Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive711

Non Free File uploads

• Juandy004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed the number of non-free file's that this editor has been uploading and the number of times he has been notified and warned about them, can an administrator have a look and see if any action is or may be required. Mtking (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at his uploads. A small fraction are good, but he needs someone to explain the policy to him. If he dosen't get scared off by the wall of notices, explaining why his uploads are getting tagged beats blocking him. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Mayukh.infinity

This is only taking place in one article, which is Infinity (band). The problem is, this editor keeps replacing the original article content with this band that comes from India (see here for the diff). Whilst it was reverted once he has kept restoring his version of the content without explanation. [1] [2] and after a message was given to him (which was a request to create a separate article) he simply ignored the message and worked on his version of the article once again. [3], [4], [5], [6]. I heard that a couple of anonymous IPs are getting sick of his version of the article, and that is the reason why I'm bringing this incident here. Minima© (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this is someone who doesn't understand what they are being told, so I've imposed a 48-hour edit-war block to at least stop it for now and hopefully get his attention - I'll keep the band article watched in case we get no response and he goes back to it after the block expires -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Words of dubious origin

Hi

There may be a need to remove this summary from the history [7] (right hand summary by User talk:Club Belgrano de Córdoba)

The word seems to be a little dubious [8] Chaosdruid (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse in edit summaries that didn't get RevDel'd. Looks like a judgment call to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We've got an essay with essentially that word in the title, so it really doesn't even come close to being a revdel candidate. —DoRD (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't generally use revdel to remove profanity, even blatant profanity. Nothing compels it, we do have WP:NOTCENSORED after all. Revdel is reserved for something really horrendous or damaging (outing, defamation, etc.). -- Atama頭 22:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

208.38.59.163

For several weeks 208.38.59.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been making dubious and unsourced additions to the disambiguation pages WSM, Pippa, and possibly others. In the first case, for example, they are adding an entry for wrestler Mark Henry, apparently on the grounds that the letters "WSM" appear on his tights. I explained that disambiguation pages are for names of things, and made requests of the user, in WSM edit summaries, on Talk:Mark Henry, and on Talk:WSM for confirmation that Henry is known by the name WSM, but in response received only a link to a photo of the wrestler. The user continues to make the addition, and their talk page is full of other recent vandalism warnings, so I'm now assuming that the disambiguation edits are vandalism rather than a content dispute. Since it's not an obvious case it would be good if I could get a second opinion. If it's agreed that this is vandalism then a block would be in order; if not then I'm open to further discussion if anyone can get the user to actually respond coherently. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation is for situations where someone might do a search for something, but come up with an article on a different topic, of the same or similar name. If he has a reasonable case that Mark Henry or Kelly Ripa are known as WSM or Pippa, there is not a problem with him adding it to the page. I suggest you stop accusing him of vandalism, these seem valid if somewhat obscure (Regis Philban does call Kelly Ripa 'Pippa' - a number of bloggers commented on it when Pippa Middleton hit the headlines; and the wrestler does have those initials on his pantyhose). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough for the Pippa claim, though it would be helpful if the nickname could be sourced (as I've requested on the relevant talk pages). The WSM issue still seems like quite a stretch to me—we don't generally add links to disambiguation pages for decorative text which appears on a particular person's clothing. For example, there is no link to Butt-head on AC/DC (disambiguation), nor to Orko on O (disambiguation), even though those characters are always depicted with those letters on their garments. The IP's persistent refusal to engage in dialogue on this issue led me to believe that they were choosing to act disruptively, though as I said, it was (and still is) difficult to be certain. If the consensus here is that this isn't actually vandalism, then what would be an appropriate forum for gathering further factual information and opinions on whether Mark Henry is an appropriate entry for WSM? I asked about two weeks ago on Talk:Mark Henry but received no responses; likewise the only contribution to Talk:WSM has been a photograph and some onomatopoeia from the anonymous IP. The photograph establishes that "WSM" appears on the costume but says nothing about whether anyone refers to the wrestler by that name, nor about whether anyone is likely to search for "WSM" expecting to get "Mark Henry" as a result, at least one of which would seem to be a sensible prerequisite for a disambiguation page entry. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Mark Henry, I would suggest putting an entry not in the main part of the disambiguation list, but a "See also" entry at the end, saying something like:

See also

• Mark Henry, a professional wrestler who wears a "WSM" logo on his costume

This would indicate that "WSM" does not refer to Mark Henry, but if someone goes to Wikipedia wondering, "What's the name of the wrestler who wore 'WSM' on his costume?", they will be able to find the answer easily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is not where to put this: it is if it is important enough to bother with. I would wager not, given the context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Using rollback and putting vandalism templates on the IP's talk page in a content dispute is definitely bad form. It doesn't matter how destructive or wrong you think the edits are: Vandalism is characterized by intentional efforts to damage article content, not disagreement or misunderstanding about policy and best practices. Rollback and vandalism warning templates should only be used for incontrovertible vandalism. Since the IP was including good-faith rationales (however misguided we think they are) in the edit summaries, you should have known that it was not vandalism and that it was inappropriate to treat it as such. --causa sui (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I had some time earlier removed the vandalism templates (though of course there's nothing I can do about the edit summaries). It's difficult to judge an anonymous contributors' intentions, including whether a dispute even exists, when over a period of weeks they are persistently unresponsive or incoherent to attempts at initiating a dialogue, and when their recent edit history is rife with indisputably damaging edits (but still possibly long enough ago that a different person was using that IP). At some point one has to stop assuming good faith, though if in this case I have acted too hastily, then I apologize. I would also ask, however, that in the event that further attempts at engaging the contributor prove fruitless (and by this I mean only that the user continues to refuse to discuss the objections to his or her edits), how should the situation be remedied? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• 1) You keep asking for references but per MOS:DAB References should not appear on disambiguation pages. 2) You're arguing that it's perfectly acceptable the WSM page has the World's Strongest Man competition but totally wrong for a man constantly referenced as "World's Strongest Man" Mark Henry and has the letters WSM appear prominently on international TV every week. And you complain *I* make no sense? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't conduct the content discussion on this page. Take this to the article talk page please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:72.214.83.196

72.214.83.196 appears to be another open proxy along the same vein as User:31.186.169.8...again, stalking my edits adding snide comments/insults. Request immediate block.

I also request that this IP and the previous IP be declared as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of banned User:TomPhan so the snide remarks can be removed. banned users don't get to make comments, but some people are fighting to include his comments since "no one's proven he's a sockpuppet of anyone" despite what I consider to be clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP resolves to a major broadband ISP in the US. I doubt it's an open proxy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

TOR node then? In any case it's clearly the same user and should be blocked. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about identifying TOR exit nodes...that might be a tool reserved for Checkusers. In any case, this goes beyond just checking for quacking. I think this should go to WP:SPI for definitive examination. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Use this link. As not all exit nodes can access all IPs, use 208.80.152.2 when checking. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The link I use is here. TNXMan 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Bookmarked. Thankee. I hope it doesn't need to be used very much. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• "This goes beyond quacking" I completely disagree. There is a very clear pattern of harassment here from a single individual stalking me from page to page (this includes accusations of murder). IP shows up making snide comments (often referencing past discussions and/or policies and then 1-20 edits later, he vanishes never to return. SPI takes WAY too long and will only return 2-3 weeks from now with "edits are stale". That's the entire problem. Of course the edits are stale. He doesn't stay around long enough on any one IP address. I firmly believe these fit the pattern of edits quite clearly and request a block ASAP. Buffs (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He's moved on to 188.121.41.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), probably another open proxy (geolocating to the Netherlands) that he's already used previously, some time in May. Clearly a consistent abusive pattern. Blocked the two latest IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur that it's a  Likely open proxy based on the WHOIS response. Did I read the case history correctly that this all ties back to GENIUS(4th power)? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Request review of block

Can others please review my block of 207.239.157.38‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I issued a block for WP:NLT based upon this which resulted in my issuing a NLT warning, then this which resulted in my blocking the user. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good block, obvious legal threat IMO. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Clear, unambiguous (and very heavy-handed) legal threat. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. They had a 3RR block coming anyway, but that was the icing on the cake.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I try to request reviews when I use NLT blocks.

On a secondary issue; I only blocked for 72 hours as it was an IP; but looking now, the IP appears to have been stable for quite some time. Should a longer block be used (I try to avoid indef on IPs, is the only reason I didn't use that from the start). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to leave it at 72, and if they come back after that with more threats or disruption, bump it up to at least a few weeks. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only a good block for a blatant legal threat, but some of the most atrocious spelling I've seen on wikipedia. It would still be a good idea to see if his complaint has any merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears the IP was correct as to the date of birth, the original source in the infobox has changed to no longer contain the information, however the source in the lead still does. Though neither here nor there on the block issue. Monty₈₄₅ 21:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think that artist management agencies employed people who knew a bit more about spelling and grammar...not to mention how to properly represent their clients. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, the IP was wrong, the IP wanted to change it to 77 (which is what you initially changed it to) and not the 79 in the actual source. What is funny is:

• The legal threat is so poorly written that it smacks of some HS or MS fan
• The legal threat claims that making this change is because of "hate" and could be viewed as slander... er no. In order prove libel/slander, you have to A) show that the person making the libel/slander did so KNOWING that what they were saying/writing is wrong and B) show that the lie was intended to be malicious. If you can't show both, then you can't win.
• The legal threat cited a judge who "ruled 5 times" in cases similar to this one. Really? I looked it up and the case involved photos that Noella claimed hurt her career and the judge ruled in favor of the magazine not Noella! Some of the reported comments from Noella's lawyers are priceless---but would be a violation of BLP to copy here!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow...did their lawyers used to work for News Of The World? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP was warring it to 79 see [[9]], when I undid my removal, I didn't realize it was the wrong date I was restoring, corrected it as soon as you brought it to my attention. Monty₈₄₅ 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Good block. Quite a legal threat indeed. WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As a polite request to those physically capable of restraining themselves, could we get less snarky commentary on the relative grammatical skills of inexperienced users, please? No need to add insult to injury. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

If this is still an issue come Tuesday, we can revisit it. In the meantime, prayers, best wishes, etc. 28bytes (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Why is acceptable that an editor brought to the WP:WQA is allowed to state to another editor "No dude I wont fuck you. You aren't my type" and more unacceptable rude behavior? And..nooooooooooo... I dont think I'll be notifying the editor of the comment as there's no reason to draw the discussion to this venue. If any Administrator wants to get involved they can go to the WP:WQA. I'm coming here because the WP:WQA has broken down and is the problem, the editor himself/herself does not need to come here and continue to be rude.Camelbinky (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you, having been on the receiving end of some of OrangeMarlin's incivility in the past. While the original reason for bringing him to the noticeboard may have been a bit light (it seems like a one-off thing, and users have every right to remove comments from their talk page), I would block him, simply for the impropriety of being incivil on the noticeboard about incivility if nothing else, but as I said, I've got past history and may be somewhat biased. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin is going through a critical medical procedure very shortly and doesn't even know if he'll be alive on Monday - can we cut him some slack until we at least know he's pulled through? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If his medical issues prevent him from interacting within our polices, he should self-select out of such interaction. If he can't do that, the broader community can and should implement steps to prevent such disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should block someone who, odds are, won't make it past Monday. because he was rude to someone who has been harassing him for years? Delightful standards we have around here, I'd say. Guettarda (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's encourage him to ingore laws too. What does he have to lose?

Nobody said what the odds were. Either way, the standards of conduct don't change. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I will be documenting Orangemarlin's behavior here. Once completed, I'll save the document off-wiki. If Orangemarlin returns and doesn't repeat any of the behavior in question, then the matter is resolved. If he returns and repeats the behavior, then I'll post the RfC for community input. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla68's solution works for me. Can we close this? 28bytes (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, You can all play pettifogging bureaucrats while we wait to see if he lives. The rest of us can read Dylan Thomas instead: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377] "Do not go gentle into that good night..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly dying is no reason to be an unrepentant asshole. He's been a douchebag in a few venues now. He gets no sympathy from me. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. OM has acted like a jerk many times before, and typically it goes away for long periods after an outburst. I think trying to track him and manage his incivility is a waste of time. Either he will be back before long with a much better attitude for at least months, or he will not. I agree with many of his observations and POV about articles, and disagree almost universally with his approach to dealing with the nutters he encounters while working on non-scientific medical articles. Everyone who complains about his tact or lack should do 10 edits to an article or talk page in the field of alternative medicine or pseudoscience for every 1 edit to a notice board about OM. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

IP Editor adding unsourced BLP changes after being unblocked

Resolved

99.35.43.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) The above IP address was recently blocked for unsourced changes to articles on living persons. Immediately after being unblocked, the editor has resumed the behavior without discussion. ( Example) I was told this would be the correct place to report this. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 08:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

War rape, Sri Lanka

There are Edit War and sock puppets are involved in the War rape and Sri Lanka pages.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed. I've blocked Hudson for 48h as his second violation of 3RR in about 10 days, and protected a version of the war rape article as it was before the edit war began. He's also been warring at Sri Lanka but the article is more high profile and I think under a certain protection already. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Thetruthnow2012 and Golden Triangle (UK universities)

Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs) who cannot obtain WP:CONSENSUS for his edits at Golden Triangle (UK universities) is resorting to disparaging personal attacks against other editors. His other accounts include:

• Thetruthof2011 (talk · contribs)
• 24.5.132.234 (talk · contribs)

The content dispute can be viewed at the dispute resolution entry I started. He initially edit-warred over the page, but stopped after receiving a WP:3RR notification, primarily because he was convinced that the other editor Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) and I were also guilty of violating 3RR. I wasn't.

Thetruthnow2012's correspondence on other users' pages was mildly uncivil [10] [11] [12] [13]. (My response: [14].) But he really let off steam after I started the dispute resolution entry to amicably resolve all content issues. In response to the DR, he started a reciprocative entry [15] [16] which included WP:SHOUTing and phrases like:

• two wrong editors perpetuating falsehood don't make a right!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• That is 'Yk Yk Yk's opinion, but such an opinion reveals a form of SPITEFULNESS on his/her part nonetheless.
• The so-called editor known as 'Yk Yk Yk' also claimed that I made unnecessary changes to the web page entitled 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation'.
• For both said editors, like a SPITEFUL TAG TEAM

Seeing that he felt aggrieved that he was being cornered as a relatively new user, I re-explained to him (in the most courteous tone) what was wrong with his edits [17]. His response [18] [19] included personal attacks and accusations of bad faith:

• i.e. 'rangoon11's false cooking of the statistical data
• BY 'YK YK YK's OWN ADMISSION she stated that she only changed my edited webpages and sided with 'rangoon11' on the frivolous basis that it was puffy
• it can safely and legally be said that the editor known as 'YK YK YK' is as dishonest and disreputable as 'rangoon11'

Also, his messages [20] [21] [22] inviting other users to the dispute resolution "arena" suggests that he is deliberately kicking up a fuss (WP:BATTLE) to make a mockery of Wikipedia.

User:Mr. Stradivarius is offering him the chance to tone down his hostility [23] at the dispute resolution page. I suggest we give him one more opportunity to WP:CALM down and resolve the content dispute in a collaborative manner. Otherwise, block him for incivility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith and harassment. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 00:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

USER: rangoon11 & YK YK YK and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and Golden Triangle (UK universities) 2

Yet another frivolous response by the editor 'YK YK YK' who has wrongfully dragged me into yet another arena when she had failed in the previous one. And this time he/she has piggy-backed on Stradivarius and what he had brought forth regarding the tone of the discussion. Be that as it may, it appears that 'YK YK YK' has failed to deny any of my assertions and such said matters have now become UNDISPUTED. And because 'YK YK YK' wants to make a NON-ISSUE into another issue that was never part of her initial complaint to David Wilson, she cannot now use this as a basis for her complaint, SINCE IT IS 'YK YK YK's FUTILE attempt to DIVERT EVERYONE FROM THE MAIN ISSUES THAT FORMED THE ORIGINAL BASIS OF THE DISCUSSION. With that said, I will take the liberty to address a few things that she kept from the discussion but had placed on my TALK page.

'YK YK YK' contention that the tone of my words is not to her liking or uncivil is a non-issue, but such words (i.e. 'spiteful' or 'dishonest') are benign at the least and mild at the most. Indeed, such words are legally used in courts of law or published in newspaper/newsmagazine editorial columns everyday (i.e. New Statesman; Punch, et cetera). Even David Wilson referred to the editor HRH2 who had complained about 'rangoon11' on a previous occasion as 'boastful'. However, it must be pointed out here that there is NOTHING CIVIL ABOUT 'YK YK YK's REPEATED AND UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP OF ACCURATE SUPPORTING INFORMATION BACKED UP BY VERIFIABLE CITES AND AUTHORITIES. And there is NOTHING CIVIL EITHER ABOUT 'YK YK YK's ADMITTED ENDORSEMENT OF ANOTHER EDITOR'S (rangoon11) REPEATEDLY UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP OF MY EDITS AND REPLACING IT WITH HIS/HER OWN INACCURATE ONES ON THE SOLE BASIS OF BREVITY and NOT SCHOLARSHIP. BY 'YK YK YK'S OWN ADMISSION TO DAVID WILSON ON HER COMPLAINT, SHE STATED THAT SHE KNEW THAT I WAS ACCURATE AND THAT 'rangoon11' WAS ERRONEOUS, BUT BECAUSE SHE FRIVOLOUSLY THOUGHT THAT MY EDITS WERE 'PUFFY' SHE FELT THE NEED TO DELETE IT ANYWAY AS WELL AS ENDORSE 'rangoon11's WRONGFUL DELETIONS. 'YK YK YK's own admissions bears witness to the fact that my said edits were censored out of spite. By definition, what both said editors committed was spite. How can anyone naively assert otherwise. See it for what it is and nothing more. And because of 'YK YK YK's failure to deny such assertions of fact, such matters have now become UNDISPUTED.

Another frivolous contention that 'YK YK YK' has repeatedly brought up was the notion that I felt cornered. I take offense to 'YK YK YK's non-issue contention. Such an inference by her is false and shows her lack of competence in such matters. It should be remembered that it was not I who brought forth this complaint, but ONLY 'YK YK YK'. This editor known as 'YK YK YK' has no other complainant on her side even though she continually relies upon 'rangoon11' for her complaint. But her said reliance is grossly misplaced, since the other said editor has yet to appear as a complainant in either arena to defend both his/her noted baseless inaccuracies and repeatedly unwarranted censorship of verifiably accurate ones, as a matter of record. And David Wilson cannot act as her witness, since his only involvement was due to the issue of the 3-Revert Rule, which has been amicably resolved and rendered moot as of Wednesday. As a consequence, editor 'YK YK YK's purported trilateral support is legally non-existent, incompetent and inadmissible.

Her blind adherence to the ideals of a concept is untenable, for I myself, do not share her flimsy and vacuous notions. And such positions held by 'YK YK YK' cannot be enforced upon me or anyone else for that matter. The idea of Wikipedia is that it is a free online encyclopedia, nothing less and nothing more. What I have done was provide valid corrections and further relevant supporting scholarship backed up by verifiable cites and authorities to two existing web pages, while editors 'rangoon11' and the sole complainant 'YK YK YK' had blatantly sought to replace my said edits with ADMITTEDLY inaccurate ones that were unsupported by any reliable and verifiable citations.

Based upon all of the foregoing, I request that the Administrator rule against the editor known as 'YK YK YK' and prevent her and others like her from ever censoring my future valid edits ever again. However, that being said, I welcome any other editor with superior scholarship and valid citations to provide their own input to the said web pages, for it is a free online encyclopedia after all. It appears that 'YK YK YK' continues to ignore that fact.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Censorship without validity is unlawful." This is going to go just fine for Thetruthnow2012, because he knows dem rules. Doc talk 09:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For those that haven't twigged on, this is a counter-post to Yk Yk Yk's post above. I've changed the heading level accordingly. To Thetruthnow2012 - above you said that Yk Yk Yk had "failed" in the dispute resolution thread. Does this mean that you don't intend to participate in it any more? We really need your cooperation in that thread if we are to sort this dispute out amicably. If you choose not to participate, though, that's fine too - in that case I will leave it to the editors here at ANI to decide how to proceed. (I should warn you, however, that some of the editors here have banhammers and are not afraid to use them...) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of admin action and Thetruthnow2012's refusal to participate constructively in dispute resolution, Thetruthnow2012 has continued trying to bulldoze through with his edits at Golden Triangle (UK universities) [24], with edit summaries:

1. NO RIGHT TO CENSORSHIP DUE TO YOUR FEELINGS OF INSECURITY [25]
2. Reinserting what was unlawfully censored by previous editor [26],

badgering a user who reverted him [27] and attacking User:Rangoon11 [28] [29]. Admins, please intervene. — Yk³ talk ~ contrib 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yk Yk Yk, I can appreciate that you are frustrated with the situation here, but I don't think accusing the admins of inaction will help your cause. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and we need evidence that a block would prevent continued damage to the encyclopedia. I admit that Thetruthnow2012's edits today are not very promising - reinserting disputed edits to a page which is being discussed on WP:DRN is never a good sign - but I don't think the situation warrants a block just yet. I advise you against overstating your claims; for example Thetruthnow2012's edit on Rangoon11's talk page today does not look like it is "attacking" him, although it is clearly not assuming good faith. Accurate posts based on policy are the way to get things moving here.

Having said that, I prefer another way forward; we don't have to settle this on ANI just yet. Because of the difficulty of engaging Thetruthnow2012 in discussion, we haven't got round to discussing any content in the DRN thread yet, but I am of the opinion that Golden Triangle (UK universities) has some fundamental problems which require the article to be substantially rewritten. If we go ahead and do this without Thetruthnow2012, then it could defuse the situation by itself. Of course, this doesn't excuse disruptive editing, and if there is any more disruption we should deal with it appropriately. If there is any action that obviously requires admin attention, then we can bring it here. If not, then you can see a sketch of the way things might escalate at the bottom of WP:DISRUPT. For now, I suggest discussing this back on WP:DRN and keeping an eye on Thetruthnow2012's edits. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I fully understand the blocking policy and only requested action when he began disruptive editing again. I am concerned about the edit-warring on the page, not trying to teach the editor a lesson. If the DRN and ANI weren't filed, there would still be an edit war and no one would notice. Having said that, my actions have caused WP:DRAMAtic walls of words, and since other editors are now aware of the page in question, I will walk away from this. — Yk³ talk ~ contrib 14:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is no one going to block Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs)? He's back and shows no signs of getting the point and continues to revert and make ridiculous claims of censorship. This is a total waste of time. --Daniel 08:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be a listed reason to block. Ah - just label it "disruptive editing". Note that Thetruthof2011 (talk · contribs) has realized that 2012 is actually the time for "truth". Should we give them that long? Doc talk 08:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, I think it is time that Thetruthnow2012 spend sometime in the cooler. Mtking (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours for the continuing edit-warring and the accusations of illegal activity in the edit summaries at Golden Triangle (UK universities) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree that the continued edit warring today warrants a block. Hopefully this will persuade Thetruthnow2012 that dispute resolution is worth persuing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Harassing behavior from IP

Hello, 204.237.12.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is still harassing me on my talkpage about his being blocked on the French Wikipedia. Would someone please take notice that it actually is a blatant sock of Éric Gagnier or at least block him ? He recently started to contact random users here, explaining to them, in French, that I blocked him for nothing (which happens to be wrong, but this young man does not seem to be equiped with the ability to understand the reasons of his block). Thanks. --MAURILBERT (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 month -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, --MAURILBERT (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrator Help Needed

The user LegalEagleUSA pretended to apologize for attacking me in one talk page but refused to remove offending accusations and then proceeded to harass and threaten me again in another discussion. This user also began their Wikipedia editing history by attempting to canvas several other editors by posting accusations against me and at least one other editor directly in their user pages.

