deleted/redirected there may be mumbles about the principle/principal, but not so one will hear it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, most of the recent editing that has caused complaints from the User:GODDESSY sock pool was not done by Fasttimes68, but by a VA Comcast IP, 69.143.17.59. Based on editing style, they don't seem to be the same person, but if you have doubts file a SPI, neither are stale. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal for User:GODDESSY / User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day

This is apparently a PR person or group working for Stephanie Adams. [111] They have consistently attempted to insert promotion in the article, have made legal threats [112] and trolling rants on the article's talk page. [113] They have socked for 5 years to evade indef blocks on numerous accounts, most recently in the AfD of that article. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of An-Apple-A-NY-Day. Mind you the want the article kept and WP:OWNED by them. It's time Wikipedia formally rebuked this attempt at subverting its core policies. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a pointless excessive by the way. List of Playboy Playmates of 1992, where the SA article is most likely going to be redirected given how the AfD looks, is not a mere list of names. It has paragraphs of text, thus we can expect the persistent problems to overflow to that article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. That this amount of conflict of interest can be tolerated is astonishing. If I had the tools I would have immediately enacted this block. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's worth noting we have banned users for "high conflict of interest" (amongst other things) before; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6#Please review ban, which led to Biochemical Mind (talk · contribs) getting banned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What would this accomplish? The sockmaster seems to create new SPA accounts or changes her ip address to get around editing concerns. For example, after a protection was issued a few weeks ago a couple of freshly created accounts started editing on the subjects talk page. One of the them User: OnlyGodTheFatherKnows just got blocked for being a suspected SP, and I wouldnt be surprised if User:SanMike7 starts chiming in soon.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:UNBAN, [114], WP:LTA. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So considering the user in question is unlikely to honor the ban, this is more of a public rebuke?--Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A banned user's edits can be reverted on sight without 3rr applying, and checkusers are more willing to check accounts linked to a banned user. In addition, a community ban requires the community to overturn it and not one individual admin. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Being banned (as opposed to blocked) means we can be more aggressive in terms of acting against their edits. It pretty much means we can shoot first, ask questions later. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Throwing around legal threats like they've done should not be tolerated at all. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this ban extend to anyone claiming to represent Goddessey et al? In the AfD page OTRS says that the subject is not performing edits (and presumably the OTRS requests), but rather others representing her and her company. In light of this new information, is it possible to extend the scope of this proposed ban to the subjects representatives as well? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:MEAT, bullet 3, and WP:DUCK, so it applies to anyone as long as there is reasonable suspicion (behavioral, technical) that they are related. Banning these troublemakers from editing does not prohibit Adam's legitimate representatives from raising concerns through OTRS, but that adds a filter of experienced editors between her real staff and Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of this I Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob's ediTs

Dear all,

There is an ongoing discussion "Autograph as signature in infobox" on which I would like to draw attention. One, there is no consensus on this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_12#Proposal_to_delete_signature_parameter). Two, Off2riorob suggested experimenting with a few autograph inclusion in the articles and based on discussions on talkpages we decide whether to keep the autographs or not. Three, several contributors have already included autographs as signatures. Overlooking them, how can only I be targeted? Four, I am fail to understand that once Johnuniq posted a message on my talkpage, I had stopped posting signatures. Then why did Rob remove all my autographs? Is it also right to ridicule a fellow Wikipedian citing the instance of an Urdu autograph which he does not understand? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you - I am under no obligation to search the whole wikipedia removing similar low quality unverified pictures of someones autograph collection taken with a mobile phone. Please present the evidence of "ridicule" - I have imo been quite patient and helpful towards you - linking you to people to help and places to discuss - I actually suggested to you to discuss on talkpages not add your autographs to infoboxs and then discuss - you also failed to discuss on talkpages and have failed to seek consensus and have failed to join in the directed to discussion of the wider issue currently under discussion on wikipedia, but instead have just focused your upset and perceived bias on to me, instead of focusing on the real issue worthy of resolving which is, what, if any, added value are your collection of autographs, the unverified nature of them and the low quality of the vast majority of them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not lift the off-the-track autograph of Shaz Tamkanat and try to make fun of me? Also, on what basis do you refer "Your king hussain of Jordon"? I am not Jordanian. Thirdly, if you are under no obligation to check others on this issue, then why are you, or maybe Johnuniq (is he your meatpuppet - because his editing and messages go side by side with yours?) only bent on targeting me? Has any one bothered to remove the so called "signature" - just a print of the name in Urdu from the article on Nazeer Akbarabadi. First, there has to be unanimity and a rule on an issue and it should be applicable to all. It should not be that on one issue the rules are different for two editors. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnuniq is my meatpuppet - yea right. Please present a diff to support your claim that "I ridiculed you" - You say, "did you not lift the off-the-track autograph of Shaz Tamkanat and try to make fun of me?" - please present diffs of what you assert is me ridiculing you or making fun of you, - to be honest - you are wasting your own time here - this is the place to report issues requiring immediate administrative action which your issue is not at all - go discuss some more - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For chrissake, HL, what Off2riorob said referred simply to "your King Hussain" as in "your King Hussain picture", "the picture of King Hussain that you have uploaded" etc. People commonly use such idioms as "your average Joe" (for someone on the street who is not anyone's), "his [the artist's] Jesus Christ has an expression of grief" (meaning the one rendition of Christ), and so on. And, ad absurdum, even if he were going to call you a Jordanian or speculate that you are, that would not in itself be insulting or even callous. Using the same skewed way of yours in reading what he said about "your king Hussain", I could now ask you: what do you have against Jordanians? See my point?

Finally: HL, you are doing yourself little service by flaring up a war on Off2riorob because he has brought into discussion your massive uploads of images that are indeed questionable for a lot of reasons. Instead of informing yourself about existing and quoted wikipedia policies and recommendations, which by now would have enlightened you as to why people keep questioning and reverting your various additions, you repeat the pointless argument "others have done it too" and, frankly, at this point, badgering Off2riorob (to say the least) in an effort to either exhaust or intimidate him. And yes, he is right: it is his privilege to address the one problem he decides to address, not any other potential or real problem; that he doesn't also do this and that is none of our (me and yours) concern, and we thank him for the time he spends cleaning up the mess that has caught his eye. In this case, the mess your edits have left behind.

I assure you that this sort of "defense" of yours is not generally tolerated on wikipedia, as this very project page shows. Please clean up your act, is my advice to you. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.Dahn (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You people are not understanding me - all that I want first is there any universally accepted rule (in the Wikipedia). If so, please let me know the link where it is posted. Secondly, if you want to remove my signature-related edits, under that rule, what is the problem in editing similar edits by others? Why people target me alone. Does anybody know how painstakingly I translated all the Program and Schedule information files of Wikimania 2011 into Hindi, some in Urdu, created a separate category of files of Indian Languages which includes some files in Telugu and Malayalam as well. As an online volunteer, I also helped some of the other online contributors with templates and posting problems. At the personal level I have grudge with Rob - even when he reverted my edits. Please understand me and help me in contributing to Wiki Projects with even more dedication and friendly environment. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) If a "universally accepted rule" is what you're looking for, this is not the place to do it, and opening up several threads to badger Off2riorob is an even worse idea. 2) There isn't necessarily a "universal rule" to cover all the autographs you upladed, but there are several issues that, as you could have picked up from the earlier discussions, do address topical reasons why most if not all your uploads are dubious. For one, you have persistently uploaded them citing yourself as an author - whether this done out of confusion or lassitude, it is simply manipulative; you did not author the samples you photographed, you just authored the photographs. This does not make you a copyright owner, unless there are copyright laws that you cite saying otherwise, and they'll have to be on a case by case basis. Secondly, yes: images do get deleted because they are of poor quality and/or unencycopedic in nature, because wikipedia is not a repository of personal experiments (how's that for a universal rule?). See also Wikipedia:Copyright violations. 3) About the other signatures, several editors have told you already: wikipedia doesn't function under an all-seeing eye, and editors will tackle problems as they see them. There are and, alas, there will always be users who upload images that are in breach of policy, and users who will apply that policy - every bit helps. Again: WP:OTHERSTUFF. 4) Have you asked yourself if other images of signatures aren't indeed kosher under copyright legislation? 5) Again, the issue that was brought up in parallel was about removing the images of signature as a standard entry in the infobox, not about deleting them. This opens up a new series of questions: should we have images of sigs elsewhere in the article? do we even need images of sigs? That means that, even if your own images would be kosher, they will probably be kept, but not used in the article. It is a possible outcome, please please get used to it already. 5) I'm sure we all appreciate your other contributions to the project(s), but you have to learn how to properly assess the work and intentions of your fellow editors. I am frankly sorry that, since you state you are an experienced editor, you are not yet familiarized with basic wikipedia policies, and candid about not understanding their meaning and rationale - it is a wake-up call, if anything.