The following users have all launched and continue to launch personal attacks on me and other users for having edited the article on Marisol Deluna. There is a legal sounding notice on LegalEagleUSA page threatening those who edit or reverse any of their contributions on Wikipedia but and he/she has attacked me and another user in a long rant on the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna

Also, the following users joined in the Ad Hominem attacks on the proposed deletion page and followed me around to other debates to continue the harassment:

Mr. Brown

Alteran1

66.65.66.144, now going by ElizabethCB123

These and MANY other new or one time users have personally attacked me even after being warned by several editors to stop. You can verify this in the link below. There is currently a threat to expose my identity (which they claim to know) on Wikipedia. I would appreciate an administrator looking into these users behavior and history of abuse towards me and others since the abuse shows no signs of stopping even after I had moved on from the debate, stopped responding to them, and moved on from the article in question. The pages where all these accusations can be found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Deluna

Thank you! Aa1232011 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talk • contribs)

• LegalEagleUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mrbrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Alteran1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• ElizabethCB123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mtking. I did not know I had to inform people of this. Aa1232011 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It says it in the bright orange box at the top of the screen whenever you post here, but many people still don't see it or forget it so don't feel too bad. :) -- Atama頭 04:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see it! I scrolled down straight to begin the edit but appreciate your assistance. Aa1232011 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attacks_and_.22outing.22_threats_continue_after_debate_has_ended before feeling victomized. I cannot speak on behalf of the other editors, yet please read my comments before making any conclusions. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely something worth looking into at Marisol Deluna‎‎ there has been some threats made (and retracted) along with what looks like a little ownership going on and may be sock or meat or Tag team editing, it is also not clear what this lady has done that is of real encyclopaedic note so some more seasoned eyes to look at this would be a good idea. Mtking (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to Aa1232011. It seemed fishy at the time to me, and I was led to believe by others that they knew who Aa1232011 was in real life. I have no opinion on their identity or intentions, and no longer will be editing Marisol Deluna's article. This is my personal Wikipedia account, and I had done some small edits to the article at her request. I refused to become too far entrenched in major edit wars on her behalf, save for voicing the concerns about the intent of the edits made. I couldn't in good conscience continue editing her article for her as I vehemently agree with the philosophy of ownership and remaining neutral. Alteran1 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology Alteran1 and for shedding some light into what is really going on with the editing of this article. I'm assuming when you say "I had done some small edits to the article at her request" and "I couldn't in good conscience continue editing her article for her" you are referring to Deluna herself? Please correct me if I am wrong in my assertion. I agree with Mtking statements. Combined with Alteran1 admission that "others" (plural), and I believe he also meant Deluna herself, asking him to engage in an edit war on her behalf, it proves my suspicion that this is possibly a non-neutral tag team editing the article and engaging in an edit/mudslinging war. I was baffled as to why anyone would claim to "know" the identity of ANY editor in real life with certainty, but am becoming convinced someone on here was responsible for the recent hacking of my personal email accounts since it started the day the first accusations against me were made on here (and for which I have opened a cybercrime report with local authorities) and since people claim to "know" who I am threaten to expose my "real life" identity. In light of the harassment I and others have endured for being the first to bring this article to the light of day and the fact that there is now at least one user claiming he was goaded by "others" to engage in an edit war, I am requesting other experienced editors or administrators also look into the article in question and the offending editors. Thanks again. Aa1232011 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be said that I have no association with, have had no communication with, nor do I know the identities of any of the other accounts who have accused you Aa1232011. To the extent of my knowledge, none of these accounts are sock puppet accounts either. But yes, I do know Deluna personally and professionally, which is why I chose to distance myself from the article. As far as I know, she has no knowledge as to the identities of the the other accounts. Alteran1 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Im pointing out that user Mr. Brown and others also admitted to personally knowing Marisol Deluna during the proposed deletion process here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Deluna so I am raising the issues of neutrality, ownership, conflict of interest, WP:OUTING, personal attacks, harassment, bad faith, threats of legal action related to the article in question.

I would like to apologize to Alteran1 for being pulled into wrongful questioning by User:Aa1232011 due to my remarks. Hoping you will freely edit. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LegalEagleUSA your accusations are against Wikipedia rules and regulations and without merit. I have been editing Wikipedia for years and I can tell you my I.P. address changes constantly not by any doing of my own but because it's dynamic and changes periodically. That doesn't constitute foul play. Just in the past few months I have been 208.54.86.207, 70.114.30.90, 208.54.86.199, 70.114.25.202, 208.54.40.145 and others. If you look, there is overlap of articles I'm interested in and have edited through the years like for example "List of Black Fashion Models" "Catherine Zeta-Jones" "Stacey Q" and countless others which I'm not going to hunt down to satisfy your quasi investigative "observations". You on the other hand went around posting your claims to several editors talk pages (aka canvassing), threatened to out peoples RL identities, use legal action, and went ahead and posted this long thread of suspicions towards others for removing uncited claims from a subpar article. Sorry but your excuse that you "overhead" someone talking about specific users who edited this article is a bit improbable (someone said user 208.54.86.207 did this or that and you remembered?) as is your claim of knowing with certainty who anyone is in real life or us being in the same city which you would have no way of knowing.70.114.25.202 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Query about edit comments by User:69.112.26.170 on Ronald D. Moore

Seems to me that the anon editor is crossing a line by making relatively innocuous edits to the article content but leaving insulting edit comments. Just wondering whether these edit comments should be removed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Since WP:BLP also applies to edit summaries, this edit summary is a clear violation. There's no way that the sentiment expressed in that edit summary would be allowed to remain in an article, so the summary's presence in the article history should be reconsidered. I've notified the editor about this discussion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed those two edit summaries under RD5: BLP vio (but forgot to log the second half of that).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to ban a user from Noah Ringer's article.

I am requesting that user DavidEOliver1973 be banned from Noah Ringer's article. Over the course of this week, he has repeatedly edited the article to include information that does not make sense and/or is completely false. These have been major edits, too. He also posted an image which was found to be in violation of Wikipedia's policies and has since been removed. I might also add that I am certain this user is the <redacted> who was banned from Noah's official Facebook page, as his personal Facebook page seems to point to a mentally unstable and possibly perverted personality. I don't want to defame him here, but I have to be as blunt as I can. He needs to be banned for editorial and security purposes. (I don't understand the template for notifying an editor, so I was unable to notify him. I apologize.) Thank you.Lonewolf1380 (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the other party. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A topic ban seems like a drastic remedy, as far as I can tell, image policy templates aside, the editor has received only one message related to the article, and none from you. The editor was reverted once for the large amount of editing they did, and then added an image with a copyright issue which was then removed. I don't think it is fair to use off wiki activity as the basis for a topic ban (certainly there isn't a good reason here). Finally, not sure if there is even a dispute, but I would suggest pursuing dispute resolution before requesting admin action. Monty₈₄₅ 16:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, let's remember that the subject of the article is a minor and the editor in question, whose facebook page is apparently <outing redacted> appears to be a middle-aged man. I don't know what the problem was at facebook that caused him to be banned from Ringer's page, but I think perhaps this needs more attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Who says that is his FB page? And if it is, who says that is a photo of him? GiantSnowman 20:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Publishing an editors's personal information if they have not revealed it themselves is very much not allowed, so I have redacted and RevDel'd the outing done by Steven J. Anderson - If it turns out that DavidEOliver1973 had actually published that information, then I will happily revert my actions and apologise, but as there are serious implications to the identity accusations here, I thought prompt removal was of the essence -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also redacted the outing done by Lonewolf1380 - there may be a problem here, but unsupported public "naming and shaming" is not the way we work here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Under WP:Child protection, I think requests like this are suppose to go straight to arbcom (I have emailed the arbcom list). --B (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Except there is no child editor involved, the minor is the subject of the article. Seems like a stretch to me. Monty₈₄₅ 22:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, regardless, without considering off-wiki content, nothing is going to be done without going through the usual process of warn the user, inform them of our policies, give them the chance to change, etc. If an immediate intervention is needed (as the original requestor is asking), then that's something that needs to come from a body that can consider the off-wiki evidence. --B (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

92.5.154.242

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Shouldn%27t_Be_Alive&action=historysubmit&diff=438265187&oldid=438223384

This particular idiot is removing punctuation from this article, and some people are reverting his edits only for them to happen again. Because of the nature of his edits, the system can't detect the edits, and users who revert his edits instantly revert their own edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.15.10 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a newer user who isn't familiar with WP:MOS, but some would say that's the "sneaky" part. Still, the IP's only edits are from yesterday, and they're all in that one article. I also see only one warning on their Talk page, and it's rather WP:BITEy. Without an indication that the editor has worked elsewhere in Wikipedia (and I'm not hearing any quacking at all), my 2p is that the IP should have had their errors pointed out instead of being told to go "back to your hole". I don't see any indication for administrative action at this point; I think watching the article, the IP, or both should be enough for now. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He's uploaded several images that are clearly taken from other websites, even putting copyright information on the image page. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Urk...I missed that, must have been further back than I looked. Still, one warning isn't sufficient, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The warning posted on the IP's talk page is also inappropriate and incivil. Get off my article? There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. In addition, the text that follows is WP:BITE-y and aggressive, an attitude that should not be used towards new editors, or anyone for that matter. What ever happened to assuming good faith here? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The "uploaded several images" was probably intended for the section above, "Request to ban a user from Noah Ringer's article." Peter E. James (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a WP:BOOMERANG. The edits appear to be in good faith and an effort to reduce verbosity. User:92.5.154.242 is owed an apology for the insults on his talk page, the article talkpage and here from the complainant and a referral to policies. User:218.186.15.10, as pointed out you do not own the article. You could have just as easily invited the IP to discuss on the talkpage and outlined your concerns without telling a newbie to "waddle back into his hole and await further instructions." However, given that your first thought was to say that "someone should block the bastard" on the article talkpage I would be surprised if he wanted to discuss anything on the talkpage. Please read WP:DBN.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Delta's personal attacks on others, and their restoration

During the latest bout of disputes over Delta's edits, an AE request was filed, in which Delta posted this rant in response, in which he names specific editors including me, accusing them of having harassed, bullied, and stalked him. No diffs were provided by Delta to show why he thinks these claims are justified, thus they are obvious violations of the no personal attacks policy - Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. I informed Delta of this, giving him the option of removing them, or providing the diffs. [30] He took option number 3, completely ignore it. So I removed the names myself, to downgrade it from personal attacks to just gross incivility [31], and informed him of this [32]. It's taken him mere seconds to ignore my advice not to revert and thus restore the attacks, unequivocally denying that they are such with the edit summary "Not a personal attack, please dont edit my comments". [33] This remains his sole contribution in terms of communication with me over this issue so far.

So, I'm now doing what I said I would in my second post to him, and giving the admin corps a chance to show they can prevent him from doing this a third time (see background below), or persuade him to give assurances that he understands the no personal attacks policy, that he will take the necessary action in relation to these attacks or allow someone else to do it for him, that he will not make them in future and certainly not edit war to restore them where found. In the interests of avoiding this turning into yet another unfocused and rambling Delta clusterfuck, I will let this thread run for 24 hours, and if it fails to solicit a satisfactory undertaking from Delta, or a satisfactory and Delta-appropriate action from admins, then I intend to file Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 3, as it will have become clear to me at least that even after his claimed reformation, ordinary measures & sanctions are still failing to prevent even basic policy abuses by this editor.

No more excuses, no more delays. Procrastinating over resolving/closing reports caused by this editor over NFCC editting is one thing, but ignoring reports of this sort of behaviour is a whole other ball game. In the interests of wide & unbiased comment, I do not want this report shuffled off into the tar pit of his dedicated sub page, this is a specific incident quite separate from his ongoing difficulties with NFCC enforcement. If it's not considered an incident per se given the background, I've no objection to a transfer to WP:AN. Needless to say given the history, I think any recommendation of this being resolveable through Rfc/U, is a complete non-starter, a waste of everybody's time.

Background Info

Now to the background: I've been down this road with him just last month, where he made 4 similar reverts of personal attacks on me in rapid succession, in a venue & discussion which did not concern him in any way. As a reminder, that attack was Hammersoft's comparison on RD232's talk page of my discussion style to that of a member of the Westborough Baptist Church, which, while some tried to lawyer around the issue, is and always was a quite disgraceful attack on another editor's character & reputation. Since then, Hammersoft has apologised for making the post & removed it, RD232 has agreed it should never have been there, and the first person to revert me in my attempts to remove it, Ched, has also apologised, stating he had misread the situation and should not have done so. So, all we were left waiting for in that situation was Delta's explanation for a complete lack of communication as he reverted what he knew were taken as obvious personal attacks, for treating 3RR as an allowance and not a bright line in doing so (going so far as to label one of them a vandal revert), and for nonetheless breaking it anyway. [34] [35] [36] [37] Sadly through the actions of admins Slackr [38] & Fastily [39] at the report and counter-report at WP:EW with two outrageously myopic and I fear biased findings (and an actual 3RR block by Sarek was overturned merely on procedural grounds by TenOfAllTrades log and the promised further evaluation of Delta's behaviour never materialised), Delta has been effectively ultimately rewarded by admins for some rather blatant WP:GAMEing. That's likely why he seems to have no issue with repeating it now, freely - this is now two recent incidents where he has edit warred to restore personal attacks on me with no justification, and where only one of them was even a post belonging to him. And this follows a specific incident in 2008 in which he used his bot to harass me, in a manner that drew a specific condemnation in Betacommand case 2. All this from an editor who is claiming in his attacks that I am the one stalking and harassing him. It's unnacceptable.

I have notified Delta, and also Fastily & Slackr, as far as the background mentions their prior admin actions

MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of attacks & restoration

I'm separating out the discussion of the facts of the report from the subseuent immediate ban proposal by User:Ohms law, as conflating the two has had the rather predicable effect it was always going to. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Delta Community ban proposal

Initiated by User:Ohms law at 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Δ (talk · contribs) is a disruptive user, and is banned from editing Wikipedia by the community.

Do you really want to contribute to or look at this? No chance in hell of this passing in this user's view

Support Support— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Support User has shown that he incapable of consistently contributing in a civil collaborative manner and actively refuses to assume good faith. I take issue with those who believe this is a WP:NFCC issue. It is not. It is a problem with civility and interaction. WP:NFCC is simply the realm in which the problems most frequently occur. You can be a police officer and justifiably pull someone over for speeding and still be a complete jerk about it. Claims of "They just don't like that I pull people over!" are completely misleading as they ignore the actual problems. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Support - This time - I'm not with him. Island Monkey talk the talk 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Oppose It is totally understandable that someone would be upset after they have had just about every process that Wikipedia has thrown at them in succession. In light of the very recent attempt to get him topic banned that by all accounts has failed, I find it hard to fathom how anyone expects a full community ban to succeed. NFCC is a thorny area, it needs to be dealt with, and whoever does deal with it is going to catch a lot a flack over it. Could he have responded better, probably, but as illustrated by the recent bot proposal, he is trying to work constructively with the community. Also, I would note that strictly construing this discussion, we are attempting to ban User:Delta who has made 1 edit ever, I suggest you properly list the person you are trying to have banned. Monty845 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Monty845's excellent summary of the situation above. 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose. If people don't like being called out for bullying and harassing Delta, they need to stop bullying and harassing him. Wiki-mobbing needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose I for one am sick and tired of the unending proposals for Δ's head on a platter. Good *@#()$*@ Christ the number of times people keep clamoring to have his wikihead on a pike. People make claims he's a relentless edit warrior, yet looking over the last two months and 5 reports at WP:EW of Δ edit warring not ONE of them found against him. But that's not good enough, he's still an editor warrior and has to be banned from the project. Unreal. Absolutely, unequivocally, unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Detla is far from the ideal editor, no one is going to argue that, but he does a lot of very good work, almost all of it non-controversially. A small number of people take issue with a particularly touchy subset of his work, the NFCC, and then justify their crusade against him by claiming that it is civility or edit-counts that break community sanctions that that are the real motivation behind their attempts at shutting Delta down. In a word, "bullshit". This is an NFCC issue, aggravated by civility issues and Delta's non-cooperation with a few rather old community sanctions. I would love to see Delta be more civil, but Future Perfect has a point, and Delta isn't the only one that has been uncivil in this whole affair, Delta has bared the brunt of a ton of attacks. I would love to see that stupid edit throttle restriction go out the window, because he is the only one that chases after file moves and fixes the redirects, a heavily automated, completely legitimate/necessary, and a very helpful task, which he has broken the throttle to do without making any mistakes or pissing anyone off. Delta is valuable. He's not more trouble than he's worth. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - the guy's been harassed up, down and around for ages. Yes, he's made mistakes in his time here. No, they're not worthy of a public hanging. He does a lot of work that needs to be done but tends to be controversial; that lends itself to clashes. He has to focus on improving civility, but he definitely does not deserve to be community banned. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose, though quite why I have to type this to oppose such idiocy is beyond me. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Per above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I do believe I have seen an improvement in Δ‎'s communication recently (I say this as someone who has watched Δ‎ for years). Yes, there are more improvements he can (and should) still make, but banning him solves nothing, especially if those supporting a ban on Δ are not willing or are unable to tackle NFC issues in his place. I'm also bored of constant criticism of Δ no matter what he does: for example, accusing him of incivility when he (justifiably) gives a templated message to someone, and then accusing him of incivility when he gives someone a hand-typed note. (As an aside, I noticed this discussion on Δ's talk page about a noticeboard to report NFCC violations, I think this is a good idea, and might go a long way in addressing some issues.) Again, Δ‎ is not perfect, and he can and should still improve, but I don't believe he should be banned. Acalamari 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose per above (again). Although I might consider a NFCC topic ban or "interaction" ban for a few other folks. Just sayin. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose It is completely inappropriate for !votes on penalties this severe to be occurring on AN/I. Follow dispute resolution. --causa sui (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose and to be clear that Delta's comments that MMN is highlighting is very difficult to take as a personal attack given that pretty much it can be clearly seen in AN boards and subpages that those users are his most vocal opponents. A bit of snark and bitter language, but in no way a personal attack. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) NO. It's the same merry-go-round all over again... Delta raises notice that they intend to remove images and gives people interested an opportunity to fix the issues. No improvement happens,.Delta removes image. Multiple people come out of the woodwork to undo the removal of the images claiming various exemptions reasoning for why NFCC doesn't apply to these. Delta points to the NFCC criteria and re-deletes. Opponents reach out to one of many DR avenues to call for Delta's head on a platter. End the mob-mentality and witch hunting. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - This is all about fair-use rules on wikipedia. What I have come to realize is that problem is not Delta and other "strict constructionists"; and it's not users who are more inclusionary. The problem is the rules. The rules are wishy-washy, especially the "is it needed" rule (NFC 8, if I recall correctly). A couple or three weeks ago there was discussion of questioning the wikimedia honchos about this. As far as I know, nothing was done. But they are the authors of these rules, yes? As such, they need to answer for those rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Seriously? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose There's nobody on the planet who thinks an ANI discussion to ban delta was ever going to either succeed or be the right thing to do (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose More forum shopping by this travelling circus. Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose What the hell? No. You can't BAN someone for this kind of behaviour. Egg Centric 19:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose After seeing this mess running last Monday and Tuesday, even the rest of the week goes "WTF". This looks like nothing more than a great deal of dead-horse beating, and should be treated as such. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose 'nuff said. Agathoclea (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Neutral

Agreed, but I've refactored slightly as per the edit summary. [40] MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense Egg Centric 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Whatever happens with the community ban proposal (I can guess), I will not be happy if it also distracts from the original report. I will still be looking to see what action has been taken after 24 hours regarding the reversion of these attacks (at which time it's normal to also close & evaluate support for the ban proposal, should it still be there). MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would note that the closing admin basically supported Delta's statement, "No action. Forum shopping. Wikihounding needs to stop." It is now archivedclosed, and censoring it seems to serve no purpose other then to further inflame the situation. Monty₈₄₅ 16:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If FastilyFut.Perf intended to support the accusation that I have stalked, bullied and harassed Delta, then I'm sure he can say so himself in time, and avoid a block of himself by providing the evidence. Personal attacks do not cease to be attacks when the discussion is hatted. The policy mandates removal, and that is not, and never will be, an act of "censorship". MickMacNee (talk)

Whether you think the comment is right or wrong, removing a comment or part of a comment is still censorship. NPA policy is just approved censorship. Regardless, I don't think this qualifies under the policy. And I was referring to the hatting statement by Fut.Perf. Monty₈₄₅ 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant Fut.Perf of course, getting my F's mixed up. I see he's already made the same attack here, so any time he's ready to provide diffs, I'm here. I'm not sure what you mean by "NPA policy is just approved censorship", but if you mean to say it doesn't matter, and commenting in Wikipedia should be some form of protected speech, well, you couldn't be more wrong. It's a core policy, so it's pretty important, and certainly non-negotiable when the user's behaviour matches the definition of a personal attack, to the letter, in black and white. If you're reading another part of it, or have another interpretation of the cited part of it, then let me know. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that while NPA requires that unfounded personal attacks be removed, the act of removing them is still censorship, it is just a form of censorship that the community supports, but that is besides the point. The point is that the statement was not an improper personal attack as it is a request related entirely to on-wiki activity that asks users to stop launching attacks like this entire discussion against Delta. Monty₈₄₅ 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. You're trying to argue that the definition of "personal behaviour" in WP:NPA is something that is happening in real life outside Wikipedia, i.e. it's only a personal attack if he meant to say I was stalking him in real life. I think that's absurd, and completely wrong. People could use the same defence to excuse calling someone a homophobe, i.e. 'I only meant it in relation to your editting, not you as a person'. It's bogus, people have been blocked for doing just that for years, certainly where such statements are made without evidence; it fits the exact definition of why personal attacks are harmful. It really doesn't matter if you're doing it in the context of asking for some action like a topic ban, or just in general. And for the record, harassment has a Wikipedia definition in behavioural policy, which is of course what I think of when I see such accusations made against me, but the obvious overtones are there also - it's hard to see how someone can be described as a stalker, bully and a harrasser on Wikipedia, but not have those traits in real life. Anyway, you might be interested in skipping to the section WP:AOHA, which links it to the concept of unfounded personal attacks, which makes it even clearer that you're just wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@MickMacNee: The comment of Δ's that you redacted was "I would like to see a topic ban regarding NFC and those who enforce it applied to Crossmr, Georgewilliamherbert, CBM, MickMacNee, Aaron Brenneman, and Buffs." That is in no way a personal attack. If you think calling for bans merits an WP:NPA block, I expect to see a new section below calling for a ban of the supporters of the ban proposal just above. Somehow, I don't think I'll see such a section. 28bytes (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The removed part in of itself is not the attack. The naming of those people, alongside the accusations that he has been harassed & stalked, is the attack. I could have easily removed the whole post, but just removing the names is what stops it being a personal attack, and turns it into a mere incivil rant. I couldn't give a toss about the ban proposal, it's not of my making, I'm just here to see what admins will do about the reported incident. If you want to state here that in your opinion accusing named editors of harassment, stalking & bullying, without offering any evidence to back it up, is not a clear cut personal attack, then please confirm that's your intention. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You could really take the sting out of the allegations of harassment and stalking by leaving him the hell alone. Just saying. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. And in other news, everybody will be pleased to know I have infact, stopped beating my wife. Seriously, wtf? MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your wife will be glad to hear that! Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this here? I'm getting tired of this forum shopping. It should be on the subpage. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  This was answered in the OP. And this is not forum shopping, unless you can tell me where I've tried to get this incident acted on before now (apart from, obviously, Delta's talk page, to no effect). And you can be sick of it all you want, you aren't the one being attacked. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• I see no notification on Delta's page of this section. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• It was done here. -- Atama頭 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• My mistake, I missed that. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Choose your battles. If Delta wants to call for six other editors including three admins to be topic banned because he's "fucking tired" of them opposing his mass editing campaign, let him. Calling people stalkers and harassers because they oppose you is over the top and frankly, a flame-out that defeats his own case. However, he does have some extra latitude to express frustration on his own talk page in defending himself at arbitration enforcement. Let him be rant there about why he's acting as he is. You and everybody else can judge for yourselves whether that's a fit attitude for editing the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  The attacks were made at WP:AE, not his talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  voila!. I think that makes my argument even stronger, as it's fair on a notice board when accused to say that your accusers, not you, are the ones at fault. Not necessarily a great approach, but one that everyone is entitled to. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Oh come on. The arbitration enforcement noticeboard is the last place to be throwing out a stream of personal attacks and general ranting. That noticeboard is where you demonstrate that you have not violated previous remedies the arbitration committee has found it necessary to place on you, due to your proven past misconduct. To quote just a couple of them, "Betacommand has often been grossly incivil to other editors and has made a series of personal attacks against other editors, generally in the context of disputes concerning operation of his bots"...."in admitted retaliation for criticism by another user, Betacommand engaged in harassment and in disruption to make a point" (the user was me)....."The level of disruption (caused by Delta) has been well beyond what a collaborative project should be expected to accept even in a contentious area such as fair-use policy and image-tagging, and must be brought to an end either via dramatically improved user conduct or via sanctions imposed by this committee." Do these sound in any way familiar, in the context of the behaviour I'm citing from just yesterday? Or last month? Does making blatant personal attacks sound like dramatically improved conduct to you? Something the committee is going to ignore when people make the sort of excuses they're offering up here? Instead of the evasion, derailment and general whining we've seen so far, the only thing people should be concerned with here, is demonstrating that the report I've filed is bogus. The thing people certainly shouldn't be doing, certainly those admins who value their bits at least, is blithely repeating the attacks, as if they'd never read WP:NPA and couldn't give a shit about it, or what Delta does. If they can't do that in a reasonable time and in a focussed manner, then I've said what I'm going to do next. I might even extend the deadline to 48 hours to allow him to comment here, or at least show his continued refusal to do so, because as has happened before this year, just as you start trying to get his behaviour examined for one incident, he goes and gets blocked for 24 hours for an unrelated incident. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  I would counter that the arbitration board may be an unwise place to make wild accusations that other editors are acting like stalkers but it is not a forbidden place. If you do have an accusation of bad faith to make, there's the place, that's its purpose. Removing comments there is probably unwise as well. Perhaps not forbidden, but if someone insults you, removing the insult is usually best left to a third party. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  I couldn't disagree more, on all points. And my stance is largely supported by relevant policies and the noticeboard's own instructions. I'd welcome you offering the same wordings to the contrary if you can, but in my experience, that's more the case of 'it's unwise/shouldn't be done, but people sometimes ignore it', rather than, 'it's not forbideen, so its allowed'. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  All the people listed do oppose Delta, and do regularly drag him through the various noticeboards. Now; I'm not passing judgement on whether of not that is deliberate harrassment (honestly - I have no idea) - but get some fucking empathy. If he feels harrassed then it is obvious he is going to be upset about it. Instead of just letting the angry outburst slide (or perhaps address it another way) you've opened yet another noticeboard thread, basically exacerbating the problem. Get some common sense, ignore the minor personal attack and get on with editing something. Delta causes problems, although he does good work, and needs a serious attitude adjustment - but battling someone over that, at least in my experience of these things, is just not going to work. It will simply continue to be a battle. Mick; you are far from civil yourself, and are old enough and ugly enough to realise it cuts both ways - just shrug and take it. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  ↑ This. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Look, whatever you think I do ErrantX, I don't run around calling people stalkers or harassers or bullies without evidence just because they criticise my edits, I don't deny having made obvious personal attacks when I proveably have, and I don't cooly, calmy, edit war to restore them, hours after the event. And if this is a minor attack, what's a major one? I've tried ignoring these allegations as they've crept back into his repertoire after he resumed NFCC work off the back of his ban. Guess what? That doesn't work any more now than it did years ago, and it's as ineffective at adjusting his attitude as the 'he does good work' nonsense, a viewpoint which arbcom categorically slapped down the last time he reached this level of such brazen and obvious attacks on those who merely criticise his methods. MickMacNee (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reality check