I hope this settles it. Dahn (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Could someone tell Kwamikagami to stop moving the pronunciation to the infobox? I would tell him/her but he/she has protected his/her talk page. Objections have been raised to this practise at Template_talk:Infobox_person#Pronunciation?, but yet, he/she continues to make these edits. Thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the last thread I can see about this in the MOS is here, and there is clearly no consensus for moving this to the infobox. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Kwamikagami performing mass changes without consensus" is a recurring theme here, but I fear that raising it here again is unlikely to make any difference. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed disruptive. Kwamikagami edited a MOS page to include an idea that is clearly against current practice, made related controversial additions to fully protected templates and then started using AWB to make changes "per MOS". Along the way, he also removes birth and death dates, claiming this is supported by MOS when the opposite is actually true. Prolog (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are per the MOS, and long have been. The only thing new is that I added support for pronunciations to several templates, support which already existed in others, and made a note of that in the pronunciation MOS, which already suggested moving pronunciation out of the lede to avoid clutter, clutter that numerous editors have complained about. And I haven't "removed" birth and death dates, or if I have, it's an oversight I apologize for. If you show me where I removed any info, I'll fix it.

The talk-page protection, BTW, was due to two editors continuing a POV fight over whether the Zaza are Kurds on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is clear that birth and death dates should be in the lead sentence (WP:MOSBIO, WP:MOSBD), as is actual practice. By "removed", I meant removed from the lead (unlike pronunciations, they usually are already in the infobox). While I agree that sometimes noting pronunciation in a footnote is a good idea, you should not continue to cite WP:PRON as justification if the words are actually yours and have received little to no acceptance. As your bold changes have gathered more opposition than support, and are unlikely to gain consensus, you should self-revert the remaining edits. Prolog (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that MOS does have some support for your date format, but this has been the case only after these edits that you made a few days ago, so this issue seems similar to the pronunciation moves. Prolog (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A similar experience: Recently I moved five pages from plural to singular like this one [115]. At 11:32, Kwami engages in a talk with me: [116] (IMO the click families should be plural) -- looks OK then, talk is going (here I claimed the MOS: use singular line). But already at 11.26 they have reverted the move, back in to plural. The Talk led to nothing, Kwami did not appear again. The other disputed pages in this set are [117], [118], [119], [120].
If I'm correct, it takes admins tools to revert a move, because one page must be deleted first to free the name. I expressed surprise at Kwami at the thread [121], but did not bring it further until now.
Of course, it is frustrating is that Kwami reverted, and then entered a talk writing imo ... should (discovering that can spoil a day), and that admin tools were used for that. Apart from starting an ANI, what else can I do? I also have distrust in admins preventing such behaviour, even when there seems to be a pattern, as Bobrayner has pointed to above. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not generally take admin tools to revert a move; I've reverted a few myself. It only takes admin tools after the redirect has been edited, like by the silly bot that adds Template:R from alternative spelling or such. Sometimes an editor will edit the redirect after a move, to make it harder to move back when he knows it's controversial (like happened today at My Tam, though he used a non-existent template). Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. As a test, I reverted Alveolar clicks into singular Alveolar click, and it finished as intended. Still, this is not the essence of my post. Kwami reverted before Talking. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ADMIN - Administrators may be removed by Jimmy Wales, by stewards, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. Jimmy will only desysop for admin is using tools because he's being paid by The Man type situations, stewards will only remove powers if an admin has manifestly run mad or had their account hacked. Which leaves the Arbitration Committee. If you feel that something needs to happen, you will have to start that ball rolling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ANI has no function in handling this behaviour? -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, she just means ANI can't remove adminship. If there were an actual problem, other solutions could be developed here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remove adminship? A red herring Elen of the Roads threw in here. Why not discuss Kwami's behavior, as per the OP and my addition? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Wow. This takes the biscuit even for Kwami.

1. Edit a fully protected template to add a new parameter for pronunciation, without discussion.
2. Edit the MoS against significant opposition (to wit: the last discussion prior to July ended with "So... we don't appear to have a consensus yet.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC) ") to support Kwami's position.
3. Immediately edit several hundred articles to match that position citing the MoS. I'm actually being generous here: the edits actually started two hours before he'd edited the MoS to suit himself.
4. Edit war over the template, citing that the parameter in question was being used.

If this were an editor who hadn't had the tools for long, it would be worth a telling off. If this were an editor who didn't have a history of mass edits with questionable consensus, it would be worth a stern talking to. In this case, I really can't see that anyone could suggest this is remotely excusable. If Kwami is pathologically incapable of not using tools (admin or automated) to enforce his personal position above consensus, it's high time both were taken away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, this is an admin making these kind of edits?! Definite misuse of their tools, and I agree, they shouldn't have them in the first place. GiantSnowman 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this disturbing. A simple revert was not the answer. Very disappointing. This admin just doesn't get it? Putting the IPA in the infobox has been deemed controversial, but yet he/she continues. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I don't see why this is at AN/I. Did anyone try discussing it with Kwami where the discussion is going on at the relevant MOS talk page [[122]]? The only one of the complainers that I see there is Chris Cunningham, and he seems to have a general disagreement about the use of infoboxes, and isn't finding support for his point of view on it. I don't see how this is seen as a big behavioral problem of Kwami; he's at least talking. And anyone who works toward consistency with MOS is going to have "a history of mass edits with questionable consensus." So question it in the right place. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Dicklyon: I don't see why this is at AN/I. -- then why talk here at all? It is at ANI because it is a (possible) disruptive behavior by an editor. So rightly here. Which and admin could resolve -- good. Now I'll go read the rest of your post. -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talking maybe, but listening? Is there a particular reason why Kwami is still moving the IPA to the infobox (see here) even after reading this thread and the thread on infobox person? Plastikspork_―Œ^(talk) 00:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; you'd have to ask him. There's a conversation open on this, yes? I'm guessing that since nobody responded to his posts of more than a day ago, he didn't see much objection to what he's doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conversation open at Template talk:Infobox person, where the objection was raised. Plastikspork_―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dicklyon, if you think Kwami's behavior is OK beforehand, go ahead (and again: go away from this ANI). Me too could find a talkpage where Kwami wrote a Nice Word (even I myself have made some Good Edits). You know, like Other Stuff Exists. Now why not stay to the topic here: Kwami's behaviour, based on diffs. and questioned with good reason? -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Broad comment: I've had negative interactions with Kwami, but I have to say that I believe his edits are in good faith and reflect a deep knowledge of language and formatting. Asking him for more notice and discussion of proposed changes might be appropriate, but this thread has snowballed, as usual, out of proportion. Tony (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too: I have had good cooperations with Kwami. Still, the OP of this ANI is valid. And I don't see a snowball that big. -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser's edit-warring continues unabated

User:Debresser has twice moved Tachlifa the Palestinian. The second time without responding to my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#New stub: Tachlifa the Palestinian. If he wanted to change the name of this new article, he knows the renaming procedure. (This issue is related to a current DRN, but I feel it is in order to create new pages using the sourced term, as Debresser continues to remove it unsustainably elsewhere, [123].) Chesdovi (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the reaction of admins last time a conflict arose between us, I think it is better I not reply. If any admin is really concerned about what is going on, please see this, this and this. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How about I block both of you for 24 hours for edit warring. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because what happenes then is that I should have left Debresser's rename and reported here. Whereupon there would be no case against Debresser as there was no repetetive reverting. I would be advised to take it to talk where the matter would not be resolved and Debresser rename would remain. If I do not revert Debresser's edit, it will stay. Block both of us. It will not stop Debresser enforcing his own preference on each and every relevant article. He is the one who can not stop himself from "fixing" new articles [124], let alone old ones. Chesdovi (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternately, you could've brought the issue to a content or dispute resolution noticeboard instead of reverting and waited for someone uninvolved to weigh in their opinion on whether a rename was appropriate and then they could revert. Then, and here is the funny part, had Debresser reverted more uninvolved editors, only he would have been guilty of edit warring instead of both of you. --v/r - TP 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The two editors, Debresser and Chesdovi, should consider opening a central RfC where all these matters could be resolved. The issue seems to fall between the cracks because it is not quite subject to ARBPIA, and the same dispute keeps popping up on different articles so 3RR may not be broken. The community's patience should not be unlimited. It would not be sudden or unexpected to issue disruptive editing blocks of one week apiece. If either party will agree to make no further reverts on this topic until an RfC is completed I would hold off on a block of that person. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ed for your refreshing suggestion. I agree to not revert, but ask that I be able to create new articles with the term - there should be nothing wrong with that as the Rfc-DNR will hopefully settle the matter, and either term may be applied from scrath. I also ask that Tachlifa of the West be moved back to its original name. Chesdovi (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not quite accepting my offer, since you want to create new articles with 'Palestinian' in the title. You'd have to agree to pause on that, but you could make a list of what you want to do and wait until the RfC is over. Tachlifa of the West should also be kept under that title until the decision is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that these guys (Chesdovi, Debresser) were both banned from ANI... FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested but not formally proposed. Frankly, it's long past time for a general interaction ban if not a complete ban on Palestine-related articles. This is unbelievably tedious. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that WP:ARBPIA was "broadly construed" and included any religious topic of contention? I feel this particular article does fall under ARBPIA and 1RR sanctions apply, so there are sanctions that should be applied to both editors.--Cerejota (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to create redirect page with "-".

Hi Admins ;

I am merely trying to create a redirect page "Thyroid-S", which is a brand name, and I want to redirect to the general discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccated_thyroid_extract

But the "-" subtraction sign in the brand name "Thyroid-S" appears to be causing a problem in creating this page. Can someone help me please?

BR Peter G. Thailand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresard (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Atama頭 04:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bokan995

Could someone please block this user? They previously had two socks blocked on 24 August per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bokan995/Archive but weren't blocked themselves because they already were (for edit warring). They've now used two more checkuser confirmed socks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bokan995 to edit-war POV material into Medes, and the article was semi'd. However as of this moment they have reverted back to the original account to continue the edit-war. I'd block them myself, but I'm one of two editors that has been rv-ing the material introduced by the socks back out of the article (actually I think I'm on 4RR already, though rv-ing socks probably doesn't count). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He's apologised on my talk page, but given that this is his second blatant round of sock-puppetry and edits such as today's [125] and earlier [this edit and this edit praising the work of his socks. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counting his socks he's at R6 now. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master and all known, named socks blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