unactionable allegations unrelated to matter at hand, unlikely to generate any positive result
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here's a comment MickMacNee made on his talk page after he received an indefinite block: Hah. Sociopath wouldn't even cover you Sandstein, you power crazy fuck. Just happened to be wandering along reviewing my contributions eh? Out for a little stroll were you. Just spotted a little personal attacky wacky did you? Fuck you, you utter freak. Maybe I should join the fucking Westboro Baptist Church, it seems being compared to them is viewed as rather a mild insult around these parts, and on current evidence I think I would start meeting a better class of people frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Mick: this was after you'd already been told that if you kept carrying on like that, "you may lose your ability to edit this page". I saw your comment but didn't take away your talk-page privileges. Sandstein saw it and didn't take away your talk-page privileges. In fact, no admin did. Why? Because it was obvious you felt attacked and were lashing out. And yet here you are, demanding an NPA block against Δ, for lashing out in response to being brought up for arbitration enforcement. You will not get any admin to take your requests for NPA blocks seriously until you clean up your own house. Your attack against Sandstein is still sitting on your talk page, unredacted and unapologized for. You expect to be able to post things like that without consequence, and then run to AN/I to get other editors sanctioned? No. I have a low tolerance for hypocrisy. Dish it out if you can take it, but if you can't take it, then don't dish it out. 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Wow, I remember that one now. What a classic! Nobody's ever called me a power crazy sociopath fuck, not here at least. Where's the love? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Come off it. Don't even pretend that you know even half the context behind that situation, or what my state of mind was then. Sandstein is going to answer for his actions at arbitration soon enough as regards our bilateral interactions and what he did and didn't do to provoke that reaction, so don't be too quick to start comparing yourself to him, as if that's going to make you look like a model admin in my eyes. As far as my interaction with Delta goes, I'm not even a fucking admin, so I can't do any of the things to him that Sandstein did to me. And at least he tries to offer evidence to back up his claims as to what I have and haven't done, as policy requires. As for it still being there, it remains as much out of a wish to preserve the timeline intact as anything else, given it is currently evidence for an ongoing arbitration case. As you point out, it does more harm to me by still being there than to anybody else. I'm not that fussed as it happens. Why don't you remove it if it offends you so? Are you expecting me to react to such a removal in the manner Delta does, with immediate restoration, followed by gamey edit warring and zero communication? If Delta want's to claim it was made out of the heat of the moment, what's his excuse more then 30 hours later when I try to remove it as the obvious attack that it is? And there's the rub - your little comparison here is faulty, as I have never denied that it was a personal attack. You can try and claim sensible admin credit for not removing my access while clearly enraged, but fuck it, most sensible admins end up on the right side of that call as a matter of course. How it relates to your perception of Delta all these hours later, and while he cleary denies it's even a personal attack at all, well, that's your square to circle, if you're wanting to play the glass houses game. I won't dignify this post as being an actual serious request to remove it, but if you stop by my page and ask me, who knows. Sandstein has certainly never asked for its removal that I'm aware of, so again, don't presume to speak for him. As for "Dish it out if you can take it, but if you can't take it, then don't dish it out", unless or until you present a diff of me calling another editor a stalker, bully, or harasser, without evidence, then you can stick your comments about hypocrisy where the Sun doesn't shine. Frankly, if this sort of low ball tactic is all you have to offer by way of a passable admin like defence of Delta, that's something that reflects poorly on you, not me. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Wow, that's a lot of text. You may want to consider replying more concisely in the future. Or at least toss in the occasional paragraph break. Anyway, I tried to explain to you why you weren't going to get what you wanted here, but if you want to filibuster some more instead of getting it, be my guest. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yea... I'm fine with closing the proposal above, but it is instructive. Delta has a lot of friends who will defend him, he's somewhat justified in making this comments that started this, mick also has civility issues, and he's also been slighted here. Everyone's got egg on their face, and nothing else is going to come from this. Drop the stick, move on, get over it. We should speedy close anything having to do with delta that comes here for the next six months (barring something completely over the top occurring, of course). — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Let MMN talk, by all means, let him say whatever the heck he wants. There's an active ArbCom case in his name going on right now, and the Arbs are aware of this thread, or at least one of them is. If MMN wants to paint himself in a bad light and jump right into the fire himself that is his choice. For once, I agree with Ohms. Give Delta six months of not being harassed at all, and we'll see if there is a change on his end from not having to constantly battle off a constant stream of attacks. I'd like to think there would be. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) You have to admire/despair of MMN for his complete lack of self-awareness/irony. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Sven, don't even try and Lord it over me when you cannot even bother to figure out who has proposed what in the above report before you started your usual eager defence of Delta. You're quite correct that arb Xeno is now well aware of just how much due diligence you put into these kneejerk defences. You might think you're helping Delta here, you might even naively think that you're standing up for the NFCC by acting this way in issues which have nothing to do with it, but whether you realise it or not, that's what editors like you thought when they were doing this exact same thing years ago. Read and absorb the arbcom remedies from last time. If you think it's going to go any differently for him a third time given the exact same behaviour and excuses, the exact same inaction or paralysis from admins, the exact same battlegrounding and wikilawyring from the pro/anti NFCC peanut gallery, then you're delusional. I've tried my best to avoid that here, this is the admin board and this is an admin worthy incident, requiring some simple action from either Delta or an admin, I'm not fussed which. But if nothing happens, so be it, I've said what I'll do. I'm not going to go out of my way to convince the ardent Delta fans or the disinterented others, I've had years to observe how much of a pointless a task that really is. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Please, guys! Everyone's hurting here, everyone's lashing out here (everyone's probably thoroughly burned-out here, too). When people hurt, they lash out - that's normal. I'm totally uninvolved in any of these disputes, and don't want to become involved, either; but if we could all just take three steps back, and realise that the other guy is hurting just as much as you are, it might make for greater understanding and go some way towards defusing the whole situation. You only have to read this stuff to see the levels of hurt that people are suffering. Is there any way that someone can break this vicious circle and just stop hurting each other - nobody's going to be able to move forwards until that can be done. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom motions

While the community rejected a ban on Δ here, I would like to note that Arbcom have a motion regarding re-instating the former community ban on him, in addition to a motion to topic ban him from non-free content enforcement. Acalamari 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Disappointing that they seem to be explicitly overriding what the community wants, but what can ya do? 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The majority want him topic banned. How are they overriding that?--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

28bytes' comment is in reference to the site ban mainly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hi Crossmr! Fancy seeing you here. If there's ever a motion to ban you from interacting with or commenting on Δ, I will be sure to keep your "majority = consensus" philosophy in mind. 28bytes (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Support — Ched :  ?  00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I could say the same about you. You've made more comments in these recent discussions than I have.I also never said majority = consensus, trying to misrepresent me again? I said that in my opinion 32 vs 17 seemed to be more than a simple majority as outlined by WP:CONSENSUS.--Crossmr (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is odd. I told you on your talk page that of your recent project space edits, 135 out of 136 were focused on Δ. You objected and said, no, you found 4 other project space edits in that time span that were about something else. Which would put it at 131 out of 136. I conceded I missed some of those edits, yet twice now, you've posted to noticeboards claiming I "misrepresent" you. Either you missed my "I stand corrected" comment, or you think it's somehow appropriate to repeatedly point out someone's error after they've acknowledged the error and corrected it. Well, it's not appropriate to do that. It's rather dickish, actually. If you really want to continue this kind of petty squabbling, take it to my talk page. Doing it on a noticeboard isn't useful to anyone. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

and yet you continue to make these almost true statements to try and malign me. Since you like to count edits so much, why don't you check how many you've made to the delta discussions over the last say 3 or 4 days vs how many I've made. Nowhere did I ever say majority=consensus. I've repeatedly said that I felt 32 vs 17 is more than a simple majority as outlined by the policy in question.--Crossmr (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Attacking the integrity of other editors out of their perceived opposition to someone you're trying to defend is more than a little unseemly. Please, if you're okay with Delta's behavior just say so. That's your opinion. Other people are not okay with that behavior. That's theirs. But don't burn the house down to show your disappointment in the results. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Kids4Fun/Freesaveliy

Resolved

 – Sock drawer emptied out --B (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Kids4Fun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Freesaveliy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Kids4Fun was indefinitely blocked on July 4 by JeremyA with the block summary of "Vandalism-only account: Block evasion: Vandalism". Freesaveliy is an obvious reincarnation (the account was created right after the block and is continuing Kids4Fun's fights). I'm bringing it here rather than blocking the reincarnation myself as I am currently in a dispute with the user at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_9#File:Socialdemokraterna.svg. --B (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

no am not stop accusing people with no valid reasonFREESAVELIY^talk 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're not Kids4Fun, you're doing a great job of impersonating him. --B (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

you cannot ban people for infinity then suggest probably impossible and pointless requests about appealing to be unblockedFREESAVELIY^talk 20:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There are 13 pages where both accounts have edited, which is pretty impressive for only 100 edits... Also the edits to Muammar Gaddafi are similar, particularly the dictator|absolute leader addition. Looks like a sock to me. Monty₈₄₅ 20:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good intuition B. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The following accounts have been  Confirmed as indefinitely blocked user Chaosname (talk · contribs):

• Kids4Fun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Freesaveliy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kids4Funsockpuppet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jonas934 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kenowasabi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Germanlight (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CLOWNMANNI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Duelatic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bluemagic-germany (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gigety gigety goo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gigety gigety goooo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Johan pettersson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked. I have indefinitely blocked and tagged all socks listed above. –MuZemike 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay then ... that solves that problem. Thanks all. --B (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Saveliy (talk · contribs) is requesting an unblock; he was whacked as a VOA and is now claiming that he is Freesaveliy and Chaosname's original account. What do the checkusers think of that notion? Does the story wash? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not a checkuser, but I'm sure he's telling the truth that Saveliy is the original account, but why would we unblock someone who has been vandalizing, socking, and uploading copyvio images for five years? --B (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on one further item re this sockpuppet

Glad that all of the socks are blocked. Although that closes the main section I am wondering whether anyone knows what should be done about this article Daniel Höglund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its picture which was created by Freesaveliy? Is it a candidate for speedy delete or does it need to go through the normal AFD process? Thanks ahead of time for any replies. MarnetteD | Talk 21:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it G5, as it seems to fit that criteria. Also, it does not appear to be an article that will be seriously missed. Monty₈₄₅ 21:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Return of indef-blocked User:RoadHouse

User:RoadHouse was indef-blocked for disruption, use of multiple accounts, etc less than two days ago.[41] They're now back, editing from the IP User:96.235.150.226. The IP geolocates to the same location as the IPs listed in the previous (linked) ANI report, and the IP is making edits characteristic of RoadHouse.[42][43][44] [45] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

96.235.144.0/20 blocked 1 month. Also  Confirmed as RoadHouse is TopDogIndahouse (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 00:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Otberg

Wha? Otberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of reverting well-referenced editions to the article which covers the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia. My edits, referenced by official documents, just like those by an IP address, were reverted as "unconstructive" by this user, who rejects "perfectly okay" changes in light of his point of view: "the kingdom never existed." Though that's not what exactly the sources say... I'm requesting a ban from editing the article, and related articles to the Kingdom such as Philippe Boiry and Orelie-Antoine de Tounens, because it is not helping, really. I'm not reverting his reversion to my edits to the kindgom article, anyone's free to do so. Diego Grez (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything other than a content dispute (aside from a single violation of WP:DTTR). I don't see any reason whatsoever for a topic ban. If I'm missing something please provide diffs. --Daniel 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego Grez tries to propagate a state which never existed in real and tells us there is an King in exile, with the help of curios sources. Well sourced sentences like "Philippe, aka Philippe Boiry, is said to have purchased the title. When he visited Argentina and Chile once, he met with hostility by the local media and cold shoulder by most of the Mapuche organisations" he changed in: "When he visited Argentina and Chile in 1989, he met with hostility by the local media but was well received by most of the Mapuche organisations" - by using the same source, which seems to be a forgery for me. --Otberg (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, rather than anything that needs immediate action by an administrator. I'd suggest following the dispute resolution process, including (but not limited to) obtaining a third opinion or taking the discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I never realized that the topic area of proposed and failed kingdoms was another contentious hot-spot. The silliest things people will get hung up over (let alone that it's about an infobox). Silverseren^C 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the relevent website to ask them to identify any published sources for their claims that the kingdom was recognised so maybe we shall see.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego Grez (formerly MisterWiki) should be reminded that he is still under an editing restriction which mandates that he continue to work with his mentor, HJ Mitchell, so I'm wondering if he sought out that admin's advice before coming here? It is unseemly for an editor who has been under a indefinite site ban, and has been allowed back on to the project by the community, to be involved in a content dispute he brings to AN/I. Content disputes should be resolved on the article talk page, in discussion with other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Karma is a bitch, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As of January this year, Diego has been free of restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, and, more to the point, that of Diego Grez. The link I provided was the same as yours, but I misread the discussion completely, thinking that the starting point was the ending point. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Request more eyes familiar with the situation - Gun Powder Ma, Teeninvestor and Qing Dynasty theory

A few moments ago, completely by accident I noticed the AfD for Qing conquest theory [46] (I was listing a different article for deletion and QCT was the top one in the AfD log so I took a look). I voted in the AfD according to my knowledge of the subject not thinking much of it. Then I noticed that the other commentator at the AfD, User:Kanguole was canvassed by the AfD nominater, User:Gun Powder Ma [47] - given Kanguole's previous comments on the article's talk page, it's pretty clear GPM was expecting a deletion vote from him and that's what he got. GPM also informed the creator of the article, User:Teeninvestor of the AfD, but it seems Teeninvestor has left Wikipedia in August 2010 so obviously this was done for formality's sake (for the record, I'm not opposed to canvassing, but it is what it is).

I poked around some more and it turns out that the creator of the article, Teeninvestor, and the nominator, Gun Powder Ma, have some kind of a long-running feud going. Indeed, it seems that Teeninvestor left Wikipedia because of GPM's actions. Some of the previous controversy is here and on the two users' talk pages. Apparently Kanguole was also involved in this controversy.

I am not completely familiar with the underlying situation here but it does look like possibly Gun Powder Ma drove Teeninvestor off of Wikipedia (maybe with some enabling from gullible administrators) and is now going around and vindictively destroying the user's previous contributions - part of what sparked my interest in this is the fact that the AfD appears to be completely spurious. Even though Teeninvestor is not around anymore, and even if he was guilty of some stuff back in the day (and that's a real possibility - I don't know), this kind of behavior is quite problematic and I would appreciate it if some people who are more familiar with the situation took a look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful for you to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor if you have not already. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. It does seem like TI was a bit trigger happy with the revert button, though content wise it's hard to say which user was right (I can see some edits by each, as well as others who were involved in the RfC, which violate POV, as well as ones which are legitimate), and the RfC does have a smell of a railroading to it. The point still stands - the AfD still looks like a vindictive persuit of a long standing grudge long after the user has left Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch for the fact that Teeninvestor left Wikipedia because he was tired of Gun Powder Ma and friends' consistent efforts to get him blocked. However, this happened a year ago and I don't remember or care enough to argue the finer details of who was right in that dispute. A thread of aggressiveness can indeed be perceived throughout GPM's contributions, especially in the direction of glorifying (Western) European achievements and minimizing Asian and African achievements. On the other hand, GPM is well-read in his field, and sometimes, when the vindictiveness is applied towards the contributions of truly prolific serial POV pushers, it has a net positive result. Teeninvestor is long gone and the other user who collaborated with him on Qing conquest theory, User:Arilang1234, was recently indefinitely blocked. With only Gun Powder Ma and people sympathetic to him left on wiki, this thread could just devolve into a Teeninvestor-bashing exercise. Although the timing of the AfD leaves a bad taste in my mouth, intent is not easily proven on Wikipedia. Unless you put in the work of collecting diffs to substantiate these accusations yourself, I can't see this thread going anywhere productive. Quigley (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I canvassed only the two people on the talk page, Kanguole and Teeninvestor. Since their views seem to be opposing, they would neutralize each other anyway in the AfD, if you are worried about votes. As for Quigley's interpretation, that is pretty subjective. He was one of the few who supported Teeninvestor in the RFC/U. I don't doubt his sincerity, but his was certainly not the view of the majority of the users. Frankly, I don't know why this has been brought up here, I don't see any incident here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I canvassed only the two people on the talk page, Kanguole and Teeninvestor. Since their views seem to be opposing, they would neutralize each other anyway in the AfD, if you are worried about votes. - see, this is exactly the kind of thing that is bothering me about this situation. Based on the history here, it's pretty obvious that you were perfectly aware that Teeninvestor was not active anymore, hence would not respond to or even notice the notification. Kanguole would. So you're pretending that you are canvassing even handedly when in fact you know pretty well you're not. It's true that as Quigley says intent is very hard to prove on Wikipedia but it does appear like this involves quite a heaping of bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk)

You are getting absurd. I have canvassed the users who have shown an interest in the article in the past. It is beyond my power whether they are active, semi-retired or retired. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Marek's comment has merit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the reported scenario or Qing conquest theory, but Gun Powder Ma should be thanked for the excellent work done regarding extreme POV pushing by another editor (information here), and judging by the information at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Evidence of disputed behaviour, the two cases seem similar, in which case a double thank you is owed to GPM. Johnuniq (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a stupid question, but how is canvassing an editor who's been gone for the better part of a year supposed to provide balance? I cannot speak to the rest of it, but Marek's got a valid point in that regard. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a particular point to make here, but my only encounter with Gun Powder Ma has been on a different subject where GPM was quite a persistent and civil defender against a determined pov-pusher. That kind of work is exceptionally important to wikipedia, and deserves another thankyou, although it's not absolution from all sins (I've seen other people who start as "defenders" occasionally go a bit too far in excluding any mention of the fringe view...) bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. My concern is just about the question of canvassing an editor who is no longer active, and I know absolutely nothing about the history or other issues--I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith, but to say that canvassing an editor who isn't active provides balance seems a stretch. I would be interested in GPM's view of how that provides balance. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma notified the editors he/she believed to have been interested parties on their talk pages. The article history does not suggest any other editors who should have been specially notified. He did the right thing. He should not be criticised for this.

There are two very small ways that he could have improved on what he did with the notifications [48] [49]. He could have written edit summaries, and he could have have put the name of the article in the heading of the notification. We all make mistakes.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

76.106.238.105 and VEE Corporation

76.106.238.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is certainly someone who works at VEE Corporation. Their edits always involve replacing the article with a press release. 76.106.238.105 has edited the page VEE Corporation about 10 times, as well as Disney Live, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.43.85 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been two months since they edited and they have not added any of this press release content that you claim. I don't see any need for action here at all; if there's a problem, fix it (which you have already done). Nate • (chatter) 09:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Muckraking by new user?

Cinnamon123 has made one post. I'm not bothered per se about the content of the blog he links to, but could this be the start of something disruptive? - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For context, a new poster on the Talk page of an IP/new-reg POV-laden Indian caste article has linked a lengthy blog post accusing Sitush, myself, another editor, and an admin of accepting $12,000 from some wealthy Indian to slander the Nair caste of southern India. It's kind of funny, but possibly disruptive, and it's almost guaranteed that this new-reg is yet another sock of one of several editors banned for POV pushing, edit warring, calling us "sons of whores", etc. And most likely the same person that wrote this blog post (with a whole 80 hits at last count). MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sujith.Kumaar may be behind the Cinnamon123 account. I've just NPA'd him/her for the response that effectively endorses the notion that we're being paid. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the other 2 mentioned in the blog. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug, I clean forgot to notify umpteen people on this occasion. Am usually ok doing that. Still picking myself up off the floor and wondering when the cheque is gonna turn up. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And Sujith & Cinnamon have also been notified, don't worry. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Matthew, I decided to do a cursory check of both yours and Boing's contribs, and from an outsider's glance I'm seeing you two on the defensive side, not the slandering side. An interesting tale is woven by that link, but at a glance it appears rather, er, imaginative. I'd recommend we remove the link to the post from the above statement, so as not to drive this editor any more undue traffic (the link's in the history for anyone who's super curious anyway), block if they're a sock and move on. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted Cinnamon123's user page, which contained only a link to the same blog, labelled "Truth about the recent edits in the Nair page" - there's no "effectively endorses" about that version, it's a open accusation (I know I'm involved, but with such a blatant attack I hope I can be excused). I think we should simply indef block him for NPA rather than hanging around wondering if he's a sock, and just forget him and move on (and yes, zap the links to the blog, as that's only giving him publicity) - but obviously I won't do that myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Links deleted. Let me know if he does something like this again and I'll block him if I don't decide to do it sooner. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• This nonsense needs to stop; it's been going on for too long. I'm pondering whether Sujith.Kumaar simply shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, with a hammer ready to whack the inevitable moles. I'd do it myself, but I'm involved as well--Sitush promised me a cut of the money. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, they have been in touch. For tax reasons it is apparently better if it is paid straight into your account. Just send them your bank details, including password and security question. and they say that they'll arrange a direct payment via a nice man in Nigeria. If you pass on your address they'll "send him some blue pills as part of the deal, gratis", although I'm not sure what they mean by that & I guess that if I don't know then I don't need. YMMV.

More seriously, the general problems at the article are unlikely to go away. There are already a couple of admins keeping an eye on things but my dream of getting this sufficiently stable to take a punt at a GAN, which would be a rare thing for a caste article, are not looking good. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out a GA run just yet. I know the disruption is making it hard, but if we can keep on top of it (and especially if the Community decides to back Salvio's suggestion below), I think we're still in with a decent chance. I'm certainly going to be sticking with it and doing whatever I can from an admin position to protect both the article and the people working on it - I'm stubborn like that, and blustering bullies and liars trying to scare me away only reinforce my commitment (besides, I'd be mad to walk away from my 12 grand a month, wouldn't I? ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sod it; I've indefinitely blocked him. Clearly not here to contribute productively. Ironholds (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Since this article seems to pop up rather frequently here, how about placing it under article probation, so as to give the admins who keep an eye on it a bit of latitude to deal with disruptive editors? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'd certainly support that - it would make the job a fair bit easier. I'm not bothered about receiving abuse myself as I have chosen to take an admin role in this and related articles, but I hate to see hard-working productive editors insulted and abused in the way they have been, and I'd welcome greater powers to protect them against such things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a zero-tolerance line against soapboxing and battleground behaviour seems like an obvious thing to employ here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• And today's contribution to the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 10:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• The SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488 might be of interest to people following this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Spam from Wikialpha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A halt to said spam has been promised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I've gotten a spam email via my Wikipedia account. It was saying an article I did an AfD on is preserved at WikiAlpha. Also said to find more and join up, goto WikiAlpha. It was sent by a non-existent user. Bgwhite (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what admin action you are expecting here - do you have anything in mind? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This has happened before. According to this thread, User:WikiAlphaBot was doing the same thing and was banned for "Email spambot (per CheckUser)". Just wondering if it is happening again and how a non-existent user is emailing thru the Wikipedia interface? Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good question, raised at WP:PUMPTECH#Wikipedia email from non-existent user. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell us the username? T. Canens (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I once tried to start an SPI for various versions of these spambots at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiAlphaBot. Singularity42 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikialpha admins seemed very responsive to issues about licensing compliance (although I've not visited their website since helping them with the issue). My naive question: has anybody asked them to stop? :) (Somebody may have done, I know.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! Now the world can read about Lewinsky (neologism) in two places! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but who in their right mind would want to? Besides, it could be worse. It could be goatse. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved; WikiAlphaRobot (talk · contribs), who was sending the emails, has been blocked as a sock of WikiAlphaBot (talk · contribs), who was the first account sending these messages. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not resolved. I just got another one a few minutes ago from ValloVir (talk · contribs). Obviously, block as a sock, but this is starting to get really annoying. I'm almost at the point of disabling the ability to let other users email me. Singularity42 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I'm still getting the emails from ValloVir. Thank you for putting the block on. Bgwhite (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have alerted the administrator of WikiAlpha about this discussion (at least the one who idenfied himself as such here) - both at the talk page of his user account here, and at the talk page of his WikiAlpha account. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So what is this, a wiki-mirror for editors who can't cut it here? I'm sure there's dozens of these things around. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of them around, but this one specifically preserves articles that up for AfD. The main problem that brings it to ANI is that they are created bot accounts to send spam emails to Wikipedia editors about their mirror site. Singularity42 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this truly spam though? Wikipedia insisted that Wikialpha keep a list of the article editors with the articles copied, isn't it appropriate to INFORM an editor his work has been copied to another wiki? Isn't that what the email links are there for? If someone doesn't want a email they can turn the link off. If they specifically don't want Wikialpha emails, I'm sure they could request to be put on a "no call list" with Wikialpha. Mathewignash (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As for what Wikialpha is, it's a user edited encyclopedia, just like Wikipedia. The main difference being that is doesn't have requirements for notablity, as the editors feel Wikipedia is a bit too strict on that. So they copy deleted articles from Wikipedia into their deletion space, and if if someone wants to look over the formerly deleted article, and sees it's fine except for falling short of Wikipedia's notability standards, they move it to regular article space on Wikialpha. I edit articles on both sites. It's actually a good place to keep articles in development that border on being notabile as you compile sources to prove notability. Mathewignash (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm Administrator Govind on WikiAlpha. I took a look at WP:EMAIL and I don't believe there is anything that this bot does that is in violation of Wikipedia's policies - I think that the fact that it is an automated email has colored your perception of it as being "spam"; as has been established above, some users have found these notifications helpful; after all, it is just a notification that one's article is listed for deletion, and I believe that this is a legitimate reason to contact someone. GSMR (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's most definitely against the spirit of the policy; I've blocked users for spamming research projects via email, for example, and have done so with authority. Running an unauthorised bot is most certainly against the rules. Cease and desist immediately or, unless a consensus forms here that this behaviour is kosher, I will quite happily block the accounts. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Using the Wikipedia's e-mail to send what amounts to advertising for your little hole-in-the-wall should not be in any way permissible here. IMO, block this GSMR person and anyone else found to be involved in the spam-flood. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do devolve to name calling Tarc. If GSMR looked at the policy and tried to fall within it, he's editing in good faith. Disputes in policy should be talked over before reverting to blocks. Mathewignash (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GSMR/Govind and Mathewignash, it should have become clear to you by now that these e-mails are not wanted. The bot has been blocked. Re-creating it was an act of block-evading sockpuppetry, if nothing else. Running unauthorized bots is also against our bot policy. Bots should also never operate without a clear disclosure of who runs them. But now, let's cut to the chase, shall we: who creates these bots, who controls them? Certainly somebody involved with the administration of Wikialpha? So, was it you? In that case, desist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not me. I'm acting as a representative for WikiAlpha on this discussion, though. GSMR (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Then tell the person who is doing it to stop. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Is having a human send emails for this purpose, rather than a bot, allowed? GSMR (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, because you obviously haven't grasped it yet. Wikipedia and its email functions do not exist to provide either a catalyst or a carrot to your project. If you attempt to use the email function, the talkpage function, data gathered on wikipedia, contact information gathered on wikipedia or anything else from wikipedia in what amounts to advertising for your website, whether it violates the letter of policy or not, I. Will. Block. You. If anyone else does it, I will block them too. If it keeps happening we'll checkuser them, block all the accounts, and so on and so forth until you get the hint. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the policy being violated please?Mathewignash (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that Ironholds is thinking of WP:PROMOTION, though I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, these people were quite reasonable when approached about licensing issues. I don't see any reason to expect any difference here. It seems to me that people who have articles deleted as being out of scope on Wikipedia might be actually be interested to know that they have been migrated to a project with more expansive inclusion guidelines. I disagree with any plan to unilaterally block representatives of Wikialpha from making contact with those editors to let them know. It seems to me a courtesy that they are doing so. That said, I think it's important that any such notices should be through user talk page (contributors who want e-mail notices will receive one announcing the talk page change anyway), and I don't believe that they should include any kind of call to join WikiAlpha, as I think that would cross the line. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors here should not have to turn off their email function just to avoid these notifications. That cuts off their access to legitimate emails from other Wikipedians. Signing up to edit here should not mean that we are open to be contacted off-wiki by anyone else's bots. If there is a need to contact editors it should be done on their talk page or not at all. MarnetteD | Talk 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nothing to do with the emails, except being someone who got one in his inbox. Just thought I should chime in on the opposite side of the person who complained. It wasn't unwanted spam to me, it was information about an article I helped author. Mathewignash (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the essence of spam; they send out a multitude of junk knowing that 99.9% will get trashed. That 0.1% says "hey, that's pretty cool, thanks" doesn't make the spam ok. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please close this discussion as resolved. The bot in question has been retired and no other attempts will be made to continue. GSMR (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

[50] → –MuZemike 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, he must have accessed an earlier version of that thread. I've expanded it, so our "appalling" treatment is a little more clear. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I endorse MRG's approach, except that I think email better than the talk p., because they might well have left Wikipedia. It is information related to Wikipedia, that a former Wikipedia article has been moved elsewhere, and therefore appropriate for the email system -- as well as the user p. If I were doing it, I'd either do both, or use the talk p. if still active, email otherwise if activated, and if not, as a last resort the talk p. in the hope of communication. I think most people involved would certainly want to know, and I wonder where Tarc got his figures otherwise. If anything, I think it better to inform them than to use their work without doing so, although of course the license does not require it, it's a desirable courtesy. Whether other than the authors would be concerned is another matter. If I merely commented keep on an AfD, I'm not sure I would really care in most cases, but I might in some. (I can see that those who had !voted for deletion or nommed or closed might be annoyed to see they had not ridden the internet of the material, but they should have known that anyway.) I agree with MRG that a call to join the other encyclopedia is inappropriate, but it would also be unnecessary--if they are interested, they would be likely to take a look after getting the message, and decide on their own accord. To those who think it inappropriate: if this were to happen to an article you had written, would you want to know, or not? DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't agree with some of the comments here (I don't want to be harsh against the other website), I do believe the email is spam. That is, it is an email about a website I don't have anything to do with, it is asking me to join that website, and I have no option to request not to recieve the emails except by disabling the email feature with Wikipedia. I am in favour of the talk page approach, provided that if I indicate I want to opt-out of recieving notfications about a website other than Wikipedia (or WMF websites), I can do so. Otherwise, it is spam, plain and simple. Singularity42 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the concept that another site might copy articles removed from WP as a result of an AfD. I haven't seen a copy of the email in question, but if it simply informs the editors that the article will be coped to another site, I don't see the harm. Surely some recipient will not want to get the email, but they probably didn't want to get the AfD notice, and we aren't planning to discontinue that. (Yes, I appreciate the difference.) while I understand some might prefer not to receive the notice, I can equally imagine some might be miffed if the article were copied and no one let them no. I don't see an obvious way to identify in advance who would be miffed at receiving a notice and who would be miffed at not receiving a notice. If the notice goes overboard about what a wonderful place the other site is, and implores them to become a member, it might qualify as spam, but a simple notification seems more than appropriate. The admins at that site appear to be bending over backward to accommodate our rules, I think we could meet them partway.--SPhilbrickT 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The premise of this wikialpha site is beyond ridiculous. We delete articles for good reason here, be it children's toy cruft or untenable sexual neologism...the latter is the most problematic as they are now going to retain the Lewinsky slur for all-time. What you have is a handful of people scraping the bottom of the wiki-barrel for table scraps that would have otherwise be incinerated. We should not accommodate this farce in the slightest.Tarc (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the line drawn, Sphilbrick? Basically, we're setting up a precedent that any site that wants to a copy a soon-to-be-deleted article is allowed to send automated emails to users who had something to do with that article, and the uses have no way to opt out of recieving those emails. It would turn Wikipedia into a vehicle for third-party spam. By the way, for those that want to see a copy of the email, here is one (of the many) I recieved (note that it appears these bots were targeting users who started an AfD, not the creators of the articles):

Your article 'Jasper_Contractors_Inc' has been automatically preserved at: http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Deleted:Jasper_Contractors_Inc

We'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join WikiAlpha -- the open encyclopedia, journal and news source. Unlike Wikipedia, WikiAlpha has no notability or original research constraints. To find out more and sign up please visit: http://wikialpha.org/

--

This e-mail was sent by user "ValloVir" on the English Wikipedia to user "Singularity42". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

As I said, it's spam. Singularity42 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole dispute says more about the regular contributors to this board than anything else. When we first approached WikiAlpha regarding licensing over at the Village Pump, everyone was cordial, respectful, and helpful. We managed to work out something that (in my view) satisfied everyone and left no one in any particular bad moods.

Shift over to this board, where the very first comment labels the email as "spam," and then in the course of the thread numerous editors proceed to attack the site and its creators, which left them in such bad spirits that they decided to copy the thread onto their site as an example of how appalling we apparently are. It's bad form for us collectively, and it helps to further the view that Wikipedia is clannish and hostile to outsiders. (Mainly because we just were.) Apparently here on AN/I, the fourth of the Five Pillars gets thrown out the window. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not upset with the attacks - I find the effort put into clannish hostility amusing. Anyway, as I've stated earlier, this matter (of the bot) has been resolved, so there really is no reason to keep this discussion open. I find continuing to discuss it surmounts to nothing more than beating the proverbial dead horse.

Also, to reiterate, I am affiliated with WikiAlpha, but I am not responsible for the creation, running, or maintenance of the bot being discussed here, so it is completely unreasonable to suggest that I should be blocked.

(Perhaps saying that will provoke an agitated reply from Ta- someone... let's see.) GSMR (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Content on WikiAlpha like the article "Wikipedia's treatment of WikiAlpha" is completely WikiAlpha's business and not Wikipedia's. I've elaborated on the talk page of that article for those who disagree with it. GSMR (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Elektrik Shoos - As someone who frequently takes on the "you kids be nice or I'll set the dog on you" role I must ask: Exactly what of the above is "appalling?" Tarc does cross the line into insult with "hole-in-the-wall" and "spam-flood" but is told at once "Please do devolve to name calling Tarc." While this board does frequently turn into a race to the bottom, in this case I think you're being oversensitive. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to Ironholds for the clear statements above: Wikipedia is being exploited (again), but spam is spam and senders will be blocked. Fortunately we do not have to spend hours discussing the obvious. GSMR: We don't care about some page on some website; please stop mentioning it as this matter is settled. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Curious. I didn't start the discussion about it, and I've been saying again and again that the matter has been resolved so it'd be best to close this discussion as Resolved. Might someone do that? GSMR (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Blackie Lstreet at Casey Anthony trial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

already going at WP:BLPN. Two discussions not needed where one will do. Admins watch that channel as well. --Jayron32 00:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi, all. Editor Blackie Lstreet keeps behaving in a way that I and others consider to be disruptive (and even vandalism at some points) at the Casey Anthony trial article. The editor claims that the article is not neutral and is a BLP issue simply because we present evidence that was actually used at trial, arguments actually stated at the trial (both sides are presented), and negative reaction to the aftermath of the trial (though both sides are presented). According to all reliable sources (every single one), most of the public has reacted negatively to the verdict of "Not Guilty" in the case of Casey Anthony. And yet Blackie Lstreet acts as though this is defamation and as though Wikipedia is presenting its own opinions,[51] all because he believes Casey Anthony and most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be innocent.[52] This belief goes against every reliable source reporting on this. All one needs to do is turn on the television here in America and see that most people are outraged by the "Not Guilty" verdict. It has also sparked several different debates which should be (and are) covered in the article. And yet Blackie Lstreet insists that "Only a tiny minority have cried out against the verdict" and that there is a "silent majority [who are] apparently content to let the jury make the decision."[53] Blackie Lstreet removed information about the outrage of the "Not Guilty" verdict twice,[54][55] and was reverted twice.[56][57] Just today, he removed the entire Evidence section (among other things) under false claims and reasoning, all while introducing bias and POV into the lead, which I reverted. He was mainly reverted because just about everything in the Evidence section was presented at the trial by the prosecution. And here he removed key arguments made by the prosecution all under the summary "Remove some clutter."

Basically, I and other editors need some intervention here in regards to Blackie Lstreet. It seems he keeps undermining the article, as expressed by another editor here, because he feels the article should reflect her innocence since she's been found "Not Guilty." And feels we are presenting our own opinions.[58] As I stated, there is nothing POV about presenting facts. We present the evidence, trial, and reaction to the verdict as it has been reported through reliable sources. Not through our own personal opinions. And we do present both sides. I have attempted to discuss matters with Blackie Lstreet at these three discussions: Talk:Casey Anthony trial#The Publicity and aftermath section, Talk:Casey Anthony trial#article not NPOV, reads as if Casey committed a murder and Talk:Casey Anthony trial#Section on Trial needs overhaul. Flyer22 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a content dispute. The article may have problems with POV and BLP, so if anybody feels like offering advice or boldly fixing things, that would be great. I'm out of my depth there. I've posted a brief review here and alerted Wikiproject Law and BLP/N. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not just a content dispute, as the links and his faulty rationale showcase above; as expressed by more than one editor on the talk page, Blackie Lstreet is removing large chunks of the article that are relevant and reliably sourced. He removed the entire Evidence section, which includes just about everything that was introduced at the trial, and falsely stated that it was not introduced at the trial. He also claimed that we cannot use references from 2008 to present evidence that was included at the trial. The fact that Anthonyhcole, who somewhat sided with Blackie Lstreet, is saying that removing large or significant aspects that are crucial to understanding the topic of this article is just a content dispute, is absurd. There is no BLP issue going on here at all. There is disruptive editing going on here, as expressed by more than one editor. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with User:Flyer22's assessment. I have also reverted deletions made by User:Blackie Lstreet; these were referenced multi-paragraph sections that are relevant and necessary to the article. It appears that Blackie Lstreet is attempting to push his own point of view (POV) by selectively allowing or deleting portions of referenced text, in defiance of editors' consensus. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie has been editing since 24th of June so, if that's his first account, may need some guidance. Mainly, he's removing what he believes to be (and to my superficial understanding is) content that violates BLP. We're awaiting an opinion from WP:BLPN on that. Until then, I think we could cut Blackie some slack. I might just ask him to hold off until we get some wiser outside opinions. Done --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You and Blackie Lstreet are wrong. And you are wrong about why he is removing the material. The links I displayed above show why he is removing the material. He wants Anthony portrayed in an extremely positive light, despite all the sources that reflect the opposite of that. There is no BLP issue by presenting facts -- by presenting evidence used against her at trial. Blackie Lstreet had no valid reason for removing that entire Evidence section. There is no valid reason for removing crucial aspects of the prosecutions' points during closing arguments. There is no valid reason to remove two paragraphs detailing the public's reaction to the verdict. That was crucial reaction information he removed, all backed up by reliable sources. The section is called Public and media reactions. If most of the reaction is negative, then that is what we should report. No different than presenting a mostly negatively reaction to a singer's album or a director's film. Most of America is outraged by the "Not Guilty" verdict. We report on that. Now exactly how is that a BLP issue? What, because we don't lie and say that many Americans believe Anthony is innocent? The fact that you are defending Blackie Lstreet's horrid behavior is ridiculous. He removed the entire Evidence section, for goodness sakes! He still needs a warning, whether we cut him some slack or not. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is a BLP and NPOV content dispute. The issue was already posted on the BLP notice baord before it was posted here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial A non-involved neutral editor has commented there agreeing with me that the article has BLP issues that need to be corrected. Flyer22 does not want the BLP and NPOV problems corrected. Flyer22 acts as if this is his own personal article and Talk page. He even moved sections of the Talk page where these BLP and NPOV issues were being discussed, so that an administrator from here checking the Talk page would not be able to see as readily that there is an ongoing BLP and NPOV content dispute. I have tried to restore those sections of the Talk page. Bascially, this article is not in good shape at all. It is poorly written, filled with irrelevent minutia, and is obviously written to cast Casey Anthony as guilty of murder, despite the jury verdict acquitting her. Flyer22 seems to want to use the Wikipedia article as a platform to rebut or criticize the "not guilty" jury verdict. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute when you are removing the Evidence section to make Anthony look innocent. It's not a content dispute when you are removing prosecuters' quotes because they are too negative toward Anthony. One outside editor saying he wants part of a section trimmed does not make you right. That is not whole-heatedly agreeing with you. As I stated before, "BLP issues" to you means "any type of negativity presented in this article about Casey Anthony." The article has NOT been written to further support the view that Casey Anthony is/was guilty of murder. It was written from the standpoint of reliable sources. And, really, you have a problem with any negativity in the article about Casey Anthony, as you have displayed at the article. If you had it your way, the Caylee's Law section wouldn't be there either. For example, you say, "Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent." WRONG! That would mean we couldn't accurately report on this trial here at all. By your logic, we would only portray Casey Anthony as innocent. There are no trivial details in the article, and it is not overly long or anywhere close to it, per WP:SIZE. It may look overly long from the table of contents, but most of sections are relatively short. The article is "not in good shape at all" and "poorly written" to you because it does not portray Anthony as some innocent darling. If it did, you would not be complaining about any poor state of the article. Further, I am not a "he." And unlike you, I am not writing the article from my own personal opinion. Unlike you, I have not stated any personal belief as to Anthony's guilt or not-guilt here at Wikipedia. Your agenda is all over the talk page and in your edits. Nice way to divert the attention away from the horrid way you acted at the article, though. Now people here are definitely going to see this as only a content dispute, no matter how inappropriately you acted. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have already responded, and I do not wish to take up anyone's time unduly, but I hope that no one will mind if I provide an update to this dispute. On the BLP Notice Board several more uninvolved editors have commented, and they so far have unanimously supported the view that there are significant BLP problems on this article that need to be corrected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackie Lstreet (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There have not been "several more" (way to exaggerate, as always) and they have not unanimously supported the view that there are significant BLP problems with the article. They expressed concerns about what may be BLP problems. These are their opinions. I have seen nothing concrete in policy that says anything is wrong with the article. But either way, what does that have to do with your behavior earlier? It doesn't excuse your behavior whatsoever. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are ways to write the article and keep it reasonably neutral. The average American following the case is upset by the verdict, because there's no justice or closure for the child. As some of the standard news writeups have boldy stated, most of the family, and especially the accused-and-acquitted, have been liars from the get-go, and that makes things difficult for a jury, especially when the death penalty is thrown into the mix: The jury simply didn't know who to believe, and had to decide "not guilty" because the state couldn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. We'll probably never know what really happened unless the truth fairy pings someone in the family. But take a look at the coverage in the standard news organizations, and that should be your guide to writing the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's been some POV in wording and tone in SOME parts of the article. As an example, where it said that Baez "rationalized" away some evidence instead of the more neutral "explained". Which the edit warrior Blackie Lstreet correctly pointed out and fixed. But he seems to be going overboard with his contentions, seeing "POV" even when it's NOT really there. He has some kernels of truth in his position, but is exaggerated. Even neutral explaining of what happened, if it doesn't seem positive to whichever side, will be seen as POV or biased. And that view is an over-reaction. Some objective facts are just negative sometimes. That's just too bad. Deal with it. It does not mean Wikipedia itself agrees with it necessarily. All articles and editors need to be careful with tone, wording, and style, in reporting and stating things. But there's NO excuse to violate 3RR. Or to see things that just aren't there. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I have written the Public and media reactions section as neutrally as I can. But there is no way to say that most or even half of American are okay with the verdict or Casey Anthony; they are not, and this is backed up by every reliable source out there. It's not just because there is no closure for Caylee either; most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be guilty. You advise us to look at the coverage in standard new organizations, but we've been doing exactly that. All of what you personally feel about this trial is in the article. That is how thorough I have been. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Then there should be no issues. If Blackie has specific concerns, he can address them on the article talk page. However, if he's arguing "defamation", then he's over the line, and even hinting at a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that should be made here Flyer is that you are as emotionally invested and partisan towards the subject matter as you profess Blackie to be—your comments just above this confirm that. Thus I don't think you or Hashem are in any position to dictate who is violating 3RR or if reverting Blackie's "vandalism" qualifies. I really think you should all disengage from the article for some time, because it's clear that cool heads are not driving this discussion. I suggest that this AN/I report be closed if it's going to continue with you posting responses, because no desire for admin intervention has thus far appeared and having multiple discussions at so many venues is not productive. Take it to WP:BLPN. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources that have been reliably obtained that say MOST or HALF of the United States believes anything about Casey Anthony. You are asking for a pretty extraordinary conclusion, and policy demands that extraordinary conclusions have extraordinary evidence to back them up. You and the other zealous editors probably need to let more cool-headed editors take over the article for a bit. I'm afraid we'll end up seeing a thing like what happened with Jared Loughner with people blaming politicians and the media for the tragedy there. But this time, it will be people like Nancy Grace who get average people all worked up into believing they have to right this wrong or stand up for Caylee. We're not here to be advocates for positions, merely to present information. A jury has spoken, and without additional evidence, its voice is more reliable and important than 100,000 protestors, or any editor here. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I notice you say "reliably obtained." I guess that means your own WP:OR interpretation. Because various reliable sources state that most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be guilty, including a new USA Today/Gallop Poll. The fact is...I can provide various reliable sources saying many or most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be guilty. There are no such sources stating the opposite -- that many or most Americans believe her to be "not guilty"/innocent. But, yeah, I guess the media is tampering with the polls too (sarcasm).