Heat-to-light ratio has dropped below useful levels. Supposing there are still content issues, they can be discussed elsewhere. lifebaka++ 02:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well after that copy editing, I introduced 'Bisque' as a background Div style (aid to reading), as this long tortuous discussion kept going off page. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] And I removed it, because that's not normal practice here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka++ 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held. For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced. The accounts involved are: User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts. User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog. Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing. That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Wikipedia disputes. User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles. Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi [126], or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keepingbuilding a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] What you said was "This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi." It wasn't true, and it's a plain, straightforward factual statement. You claim that your only motivation is that you've read and and liked some of Morris's work, but by a curious coincidence the description you'vr given of yourself on-Wiki matches up to the self-description of a person who uses the screen nane "Cthu-Lou", who describes himself as a friend of one of the Lawyers in Hell authors, and has actually passed along requests for help from that author on the details of what might well be a "Heroes in Hell" story, and who also has social-network connections with User:UrbanTerrorist. It's also quite peculiar that your first post as Knihi teed off on OrangeMike over his conduct in deletion discussions, even though none of the AFDs you'd posted in as Cthu-Lou involved OM. And as a final note, you stated, above, that someone here has called you an "unethical sockpuppet." Who and where, pray tell? With an appropriate cite. I don't see anyone having done that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Really? Ok. You caught me using inexact language. It wasn't in the very first post. I'm not exactly sure what you think you've accomplished, but clearly I was typing in a rush. In turn, I feel confirmed in not trusting to your good faith. It is quite curious to me you seem so concerned about this OrangeMike person and have yet to link to where I supposedly tossed 'barbs' at him. As for being called an "unethical sockpuppet" what I actually wrote was "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet" -- which is subtly different -- and I can certainly cite that. You. Here. As an "account involved" with "Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1" I find being included on this list and having to have this conversation as equivalent to "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet," and I stand by that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's not a question of "inexact language." It's that you never made that disclosure, in your first or any other post, so far as I can tell, and you don't cite the post where the "announcement" was purportedly made. As for your claim that I didn't link to your comments regarding OM, the link is there, plain as day in my reply to your first post in this subthread, despite whatever motive you might claim for denying it's there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Well I remember making the post, even if I can no longer find it. Its entirely possible I made it to someone's talk page or somewhere else, like a message. *shrug* There's been a lot of typing around here. I don't think it proves anything substantive one way or another; but I guess you'd have to assume good faith to accept that, which seems in short supply. As for a link to 'barbs' I see a link to my opening post as knihi on a discussion but I don't read anything in there that is a 'barb' -- and, in asking for greater specificity from you, I don't have motives here, other than to categorically refute your blanket characterization of my comments. Which comment, specifically, do you regard as a 'barb' and why? And as for inexact language, I point you to the opening of your very first comment on my user account. It's been established that UrbanTerrorist not Janet Morris claimed to be "keeping a file"; so either you claim to know UrbanTerrorist's gender or you too made a mistake and used inexact language. I'm going with uncorrected mistake. Please note that I am offering you the good faith you consistently fail to offer me. Knihi (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Guys, enough. Lots of heat, no light. lifebaka++ 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Wikipedia articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Wikipedia disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris. For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels. I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike). Well now, I suggest you double-check all of my edits. I've been on WP since 2004 and while I did work for quite awhile establishing author Michael Z. Williamson's page, I also did quite a few edits on other authors as well. I believe that one of WP's admissions (or perhaps it is desire, I am not certain) is for those who are knowledgeable to make edits, contributions and place cites. I happen to be a fan of science fiction and am very knowledgeable about the author pages I edit. I'm sorry that I don't "branch out" and edit pages I know nothing about but I, unlike others, believe that facts trumpet a consensus. Cordova829 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Principal pages involved: Lawyers in Hell AFD Talk:Heroes in Hell Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here [127], then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation. You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [128]. Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc. Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] l The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President. Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2+2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)? COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Wikipedia policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line(note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Wikipedia's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz."[129] That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to [to him] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk) This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate. The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level. I'm not assuming good faith anymore because threatening to write about us, expounding on your credentials, your associations, "knowing a lot of people," and saying that some editors (in general) are idiots in this Wall of text are disruptive and not helpful to your case. Only checkusers can confirm sockpuppets. Also, we can read your edit history just fine, thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Since I disagree I've taken out the Collapse statement. I think that the information on who and what I am is very germane, since I've been accused of being a sock puppet, and I posted this as proof that I'm not a sock puppet. This would be the equivalent of my deciding to Collapse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz complaint so that no one could read it, and no one knew what he was complaining about. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book. Now let's take a look at the situation one step at a time, going back to when this started. Yes, I know everyone involved. I know a hell of a lot of people. If you want to go back to the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I'm two degrees away from George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other big names. It's not that I'm important. I'm not. Its just that before my body fell apart I used to be the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufacturers catalytic converters and other emission control products, and I spent a lot of time in Ottawa, Washington, and San Francisco, and I know a lot of people in government. You can still find my name on the California Air Resources Board, Industry Canada, West Coast Diesel Collaborative, and Western Regional Air Partnership government body websites, Environmental Defense, Manufacturers of Emissions Controls non-governmental organization websites, and on Forklift Action the Forklift Industry News website even though I've been out of work for nearly three years now. If you check the Diesel Particulate Filter article you will find that I started it and that most of the first 9000 words were contributed by me while I was working for a company that manufactured and sold the devices. If you look at the article on Selective Catalytic Reduction you will notice that I took the original article from 600 words to 3800 words, again while working in the industry. The article once again needs a re-write because some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry tried to come to a consensus rather than understanding the chemical reaction. Yes, I've removed the collapse statement a second time. The information is germane to my claim not to be a sock puppet, and therefore needs to be seen. As I've said several times, it appears that there are two sets of rules. One for the in crowd and one for everyone else. The in crowd can say what they want. They can make any accusations that they want. They can claim that long standing accounts are sock puppets without providing any evidence (as you will notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has provided none above). When one of those accused attempts to provide evidence it is claimed that it isn't germane, and that it doesn't need to be seen. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started. It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted. I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized. I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules, but I didn't know that at the time either. The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Wikipedia editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious. At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Wikipedia, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste. I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Wikipedia article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else. OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so. This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it. When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Wikipedia, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part). The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Wikipedia norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena. There is a significant problem here that Wikipedia is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Wikipedia isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here. As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes. Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short. Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't. Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion. Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae. Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Wikipedia can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said: 6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother? 5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often. As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything. I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion. On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher. I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka++ 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources. As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem. As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this. As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article. As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours. Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it. Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages[130], not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Wikipedia does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Wikipedia, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Wikipedia, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page [131], and on this page [132] is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea. I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account? I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hulcys, that thread was already archived (threads on this noticeboard are automatically archived by a bot if no one responds to them in 24 hours). You can find the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sockpuppet investigation I just added a new entry to the old Harmonia1 sockpuppet investigation, to initiate a checkuser on Guarddog2 to see if Janet Morris's new account is an extension of Harmonia1. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I woulda, shoulda hoped some of the many rules and procedures here would have injected hard facts like that, vice the wild allegations and beliefs read above BEFORE generating such a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME built on ignorance of contract law and perhaps a few misunderstood rules. But since I was canvassed to come here from some trivial edit (I don't know the series, though have read Ms. J.C.), let me say that I find it perfectly normal behaviour for writer-associates to be of similar mind about the contract law in dispute. AHEM ... experience will tell. Ahem. There has certainly been a lack of common sense exhibited by the accuser. This is a tempest in a teapot and exactly the sort of spiraling feckless arguments over nothing much that drive good editors away. For the record, iirc each of the people who've self-identified above as writers have books on my shelf. I also recognize them from BAEN circles and related web sites. I trust the accuser will forgive me for reading a top publisher, and for contributing to articles about said associations here. SOME of us try to write about what we know. RECOMMENDATION: Close this discussion if the IP Check doesn't back up the finger pointing and penalize Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for lack of maturity, common sense and far too much poor judgment. He/She clearly has far too much time to snoop for suspect associations to present this matter over a trivial difference. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] A checkuser is likely to come back as declined for being stale on the master account; it's been over a year. We'll probably only have behavioral evidence to work on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] And that's why I didn't ask for Checkuser or open a standard SPI to begin with. I pointed out that last year, in a dispute over a subject related to one of Janet Morris's businesses, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with a group of SPAs claiming to be her business associates, engaged in inappropriate editing practices and were indef-blocked. I pointed out that in a current dispute, involving a different business project of Janet Morris, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with users identifying as associates of Janet Morris in that project, appeared to be engaging in the same inappropriate, off-wiki coordinated, editing in concert on a subject where they had COI problems. I also suggested that the user who claimed to be Janet Morris this year was likely to be the same user who claimed to be Janet Morris last year, and therefore appeared to be engaging in block evasion. For all of the caterwauling and invective directed at The Big Bad Wolfowitz, none of the editors involved have made any significant substantive comments about the behavioral issues involved, except to indignantly assert "I am not a sockpuppet," an accusation which I was careful not to make except in the case of the two accounts which both self-identified as Janet Morris. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Apologies Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if my stepping in to assist caused a problem...but can you identify where you stated that Harmonia1 self-identified as Janet Morris? I think I missed that, which was why I was willing to trust Guarddog2's claim that she had never edited Wikipedia before. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] No complaints about anything either you or Binksternet have done with respect to the SPI, Qwyrxian. It's a complicated situation, and Guarddog2's comments haven't been very transparent. In the course of the SPI last year, one of the accounts identified as a sock of Harmonia1, "Elkoholic", identified herself in an unblock request as the owner of M2 Technologies, referring to it (more than once) as "my company" and providing some details about its operations. "Elkoholic" was identified by Checkuser as a sock/alternate account of Harmonia1. Harmonia1 also described herself on her userpage, saying "User has 60 horses, has written and edited fiction and nonfiction published in a number of languages, and is a defense contractor who provides long range strategic planning and other goods and services to government and industry in the national security area" [133]. This pretty clearly matches up to Janet Morris, and the 60-horse reference particularly matches up to Morris's description of herself in the Equine International profile of her and her husband cited in our Janet Morris article, content and citation added by Harmonia1 [134]. (Harmonia1 also admitted being closely associated with (and denied being) User:Tailertoo, who Guarddog2 acknowledges to be her husband, Chris Morris. Curiously, User:Ubter, who also edited in tandem with Harmonia1 on various Morris-related articles in 2010, also self-identified in this image upload [135] as Chris Morris. It's also interesting to note that while Harmonia1 did very little editing with regard to Heroes in Hell, she edited extensively with regard to a different series written by Morris, The Sacred Band of Stepsons -- a series which, not coincidentally, Morris was just about to publish a new volume in after a two-decade break. That is, to belabor the obvious, the same pattern of editing seen with regard to Heroes in Hell/Lawyers in Hell, and is one of the factors underlying my suspicions of concerted editing on her behalf in the current disputes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] That is quite strong evidence, and thank you for providing it. I've put the question to Guarddog2 on her talk page to explain why her story now (as a completely self-identified Janet Morris) of never editing previously doesn't seem to match the very strong evidence from before that Harmonia1 was also Janet Morris. She did indicate that she'll be out of town for the week, so we may have to wait until next week for her response (if she provides one). Previously, I had thought that it likely that she was involved off-wiki in the previous situation but not actually Harmonia1, but now I'm leaning the other way. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] So we have one editor who previously claimed to be Janet Morris. We have a new editor who claims to be Janet Morris, but claims to not be the previous editor. Neither editor has provided proof of identity. So my suggestion is this; block her per WP:REALNAME until proof is provided. I know that the policy is meant for usernames, but this is still the same situation as our policy because she's using her real name on her user page. I'll leave it up to you, Qwyrxian, since you're the one who has been involved, but this is my recommendation. -- Atama頭 18:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] SUMMARY OF NEVER-ENDING COMPLAINTS This dispute started out by Mr. Wolfowitz using insulting language in the edit history of the Heroes in Hell series page edits. In fact, the very first exchange I had with Mr. Wolfowitz was when I added two sentences to the Heroes in Hell series page which he deleted 45 minutes later with the comment: "skanky promotional." (I do not appreciate being referred to as "skanky" because when I was raised, people spoke to others with civility - especially if they had never met the person). After I rewrote the two sentences to make sure they were completely neutral, he deleted them with the comment "Rv, this is just a naked plug by the book's editor, and has nothing to do with the book's "reception" or any other subject of an encyclopedic nature" [136] in essence accusing me of being Janet Morris. The "edit war" continued when Mr. Wolfowitz attempted to prove that a legal definition could be changed by "consensus" and a huge argument ensued wherein people tried (unsuccessfully) to explain the difference between "first serial" and "reprint" to Mr. Wolfowitz. When it became obvious he was not going to get what he wanted, i.e., a consensus to declare Mr. Silverberg wrote a short story set in a shared universe, BEFORE the shared universe was created, [137] Mr. Wolfowitz decided to start making accusations against everyone who did not agree with him. Mr. Wolfowitz then decided to try to accuse several people of being Janet Morris, except of course, Janet Morris herself, and began a dispute accusing everyone who did not agree with him of all having COIs (all of which were disclosed by the users with no attempt to hide their identities) and of being sockpuppets or "meat puppets" (charming term) of Janet Morris, and all editors of trying to use Wikipedia for "promotional" purposes, from which it must be diligently defended.[138] When that didn't seem to be working, Mr. Wolfowitz dragged up an old accusation of sockpuppetry of a person who is not even involved in this dispute and used that as "evidence" that Janet Morris had opened many accounts over the years (including the Harmonia1 identity) and was doing so again after having been blocked as Harmonia. Unfortunately, the people Mr. Wolfowitz is convinced are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris actually live in different states and countries. In the prior dispute, some did live in the same state and worked on different floors of an office building which was apparently how the vaunted CheckUser system decided they were all the same person.[139] If Mr. Wolfowitz knew anything about word usage, it would be easy to read different posts to know the same person did not write all of them. Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. There was never any "good faith" assumed by Mr. Wolfowitz in the original edits to Heroes in Hell nor any of these disputes; his use of insulting and uncivil language cannot be contested; when anyone brings up something he can't refute, he simply ignores the question and goes off on another tangent of more paranoid accusations. It seems to be fairly clear that Mr. Wolfowitz has no intention of ever letting go of these disputes and if the Checkuser program (which is apparently considered flawed based on results of a Google search, like this [140]) does not uphold his accusations that we are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris, he will, no doubt, find something else to file a dispute about. A time-honored tactic of unscrupulous lawyers: if you don't have a good case, bury them in paper. I don't expect any of Mr. Wolfowitz' friendly editors to agree with anything I have said here. However, it is now part of the record. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] That WikipediaWatch page is a blog, and anything can be said on it. Also, most of those checkuser concerns deal with a Type II error-- failing to find a sockpuppet when they actually exist, not a Type I Error, saying there's a sockpuppet when there is no actual sockpuppet. Second, your opinion about the other editors being "swayed" by Hullaballoo is ungrounded: Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. Neutral, independent editors and administrators have come into this argument on their own, not through canvassing. If anything, it is other editors who agree with your sentiments who have been canvassed by the now-blocked UrbanTerrorist and others. Third, accusations that the sock puppet investigation were not justified do not seem right to me. Guarddog2 stated an association with blocked user Harmonia1. Hullaballoo has also made a convincing argument that Harmonia1 is Guarddog2. Previous confusion over Guarddog2's identity dealt with errors in her own statements about various books and publishing issues, as pointed out by Hullaballoo. Finally, while I agree that Hullaballoo has not always shown good faith, that doesn't mean his arguments or evidence are null and void. They are certainly not paranoid. Again, anything regarding this whole publication debacle needs to be verifiable. If it's publication rights, then a contract would be the definitive document. Barring access to that, we rely on reliable sources, which have been provided en masse in support of Hullaballoo's arguments. I have yet to see sources contradicting his statements regarding publication. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unrelated wall of text content issue that is already posted here here and here I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz (identified only by an IP address), by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors (and since this page is not a book/series/entity page, and all quotations are noted with attribution, there should not be a "copyvio" problem): "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article: Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6] You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context. What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph)[1] "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." The second paragraph[1] described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters. The third paragraph[1] - again verbatim: "It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source." ALL EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE SO THIS ISSUE CAN BE PUT TO BED. There is an old saying: "You can't prove a negative." Most of the accusations brought by Mr. Wolfowitz and his fellow editors fall into the category of forcing the accused to prove they did NOT do something - thereby creating an impossible situation: that of "proving" a negative. The earlier example of Mr. Wolfowitz' strangely intense desire to rewrite the Silverberg/Heroes in Hell relationship of 1986, by selective quoting and "creative" editing, highlights the problem that started this entire debate, leading to Ms. Morris creating an account solely for the purpose of attempting to straighten out the obvious misunderstanding of the situation in the dispute pages (as she repeatedly attempted to explain not only here but to various editors on their own talk pages) only to be accused of being someone already blocked from editing WP, and from there the debate degenerated into flying accusations and digging up ancient history to obfuscate the true issue: Did Mr. Silverberg write "Gilgamesh in the Outback" for the series Heroes in Hell or did he write it independently to be printed in Dr. Asimov's wonderful publication, and then "allow" it to be used in Heroes in Hell? That question has now been answered unequivocally. Without that dispute, the rest of these hundreds of thousands of words and unknown number of hours wasted would never have happened. (Yes, we all know the first serial of the story was printed in IASFM(v. 10, no. 6, Jun86 (whole no. 105) Created 1986; Pub.; Reg. 1986-05-08; TX0001821228 and the original was published in Rebels in HellDate of Creation:1985; Date of Publication: 1986-07-01 (both citations from Copyright WebCite queries from story page) two months' later and no one is arguing that. Mr. Silverberg's own description of his creation of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" must take precedence over simple statements of the dates of publication which only delineate the chronological order in which they were published - they do not prove for whom he wrote the story).Hulcys930 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Haven't we had enough walls of text already? Honestly, I think that concern that the term "originally published" also establishes intention of the author is very, very superficial and is largely unimportant to most readers. I doubt most readers will take that interpretation of the phrase. "Originally published" is only intended to signify the order in which the story appeared. Can we just leave it at that? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Before dismissing the above post, please go to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page and see the difference between what Mr. Silverberg reported in his interview and the way Mr. Wolfowitz has characterized the situation on the page.Hulcys930 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hulcys, a call for more eyes is one thing, but huge amounts of text here aren't going to solve anything. AN/I is a terrible venue for solving content disputes. Besides, the thread at WP:DRN already showed obvious consensus for a compromise. Has is not been implemented? lifebaka++ 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] lifebaka If only that were true. We THOUGHT there had been compromise and consensus until Mr. Wolfowitz revised the Gilgamesh page on August 22 to reflect his own personal wishes rather than the actual history of events. Please read the Gilgamesh page and then Mr. Silverberg's entire statement. The only way to create the fiction stated on the Gilgamesh page is by heavily parsing certain words from Mr. Silverberg and putting them together in a different order with a skewed narrative so as to change the situation entirely. "And selective quotation is a well-known mode of character assassination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)" (emphasis added) I guess it works for history revision too... Hulcys930 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Also, I DID apologize for the length of the above post but refuting statements made using "verifiable" sources in a deliberately misleading manner by highly experienced editors takes some explaining. Hulcys930 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is just a rerun of Hulcys930's phony COI charges against me and other editors. She goes on at length about the misdeeds of The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but never gets around to explaining what they are. I added well-sourced, relevant information. including properly referenced quotations, to a page involved in this dispute. Hulcys can't actually find anything inappropriate in my edits, so she declares that the quotations I presented are "in a different order" from the original. This is not an automatic bad thing, of course; WP articles aren't just paraphrases of their sources, and may present relevant information in a different structure and order. And here it's simply not true; anybody who compares the article to the cited source (reproduced in that wall of text Hulcy is plastering all over WP) can verify this for themselves. Who's being "deliberately misleading"? I'd say it's the editor who's been rather free in throwing uncivil, unsupported personal attacks around while refusing to disclose her own COI regarding the subjects involved in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hullaballoo, you're not doing any better in assuming good faith yourself. Both of you, instead of commenting on each other, just find a compromise (as an example, you could say that the story was serialized in Asimov's on <date> and publised in RIH on <date> without giving any other wording on order; as I'm lead to believe both dates are the same month and year, the first published parameter in the infobox doesn't explicitly refer to either, and no one will care, anyway), put it in the article, and move on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] You know, lifebaka, WP:AGF doesn't require users to paint targets on their backs or otherwise accept abusive treatment. It "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". And Ms Hulcy's repeatedly making wholly groundless accusations against editors who've opposed her in garden-variety content disputes is pretty obvious evidence. She dragged this dispute into the mud with her accusation that "each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz," a complete fabrication that she never provided evidence to actually support."[141] Now she repeats this sliming, with a more insulting accusation and no evidence whatever, and I'm supposed to ignore what's gone before and assume that this time she's acting in good faith. Forget it; that's not what our policy calls for. And note that an SPI, which I wasn't involved in, just closed yesterday and confirmed that Hulcys930 has "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior".[142]] And Ms Hulcy's response to the SPI filing was a new, groundless, uncivil personal attack on me, over an edit I'd made about a week earlier, plastering multiple copies of it all around WP. Your sympathies here a clearly misplaced, and you should rethink what's been going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've just now attempted such a compromise by changing the Gilgamesh text to "It was published in Asimov's Science Fiction[3][4] and in Rebels in Hell[5] before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living." If that's not acceptable, I'll walk away; I just thought it might be easier for both to accept - or at least, let pass - a compromise that came from someone else. NebY (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It's not acceptable to me, and it isn't supported by a genuine consensus. No one disputes the accuracy of the publication history I set forth, which was uncontroversially included in the article for several years. Even Hulcys acknowledges its accuracy -- note above, where even Hulcys agrees that the magazine publication came first, and "no one is arguing [about] that". It's standard practice in Wikipedia, for works of fiction, to identify their first chronological publication. It's not just standard practice in Wikipedia, it's the norm, across the board, for reliable bibliographical works. No one's made any case that there's a good reason, based on encyclopedic principles or Wikipedia policies, for doing anything otherwise in this case. The compromise has already been made, by mentioning Rebels in Hell at all, because it's not standard practice, here or elsewhere, to mention anthologization of already published short fiction, except in the case of things like year's-best volumes, where inclusion is a clear indicator of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challeged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into. I was unaware of the SPI mentioned until I saw it HERE, so, obviously, that had nothing to do with anything I said. (I'm interested to discover I have "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior." A CONSISTENT record? Really? For how long? Did you bother to check MY IP address?) The only notifications sent out (as far as I can tell) were to two IP addresses, neither of which are mine. As far as "using anonymous IPs" I simply copied the information posted on the GITO page by someone with only an IP address because I knew it would be deleted the moment Mr. Wolfowitz saw it, as it contained too much sourced information for him to refute (he removed it in less than 2 minutes). But since no one actually wants to read or hear anything that can't be explained in three sentences or less, I'll close with this: I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

Heat-to-light ratio has dropped below useful levels. Supposing there are still content issues, they can be discussed elsewhere. lifebaka++ 02:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well after that copy editing, I introduced 'Bisque' as a background Div style (aid to reading), as this long tortuous discussion kept going off page. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] And I removed it, because that's not normal practice here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka++ 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held. For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced. The accounts involved are: User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts. User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog. Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing. That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Wikipedia disputes. User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles. Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi [143], or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keepingbuilding a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] What you said was "This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi." It wasn't true, and it's a plain, straightforward factual statement. You claim that your only motivation is that you've read and and liked some of Morris's work, but by a curious coincidence the description you'vr given of yourself on-Wiki matches up to the self-description of a person who uses the screen nane "Cthu-Lou", who describes himself as a friend of one of the Lawyers in Hell authors, and has actually passed along requests for help from that author on the details of what might well be a "Heroes in Hell" story, and who also has social-network connections with User:UrbanTerrorist. It's also quite peculiar that your first post as Knihi teed off on OrangeMike over his conduct in deletion discussions, even though none of the AFDs you'd posted in as Cthu-Lou involved OM. And as a final note, you stated, above, that someone here has called you an "unethical sockpuppet." Who and where, pray tell? With an appropriate cite. I don't see anyone having done that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Really? Ok. You caught me using inexact language. It wasn't in the very first post. I'm not exactly sure what you think you've accomplished, but clearly I was typing in a rush. In turn, I feel confirmed in not trusting to your good faith. It is quite curious to me you seem so concerned about this OrangeMike person and have yet to link to where I supposedly tossed 'barbs' at him. As for being called an "unethical sockpuppet" what I actually wrote was "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet" -- which is subtly different -- and I can certainly cite that. You. Here. As an "account involved" with "Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1" I find being included on this list and having to have this conversation as equivalent to "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet," and I stand by that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's not a question of "inexact language." It's that you never made that disclosure, in your first or any other post, so far as I can tell, and you don't cite the post where the "announcement" was purportedly made. As for your claim that I didn't link to your comments regarding OM, the link is there, plain as day in my reply to your first post in this subthread, despite whatever motive you might claim for denying it's there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Well I remember making the post, even if I can no longer find it. Its entirely possible I made it to someone's talk page or somewhere else, like a message. *shrug* There's been a lot of typing around here. I don't think it proves anything substantive one way or another; but I guess you'd have to assume good faith to accept that, which seems in short supply. As for a link to 'barbs' I see a link to my opening post as knihi on a discussion but I don't read anything in there that is a 'barb' -- and, in asking for greater specificity from you, I don't have motives here, other than to categorically refute your blanket characterization of my comments. Which comment, specifically, do you regard as a 'barb' and why? And as for inexact language, I point you to the opening of your very first comment on my user account. It's been established that UrbanTerrorist not Janet Morris claimed to be "keeping a file"; so either you claim to know UrbanTerrorist's gender or you too made a mistake and used inexact language. I'm going with uncorrected mistake. Please note that I am offering you the good faith you consistently fail to offer me. Knihi (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Guys, enough. Lots of heat, no light. lifebaka++ 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Wikipedia articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Wikipedia disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris. For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels. I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike). Well now, I suggest you double-check all of my edits. I've been on WP since 2004 and while I did work for quite awhile establishing author Michael Z. Williamson's page, I also did quite a few edits on other authors as well. I believe that one of WP's admissions (or perhaps it is desire, I am not certain) is for those who are knowledgeable to make edits, contributions and place cites. I happen to be a fan of science fiction and am very knowledgeable about the author pages I edit. I'm sorry that I don't "branch out" and edit pages I know nothing about but I, unlike others, believe that facts trumpet a consensus. Cordova829 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Principal pages involved: Lawyers in Hell AFD Talk:Heroes in Hell Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here [144], then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation. You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [145]. Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc. Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] l The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President. Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2+2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)? COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Wikipedia policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line(note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Wikipedia's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz."[146] That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to [to him] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk) This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate. The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level. I'm not assuming good faith anymore because threatening to write about us, expounding on your credentials, your associations, "knowing a lot of people," and saying that some editors (in general) are idiots in this Wall of text are disruptive and not helpful to your case. Only checkusers can confirm sockpuppets. Also, we can read your edit history just fine, thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Since I disagree I've taken out the Collapse statement. I think that the information on who and what I am is very germane, since I've been accused of being a sock puppet, and I posted this as proof that I'm not a sock puppet. This would be the equivalent of my deciding to Collapse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz complaint so that no one could read it, and no one knew what he was complaining about. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book. Now let's take a look at the situation one step at a time, going back to when this started. Yes, I know everyone involved. I know a hell of a lot of people. If you want to go back to the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I'm two degrees away from George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other big names. It's not that I'm important. I'm not. Its just that before my body fell apart I used to be the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufacturers catalytic converters and other emission control products, and I spent a lot of time in Ottawa, Washington, and San Francisco, and I know a lot of people in government. You can still find my name on the California Air Resources Board, Industry Canada, West Coast Diesel Collaborative, and Western Regional Air Partnership government body websites, Environmental Defense, Manufacturers of Emissions Controls non-governmental organization websites, and on Forklift Action the Forklift Industry News website even though I've been out of work for nearly three years now. If you check the Diesel Particulate Filter article you will find that I started it and that most of the first 9000 words were contributed by me while I was working for a company that manufactured and sold the devices. If you look at the article on Selective Catalytic Reduction you will notice that I took the original article from 600 words to 3800 words, again while working in the industry. The article once again needs a re-write because some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry tried to come to a consensus rather than understanding the chemical reaction. Yes, I've removed the collapse statement a second time. The information is germane to my claim not to be a sock puppet, and therefore needs to be seen. As I've said several times, it appears that there are two sets of rules. One for the in crowd and one for everyone else. The in crowd can say what they want. They can make any accusations that they want. They can claim that long standing accounts are sock puppets without providing any evidence (as you will notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has provided none above). When one of those accused attempts to provide evidence it is claimed that it isn't germane, and that it doesn't need to be seen. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started. It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted. I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized. I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules, but I didn't know that at the time either. The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Wikipedia editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious. At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Wikipedia, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste. I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Wikipedia article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else. OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so. This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it. When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Wikipedia, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part). The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Wikipedia norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena. There is a significant problem here that Wikipedia is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Wikipedia isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here. As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes. Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short. Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't. Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion. Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae. Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Wikipedia can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said: 6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother? 