Stop accusing me of being "a zealous editor." I can be just as cool-headed as the next editor. But of course I am going to be angry when an editor is removing large texts of an article based on faulty reasoning and outright lies. I wasn't the one editing inappropriately. You also need to stop telling me what to do. And making assumptions about my character. Nancy Grace didn't get me worked up to do the right thing for Caylee, for goodness sakes! Unbelievable. And, yeah, in your opinion, we should only report what the jury has said about the verdict. No societal impact, etc. Wow, what a comprehensive article that would be. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The jury said "not guilty", it didn't say "innocent". Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Oh, except for the counts she was convicted on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And what more could they possibly have said? That's the most favorable verdict possible in American law. And there is no way any of us can possibly know the actual facts, and it is in any case wholly improper to give our opinions about it on Wikipedia, Everyone here saying their opinion would be in gross violation of BLP policy--except for the fact that nothing said here can do any substantial harm,considering the course of events in the RW. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen people convicted on less evidence. The problem here is that no one in that family has any credibility, so the jury had no real choice but to say "not guilty". The article should neither advocate for guilt nor advocate for innocence. It should report the facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just one more thing... this USAToday poll[59] found that 64 percent of Americans think that Casey Anthony most likely murdered her daughter, despite the jury's finding in the matter. That article also links to some other interesting stuff, especially about Casey being "comfortable" with lying, and also an explanation of how the prosecutors failed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the pollsters also ask those polled whether they think this entire thing is a media circus? NW (Talk) 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See here :) . Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. For another comparison, see Lizzie Borden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit warring of Lake Balaton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Slovakia-Hungary edit warring department is thataway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

User Baxter9 again deleted mising informations in article about Lake Balaton. User deleted alternative names. I don´t know what is problem, because also Hungarian versions respect alternative names: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port%C3%A1l:Balaton http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaton#Nev.C3.A9nek_eredete --Omen1229 (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a special edit war noticeboard for these types of issues. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary includes a link to our guideline, which is bullet 2 in #2 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). I don't see any evidence which suggests that the Latin, German or Slovak names for this place are of import to English speakers. The Hungarian Wikipedia's guidelines are not our concern. Furthermore, so far as I can see that's the first time that Baxter9 has edited that page, so he can hardly be edit warring over it. This does not require immediate administrative action. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now I can delete all Hungarian geographic names in English articles about Slovakia, because that is bullet 2 in #2 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Hungarian names are not import to English speakers. For example: Bratislava — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Personal Attact from user Rammaum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

please do not throw boomerangs in glass houses. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Re:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simuliid

I believe the comments made "possess rude and arrogant behaviors" to be deformation of character and bullying.

Simuliid (talk)

The Sockpuppet Investigations page is monitored by administrators. If action is necessary, it can be discussed and taken there, without a need to ask elsewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Simuliid, I suggest you comment on the finding at the SPI page (that you used a sockpuppet account, which is not allowed) while you still can. Never mind, seems to be closed.

I also have a suspicion that Bugs will comment on your word usage, which is perhaps appropriate since, looking through your contribs to see if there are indeed arrogant behaviors, I saw you'd edited Royal Entomological Society Handbooks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 how does adding missing page numbers on page Royal Entomological Society Handbooks constite "arrogant behaviors" (the phase is not even proper english grammer) or am I missing what you mean? Simuliid (talk)

Before the usual suspects come along to puff up their ANI edit counts with commentary on this user, let's just let this slip. Simuliid, if you do not wish for editors to make ingracious characterisations of your editing style in sockpuppet reports, don't use multiple accounts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

thumperward - fair point - but until this issue was raised I was aware what sockpuppetly was, and that it was not allowed, and as you will see I have been an editor for quite some time - this was done out of convenience, and not out of any malicious intent one was used on home machine and the other at work. and would have never disputed I was one and the same, sorry. But this it no excuse for defamatory remarks.

Simuliid (talk)

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

Legal threat from Oursaint (talk · contribs)

Oursaint (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been adding unsourced material to Catherine of Alexandria and today came out with this legal threat. Elizium23 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the nature of his edits I have come to believe that this user has a conflict of interest with regards to the article and the film mentioned. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a legal threat against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia editor here. The edit appears to state there was a legal challenge regarding the production of the film, which would be both notable and relevant in the article. Any WP:COI issue should be brought up at the appropriate noticeboard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary -- Your persistence in reinstating libellous information leaves us no option but to start legal action -- seems pretty clear to me.

Good catch. I didn't see the edit summary in the diff. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked and NLT template added. Looking forward to hearing some reasonings although I cannot, of course, take further action (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• The legal threat is certainly unacceptable. On the other hand part of the content being removed is a serious acusation sourced only to a dead link of a (for lack of better term) involved website. Can anyone give me a reason why at minimum the last 2 sentences should not be removed?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made a partial removal here[60]. Any restoration needs to be based on verifiability and not on any behavior of Oursaint.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor adding unreferenced info to BLPs and socking

Magoohoo (talk · contribs) seems to have a history of adding unreferenced info, including defamatory info, to BLPs. For an example, see [61]. The editor has been reverted multiple times and warned multiple times, but has continued to reinsert the info over a period of time. The editor also seems to be using an IP to sock, even commenting on his own account talk page in an effort to mislead. See [62] and [63]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like their entire history is nothing but adding unsourced trivia to BLPs, and edit-warring over it. I've blocked for 48 hours, and am happy to block for longer if it continues after the block expires. I haven't done anything about the possible socking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the obvious sock IP for 2 weeks too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from Oursaint (talk · contribs)

Oursaint (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been adding unsourced material to Catherine of Alexandria and today came out with this legal threat. Elizium23 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the nature of his edits I have come to believe that this user has a conflict of interest with regards to the article and the film mentioned. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a legal threat against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia editor here. The edit appears to state there was a legal challenge regarding the production of the film, which would be both notable and relevant in the article. Any WP:COI issue should be brought up at the appropriate noticeboard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary -- Your persistence in reinstating libellous information leaves us no option but to start legal action -- seems pretty clear to me.

Good catch. I didn't see the edit summary in the diff. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked and NLT template added. Looking forward to hearing some reasonings although I cannot, of course, take further action (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• The legal threat is certainly unacceptable. On the other hand part of the content being removed is a serious acusation sourced only to a dead link of a (for lack of better term) involved website. Can anyone give me a reason why at minimum the last 2 sentences should not be removed?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made a partial removal here[64]. Any restoration needs to be based on verifiability and not on any behavior of Oursaint.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor adding unreferenced info to BLPs and socking

Magoohoo (talk · contribs) seems to have a history of adding unreferenced info, including defamatory info, to BLPs. For an example, see [65]. The editor has been reverted multiple times and warned multiple times, but has continued to reinsert the info over a period of time. The editor also seems to be using an IP to sock, even commenting on his own account talk page in an effort to mislead. See [66] and [67]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like their entire history is nothing but adding unsourced trivia to BLPs, and edit-warring over it. I've blocked for 48 hours, and am happy to block for longer if it continues after the block expires. I haven't done anything about the possible socking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the obvious sock IP for 2 weeks too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Stanford professor complains about his BLP

I just noticed that Ron Fedkiw, a tenured professor at Stanford, is rather upset at his Wikipedia article and has posted about it on his web site: http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/

I'm not sure what's going on at Ronald_Fedkiw but since Ron's message alleges serious BLP issues, someone might want to take a detailed look. TotientDragooned (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's already being dealt with via OTRS - see Talk:Ronald Fedkiw#Misleading details -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't always instantly resort to legal threats. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(removing less diplomatic phrasing) I feel his depiction of the situation is unprofessional, which diminishes my sympathies for what is, in fairness, a frustrating situation if there are BLP inaccuracies.MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to attack the professor at this point? Monty₈₄₅ 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious how this works out because there are some odd discrepancies going around. The article creator says he was in contact with the subject when he created the article, and says "he didn't have much of a problem with it." Further, when the subject of the article, editing as an IP, removed a picture from the article saying that he had nothing to do with what it represents, the article creator reverted (clearly not knowing who he was reverting), saying that the article subject had himself said that the picture was "the best example of his work." That's a rather odd series of mis-communications.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What I find even odder is that a computer science professor apparently made it to 2011 without having the slightest idea of what Wikipedia is, or how it works (to judge by his rant). Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. You have just given a striking example of how misinformation gets into Wikipedia by saying this man "made it to 2011 without having the slightest idea of what Wikipedia is". He said no such thing. In his "rant" he said it had come to his attention that Wikipedia has incorrect information about him, not that he didn't know about Wikipedia or had never previously visited it. Burpleson's comment -- "I wish people wouldn't always "instantly resort to legal threats" -- is another good example of misinformation getting in to Wiki. Fedkiw is quoted by TonyTheTiger Jclemens at Talk:Ronald Fedkiw#Misleading details as saying "he has tried to have corrections made to the article, but been reverted". So he didn't "instantly resort to legal threats" at all. If a BLP subject sees inaccuracies in an article about him then we should fix them with good grace rather than have "editors" taking silly inaccurate potshots at him. And, instead of asking why some resort to legal threats, shouldn't we instead be asking why they feel they have to? Moriori (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not TonyTheTiger, but Jclemens who said that. It's not that hard to make a informational mistake now is it? :).Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, now let me know how my edit tipped shit on a blp subject like the ones I mentioned. Moriori (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it's pretty obvious that it didn't, but that wasn't my point. I feel very strongly in favor of strict BLP policies and responsible editing of BLP entries. You don't have to convince me of that. I was just saying it's easy to make small mistakes. It is always better if we AGF when we see them and try to fix the problem in a collegial way. I can't blame someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia for getting angry about misinformation in their own entry, but I think we should know better than to get too worked up over it. The diffs I posted above, also suggest some serious mis-communication if Tony is correct. This could even have come from the subject himself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Moriori: Yes, if I were editing his article to say that he had no idea what Wikipedia was, and citing his rant as my reference, you would have quite a good reason to remove that statement. If, instead, I were making an offhand comment on a Talk page that my subjective interpretation of his rant indicated he was surprised to learn that anybody could edit Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia's content is not governed by an "editorial board", I'd feel pretty comfortable with that -- and, oddly enough, I do. Seriously, who acts as shocked as he does to find mistakes in a Wikipedia article? Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to read our official BLP policy which applies to all pages/content in Wikipedia, including what you describe as "an offhand comment on a Talk page". You can feel as comfortable as you like about the "interpretation" you take from what someone says, but if he didn't say it, then it has no place in Wikipedia. He didn't indicate he was surprised by anything. More misinformation. You ask, who acts as shocked as he does to find mistakes in a Wikipedia article? I'd guess it would include anyone who needs to apologise to colleagues whose work has been attributed to him by Wikipedia. Maybe he has gone over the top here, but the fact remains the BLP sucked and when the subject tried to get it rectified there were Wikipedians who attacked the subject. Where did the ideals of Wikipedia go?. Moriori (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, Wikipedia, for a lot of older people, falls into the category of "stupid nerd internet shit". Just because you are familiar with it doesn't mean you should assume that everyone is. A very large percentage of internet users only use the Internet to look at email and youtube and so forth. Jtrainor (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy is a CS professor. He falls squarely in the group that is universally aware of "stupid nerd internet shit". Bobby Tables (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the subject's problem is--I wish they had said so. What I'd like to know is that the "Omniscient Technology" section is doing in the article. What does it matter that one professor had his office next to our subject's? Since when is it notable what someone is teaching next semester? (for all you ninjas out there, I'm teaching Early World Lit and Advanced English Grammar in the fall, and my office is next to Blake's) I'm removing that section: I don't see how it's relevant, and surely this isn't an acceptable source in a BLP. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Off topic.

What version of Advanced English Grammar do you teach that permits singular to become plural, as in "I'm not sure what the subject's problem is--I wish they had said so"? ); — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.93.58 (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Using "they" in the third-person singular is actually extremely common, and not necessarily an error nowadays, though "he" would have been preferable since Ron's gender is obvious. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC) English lacks a gender-neutral singular pronoun, lots of people use 'they' because it is the closest thing we have. It might be technically-incorrect, but it is used a LOT, because if you don't know the gender of the person, and you don't want to accidentally offend, you say "they" instead of the old default of "he". -- Avanu (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I've known University-level English teachers who think the singular "they" is just fine. English is not cast in stone. And if the drive-by IP dislikes the singular "they", just wait: How about the oft-heard possessive of the southernism "y'all", as "y'all's"? Or the oft-heard possessive of the northernism "you guys", as "your guys"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I prefer "yous guys." Or is that the proper spelling? I don't remember seeing it in print. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Not only not an error nowadays, but not an error in olden days either: FRIAR LAURENCE 71 Arise; one knocks; good Romeo, hide thyself. ROMEO 72 Not I; unless the breath of heartsick groans, 73 Mist-like, infold me from the search of eyes. FRIAR LAURENCE 74 Hark, how they knock!—Who's there?—Romeo, arise; 75 Thou wilt be taken.—Stay awhile!—Stand up; Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 3. Shakespeare knew a thing or two about English and wasn't afraid to use the "singular they". It's an elegant, gender-neutral construction, and more people ought to use it. 28bytes (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC) "Speakers of [American Eglish] resist this development more than speakers of [British English], in which the indeterminate they is already more or less standard. That it sets many literate Americans' teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem." Garner's Modern American Usage ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• And I removed the weightlifting section--yes, there was a section on weightlifting, sourced to the subject's website. I find it difficult to understand how that was retained after GA review, but that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry I'm late, but yes, I've got the OTRS ticket on this one, and will be fielding feedback from the subject. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page or on the article's talk page. I really don't see anything much more for ANI to do here, now that multiple editors have had their attention to this topic, I expect things will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and be rectified quickly. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff

Not sure whether to submit Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to 3RR, since this editor's entire talk page history is of warnings for edit warring and POV editing, combined with suspicions of socking early on (so do I submit to SPI or 3RR-- waste of time for a clearly disruptive editor, would someone familiar with the alleged sock pls have a look?) See the entire talk page history of continuous edit warring: s/he came to my attention via edit warring at autism against very clear consensus here. I will notify him/her next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Old ANI here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. I'm not really seeing the sock connection, but feel free to open an WP:SPI if you feel that I'm missing something. NW (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How best to respond to Peter Papadakis?

Not quite sure what to make of this new user. He has only made 3 edits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peterpapadakis His first edit involved adding a death date on an article with the name Petros Papadakis. Wouldn't normally be too concerned. But the death date was in the future! Any ideas on how best to communicate with him. I don't think that it qualifies as a death threat. But it isn't a polite thing to do.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Continue reverting. If it goes beyond 3 reverts, contact WP:AN/EW. Phearson (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't apply to BLP violations, and an unsourced date of death (future or not) is a BLP violation. It's an especially absurd violation but still. --NellieBly (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave them a stern warning[68]earlier. But they have not edited since the OP above reverted their 3rd edit, so we'll see what happens. Heiro 04:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

At first I was worried that this could be either a suicide note or a death threat and that we'd need to get the police involved, but on examining the article I see the supposed death date is more than a year in the future. It's hard to imagine anything real being planned that far in advance, but it might be worth keeping an eye on the page in case anything else turns up. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^♫ 07:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted accusations possibly due to removal of self-promotional / promotional list entries

An anonymous editor (or editors) has inserted what appear may be promotional or self-promotional entries regarding a certain "Ivan Taslimson" (no wikipedia article) into various articles such as . . . Permaculture, List of University of Washington people, List of Indonesian Americans, List of people from Nevada, Organic architecture, List of people from San Jose, California, List of people from Seattle, and Hakka people. Source IPs include: 223.255.229.13 [69], 202.138.246.2 [70], 180.214.233.18 [71], 206.53.152.32 [72], 180.214.233.24 [73], 223.255.229.13 [74], 206.53.152.22 [75], and 206.53.152.28 [76]. A varied set of IPs, so in spite of the very similar edits, they could very well be different individuals.

However, not long after I removed some of these entries from the associated lists due there not being a supporting reference or article, I began seeing some apparently vindictive edit summaries reverting some of my other unrelated edits: [77], [78], and [79]. These were made by IPs 223.255.225.4 and 223.255.226.143, who are likely associated with a single person. I suspect that the user 223.255.229.13 that made the Taslimson entry in the Permaculture article is also the same person. Although not especially bothered by this silliness, I would like to have it stopped (or at least looked into) before it becomes more disruptive. Thanks. — Myasuda (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.84.115.106

Resolved: One block extended, one address warned. m.o.p 10:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See here Bentogoa (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is currently blocked for 3RR Bentogoa (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP has also been disruptive/edit-warred on Bulgarians, Turks of Western Thrace and various user talk pages eg here and here. I posted a response to the IP's edits on Bulgarians on the article Talk page. After the IP (whose location is Amsterdam) was blocked, another IP located in Amsterdam posted this personal attack in reply. Looks almost certain to be the same person. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended block another 24 hours and left a message on the talk page. Second IP received an only warning here. Marking this as completed for now. m.o.p 10:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Dzlinker/Omar2788

Hello,

I'm asking for help to convince the user Dzlinker (a SP of Omar2788 [80] according to Fr.Wiki [81], this account started to edits on WP on July 27th while the main account was blocked) to stop his disruptive editings:

- Removing a sourced information on the article Fossatum Africae, until I quoted the entire sentence, while a Ctrl+F on the PDF file used as source would give him a result: [82].

- Article Maghreb people: Adding a template which is wider than the article itself [83] and refusing any further edits [84]. The same problem occured on the article Berber people a few weeks ago [85].

Also, some "aggressive comments" should not be tolerated: [86] [87] nor the use of a Pro-Nazi template on his Userpage [88] (in the beginning the template was looking like that : [89].

Thanks.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User notified. GiantSnowman 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

it's true this is another account of mine that i abandoned lately (not to bypass a block on the en.WP)

i've been blocked on the fr.WP so i totally abandoned that account (i kept the commons and meta ones)

Article Maghreb people: the guy refused any constructive talk about the infobox, and deleted every thing i wrote, it was really a hard work to do; as any one can see here, the width is totally acceptable, and the infobox is totally representative of the maghreb people, and this accusations 'disruptive editings is totally unacceptable. any one could verify my edits and be sure that they are constructive.

the source he provided on Fossatum Africae is useless in that case i asked him for another more complete and he kept reverting without consensus, trying to impose his PoV as he always do like on the article maghreb people where he refused any talk.

This guy is really not a wikipedian, since his principal edits are political and symbolic such as inserting: french algeria, french morcco instead of algeria and morocco, into biographical articles (so not historical) and refused talking on this page here. here are some of those unacceptable and undiscussed edits: [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] and many others.

He says that algeria was internationaly recognized to be french. but this statut is dead, an article written in the early 20th or late 19th centry who says that would be acceptable. but today its totally false and confusing with the Algérie française (fr:french Algeria) slogan.

for the berber people article, as any one could see here i'm one of the editors who've edited the most on the article (then i was editing as User:Omar2788). and this discussion about the infobox images prove my good willing in that.

Also the accusations of my agressif comments are really too much saying. any one would agree that if a wikipedian work, is to spy over other ones edits continually every day to revert them or ..

no one could support it.

not talking about this same attitude he got when i was editing on the fr.WP. (he is like chasing my edits every where), i really don't support that

no one could support it.

Omar2788 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Two remarks:

- Putting "Algeria" instead of "French Algeria" is PoV. Whatever the Algerian PoV, it was internationally recognised that Algeria was part of France (departements like Corsica or Alpes-Maritimes), not a colony, people born there should, imho, be considered as "Born in France" (as Staline was born in the Tiflis governorate of the Russian Empire, not in Georgia), but since this is my opinion but that the consensual use is to put "French Algeria" instead of "france", I accept that, while some people seem to not be able to accept that their PoV isn't accepted bu others. This was an example, and I don't think that nationalistic PoV has its place on WP.

- You edited the article Berber people 34 times (as Omar2788), but you forgot to tell us that 30 of these edits were reverted by 6 different users because they were against consensus?

I have nothing more to say about that.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

again unfounded and unproved accusations

take a look to the Talk page of the concerned article, you'll see if any conflictual edit h'v been made without consensus.

putting french .. instead of Algeria is YOUR point of view, just keep things as they were before your symbolic Uncyclopedic edits (it was Algeria in all the concerned articles before you come by)

why making those changes massively one after another if your intentions were good??

Dzlinker (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University

It is probably time for an administrator (other than yours truly, who apparently has a personal grudge) to step in. At stake is the insertion of peacockery in the lead. See also a discussion on the talk page, started by User:Pol098, who probably had no idea what they got in to--accusations by SPA editors abound, and I think Pol098 has given up. Your eyes are appreciated, and I'll stick a generic message on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page as there are at least 3 SPAs socking or meatpuppeting on the page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope Pol098 is following this, just so they know they're not alone. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the SPAs edits, it's clear they are only here to pimp that university and as such have been blocked as advertising-only accounts. I've reduced protection to semi. There appear to be a variety of seemingly static IPs from Roadrunner in Orlando that are connected with this exercise. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

... and I declined a pretty rude unblock request on one of them already. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That it would be rude was to be expected, given the tone of their other communications. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Block request for the user Y2Kcrazyjoker4

Content dispute. Follow dispute resolution. causa sui (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The user Y2Kcrazyjoker4 has been vandalizing the articles related with the English alternative rock band Muse, mainly in the infobox section, at first it reverted any change that weren´t referenced, so i've found references for all the changes, but now, even with references added it keeps undoing my edits, first here [102] alleging that it wasn't referenced, then a reference was aded [103], but it keeps reverting even with reference in it [104] alleging that the source don't is direct enough, but everybody else who reads can get the reference clearly (here is the source: [105]), the user has been invited to discuss it's point of view but don't wants to talk, so their actions falls on vandalism and it must be warned or blocked by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Looking at the Talk page for Muse, I don't see anything like consensus one way or the other. Y2kcrazyjoker4 is on one side of the fence, Carnotaurus044 is on the other. This needs to go through the normal dispute resolution channels first. There's nothing for an admin to do at this point. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC) This is not the proper place to report incidents like this, nor is great form to ask the admins to block someone when a user is reverting disruptive editing. FYI, Carnotaurus044 has been focusing nearly 100% of their editing in the last month on changing the genres of Muse articles. All of these edits were being done without references, and only after I asked for reliable sources to be added did he start providing references in his edits. Some of them, however, are based on flimsy interpretations and don't support the material he was adding to the articles. I'll spare this board any further details, as this is not the proper forum for these disagreements. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

SuperKombat World Grand Prix II

The above article was deleted today. See here. Shortly after, a newly registered user, User:Dolphin s54, created SuperKombat World Grand Prix 2. Dolphin also linked to the newly created article. See, for example, this diff. Notice that he kept the original "II", even though he links to the newly created article with the "2".

I initially thought of requesting a speedy delete of the newly created article, but because it also involves editor behavior, I decided to come here.

My request is to delete the article as a salt and to take whatever action is appropriate with respect to Dolphin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged it WP:CSD G4, as for the editor, I think at most they should get a warning about recreating content deleted after a deletion discussion. And maybe a check to see if they are a sock. Monty₈₄₅ 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome a sock check. I don't want to get into this too deeply, but there are many kickboxing-related articles and particularly Romanian kickboxing articles that have been nominated for deletion. Many of the deletion discussions have unfortunately focused on Romanian kickboxing enthusiasts accusing editors (like me) of various vaguely defined biases. It has regrettably transformed the discussions into unconstructive fights. Some of the kickboxing proponents are more deft in their accusations. Others just get wild and rant. I'm not sure which is worse. Anyway, all this is to say that there may be a lot more going on behind the scenes here than a naive newbie violating policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like WP is being used as a results service for Romanian kickboxing. Mtking (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Article deleted as G4 - would also suggest a sock check. Skier Dude (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To follow up, this is the related SPI. Monty₈₄₅ 02:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolphin has been blocked as a sock puppet of Cyperuspapyrus. What happens to Cyperuspapyrus?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I block him for a week for using a sock to re-create a deleted article :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Giorgoos (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely by Floquenbeam. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

long time warring; legal threat; notified. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

another legal threat Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave a {{uw-nlt}}, but an admin should look at this. My gut instinct says it's a bluff, but WP:NLT is a bright line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

first warning, second warning. He knows. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I took my (redundant) warning off. He's had more than enough opportunity to learn to play by the rules. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh, everybody here types faster than me; perhaps I should use more templates. Anyway, came here to say that I blocked him indef for disruption, including but not only the legal multiple threats, but I see that's old news. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a slow news day. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Resolved

 – Protected for a week. Talk it out, please. And also note that 3RR/24h is a bright line, not an entitlement

Malik Shabazz is intentionally interrupting an article and edit warring. We should expect more from admins. I am requesting that another admin gives him some nice advice.

• [revert of something agreed upon after discussion (note edited diff)
• malicious edit after a barb from another editor
• revert

Current talk page discussion: NONE (Isn't more expected from an admin)

Previous talk page discussion: [106] (The whole issue stems from presenting something graphic in both a positive and negative light, bringing in hair color is a red herring that is only there to cause disruption and make a point. But he didn;t even bother to look at the discussion it looks like since he did not use the talk page)

Notification of bad form with a request to stop: [107]

Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First, on June 16 I fixed the caption. I fixed it again tonight. Cptnono's knickers are in a knot because (a) there is no Talk page consensus for the caption he likes, and (b) "unsmiling" in a caption is as meaningful as "brown-haired" or "black-haired". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I wear boxers. But you again have demonstrated that you are not suitable as an admin.