5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often. As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything. I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion. On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher. I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka++ 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources. As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem. As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this. As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article. As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours. Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it. Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages[147], not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Wikipedia does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Wikipedia, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Wikipedia, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page [148], and on this page [149] is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea. I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account? I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hulcys, that thread was already archived (threads on this noticeboard are automatically archived by a bot if no one responds to them in 24 hours). You can find the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sockpuppet investigation I just added a new entry to the old Harmonia1 sockpuppet investigation, to initiate a checkuser on Guarddog2 to see if Janet Morris's new account is an extension of Harmonia1. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I woulda, shoulda hoped some of the many rules and procedures here would have injected hard facts like that, vice the wild allegations and beliefs read above BEFORE generating such a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME built on ignorance of contract law and perhaps a few misunderstood rules. But since I was canvassed to come here from some trivial edit (I don't know the series, though have read Ms. J.C.), let me say that I find it perfectly normal behaviour for writer-associates to be of similar mind about the contract law in dispute. AHEM ... experience will tell. Ahem. There has certainly been a lack of common sense exhibited by the accuser. This is a tempest in a teapot and exactly the sort of spiraling feckless arguments over nothing much that drive good editors away. For the record, iirc each of the people who've self-identified above as writers have books on my shelf. I also recognize them from BAEN circles and related web sites. I trust the accuser will forgive me for reading a top publisher, and for contributing to articles about said associations here. SOME of us try to write about what we know. RECOMMENDATION: Close this discussion if the IP Check doesn't back up the finger pointing and penalize Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for lack of maturity, common sense and far too much poor judgment. He/She clearly has far too much time to snoop for suspect associations to present this matter over a trivial difference. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] A checkuser is likely to come back as declined for being stale on the master account; it's been over a year. We'll probably only have behavioral evidence to work on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] And that's why I didn't ask for Checkuser or open a standard SPI to begin with. I pointed out that last year, in a dispute over a subject related to one of Janet Morris's businesses, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with a group of SPAs claiming to be her business associates, engaged in inappropriate editing practices and were indef-blocked. I pointed out that in a current dispute, involving a different business project of Janet Morris, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with users identifying as associates of Janet Morris in that project, appeared to be engaging in the same inappropriate, off-wiki coordinated, editing in concert on a subject where they had COI problems. I also suggested that the user who claimed to be Janet Morris this year was likely to be the same user who claimed to be Janet Morris last year, and therefore appeared to be engaging in block evasion. For all of the caterwauling and invective directed at The Big Bad Wolfowitz, none of the editors involved have made any significant substantive comments about the behavioral issues involved, except to indignantly assert "I am not a sockpuppet," an accusation which I was careful not to make except in the case of the two accounts which both self-identified as Janet Morris. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Apologies Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if my stepping in to assist caused a problem...but can you identify where you stated that Harmonia1 self-identified as Janet Morris? I think I missed that, which was why I was willing to trust Guarddog2's claim that she had never edited Wikipedia before. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] No complaints about anything either you or Binksternet have done with respect to the SPI, Qwyrxian. It's a complicated situation, and Guarddog2's comments haven't been very transparent. In the course of the SPI last year, one of the accounts identified as a sock of Harmonia1, "Elkoholic", identified herself in an unblock request as the owner of M2 Technologies, referring to it (more than once) as "my company" and providing some details about its operations. "Elkoholic" was identified by Checkuser as a sock/alternate account of Harmonia1. Harmonia1 also described herself on her userpage, saying "User has 60 horses, has written and edited fiction and nonfiction published in a number of languages, and is a defense contractor who provides long range strategic planning and other goods and services to government and industry in the national security area" [150]. This pretty clearly matches up to Janet Morris, and the 60-horse reference particularly matches up to Morris's description of herself in the Equine International profile of her and her husband cited in our Janet Morris article, content and citation added by Harmonia1 [151]. (Harmonia1 also admitted being closely associated with (and denied being) User:Tailertoo, who Guarddog2 acknowledges to be her husband, Chris Morris. Curiously, User:Ubter, who also edited in tandem with Harmonia1 on various Morris-related articles in 2010, also self-identified in this image upload [152] as Chris Morris. It's also interesting to note that while Harmonia1 did very little editing with regard to Heroes in Hell, she edited extensively with regard to a different series written by Morris, The Sacred Band of Stepsons -- a series which, not coincidentally, Morris was just about to publish a new volume in after a two-decade break. That is, to belabor the obvious, the same pattern of editing seen with regard to Heroes in Hell/Lawyers in Hell, and is one of the factors underlying my suspicions of concerted editing on her behalf in the current disputes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] That is quite strong evidence, and thank you for providing it. I've put the question to Guarddog2 on her talk page to explain why her story now (as a completely self-identified Janet Morris) of never editing previously doesn't seem to match the very strong evidence from before that Harmonia1 was also Janet Morris. She did indicate that she'll be out of town for the week, so we may have to wait until next week for her response (if she provides one). Previously, I had thought that it likely that she was involved off-wiki in the previous situation but not actually Harmonia1, but now I'm leaning the other way. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] So we have one editor who previously claimed to be Janet Morris. We have a new editor who claims to be Janet Morris, but claims to not be the previous editor. Neither editor has provided proof of identity. So my suggestion is this; block her per WP:REALNAME until proof is provided. I know that the policy is meant for usernames, but this is still the same situation as our policy because she's using her real name on her user page. I'll leave it up to you, Qwyrxian, since you're the one who has been involved, but this is my recommendation. -- Atama頭 18:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] SUMMARY OF NEVER-ENDING COMPLAINTS This dispute started out by Mr. Wolfowitz using insulting language in the edit history of the Heroes in Hell series page edits. In fact, the very first exchange I had with Mr. Wolfowitz was when I added two sentences to the Heroes in Hell series page which he deleted 45 minutes later with the comment: "skanky promotional." (I do not appreciate being referred to as "skanky" because when I was raised, people spoke to others with civility - especially if they had never met the person). After I rewrote the two sentences to make sure they were completely neutral, he deleted them with the comment "Rv, this is just a naked plug by the book's editor, and has nothing to do with the book's "reception" or any other subject of an encyclopedic nature" [153] in essence accusing me of being Janet Morris. The "edit war" continued when Mr. Wolfowitz attempted to prove that a legal definition could be changed by "consensus" and a huge argument ensued wherein people tried (unsuccessfully) to explain the difference between "first serial" and "reprint" to Mr. Wolfowitz. When it became obvious he was not going to get what he wanted, i.e., a consensus to declare Mr. Silverberg wrote a short story set in a shared universe, BEFORE the shared universe was created, [154] Mr. Wolfowitz decided to start making accusations against everyone who did not agree with him. Mr. Wolfowitz then decided to try to accuse several people of being Janet Morris, except of course, Janet Morris herself, and began a dispute accusing everyone who did not agree with him of all having COIs (all of which were disclosed by the users with no attempt to hide their identities) and of being sockpuppets or "meat puppets" (charming term) of Janet Morris, and all editors of trying to use Wikipedia for "promotional" purposes, from which it must be diligently defended.[155] When that didn't seem to be working, Mr. Wolfowitz dragged up an old accusation of sockpuppetry of a person who is not even involved in this dispute and used that as "evidence" that Janet Morris had opened many accounts over the years (including the Harmonia1 identity) and was doing so again after having been blocked as Harmonia. Unfortunately, the people Mr. Wolfowitz is convinced are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris actually live in different states and countries. In the prior dispute, some did live in the same state and worked on different floors of an office building which was apparently how the vaunted CheckUser system decided they were all the same person.[156] If Mr. Wolfowitz knew anything about word usage, it would be easy to read different posts to know the same person did not write all of them. Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. There was never any "good faith" assumed by Mr. Wolfowitz in the original edits to Heroes in Hell nor any of these disputes; his use of insulting and uncivil language cannot be contested; when anyone brings up something he can't refute, he simply ignores the question and goes off on another tangent of more paranoid accusations. It seems to be fairly clear that Mr. Wolfowitz has no intention of ever letting go of these disputes and if the Checkuser program (which is apparently considered flawed based on results of a Google search, like this [157]) does not uphold his accusations that we are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris, he will, no doubt, find something else to file a dispute about. A time-honored tactic of unscrupulous lawyers: if you don't have a good case, bury them in paper. I don't expect any of Mr. Wolfowitz' friendly editors to agree with anything I have said here. However, it is now part of the record. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] That WikipediaWatch page is a blog, and anything can be said on it. Also, most of those checkuser concerns deal with a Type II error-- failing to find a sockpuppet when they actually exist, not a Type I Error, saying there's a sockpuppet when there is no actual sockpuppet. Second, your opinion about the other editors being "swayed" by Hullaballoo is ungrounded: Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. Neutral, independent editors and administrators have come into this argument on their own, not through canvassing. If anything, it is other editors who agree with your sentiments who have been canvassed by the now-blocked UrbanTerrorist and others. Third, accusations that the sock puppet investigation were not justified do not seem right to me. Guarddog2 stated an association with blocked user Harmonia1. Hullaballoo has also made a convincing argument that Harmonia1 is Guarddog2. Previous confusion over Guarddog2's identity dealt with errors in her own statements about various books and publishing issues, as pointed out by Hullaballoo. Finally, while I agree that Hullaballoo has not always shown good faith, that doesn't mean his arguments or evidence are null and void. They are certainly not paranoid. Again, anything regarding this whole publication debacle needs to be verifiable. If it's publication rights, then a contract would be the definitive document. Barring access to that, we rely on reliable sources, which have been provided en masse in support of Hullaballoo's arguments. I have yet to see sources contradicting his statements regarding publication. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unrelated wall of text content issue that is already posted here here and here I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz (identified only by an IP address), by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors (and since this page is not a book/series/entity page, and all quotations are noted with attribution, there should not be a "copyvio" problem): "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article: Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6] You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context. What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph)[1] "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." The second paragraph[1] described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters. The third paragraph[1] - again verbatim: "It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source." ALL EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE SO THIS ISSUE CAN BE PUT TO BED. There is an old saying: "You can't prove a negative." Most of the accusations brought by Mr. Wolfowitz and his fellow editors fall into the category of forcing the accused to prove they did NOT do something - thereby creating an impossible situation: that of "proving" a negative. The earlier example of Mr. Wolfowitz' strangely intense desire to rewrite the Silverberg/Heroes in Hell relationship of 1986, by selective quoting and "creative" editing, highlights the problem that started this entire debate, leading to Ms. Morris creating an account solely for the purpose of attempting to straighten out the obvious misunderstanding of the situation in the dispute pages (as she repeatedly attempted to explain not only here but to various editors on their own talk pages) only to be accused of being someone already blocked from editing WP, and from there the debate degenerated into flying accusations and digging up ancient history to obfuscate the true issue: Did Mr. Silverberg write "Gilgamesh in the Outback" for the series Heroes in Hell or did he write it independently to be printed in Dr. Asimov's wonderful publication, and then "allow" it to be used in Heroes in Hell? That question has now been answered unequivocally. Without that dispute, the rest of these hundreds of thousands of words and unknown number of hours wasted would never have happened. (Yes, we all know the first serial of the story was printed in IASFM(v. 10, no. 6, Jun86 (whole no. 105) Created 1986; Pub.; Reg. 1986-05-08; TX0001821228 and the original was published in Rebels in HellDate of Creation:1985; Date of Publication: 1986-07-01 (both citations from Copyright WebCite queries from story page) two months' later and no one is arguing that. Mr. Silverberg's own description of his creation of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" must take precedence over simple statements of the dates of publication which only delineate the chronological order in which they were published - they do not prove for whom he wrote the story).Hulcys930 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Haven't we had enough walls of text already? Honestly, I think that concern that the term "originally published" also establishes intention of the author is very, very superficial and is largely unimportant to most readers. I doubt most readers will take that interpretation of the phrase. "Originally published" is only intended to signify the order in which the story appeared. Can we just leave it at that? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Before dismissing the above post, please go to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page and see the difference between what Mr. Silverberg reported in his interview and the way Mr. Wolfowitz has characterized the situation on the page.Hulcys930 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hulcys, a call for more eyes is one thing, but huge amounts of text here aren't going to solve anything. AN/I is a terrible venue for solving content disputes. Besides, the thread at WP:DRN already showed obvious consensus for a compromise. Has is not been implemented? lifebaka++ 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] lifebaka If only that were true. We THOUGHT there had been compromise and consensus until Mr. Wolfowitz revised the Gilgamesh page on August 22 to reflect his own personal wishes rather than the actual history of events. Please read the Gilgamesh page and then Mr. Silverberg's entire statement. The only way to create the fiction stated on the Gilgamesh page is by heavily parsing certain words from Mr. Silverberg and putting them together in a different order with a skewed narrative so as to change the situation entirely. "And selective quotation is a well-known mode of character assassination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)" (emphasis added) I guess it works for history revision too... Hulcys930 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Also, I DID apologize for the length of the above post but refuting statements made using "verifiable" sources in a deliberately misleading manner by highly experienced editors takes some explaining. Hulcys930 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is just a rerun of Hulcys930's phony COI charges against me and other editors. She goes on at length about the misdeeds of The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but never gets around to explaining what they are. I added well-sourced, relevant information. including properly referenced quotations, to a page involved in this dispute. Hulcys can't actually find anything inappropriate in my edits, so she declares that the quotations I presented are "in a different order" from the original. This is not an automatic bad thing, of course; WP articles aren't just paraphrases of their sources, and may present relevant information in a different structure and order. And here it's simply not true; anybody who compares the article to the cited source (reproduced in that wall of text Hulcy is plastering all over WP) can verify this for themselves. Who's being "deliberately misleading"? I'd say it's the editor who's been rather free in throwing uncivil, unsupported personal attacks around while refusing to disclose her own COI regarding the subjects involved in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hullaballoo, you're not doing any better in assuming good faith yourself. Both of you, instead of commenting on each other, just find a compromise (as an example, you could say that the story was serialized in Asimov's on <date> and publised in RIH on <date> without giving any other wording on order; as I'm lead to believe both dates are the same month and year, the first published parameter in the infobox doesn't explicitly refer to either, and no one will care, anyway), put it in the article, and move on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] You know, lifebaka, WP:AGF doesn't require users to paint targets on their backs or otherwise accept abusive treatment. It "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". And Ms Hulcy's repeatedly making wholly groundless accusations against editors who've opposed her in garden-variety content disputes is pretty obvious evidence. She dragged this dispute into the mud with her accusation that "each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz," a complete fabrication that she never provided evidence to actually support."[158] Now she repeats this sliming, with a more insulting accusation and no evidence whatever, and I'm supposed to ignore what's gone before and assume that this time she's acting in good faith. Forget it; that's not what our policy calls for. And note that an SPI, which I wasn't involved in, just closed yesterday and confirmed that Hulcys930 has "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior".[159]] And Ms Hulcy's response to the SPI filing was a new, groundless, uncivil personal attack on me, over an edit I'd made about a week earlier, plastering multiple copies of it all around WP. Your sympathies here a clearly misplaced, and you should rethink what's been going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've just now attempted such a compromise by changing the Gilgamesh text to "It was published in Asimov's Science Fiction[3][4] and in Rebels in Hell[5] before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living." If that's not acceptable, I'll walk away; I just thought it might be easier for both to accept - or at least, let pass - a compromise that came from someone else. NebY (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It's not acceptable to me, and it isn't supported by a genuine consensus. No one disputes the accuracy of the publication history I set forth, which was uncontroversially included in the article for several years. Even Hulcys acknowledges its accuracy -- note above, where even Hulcys agrees that the magazine publication came first, and "no one is arguing [about] that". It's standard practice in Wikipedia, for works of fiction, to identify their first chronological publication. It's not just standard practice in Wikipedia, it's the norm, across the board, for reliable bibliographical works. No one's made any case that there's a good reason, based on encyclopedic principles or Wikipedia policies, for doing anything otherwise in this case. The compromise has already been made, by mentioning Rebels in Hell at all, because it's not standard practice, here or elsewhere, to mention anthologization of already published short fiction, except in the case of things like year's-best volumes, where inclusion is a clear indicator of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challeged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into. I was unaware of the SPI mentioned until I saw it HERE, so, obviously, that had nothing to do with anything I said. (I'm interested to discover I have "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior." A CONSISTENT record? Really? For how long? Did you bother to check MY IP address?) The only notifications sent out (as far as I can tell) were to two IP addresses, neither of which are mine. As far as "using anonymous IPs" I simply copied the information posted on the GITO page by someone with only an IP address because I knew it would be deleted the moment Mr. Wolfowitz saw it, as it contained too much sourced information for him to refute (he removed it in less than 2 minutes). But since no one actually wants to read or hear anything that can't be explained in three sentences or less, I'll close with this: I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]