I assume that you started playing with the article since you have want to rock the I/P boat. Why now are you starting trouble and not months ago when consensus was formed (have you looked at the archives yet?). But my last message to you says it all.[108] Stop starting trouble over stupid stuff and consider giving up the mop if you turn this into an ongoing concern. But yes: "Whatever" until you do it again.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I usually give Cptnono more credit, but tonight he's off his game. His first diff isn't mine. This was my edit on June 16. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• [109] And another revert even though a talk page link was provided. Request a block to prevent disruption and a return to the stable version that had consensus. Malik has responded twice with WhateverWhatever

I will be reverting after 24hrs just to stay on the right side of 3/rr even though it is clearly malicious. Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing malicious. You have yet to show the alleged Talk-page consensus for the word "unsmiling" in the caption (hint: there is none). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See the archived discussion up above. Then self revert. The apologize for intentionally disrupting the article and edit warring. Even if there was not consensus (which there was) you are not acting like an admin and it is time you self revert. Then you should be stripped of the mop if this is how you conduct yourself. Note that I am not an admin since I tend to enjoy watching people squirm in situations like this. Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Neither of the words are in the caption. It's ONE word, which has almost no meaning in the article. You could say that it was a woman with fingernails and it would have about the same use as brown hair, or unsmiling. Grow up, both of you. Pilif12p 06:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I'm not a fan of belaboring the obvious. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Growing up isn't the issues (and if it is then certainly he should not be trusted to eb an admin). If you see the archived discussion you see that "unsmiling" was added specifically to add a balance to the article so that it did not look like porn. Finger nails and hair color have nothing to do with it. Carefully using images is. Malik has intentionally thrown off that consensus that was hard to reach. Is he allowed to edit war? So if MS is allowed to the I will revert again. Any objections?Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I have to agree with Cptnono at this point, anybody, especially admins shouldn't be allowed to do this. I read over the talk archive, and it did seem like there was a consensus to change it to his wording. *clears history* Pilif12p 06:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, pure and simple vandalism from an admin and he will get away with it. AGF is dead. I will be reverting in 24/hrs even though I should do it now (I don't trust the admins and it is a shame when an established editor cannot)Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

But mark this as resolved. I will be continuing the edit war the admin started in 24hrs.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How about both of you stop editing the article for a couple of days and talk it out on the talk page? Seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No. There was a talk page discussion. MS has intentionally edit warred AND left the article with a POINTY edit. If an admin can do it I can. And if admins do not see the problem with him then I will do it for them. How about YOU actually make a judgement? And just to be clear: I am pissed because IPs add things like "nigger" to the article and I have been holding the fort down. When an admin choses to spit in my face I am going to be pissed. Lok at the article and the caption then tell me he should be editing.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) This looks like a pretty dumb edit war, but I do not see egregious conduct on either side. This edit (and the followups) by Malik do seem rather pointy but I would not call it vandalism, and based on the above comment I don't think he'll be adding it again. A block or Malik losing adminship do not seem to me to be appropriate responses to this situation.

Really you should both be using the talk page, as GWH said. In December three editors, including Cptnono, agreed on the "unsmiling" language, but of course consensus can change. Go talk about it or else just let it alone, since this is an incredibly trivial issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Bringing the smartest people in the world together so they can argue about cumshots. What a place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• • If this continues it will come close to if not outright win the lamest edit war of the year so far award. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Although the humor is not lost on me over this. It is a shame that people see it as a joke. Whatever: more donkey punching and less editing constructively. Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Not really sure how to interpret your last sentence Cptnono, but please don't take the fact that no one is rushing to block or de-admin Malik as justification for you to "be as disruptive as (him) now". Malik should not have made the initial pointy edit to begin with and neither of you should have revert warred. You should talk about it on the talk page, or one or both of you can give up and leave it alone. This is a pretty minor dust-up and I don't want to see you bothered by it to the point that you actively decide to be disruptive, since that won't be good for anyone. If it helps try stepping back for a bit and then coming back to this tomorrow or the next day. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry for not being clear: Donkey punch as an image that is either terrible or hilarious depending on your disposition. But I am stepping away for at least a day since it is time for bed. But I am reverting after 24. But I do realize that MS will not be desysopped. I am almost surprised he was not blocked but I m even more surprised that he was not even given a talking to. This was pointless and now we know that admins really can do whatever they want because the community just doesn't care. You will block an IP vandal but not an admin. And editors like me obviously fall in between. Toothless .Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
          • You seem to want a punitive block, but we don't do that here. Neither of you are edit warring right now, and Malik's comment above suggested he's not even interested in adding his version back but rather would be happy if neither of your versions were there and we just described her as a woman. Block are preventive, and there is just nothing to prevent here. I would agree with you that admins, unfortunately, get away with bad behavior that non-admin editors would not and that this happens far too frequently. But as I said to begin with the editing behavior here, while far from stellar, was not egregious. Saying "knock it off, talk about this instead of edit warring" seems like the right action for an involved admin to take. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Repeated promises to revert after 24 hours? Not good. 3RR isn't a personal allowance of three reverts per day; it's a bright line. Continuing to revert rather than discuss (or proceed to dispute resolution or whatever) would be editwarring. Article content should not be decided by whoever hits the revert button most (or whoever has the most careful timing of their reverts). bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Whatever mistakes were made here, how is there any suggestion of vandalism anyway? Do we need to point out as WP:Vandalism says, vandalism is not all bad edits to an article? If you're going to ask for blocks, you really should be aware of that already (as well as blocks not being punitive and 3RR not being a right) Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not about to edit this page from my current location, just to be on the safe side, but the best solution here would be for someone to full-protect and demand that the participants in this silly little slapfight actually talk it over instead of poking one another with sticks and admin noticeboards. Anyone? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yup. Protected for a week, if only to save Cptnono from being blocked the moment he tries to game the 24h bright line. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• So why is MS allowed to edit war and I am not? He has edited against the previous consensus and now the article is protected. There is nothing to talk about since we had consensus. When consensus changes then the caption should be reduced. Until then you have just awarded a editor for edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And if it wasn't vandalism it was certainly pointy and malicious. If you want to play word games then fine but that does not change the fact that MS intentionally disrupted the article to make a point. So how do you defend him now?Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending anyone. However, protection is the usual response to a continuing edit war, especially when one editor declares their intent to carry on doing it. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not word games. If you're going to come to ANI asking for administrative action against another editor, it's resonable for people to expect you to know what you are describing (as well as when and why blocks are actually used). It's also resonable to expect people to read the ANI discussion that follows, I haven't see anyone defending MS even if they agree with his POV. (Although describing his pointy editing as malicious seems a little far, it looks more like a silly and unacceptable attempt at a bit of fun.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and POV-pushing from anon IP

User:70.162.171.210 is using the current events portal to push right-wing propaganda about Obama causing U.S. "bankruptcy".[110] I deleted their addition[111] since it was redundant to a neutral version of the story that was already listed for today and I was called a "communitst hard liner"[112] and then accused of "pushing a political agrenda".[113] I gave up on reverting them. If someone else could take a look, it would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

actually it appears to me that you are involved in an edit war--S-d n r (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't forgive the WP:NPA by the IP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

anon ip does not appear to apply, the ip user has several hundred wiki additions. Also, the comments appear to be generally directed not personally directed at Kaldari--S-d n r (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

After I removed his news post that "United States bankruptcy will occur on July 22" with the explanation that it was not reflected in the source, he wrote that "it does indeed reflect the source since all but communitst hard liners heard one and only one thing in his speech 'I do not have a deal'". Clearly his comment is a direct response to mine and directed towards me. And since when is an anon IP not an anon IP because they have an edit history? They are still editing under and anonymous IP address. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit histories of User:S-d n r and User:70.162.171.210 look surprisingly similar to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed that myself. In any case, I have blocked .210 for continuing to edit war on that page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If those are the same user, will blocking the IP also block the registered user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the IP technically violated 3RR, FWIW. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring need not technically violate 3RR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, by that argument I should be blocked as well. My complaints were about the POV-pushing and personal attack, not the short-lived edit war. I would prefer the IP to be unblocked and given a warning about the issues instead. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And he hops right back in when the block expires to predict the US defaulting on its debt. Blocked 1 week for vandalism this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

...and sockpuppet abuse

Here's the smoking gun. The article Henry Feffer was created by User:S-d n r at 14:17 and then edited by User:70.162.171.210 1 minute later. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that sdnr's edits also came to a screeching halt after the IP was blocked. However, is this truly sockpuppetry? That is, did he use both ID's to evade something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sockpuppet abuse examples (besides the discussion above):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_the_United_States&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Haines&action=history

In both cases, the registered user edit warred on behalf of the anon IP. I don't have time to dig further, but this seems blockable to me, especially since Sdnr was actively deceptive above.[114] Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith - if a new editor makes an edit without realizing a "logged out" status - that also results in the IP being shown as the editor. IMHO, unless there is a clear effort to deceive, or a second named accunt is used, I would chalk it up to "editting while logged out" which happens to almost everyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This person is certainly not a new editor. The IP address has a couple thousand edits and the registered user has a few hundred. Aren't their edits in the discussion above a "clear effort to deceive"? If this isn't an example of sockpuppet abuse, it seems like we have a pretty huge loophole. What's to prevent this user from continuing to edit war under both a registered account and an established anonymous account, thus appearing as two different people? Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a level-three warning on User:S-d n r's page. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't {{Uw-agf-sock}} be more appropriate? Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

sdnr (any clues what that stands for?) has suddenly gone very quiet since the IP was blocked. Maybe a checkuser could discreetly take a look at this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your pick Bugs... Status: Data Not Ready, Screw Down Non-Return, Sockpuppet: Do Not Resuscitate - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nasty BLP violation needs to be completely hidden

This bit of trash [115] was quickly reverted, but needs to be completely hidden. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

More hiddened. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow Edit War at Brookdale Community College

In addition to to other BLP violations, ie this edit, this page has been having a slow edit war since May 24 from about 7 single purpose accounts. Unsourced "allegations of criminal fraud" were made, removed and repeatedly re-added. It also appears that editors at the college have tried to whitewash the article.

Finally after removing them once myself, they have finally been sourced. However they are in the lead and are probably giving undue weight to the matter. A few eyes on the article may be helpful, regards - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the material in the article did not appear in the quoted sources. I have cleaned up the article and will watch-list it. Your note on the talk-page was good. --Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The front page...

Lots of heat, no light.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has nobody yet noticed the paring of this Pic of the Day with the Leroy Petry DYK? I already left a comment on the FPOTD talk page but I think this requires more urgent attention. My sincere hope is this wasn't intentional editorializing. Either way, perhaps we should slide this FPOTD to tomorrow? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Ummm...ummm...ummm... Facepalm Uncommonly bad timing to pair those two items up. I can't help but assume good faith that it was entirely coincidental. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Even Freud reportedly once said "sometimes a banana is just a banana". Seeing grand designs or ulterior motive within something that is entirely coincidental is not much of a concern for AN/I, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Maybe so but it's in the best interest of Wikipedia's credibility to swap out the FPOTD. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC) In what way does it harm wikipedia's credibility to showcase items on the front page which portray different aspects of war? (Different wars, for what it's worth). Is there any actual reason to remove one item or the other? bobrayner (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I've already made clear the reason. Do you not concur that it creates an impression of editorial commentary? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) It creates nothing of the sort except in the minds of those who see conspiracy around every corner. No offense, but seriously, find something else to do. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Beautiful. Leave it as-is. The truth may hurt, but it's still true. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) So you recognize the editorial picture it creates and support its inclusion because you agree with it? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Ya think? Keep in mind that veterans have always had trouble finding jobs - after WWI, WWII, Vietnam and also the Gulf conflicts. This is nothing new. Note that Petry has gotten around this problem by staying in the service. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid you need to reorient yourself with WP:NPOV. The DYK and FPOTD on the front page do not exist to advance a POV regard of how valid you believe it to be. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Wow..... Kudos to TomPointTwo on picking up on that; however, I think it's a point that's going to be lost on most people..... I don't see any issue. Certainly doesn't seem like intentional editorializing (though you could probably investigate this by going through the DYK and FPOTD discussions and seeing if there were common editors pushing for the two). NickCT (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC) That would be worth a look, and unless it can be demonstrated that it was done deliberately, taking it out amounts to "censorship", which wikipedia supposedly doesn't do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) It's only censorship if there is a message to be censored. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Prove that it's a message and not a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, I will. I would like to see today's FPOTD swapped with tomorrow though. This is a PR nightmare in the making for Wikipedia. Commonsense dictates we coordinate these things more closly to avoid painting pictures like this. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia already has little public credibility, and panicking and censoring it would only lower that credibility. If you're worried about what Wide Receiver will say, don't - they'll criticize no matter what is done, or not done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Unless you can find a reason to suggest it was deliberate, I'd say leave it there. The picture is intended to be uncomfortable, and we can't go around looking for excuses not to show it because it might clash with something else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Sometimes a banana is just a banana ... but try to convince someone that that's all it is once they imagine (or are told) it is something else. Anyway, better to leave it now and learn from the lesson. Changing it would only draw attention to the banana and encourage active imaginations. --RA (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Precisely. Someone needs to pay more attention to the main page content before it goes public. This Jay Leno-like juxtaposition might make wikipedia look stupid. But pulling back from this, for fear that someone might complain, would make wikipedia look even stupider. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC) That's what Main Page/Tomorrow is for. More eyes are always welcome. Modest Genius talk 19:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC) That page wouldn't have picked up this issue, since the DYK in question has only rotated onto the page midway through the UTC day. BencherliteTalk 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Let's just say that "irony" is not entirely a lost art, and WP:LETITGO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I for one find it ironic and not at all offensive. I'm sure it was entirely unintentional, which just makes it funnier. There's no need to remove either of the stories - let the ironic juxtaposition stand. Let readers read whatever they like into it. Modest Genius talk 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Speaking for DYK, the item was selected for today based on the (obvious) date relationship. That, and the presence of a photo of sufficient quality made it suitable to be the lead item. POTD was not a consideration in the selection, and I suspect that most of the editors involved in this DYK selection were unaware of the POTD. cmadler (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC) This is pure coincidence. I don't see it as ironic, just an interesting coincidence where two juxtaposed views of wars, spanning many years, hit the front page. It is one of the things that makes Wikipedia awesome, and we should not try to trample on that.--Errant (chat!) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Which editor chose the POTD for today? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Howcheng (talk · contribs) chooses, each and every day (barring accidents). BencherliteTalk 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I left him a message. Maybe he can confirm that this was just a bizarre coincidence. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Uhh... unless Sgt. Petry is on record saying he joined up to make the world safe for Goldman Sachs, there's not even an editorial juxtaposition. The cartoon does not have a pacifist or anti-military POV, but rather criticizes, at most, a certain (i.e. upper) class of civilians. So where's the "PR nightmare?" Also, is this venue the appropriate place for this? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC) As to the accusations that it forms unintentional editorial comment? Generally editorial comment sits in reaction to something. If we are going to start seeing editorial messages in random occurences, surely we can just as easily see the File:After the war a medal and maybe a job2.jpg image as a commentary on Obama's recent actions extending the war in Afghanistan? The presence of the Leroy Petry DYK just serves as NPOV counterbalance. Of course this kind of theory is mad... that's the point. Once you unmoor yourself from reality and go into seeing conspiracies and subtle editorial in featured content picks, you may as well go the whole hog and infer a wilder conspiracy theory. Call the Department of Fun, you've just found a great new time-wasting game! —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I suspect that it is a coincidence. As a matter of fact I pointed out that if that were the case the appropriate response is great coordination of main page material. That said, with all the gaming of the system I've seen it's easy to note that, while not probable, it's possible it was intentional. Easily. It why I asked. Your snarky, unhelpful comment is noted though, so mission accomplished. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Why? I simply do not see the problem - an interpretation of this as an editorial commentary is stretching the message of the image a long way. Anyone that does so is fairly likely to read the worst into even more obscure coincidences of the sort that happen all the time. This is, I think, the wrong thing to be worried about :) --Errant (chat!) 20:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC) You don't see the connection between a political cartoon disparaging the value of awards given to a gravely wounded veteran right below the DYK of the awarding of the MoH to a wounded veteran? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I tried to close this, but TomPointTwo seems intent on dragging this through the mud until he gets an answer that satisfies him. Seriously, this is pointless. Trying to draw a connection here is like trying to say Mars actually influences my personality. DYK and POTD are decided by two unrelated projects. Without actual evidence of wrongdoing, this is pretty WP:LAME. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC) If you feel like you have nothing to add, move on. My objection has two parts to it. The first is whether or not this was done on purpose. I'm waiting to hear back from Howchen on how this POTD landed on today. If it's by chance, no big deal. The second part is how to make sure that stupid things like this don't happen in the future. We have two different projects adding material to the front page, not talking to each other. It's a wonder stuff like this doesn't happen more often. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) While your second objection may be valid (though hardly on AN/I), your first one can only qualify as a lack of AGF at best. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Concur. Tom, please drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. This was pointless an hour ago. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Saddhiyama, I don't have a specific editor to whose good faith I find deficient. I do know that Wikipedia gets gamed. The venue doesn't especially matter to me, if the issue gets addressed elsewhere then fine, as long as it's addressed. I know a lot of people think it's funny but a lot of people don't; this sort of thing makes all of us look bad. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Scrambling to censor something, because of what WR might say, makes us look worse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) What's being censored? It's only censoring if there's a message to be censored. Otherwise it's due diligence in making sure we don't paint a big target on our face. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Does re-opening a discussion count as a revert? That is 3 by my count. Monty845 21:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC) See, gaming the system. I brought up a issue on the admin noticeboard. As of yet no admin has responded to either of the two issues I've raised. Hatting or otherwise unilaterally closing this because you don't like it is not constructive editing. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) What's the administrative issue? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Moving the POTD and getting the DYK and POTD synced. Everything slotted for inclusion on the mainpage is protected. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC) As well they should be. So far, admins don't see this as an issue. You're the only one seeing an "issue". Besides, why move the POTD? Why not move the DYK instead? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict × 4)Tom, I do feel like I have something to add: try AGF instead of assuming a conspiracy, and let it go. Your objections have no basis in fact. This doesn't even need to stay open while you wait for Howchen, because either you're going to be satisfied he had no ill intent, or you're still going to ABF and keep this going. If you find evidence of wrongdoing, you could start a new discussion. Keeping this open is pointless and looking more like a WP:BOOMERANG as it continues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC) For the third time, I completely understand this could have just been happenstance. And for the third time, if that's the case we need to explore swapping out the POTD and making changes to how automated processes add material to the front page to avoid this sort of thing. When those issues are addressed I'll let it go. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I sure hope that was accidental, because the placement of those two images on the Main Page close to each other is terrible. It makes Wikipedia, not to mention the Wikimedia Foundation, look like they are making a mockery of the U.S. Military as a whole. –MuZemike 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC) It doesn't mock the military, it mocks the fat-and-happy civilian warhawks who send the kids off to die for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Careful, your bias is showing. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I support the military. If that's bias, so be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Nice after the fact edit. You've been combative, lacking in AGF and thretening with me from the get go. You clearly like the message this layout sends and that's why you're so up in arms about fixing this. Your POV pushing isn't helpful. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Are you unaware of what has happened to our brave kids when they've come back from combat in our various wars? Or do you approve of the "screw you" attitude too often taken by the "fat capitalists" satirized in that cartoon? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Hm, deja vu. Again, your opinion the above topic is irrelevant and your POV pushing is, still, unhelpful. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Allow me to point out the obvious: WP:CONSENSUS is that this was an ironic error, and nothing more. Now allow me further to ask, very nicely, and one final time, to PLEASE WP:LETITGO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC) It it was an accident, fine. That still doesn't answer the need to swap POTD or address the manner in which this material is added to the front page without coordination. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC) How are you seeing this as somehow being insulting to the military? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I (and other) have already made clear how this paints a picture of editorialism. You've acknowledged as much yourself with your support the percieved POV. Re-read this subsection. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Of course this is a complete coincidence. The POTD was written four days ago. There's no way I could have known which DYK items were going to appear today back then. And I'm sorry, but why should the POTD be swapped out, and not the DYK entry? howcheng {chat} 21:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Good to know. So that is to say that the DYK and the POTD have no relationship to each other and genereate content beside each other but in oversight vacuum? The POTD would need to be swapped instead of the DYK because the DYK is news making and date dependent whereas the POTD is neither. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Since Tom is seemingly incapable of dropping this I have issued a 24 hour block--Jac16888 Talk 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Good deal, I was about to go to 3RR myself as he reverted a closing attempt four or five successive times. I can't see how this type of thing can be anything but a coincidence. The only time I'd expect such projects to work together on main page content would be for April Fool's Day, if at all. CycloneGU (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I still can't figure out what his objection was. Both the DYK and the POTD were supportive of the military. The POTD is an editorial cartoon, and will still be one whether it's run today, tomorrow, or next week. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese repeated violations of WP:CIVL

After being the recipient of some rather uncivil comments by Roscelese the other day,[116], I took the issue to Fastil [117] who warned Roscelese [118] about their behavior. Unfortunately, Roscelese didn’t take the message to heart, because they just recently accused me of something rather repugnant and sickening [119] and undid my attempt at removing the personal attack per WP:NPA [120].

I had originally thought to take this to another board, but after my brief interaction with Roscelese and this users long history of administrative sanctioning for other similar attacks on editors and edit warring in general [121], I would ask that the community take this editors behavior more seriously. Thank you. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The user having admitted that he believes women lie about rape all the time, I don't really see how it's a violation of WP:CIVIL to observe that he's removing sourced information that contradicts his view. The user also does not appear to understand that a report is not an administrative sanction, or even that a search result (for a comment, or for a report I filed) is not a report; likewise he fails to mention, in linking to my comment on his talk page, that I said I wouldn't make such a comment again, and indeed I have not. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ZHurlihee has also attempted to canvass a user with a record of harassing me to join this thread. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at Roscelese's contribs and I only see one outburst of incivility. ZHurlihee, don't exaggerate. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now also looked at ZHurlihee's contibutions. Pah, seems a WP:BOOMERANG case. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I see one incident of incivility from Roscelese which he/she has already been warned about. I also see a breach of civility by ZHurlihee[122] and some edit warring. Everything else looks like normal discussion. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And now the user has followed me to another article in order to revert me. Not looking good here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing is one thing. Hounding is quite another. I'd say this is a prime candidate for WP:WQA. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-site canvassing for CFD

I recently closed this CFD early because of some extensive off-site canvassing, apparently by Shakesomeaction (talk · contribs), the creator of the two categories that were nominated. Screenshots of the off-site posts in question: Screenshot 1, screenshot 2, and screenshot 3 and screenshot 4. A copy of the nomination was posted off-site with the header "Wikipedia doesn't care about Women of Color ... Basically". The off-site canvassing included the comments:

• "Help save the Women of Color categories on Wikipedia"
• "The same nordic asshole has nominated my other entries for deletion"

The canvassing resulted in a number of IP editors casting "keep" votes. I personally feel this off-site behavior is inappropriate for a WP community member, but this issue deserves the community's attention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought there was something goofy about this "voting" process anyway. You get a handful of the hundreds of thousands of editors commenting, and then a decision is made. If every wikipedia editor gave input to everything that was being decided, these external ballot-box-stuffers wouldn't mean anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

One of those posts is a personal post in my blog, the fourth one. I don't care if you ban me for this issue at all, period. Go ahead. I did not tell any of these people what to say, I only told them how to make a post and how to post keep if they felt the same way as me. People also voiced their opinions on their blogs. I felt like the people gave compelling reasons for keeps, but due to my informing them of how this process works, or even that it's going on, it's considered invalid. So ban me. If that's what your answer is when you read the other side then do it. And frankly, I think I am allowed to have my own personal view on my blog and even post copies of conversations there. No website, unless it's federal and is by law of my country, is going to tell me I can't post a copy of a public conversation and comment on it in my blog. That is all I have to say about this topic, period. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation: I realize I did something wrong, so now I'm going to try to simultaneously set myself up as a victim and bully my way out of this situation. Newsflash: Apologizing works a whole lot better. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no I did nothing wrong. Absolutely. I have not set myself as either one of these. I'm not quite sure how I have bullied anyone in this situation and moreover I felt bullied, because several categories that were not connected were nominated by the same person for deletion in a 24 hour period. So your hypothesis is incorrect. I'm not going to apologize for anything. My comment was saying if these are the rules, I don't agree with them, and it is far better to ban me than put up with this because I feel women's history is an important issue. Bullying would be going to the person's page, harrassing them endlessly, messaging them, finding their personal blog and posting it on Wikipedia, telling them that certain issues do not matter because I am unaffected by them... While I personally insulted this person in my own blog, I never made it part of the conversation on Wikipedia, and I certainly did not harass them, nor did I tell ever any other person to. That would be bullying. My issue was the category, and recognizing women of color. And I am not apologizing for the fact that people don't understand that these are issues that a modern research database should include. So, again, if it is appropriate to ban me in the instance, then so be it. Apologize? I have nothing to apologize for, and I don't think anyone else in this situation does either. It's simply a misunderstanding, although some people need to find out much more about the topic of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply I will not fall for those sort of derailing statements. One thing is true of Wikipedia, there will always be someone who cares much more than you do about something, and those people will always get their way. When you figure out which one you are, then call me, otherwise I'm done with this. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to be banned from Wikipedia? I'm not clear on what you think would be a proper resolution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point it is best to ignore. Otherwise, a blog post will appear with a possibility of a race card being played. Phearson (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I believe User:Shakesomeaction initially thought they were doing us a favour - we have all these Category:Fooian people and Category:People of Fooian descent, but we don't divide them into males and females. The editor was then pissed off when someone nominated them all for deletion and assumed this was racism/sexism. When someone explained that we had previously had this discussion (probably several times) and decided not to split out a gendered category unless gender was an essential element (ie the category was almost exclusively one gender, and members of the other gender were notable at least partly on the basis of their gender), Shakesomeaction has indicated that they accept this decision (although from the sounds of it they still think it is weird). On that basis, I think the initial reaction should be put down to unfamiliarity with our rules, and no further action be taken. Shakesomeaction is now aware of the previous decision, might like to read up on how it came about, decide whether or not to challenge the consensus using the appropriate community processes, and should also now be mindful that Wikipedia disapproves of external canvassing, so be cautious about how they handle external communication specifically about an on Wikipedia discussion in future (nothing wrong with inviting people to join the community and start editing, everything wrong with a "come and make your feelings known to these racist scum" type comment, in terms of one's future "career" with the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about with the "racist scum" argment. I do not believe anyone in any of these instances were being racists. I do believe people were misuderstanding what the point of having women of ethnicity get their own categories. This was my concern and I never believed anyone in this situation was racist. Also? I am white. Race card? Really mature for someone to say. This wasn't an argument about race for me at all. This was an argument about women's history, and you will see that in any of the past conversations on Wiki about this topic. All those screen shots? They are from different blogs on the internet. Only one of them is from my blog, the last one, and it did not tell anyone to go to the site. I cannot be held responsible for something someone else said, or if someone interpreted this as a racial issue. To me it wasn't. It was a women's history issue --Shakesomeaction (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just checked those screedshots and nowhere did people say the term "racist scum." Again this was not a topic about race, I never called anyone about racism. This is about women's history. To assume that I am making this about race--to make it an easy way of shouldering off a person being hysteric about race--is offensive to me. Also you will see everyone who I informed about this talked about women's history. This was not a race thing, and I'm sorry that any of you have that misunderstanding. This is a rule that should probably change within Wikipedia. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• If someone can let me know how I can nominate a rule change I would be grateful for that. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are most likely looking for the Village Pump. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Shakesomeaction, do you acknowledge that canvassing is inappropriate behavior, and agree not to resort to canvassing again once the category is re-nominated? --JaGa^talk 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I will say that canvassing is inappropriate, but talking about Wikipedia issues in my own blog is something I'm allowed to do, and Wikipedia cannot tell me what to do concerning that. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. But if you use that blog to knowingly disrupt Wikipedia, your editing privileges at Wikipedia could get restricted. Imagine the person who uses their blog to organize vandalism - for instance, a series of nonsensical page moves. We wouldn't deal with the situation by trying to censor the blog; we'd just block them from editing. Now, you're certainly no vandal, and I doubt you were aware you were violating canvassing policy, so no worries, no block. BUT, if you choose to ignore the policy you are now aware of, and your actions become enough of a problem to be considered disruptive, you could get your editing privileges curtailed. --JaGa^talk 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to shake my head at the thought that someone could get so worked up about a category. I mean, how hard could it be to ask for clarification and getting directed to the appropriate venue of inquiry instead of getting riled and indignant? --Blackmane (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably would have not gotten so worked up if the same person hadn't made it a point to nominate all these categories in such a quick succession. The thing is, some things are important to some people, some things aren't. Obviously it isn't an issue that's important to you, thus you can't surmise why anyone would get upset, but it was important to me. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You might need to re-examine your priorities, then. Some categories on a web site aren't worth this kind of fuss. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some of these off-site canvassings strike me as being racist. They definently do not show any understanding of the assume good faith guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm responding to this because of a notice left at the Women's History project. I've asked some questions and made some comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reforming the WP:Cat/gender policy. Shakesomeaction is clearly a, um, spirited person who hasn't quite internalized our courtly etiquette. This might be excusable from a new editor, bur there are things on both sides I don't like here. S. could've argued for the existence of the category as a topic of special encyclopedic interest per WP:Cat gender instead of resorting to accusations of racism and framing the "keep" as a cry for social justice; this, I think, was part of the point made by Elen of the Roads, whose mediating remarks didn't seem to pierce the barricade of Shakesomeaction's self-righteousness. However, those supporting the deletion could've been more constructive in pointing out that despite the clear scholarly notability of "African American women" as a topic of encyclopedic interest, the resulting category might be too diffuse for anything but populating with subcategories. I agree that offsite incivility directed at fellow editors specifically is the same as incivility onsite, and this to me is worse than the canvassing accusation. But I don't think it's helpful to mock Shakesomeaction's passion for representing African American women formally on WP, given the bad press WP gets (justly or not) for its gaps of coverage pertaining to women and low participation by women. Is there a way to address the concerns of both sides in a constructive manner? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of racism! Even in my own blog on the entry venting on my own I never accused anyone of racism, and I have no idea why people think I did. I never believed anyone here was being racist. Someone suggested, in this very post, that I might play the "race card." I'm a white person! If Wikipedia were racist there would not even be categories for people of any other ethnicity. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think they grasped that I was actually on their side. Never mind. Part of the problem was that the categories they started with were Category:American women of Fooian descent, which is problematic because it is a three way intersection - american, fooian and women, not to mention that in the US descent is a more nebulous and problematic entity. That one of the cats was Category:American women of Mexican-Jewish descent just added to the gaiety of nations. There is definitely a scholarly case for a category that would pick out notable African women (say), but the Women by nationality set should achieve that. The question is - is Gloria Estefan (say) notable because of her Cuban descent? Is there a class of women who are notable because of their Cuban descent. There is certainly a class of women who are partly notable because of their ethnicity (Pocahontas Mary Seacole Bjork) but this is not to say that whole classes of women are notable because of their ancestry. Still, glad to see that debate is now taking place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I felt you were very reasonable and you were the only person that explained things to me in a reasonable way. That actually helped. I agree with what you're saying, and it makes sense. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Incessant accusations of bias against foreigners, bad faith etc

Resolved

 – Warned Whatzinaname to be specific or cease accusations. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been experiencing problems with an editor who persistently accuses me of these things, while producing no evidence worthy of the name. I took it to Wikiquette Alerts: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Accusations of bias but he has simply continued the abuse there. I really don't see why I should have to put up with it, to be honest, and I think it's about time some of the rules against accusations of bad faith were put into effect. I've tolerated it for too long now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move ban for Dolovis

Resolved

 – User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from moving any pages in the article (or article talk) space. Although the proposing admin has notified and logged this ban, as an uninvolved admin, I endorse the close; although it is clarified that the original proposal did not mention non-article pages, consensus is clear that this should be broadly construed to prohibit any disruptive moves outside of article space, such as article talk or template space. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• WP:AN#Help request: Diacritics in surnames
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#An all encompassing complaint regarding the disruptive editing behavior of User:Dolovis

It seems that Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone back to his old ways. Therefore I propose a complete ban on Dolovis moving articles. He may request moves of articles via WP:RM, and should consensus be gained an uninvolved editor may make the move. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that Dolovis is in fact making page moves in accordance with policy (see WP:COMMONNAME). There is currently a RfC, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, which is discussing this matter and, at only 50% support, it does not look like it will get a consensus. Although it's obviously sub-optimal that Dolovis is editing the redirects so that only admins can move over the titles, those moves are clearly controversial and should therefore go through WP:RM anyway. Again, Dolovis is acting in accordance with the policy as it is currently written. Also, the proposal makes it sound as if Dolovis is regularly moving article en masse, when he/she has in fact only made four moves in the last two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Dolovis seems to have an extreme view on the diacritic issue, and enforces his view by deliberately creating redirects from names with diacritics in two edits: [123][124][125]. This prevents anyone from moving the page under that title. He's also systematically creating articles under names without diacritics, even in cases where the sources do use them (eg. Juha-Pekka Pietila, Eero Vare). It's certainly not clear to me how that is in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  In the case of the two articles you mention, none of the sources in the article use diacritics. That is why many feel that this is in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME is not very explicit (to say the least) about discritics. The only mention is "canon" vs. "cañon" (for "canyon"). I can't see what bearing that has to personal names. In fact, the current guideline is to neither encourage nor discourage diacritics in personal names.

  Lacking clear direction in WP:COMMONNAME, WP:HOCKEY is the place to look for guidance (when it comes to hockey players).

  Dolovis' previous behavior indicates that he is more or less begging for a page move ban. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC and WP:COMMONNAME are really relevant here. The RFC is about proper nouns generally and this is a case of proper names of living individuals, where there is an established practice. While you may be right that the letter of said policy fails to reflect this, WP:BURO should apply. It doesn't exactly sound like proper use of a policy page to stretch common names to cover common misspellings (for example, the Journal of Paleontology style guide lists "not putting in diacritical marks in foreign words or names" among common errors of grammar in English). Anyway, this is a behavioural issue and Dolovis's policy interpretation is no justification for his highly disruptive editing pattern. The user has been given more than a fair number of chances to change his behaviour, but once the AN/I threads get archived, the gaming of the system continues. Prolog (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That is surely your opinion, yet the community consensus at the RfC appears to be leaning the other way. I fail to see why it is ok for users to move pages to add diacritics to the title is ok, but to do the opposite is not. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the non-accented names are permissable or not, deliberately creating edit histories at the accented titles is an act of bad faith designed to give Dolovis a "competitive edge" in that his edits can't easily be undone by non-administrators. If that happens again it appears that a number of administrators are willing to indefinitely block him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In the 3 cases mentioned above, I have just deleted the history, and restored the second versions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you also do the same thing for Juha-Pekka Pietilä? HeyMid (contribs) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. 28bytes (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to read all of that after my simple notice. Please note: After reading the opening of the answer to my notice (please read) i've no more doubts in considering the bad faith... Thousands of articles with diacritics created years before my registration are my personal POV, of course... No comment, simply I consider it as a personal offense. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. In my experience, Dolovis consistently displays a battleground mentality when challenged, and as noted, is willing to game the system if he believes it will give him an advantage in a dispute. I stated last time that this editor will continue to make repeated appearances at ANI, and it is clear that his page move campaign is being considered disruptive by a consistently increasing number of editors. It behooves us to put an end to this behaviour. Resolute 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Dolovis has repeatedly been told to stop moving titles of player pages with diacritics to ones without diacritics (or using titles without diacritics when creating the pages). Dolovis' defense is that he is acting in accordance with WP:AT (specifically WP:COMMONNAME), however he does not mention the WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject notice compromise, which states that "All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required)". Dolovis has also repeatedly made "mistakes" and gamed the system by creating two revisions in the redirects to prevent non-admins from being able to move the articles. The diacritics issues with this user dates back to at least May this year. These issues with Dolovis have been brought up at AN and ANI a lot of times during the past few weeks. Enough is enough. HeyMid (contribs) 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  If I've understood correctly, this proposal does not prevent Dolovis from creating player articles with non-diacritics titles. Should we also prevent Dolovis from creating player articles with non-diacritics titles? Or is the purpose in that case that, if another user moves an article with a non-diacritics title to a diacritics one, Dolovis isn't allowed to move that article (back) without seeking consensus? HeyMid (contribs) 17:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be reasonable at this point to prevent Dolovis from creating articles, provided that the subjects comply with WP:BIO. His latest creations could appear to be a deliberate 'first move' to occupy the 'English' (read non-diacritics) namespace of borderline notables, and his concomitant creation and re-editing of redirect seems designed to reinforce that strategic high ground. This proposed page move ban is meant as a seriuz warning [sic] to desist now that his game plan has been exposed. He certainly shouldn't be allowed to move any page that has been moved to another namespace he disapproves of. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Dolvis has long history of conflict around page moves relating to diacritical marks. The comment above regarding a battleground mentality is highly appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Resolute is right on the money with his comments. His continued battleground mentality makes it hard for editors to work in a collaborative environment. He continues to try and game the system by creating redirects in two separate edits to prevent other editors from moving articles away from his preferred spelling. As Resolute said, he is being brought here by increasing numbers of different editors. There is a point where we have to say enough is enough he is causing too much disruption. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The fact that Dolovis' editing habits have been brought to ANI multiple times by multiple editors in itself is validity that he should receive such a ban. It is clear that this user has no intention of stopping his disruptive actions, and if this isn't dealt with now, someone else will ultimately bring the issue back to ANI is another few weeks. His recent behaviour of gaming the system is blatant disruptive editing, and this user is by far the most unresponsive editor to discussion I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. He has a standardized response to every question asked of him, suggesting he is following WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME, despite the fact that neither of these pages has substantively come to a decision on diacritics. Even when shown he is wrong, or misinformed, he either ignores the comment, shuts down a conversation, or again refers to AT or COMMONNAME. It is beyond my explanation how this user has been able to continue making such disruptive edits to Wikipedia for so long. He will undoubtedly come here as assert that the same "pro-diacritic" editors are ganging up on him, completely ignoring the fact that this is about disruptive editing, not diacritics. A page move ban was warranted months ago. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This user learned absolutely nothing from his previous appearance here. In fact, he could be deserving a total block, as he seems to constantly be in search of other ways to rid wikipedia of diacritics, e.g. entering the player name without diacritics in the third parameter to the hockeydb template, rationalising it with the fact that the Internet Hockey Database does not have diacritics. That is not the purpose of the third parameter – it is (mainly) used to lose the disambiguator. Also, a page move ban alone would not prevent him from gaming the system by editing redirects. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That is something which can be kept an eye on. Dolovis is already on a lvl 4 warning for disruptive editing. Now, where's the key to my banhammer case... Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Resolute. Plus all the drama, gaming the system, &c. (And also attempting to sneak in a policy change against consensus) bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - After reading this page and this oter... Per Prolog: gaming the system. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an eight-to-nothing majority for at least a page move ban. When can it be applied? Do we have to wait for a specific amount of time before applying the ban? Is anyone of the editors in support above an admin?

Dolovis has stopped editing for almost 8 hours now. This was his tactics the last time he was here; he had stopped editing, so there was no point in blocking him. Which made it all fade away as the page was archived. Let's not make the same mistake again. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry generally things like this wait long enough to give a good cross section of people a chance to comment. Most likely if anything is decided it won't be till tomorrow. Be patient. There are alot of people watching him now and the more this happens the more people he will have watching him so either his editing practice will change (this is my hope) or he will end up banned or something. So just sit tight. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

When? Generally this type of discussion should be open for at least 24h, to give people across all time zones a reasonable chance to comment. Any restriction will need to be logged at WP:RESTRICT, just so that there can be no claim of "what page move ban?". Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

After that 3 recent cases (moved by admins), there are lots of other pages having a redirect with diacritics with 2 edits: Jiri Hunkes vs Jiří Hunkes; Rastislav Spirko vs Rastislav Špirko; Pentti Noyranen vs Pentti Nöyränen; Tomas Sturala vs Tomáš Štůrala; Jakub Sedlacek vs Jakub Sedlaček; Antonin Boruta vs Antonín Bořuta; Peter Sivak vs Péter Sivák; Jiri Ondracek vs Jiří Ondráček; Pavel Kubis vs Pavel Kubiš; Bedrich Kohler vs Bedrich Köhler; Tomas Sykora vs Tomáš Sýkora; Max Warn vs Max Wärn; Ivan Rachunek vs Ivan Rachůnek; Peter Huzevka vs Peter Húževka; Petr Strapac vs Petr Strapáč; Jan Kana vs Jan Kaňá; Viktor Ujcik vs Viktor Ujčík; Jiri Burger vs Jiří Burger; Roman Malek vs Roman Málek; Petr Horava (ice hockey) vs Petr Hořava (ice hockey); David Ostrizek vs David Ostrižek; Zbynek Hampl vs Zbyněk Hampl etc (i've controlled from today still 28 June but the list is very longer). Some articles that have been created without their redirects with diacritics should be controlled (ex.: Petr Puncochar is Petr Punčochář -www.hokej.cz-, Petr Punčochář does not exists as redir). --Dэя-Бøяg 22:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a campaign. Are edits like this supposed to create the appearance of an edit history...? bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reply by Dolovis - The same editors are taking another kick at the can just 2 weeks after the previous proposed move ban discussion ended without a consensus for such a ban. This new proposed move ban is out of whack with the facts, so below I am listing all of my page moves made in the past 3 weeks (all 4 of them) so that reasonable and non-involved editors can look for themselves to determine if these 4 moves, all which conform to wiki-policy), should be considered disruptive. These are the 4 moves made by Dolovis since 27 July 2011:
• moved Dalibor Řezníček to Dalibor Reznicek (moved to article title per as verified by the majority of sources used in the article per WP:AT)
• moved Max Wärn to Max Warn (moved to article title as verified by all of the sources in the article per WP:AT
• moved Roni Ahonen to Rony Ahonen (moved to article title as verified by all of the sources in the article per WP:AT)
• moved Štěpán Koreš to Stepan Kores (moved to article title as verified by the majority of sources used in the article per WP:AT)

My page moves might be compared to User:Djsasso who during that same time has made 3 moves, all to diacritic titles:

• moved Petr Holik to Petr Holík
• moved Tomas Rachunek to Tomáš Rachůnek
• moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey)

or compared to User:Heymid who has made 5 moves during the same period (4 of them to diacritic titles):

• moved Eero Vare to Eero Väre
• moved Janne Karlsson to Janne Karlsson (born 1958)
• moved Juha-Pekka Pietila to Juha-Pekka Pietilä
• moved Timo Lindstrom to Timo Lindström
• moved Toni Kiren to Toni Kirén

or compared to User:HandsomeFella who made 9 moves (6 to diacritic titles):

• moved Ales Sova to Aleš Sova
• moved Antonin Melka to Antonín Melka
• moved Branislav Jankovic to Branislav Jankovič
• moved David Hruska to David Hruška
• moved David Kajinek to David Kajínek
• moved Dmitri Jaškin to Dmitrij Jaškin
• moved Dmitrij Jaskin to Dmitri Jaškin
• moved Lee M.E. Morin to Lee Morin
• ‎moved Scott Kelly to Scott Kelly (astronaut)

If there is going to be a moratorium on page moves it should apply to all editors equally. Dolovis (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider just reading this for the first time, it is clear to me that perhaps you don't understand what the problem is. Everyone above is complaining about how you are trying to remove diacritics from names. If my name was John Pečan, and I was worthy of a Wikipedia article, I would expect it would be under John Pečan, not John Pecan because that would not be my name and would be incorrect. There is no problem in having John Pecan redirect to John Pečan as many people surely would not know how to type the č character, but the article should not be housed at John Pecan.

On to my second point. You are comparing your four questioned page moves with page moves by other editors. None of these editors has removed a diacritic in any of these moves, actually moving many TO locations with diacritics. They are correct per my above paragraph. Your moves are taking articles away from a person's proper name and putting it under a generic search term. This isn't proper. This means I must now vote on the page ban proposal.

• Support CycloneGU (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply comment: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. If your name is "John Pečan" then your use of that name as the article's title must be verified by the sources used in the article. If your preferred spelling of the name cannot be verified, it should not be used. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Dolovis (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone's name is John Pečan and was a hockey player, there would be at least one source saying it (such as a player profile). Since most people writing articles on a computer Web site or in a newspaper would have difficulty with accents (the only one I personally remember how to type is é having used it a bit, but the rest I jumble up; I even copied the č character every time I typed it here), many sources simply will not include those accents in their articles that would qualify for us as sources. If this were a case of John Pecan vs. Jonathan Pecan, there would be something to determine by looking at sources; in an example like mine, diacritics would not be used by sources simply because they are difficult to use, and thus your argument is weightless. If one source says it, it's reasonable to assume it. You can't just change a person's name. CycloneGU (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would point out since I am mentioned that all 3 of those moves you point to that I made were reversals of your move per the BRD cycle that you like to flaunt so much. You can't yell at people for not following it and then complain when people do follow it. This is just another example of you being disruptive and trying to game things. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another outside view. Dolovis, forget about what WP:FOO or WP:BAR says, what other editors are moving or what you think is right. Multiple good faith editors have asked "you" to stop doing something so "you" should simply stop doing it. If you would have done that after the first or second move then we wouldn't be here. This doesn't mean that you can't argue your case but you may need to accept the fact that the answer may be "no". Also, adding to a redirect's history so a move can't be easily moved back is "dirty pool". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, he did ask for reasonable and uninvolved editors. I fit both criteria in this instance. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am involved, as the sponsor of the current RfC on diacritics use. I would also consider Dolovis' behaviour disruptive. He has been brought here on more than one occasion, so he can no longer claim that said page moves by him are uncontroversial. I really have difficult understanding his total about-change – he actually created articles with diacritics back in January, but now seems to want to wipe them off the face of the map. [126] [127] [128]

  Our policies and guidelines are essentially diacritics-tolerant, yet Dolovis is seeking to lawyer his way out of a page move ban with fanciful interpretations or cherry-picked arguments based on one strand in a guideline in a vacuum. In light of said tolerance, tugs of war involving the namespace must be considered edit warring based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In the case of the above examples cited by User:DerBorg, most are definitely in violation of project consensus at WP:HOCKEY. It has already been noted above that his moves are performed in a way that they cannot be undone without admin intervention.

  He has not stopped after previous warnings, it seems that his new game is to slow down the pace of execution, perhaps hoping to fly under the radar or avoid sanctions because of the small scale. In the absence of policy or guideline against use of diacritics, such controversial changes should not be permitted. Dolovis knows but refuses to accept this reality; he has shown he cannot control himself, so now he must be restrained. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment concerning User:Ohconfucius: Please note that in the past few hours, even while this discussion is on-going, Ohconfucius has made the following article moves:

• moved David Ostrizek to David Ostrižek (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved Jiri Hunkes to Jiří Hunkes (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved moved Rastislav Spirko to Rastislav Špirko (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved Petr Horava (ice hockey) to Petr Hořava (ice hockey) (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved Zbynek Hampl to Zbyněk Hampl (no sources in article verify new title)

Does anyone else see the not-so-hidden agenda displayed by some of the editors who support the ban? Dolovis (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So your strategy now is to try to deflect attention away from what you're doing and onto someone else? This isn't a thread about their actions in moving pages; this is about your page moves. Further, consensus is heavily against you on this, so address the concerns of myself and everyone else above instead of saying, "Well, everyone else is doing it wrong". CycloneGU (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Dolovis: Editors have said that this isn't about diacritics. If that is true, then moving four article in the past three weeks is not grounds for supporting a page move ban. If, however, this ANI is about diacritics (as many of the above comments imply) then placing restrictions on my ability to move article may serve to WP:BULLY me into capitulating to the POV that, contrary to the policy of WP:EN, non-English letters are preferred for article titles on English Wikipedia. My understanding of this policy is not unique or novel. This issue has been debated to death at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) with no consensus reached that would change the existing policy.

Ohconfucius' statement that I have “not stopped after previous warnings” is a misstatement of the facts. Two weeks ago the issue of article moves was vigorously discussed and no restrictions were placed on my editing (because it was noted that the page moves were made in accordance with policy, see WP:COMMONNAME, and because it was wrong to single out an editor on that issue). My edit history shows only 4 moves in the past 3 weeks – not the sign of an editor who cannot control himself.

I will repeat the facts for emphasis. The three page moves that I made to English letters was made pursuant to policy of WP:AT, WP:EN, and WP:V. In all three cases the sources in the article verify that the English form of the name is the commonly used form. As for the issue of “gaming the system”, I have heard the concerns and I promise to not create redirects (see WP:REDCAT) using multiple edits. I hope that this will settle the issue. Dolovis (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be established here. Dolovis is to be indefinitely banned from moving pages. Should he need to move a page, then it must be requested at WP:RM. I will inform Dolovis of this decision and log it at WP:RESTRICT. I would suggest that should Dolovis move any page after notification, escalating blocks starting at 48h should be used. Of course, any admin is free to impose a longer or indefinite block at their discretions. Dolovis, other editors have already called for you to face stronger sanctions that this restriction. I suggest that you do not try to game the system further, otherwise I fear that you will be shown the door. The ball is in your court. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis has been notified, and the restriction has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The close probably should have been done by an uninvolved - or at least not the proposing - admin; however, as an uninvolved admin, I endorse the close and I was in fact preparing to close it similarly myself.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• A few comments. Firstly, I was under the impression that ban discussions had to be open for at least 48 hours before they are closed (this is not wikilawyering, but merely me trying to understand how ban discussions work, this being the first one I have been involved in). I ask because I had left an initial comment defending Dolovis and by the time I next looked at ANI (about 24 hours later) the discussion was closed. Secondly, this discussion was closed not only by someone involved in the discussion, but by the editor who initiated the discussion and had previously initiated an identical ban proposal for the same editor. There are hundreds (thousands?) of admins and many of them do watch ANI; surely it was unnecessary for such a clearly involved admin to close this discussion. I'd appreciate it if an admin could leave a note on Mjroots's talk page asking him/her to have a re-read WP:INVOLVED. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As discussed above at least 24 hours is standard but the only real rule is long enough for consensus to develop. 24 hours gives enough time for all time zones to see it; that's the only reason for that otherwise arbitrary time. More time was not required because the consensus was clear. I was prepared to close the discussion before 24 hours was up but decided to let it run out and then I got called away. There was no change from when I had last looked at it until immediately prior to the close.
  • On the involvement of User:Mjroots: the consensus was so clear that any admin could read it. Unlike a deletion discussion or even a block, the closing editor in a ban discussion doesn't decide the ban and then implement it. He or she merely notes it. The community decides the ban. There is no real risk here and the only concern is the appearance of bias. In this case, the result was so obvious there is nothing that could have been misread by the closer. However, as noted, I was uninvolved. I endorsed the close and had actually been going to make the same close. Therefore, you can consider this close perfected and there is no issue here. You are free to mention this to User:Mjroots yourself; however, I see no need to, the user did nothing wrong really (and I'm fairly confident that user will read this post).  :-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your quick reply Doug. I have now read the banning policy and it does indeed say 24 hours. I should have read that policy before commenting that I thought it was 48 hours, so my apologies for that. In regards to Mjroots, the reason I asked an admin to leave a note is twofold. For better or worse, admins do have more authority than a normal editor such as myself and, secondly, it is clear from the above that I am inexperienced in ban discussions and I therefore don't really want to go around admonishing experienced admins in an area where I am clearly inexperienced. I will therefore take your word that a note to Mjroots would be unnecessary. To go off on a bit of a tangent, I disagree that the closing admin's role in deletion discussions is different to the admin's role in ban discussions. In both cases the community expresses its opinion and it up to the closing admin to evaluate what the consensus is (or if a consensus exists at all). I would agree that it is different to blocks, which are generally a single admin's judgement call (same case with CSD). Also, the appearance of bias can sometimes be extremely problematic. In this case, your endorsement has, in my opinion, reduced, but not fully removed, the appearance of bias. Then again, I obviously came into this discussion with a clear opinion, so perhaps my judgement should not be considered entirely neutral. Jenks24 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Jenks24, I don't bite! A note on my talk page would have been fine. I have noted the comments following my enactment of the restriction on Dolovis, and will endeavour to learn from the opinions expressed here on the subject. FWIW, any editor is free to propose such a restriction should it prove necessary. You don't have to be an admin for this, nor to express an opinion on the subject. In theory, any editor is free to enact such a decision too, but it is usually left to us admins to do. In this case, there was not a single objection from an uninvolved editor, so consensus was pretty clear-cut. The restriction is a better solution than Dolovis being blocked from editing entirely, which I note some editors were calling for. I'm sure he does useful work in his field, and I don't like to see any editor being blocked if it can be avoided. That said, I will block an editor if it is for the good of the project as a whole. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your reply, it is appreciated. I do understand that any editor is free to propose a ban and that any experienced editor is permitted to close such discussions. I would just ask if, in future, could you not close ban discussions that you have initiated. While the consensus was obvious in this case, it is better to avoid the appearance of impropriety, especially considering that there would have been many other admins willing to close the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects as well

Just to be clear here (and note that while I support the restriction, count me as another one who thought that the thread should have been left for at least another day for further commentary, and closed by someone who wasn't previously involved): does this extend to the creation of redirects? A big part of the problem is the creation of redirects at the accented titles with at least two revisions, preventing non-admins from moving pages. If page moves are banned, so should redirects be (at least redirects involving foreign characters). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no restriction on Dolovis creating redirects. However, the movement of a redirect is a page move, and as has been discussed above and notified to Dolovis, attempts to game the system (including by such methods outlined above) will be considered disruptive editing, for which sanctions may be applied. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand you are acting in good faith, but can you please let an uninvolved user have a read of the discussion and let them decide how widely or narrowly this can should be construed? Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I have made a note at Dolovis' talk page that any more creations of redirects in two or more steps will get him indefinitely blocked, as that is just disruptive editing. He has since indicated that he no longer will make such redirects in multiple edits anymore. However, if he would not be allowed to make any redirects, things would be worse than when he is allowed to do so. When he makes a new article for a name without the diacritics (which he is stil allowed to do), he should make the redirect from the diacritical version as well, as a service to the readers, and because chances are that that version is already linked from some articles, and also to reduce the chance of having two articles for one person (an error he has made in the past). A ban on the creation of redirects will not improve anything, and will have negative effects. Fram (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Fram. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone is stalking Cretog8

Resolved

 – Barak blocked the sockpuppet and issued a First/Final warning to Hisabness. I (or some other admin) will block if behaviour persists. Manning (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a large enough issue to raise here, but it looks like someone is stalking User:Cretog8 and using multiple accounts to do it:

• Hisabness (talk · contribs) looks like a bad-hand sleeper account that's just been activated to undo Cretog8's edits from the past few days.
• Cretog7 (talk · contribs) is an 'imposter' account that's just been banned.

Could wiser heads than mine have a look? Thanks, LK (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, definitely seems personality based. Barek already gave a First/Final Warning, I'll put the account on my watchlist and swing the hammer if further vandalism/wikistalking occurs. Manning (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be spam-like behavior. From what I can see, in response to Cretog8 removing a URL that Hisabness had added to multiple articles, Hisabness began reverting all edits by Cretog8 (Hisabness also has some deleted pages in his history for the site he had been adding). Shortly after I applied the 4im warning, the Cretog7 account was created and began restoring the url link - which I then blocked as an obvious sock or meatpuppet account. I've also listed the URL at WT:WPSPAM so that others on that wikiproject can review the additions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nihal Sri Ameresekere

Resolved

 – nom'd for speedy Manning (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)]]

Please some administrators verify the citation added today on Nihal Sri Ameresekere are all random.61.245.168.63 (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the usual forum for such matters; regardless you have a point. The article looks like a puffery piece and the two refs I followed don't support the text. I'll nom it for WP:SPEEDY and see what another admin thinks. Manning (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move issues?

I'm sort of new around here, but Againme (talk · contribs) has moved a bunch of pages lately without any discussion. Given that there's an ongoing RFC about using accent marks, is this a problem? Hot Stop (t) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

With the RFC (and the separate discussion regarding another user, above) still open, I'd say WP:UE still holds. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In doing this I am following current guidelines. And the current discussion is supporting current guidelines. --Againme (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The current guideline is to "follow the general usage in English reliable sources" and they generally don't use accent marks for Spanish names. Thus the move of several articles under the reasoning of "Born in Dominican Republic, +accent mark" on your part is invalid. Hot Stop (t) 21:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this. Most sources in English do not use accent marks at all. Wikipedia does. Regards. --Againme (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please actually have a look at that RfC, which is currently running 36–34 against the use of diacritics, unless supported by the majority of reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Naturalized Americans often don't retain their accent marks, so this move could be problematic, but otherwise Againme's edits seem to be in line with the standard practice and practically all English style guides. Prolog (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it shockingly hypocritical that only a few sections above a user has been banned from moving pages because they are removing diacritics in the few page moves they make and yet this editor is making a lot of page moves to titles with diacritics and it's considered to be ok. I'm not asking for Againme to be move banned, but a bit of consistency would be nice. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In my view, moving pages is in the area of bold revert discuss. Dolvis was asked to stop by multiple good faith editors and refused to do so. Againme was not asked to stop by anybody. The first indication that anybody had a problem with his moves was this thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You realize its not the to where he is moving the pages that is the issue right? Its how he is doing, how he is treating people, and his attempts to game the system by creating redirects in two steps which prevents anyone from reverting his controversial moves that are not an admin. Dolovis's issue is far more serious in that he is actively trying to be disruptive on purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One could easily argue that Againme is deliberately trying to be disruptive by moving articles en masse while the community discussion is yet to be concluded. Indeed, I have seen you make similar comments about Dolvis's disruption at RMs. I actually think the two cases are quite analogous. Dolovis was trying to push his/her point of view and Againme is trying to push his/her point of view (when neither points of view have a community consensus). Jenks24 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I would rather neither side of the issue move pages. (I personally only revert page moves and don't initiate them myself) I am just pointing out that Dolovis has from what I can tell a much longer history of it and has been asked by multiple different editors to stop and he continued. Its the redirect blocking that I think pushed Dolovis over the edge to a ban in my opinion. But I could be wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect blocking is what caused Dolovis to be move banned and I'm not arguing that Againme should be move banned. However, Againme's response to criticism of his/her unilateral page moves is remarkably similar to Dolovis's. I.e. instead of understanding that their page moves are clearly a source of contention, they both just argue why they are 'right'. Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor to keep an eye on perhaps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi you all. If it's such an issue, I can stop moving pages in the future and that should end the problem... Againme (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bing bing bing bing! We have a winner! (in other words, yes please) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by 62.162.182.170

I have received this personal attack on my talk page by the user 62.162.182.170:

you are not a macedonian, you have betrayed your country's people you should have removed everything to do with bulgaria you have brought shame iPod yourself and you country. You are no Macedonian. you are a lazy piece of shit gypsy loving greek asshole.

Here is the link of the actual message. Best, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"iPod yourself"? Is that supposed to mean something? FYI, I reported that jerk to WP:AIV, in case no action is taken here right away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he meant "upon yourself"... Againme (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably he meant to say that Macedonians in the days of Alexander the Great were not very good at using electronic equipment. I also loved how he made the same ethnic insults against two users whose ethnic background is exactly the opposite of each other. Well, anyway, they're blocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He corrected himself with that Ipod thing. That can be seen in his next edit of the same message. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Judging by User talk:A Macedonian, it looks like they're using a range of IP addresses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird editing by IP

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

It seems like they are intentionally creating unwelcome changes to see if they will stick and not get reverted. -- Avanu (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. But what are you looking for from an admin? You haven't reverted their changes, haven't placed a welcome-anon template on their talk page, haven't asked them. You also haven't notified them of this discussion, by the way. If those changes are no improvement, revert them and explain why, and take it up on the IP's talk page. For now, there is nothing here for an admin to do. Regards, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary of "Vandalism= Altered it to something objectionable so someone else could delete it" was particularly odd. -- Avanu (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That usually means someone is trying to witness/demonstrate the 'self-correcting nature of Wikipedia'. I did that once in front of an audience while giving a technology lecture back in 2004 (although I noted the fact on my talk page first so that the reverter knew what was going on). Manning (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the real odd thing is that it's not some simple idiotic kind of vandalism--it's a statement with what is undoubtedly an unreliable source, but it's not some insult or cussword or something. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat made at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports?

While patrolling Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, I noticed the report that was filed by IP user 81.170.179.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and I am concerned that it might be interpreted as a threat to seek legal action over the usage of the word "gypsy" in a particular article. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur that it crosses the WP:NLT line. It looks more like a knee-jerk reaction by a Roma than an actual statement of intent, but I consider NLT a bright line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, notice the possible threat that was made in the IP user's disallowed edit. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how Wikipedia is being "racist" when it's the name of a show. What's next, we have to censor the title of Richard Pryor's album Supernigger? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is stale, three hours ago from an IP. Unless the user edits again from the same IP, we can't be certain that a block would affect the same user or someone else if it's a dynaamic IP. I have it on my watchlist now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I blocked it for a week. I would have dismissed it except that the editor provided an email address, which makes me think it was serious. I've watched the IP's talk page and left instructions that the threat must be unambiguously retracted. If this was a registered account, I would have blocked indefinitely (which is standard practice) but we can't really do that for an IP that is likely dynamic. I don't consider any serious threat of legal action "stale" until it is retracted, especially after only a few hours. -- Atama頭 17:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the threat itself never becomes stale, my comment was regarding the source of the threat. If it is a dynamic IP, a block is meaningless and can potentially frustrate future users from that IP in the coming week. Until it's demonstrated to be a static IP or a range can be determined - I usually stick with RBI and short-term blocks when current activity is taking place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: I won't be unblocking myself at this time, but have the IP and the article involved on my watchlist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the history of the IP and this is the only edit, so I considered the risk to be minimal, but I do have the IP's talk page on my watchlist in case by some unfortunate coincidence someone else actually does try to edit using that IP in the coming week. -- Atama頭 18:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP. It is listed in nszones.com/dyn.asp JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's no indication of how dynamic it is. That same site lists my IP address as "dynamic", but the address only changes every few years. --Carnildo (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

True enough. I think it is better to err on the side of assuming an IP is dynamic than misidentifying it as static. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Harassment by ZHurlihee

This user has progressed from never having interacted with me to harassing me in a surprisingly short amount of time. After content disputes at Jamie Leigh Jones and False accusation of rape, this user filed a frivolous ANI report against me in which he canvassed a user with a long record of harassing me to come join, and subsequently stalked me to three articles ([129] [130] [131]) which he had never edited before in order to undo my edits. A number of the edits he reverted were also removals of BLP violations. Since the user removed my harassment warning claiming that "contribution histories exist for a reason," I'd appreciate some kind of indication that we do actually take harassment seriously here and that the purpose of contribution histories is not so that you can follow editors you don't like and revert them out of spite. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit was obvious baiting by Roscelese. The categories that were removed as a BLP violations were spurious as they had been in the article for years and had survived scores of edits. User contributions are trackable for many reasons, one of which being the ability to monitor problematic users like Roscelese. There was nothing vindictive about it. The other two edits, only one of which was a full revert, was explained in the edit summary. I agree that this tit-for-tat with Roscelese should end and am more than willing to make any effort to tone down the rhetoric but not at the expense of poorly sourced articles. Ironically, one of Roscelese edits that have conflicted with mine was the restoration of a quote not present in a cited source. An admin actually edited the article in question, which was protected, to remove the offending quote [132].

Dont know if what I did was canvassing, not really familiar with that, so if I am guilty of that I do apologize.

Perhaps I got off on the wrong foot with Rosceles, but attacks like this form Rosceles probably don’t help set a good tone. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

ZHurlihee again fails to mention in linking to the comment on his talk page that I said I would not make such comments again. (The same occurred in the frivolous report linked above.) I'd like these attempts to smear me to be considered along with the other evidence of harassment. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like both need to grow up and stop squabbling. Just an WQA over-spill. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Stalking is not a WQA issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

ZHurlihee has posed serious problems to many editors, he has completely ignored WP:OWN, WP:NPOV; WP:SOAP; WP:CIVIL. His history is full of conflicts with other editors, and he has been warned by an administrator to change his behavior. He has openly admitted to having a strong POV on the subject, he himself, has written on his talk page that:"But women lie about being reaped with a disturbing degree of regularity", but has later reverted this remark (please see the history), when others have pointed to this during his escalating conflicts. He is entitled to his own view on the subject but he is NOT entitled to slant WP articles, such as, among others, False accusation of rape, to fit his own agenda. His aggressive POV pushing has led him to conflicts with several people, but his behavior has not changed.Skydeepblue (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Due respect, Skydeepblue, this report isn't really about content - I agree that ZH's POV-pushing has been problematic, but what I'm really concerned with is his following me from article to article in order to harass me. I don't want to obscure this behavioral issue by bringing up specific content disputes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Long-term stalking by User:TomPhan through User:Sregor Ylloj

Sockpuppeter User:TomPhan has been banned by WP for stalking, harassment, and sockpuppetry of EPIC proportions (350+ sockpuppets and counting!!!) . He's been editing recently through open proxies which have been blocked through previous ANI incidents (See User:72.214.83.196, User:31.186.169.8, and User:188.121.41.9). Due to personal security concerns caused by actions of others IRL, I was forced to change my user name. This user has discovered my new name and has gone back to change my signature blocks to my old name. I find this to clearly be disruptive editing. He has also twice templated my talk page with warnings about civility this month alone.

This person's modus operandi fits previous editing patterns: make a few innocuous edits and/or comment on previous pages in which I participated in discussion and then lay into accusations and make edits with a CLEAR previous knowledge of WP, but denying that they are anything but noobs. In the past, this has devolved into accusations of murder (it was oversighted...oversight committee can verify if you wish).

This kind of harassment is completely uncalled for. Per previous edit history, I request an immediate block of this user and the underlying IP(s) through which he has been editing. Buffs (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this person looks through my edit history and takes contrary positions solely to cancel out my !votes. This is a long-term matter of spite. Buffs (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

One edit is quite obvious. I am proceeding to indef the user, pending any issues from other admins. However, I'll also put up an additional checkuser request to confirm your sockpuppet concerns and to reconfirm this block. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It annoys me that he's taken the time to establish an account and make enough edits not to be a noob and, therefore, be able to bypass the semi-protection on my talk page. Is there anything that can be done about this? Buffs (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we are going to take the time to establish that this is yet another sockpuppet, let me know and I'll add all the other "suspected" sockpuppets too. the clear disruption this person is causing should be made more clear. I do not expect this to stop any time in the near future (it's been 3 YEARS and counting). Buffs (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure to block the underlying IP as well (I'm willing to put down hard cash that it's an open proxy). Buffs (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do note that my block is only intended to be a protective block in response to your complaint and my interpretation of the same. This block will be reviewed by a checkuser and they may or may not overturn this block. While my block is in place, the underlying ips will continue to be blocked for a limited period only. Please wait till the checkuser report is completed for any other action. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. He will likely just go to another unblocked open proxy, but harassment from this account will cease. Buffs (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

IP editor threatining to "shutting Wikipedia down"

better things to do with your time than crack jokes on closed ANI threads, folks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – IP has been blocked by Jayron32. —Farix (t | c) 23:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC) After a good laugh over this threat to shut Wikipedia down if they didn't get their way in an edit war on Arrietty. I though I should bring this to an administrator's attention after seeing that the IP told another editor to "screw you"[133] after they were given warning relating to this edit on Saoirse Ronan. —Farix (t | c) 22:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I deleted the threatening section. LadyofShalott 22:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Well that made my day. =D I wish him luck in his endeavours to provide us with a permanent 404 error. I don't think he will succeed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I have also blocked this user. If someone can make a convincing arguement as to why they should be allowed to continue to edit, feel free to unblock them. --Jayron32 23:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I'm intrigued as to how he determined that wikipedia is 87 percent erroneous. Not 50 or 75 or even 85 or 90 - but 87. Maybe a "citation needed" there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I imagine with his post deleted it's dropped to 86.9999%. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 23:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC) *snort* causa sui (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I've gone ahead and move the references into the section instead of listed at the bottom. Hopefully that should stop any future non-sense of this type in this article. —Farix (t | c) 23:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I thought that number "87" sounded familiar. He's quoting Dilbert:[134] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I quite like the insult "hog-sucking clowns". I don't recall ever seeing that one before. Manning (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Yes. Give him a point for originality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I forgot about that, but yes, that comic gave me a laugh when I first saw it. =D CycloneGU (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Altogether the best read I've had in ages. And edit warring on Arrietty?? What next? Tiny lawyers bearing tiny writs? Haploidavey (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the giants will invade next? CycloneGU (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I like how the IP is impressively registered to a government resource, but when you click to their website it looks like a comical A7. --Σ talkcontribs 05:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A friendly word with Gorrrillla5

Resolved

 – A friendly word was left Manning (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please have a friendly word with Special:Contributions/Gorrrillla5 to tell them to stop flagging every edit they make as a minor edit ? A number of their "minor" edits have been problematic and have been reverted multiple times (e.g. [135] + [136]. I contacted them about it here but they just carried on. I remember that there used to be a preferences setting to mark all edits as minor by default. Perhaps he had that switched on. I can't see that option anymore so maybe he can't switch it off. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Manning (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:CommunistPaqqq and User:JohnnyJorringer

User:CommunistPaqqq and User:JohnnyJorringer (who may or may not be the same person) have recently vandalized the Style Invitational article to add nonsense. JohnnyJorringer claimed he was Style Invitational member Trevor Kerr, although according to Trevor this is not true. CommunistPaqqq claims he is Tom Witte (another SI frequent winner). I have not confirmed this with him yet. They do not appear to be active in any other articles. I do not know if they are sockpuppets of eachother or not, but there is definite vandalism. Please take action. I apologize if this is not the correct procedure. Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

JohnnyJorringer's edits were a full month ago and CommunistPaqqq hasn't edited since being reverted and warned. This isn't in need of immediate administrative intervention. Follow the usual procedure (escalated warnings followed by a post at WP:AIV) if it starts back up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-credible User Performing Multiple Vandalism

resolved|IP editor is trolling us, and has been blocked. I haven't looked at Shotballcaller's history; if someone wants to they can, my suspicion is that he's uninvolved and just being impersonated. If editor starts popping up on related IP's, suggest either RBI or a range block from someone who knows how. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Upon looking further at this thread, I think a range block is in order now; I just don't know how to do them. Any takers? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Myasuda (talk · contribs) looks like Non-credible User Performing Multiple Vandalism to undo many valid users' edits from the past few months. Myasuda numerous edits from the past few days, to include:

List of Asian Americans and multiple other pages, which indicates users' serious vandalism, non-verifiable data and deleting some accurate information.

• Myasuda (talk · contribs) has been performing biased claims, indirect terror & threat comments towards at least 4 users, therefore indication of lack of credibility.
• Myasuda (talk · contribs) is an 'imposter' account that should be banned, or at least warned, before it becomes more destructive.

IP:223.255.226.143 (talk) by: Vorapat Shinawatra 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note - Absolutely not a vandalism-only account. No warning to Myasuda, no reporting of this AN/I thread to them, no diffs of alleged bad behavior. You need to notify Myasuda, for one thing; note that your AIV report filed minutes before this one was declined and you have exactly seven edits from this IP. Credibility can be important. Doc talk 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Reporter had an ANI filed against hir a couple of days ago which no one responded to; based on the evidence there (and the lack of evidence here), it looks like a pretty clear WP:BOOMERANG to me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Self promotional? Apparently noone is doing self-promotion in this case. This is quite a puzzling logic. We're talking about reports about registered user tampering with valid, accurate datas about notable figures. Hence 'unwarranted accusation' is done by Myasuda.

I found another vandalism by Myasuda : Hikaru Nakamura, turned out to be inaccurate edits, fixed by FIDE representatives. There 27 more instances of vandalism or sporadic, strange edits recorded, apparently directed towards certain users, individuals and/or figures, for reasons we're not sure about. FYI, on his note, the user/ Myasuda admitted about silliness he performed. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 14 July 2011 (UTC) 05:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've informed Myasuda for you, Shotcallerballerballer. If that is your real name. Doc talk 06:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Shotcallerballerballer - The non-admin Roscelese is absolutely correct in her assessment regarding the WP:BOOMERANG risk you face here (I AM an admin, by the way). Bottom line - You are engaged in a VERY minor content dispute. I have reviewed all of Myasuda (talk · contribs) recent edits and they are certainly NOT disruptive in any way - in fact this user appears to be a model Wikipedian with many years of valuable contributions. Hence I strongly recommend you quit shouting "vandalism" and "non-credible user" on our page, as we don't much care for such tactics. Manning (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. There are thousands of other model Wikipedians of many years of contributions, some of them are registered and unregistered. We can't undermine that fact. This is open-source project and we need to be objective and careful. We can't let systematic, disruptive behaviors or users with seemingly good at the surface, with hidden motives puts Wikipedia in jeopardy. Some users and my friends (fellow wikipedians) indicate from evidences that even some registered users may have psychological issues, imbalances or faults, talking in general terms. About specifically Myasuda, apparently seeing his edits, it became clear he consistently has certain hatred/sentiment towards certain users, races, thoughts, expressions or notable figures which needs to be noted and corrected, because it could impair objectivity. -Patrick Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 14 July 2011 (UTC) 06:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Two quick things here for Shotcallerballerballer, the above is an obvious personal attack and parting shot on the character of Myasuda, I suggest you revert yourself here. And if you are indeed SCBB, why aren't you signing in to your account? This seems a bit confusing. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Shotcallerballerballer - I looked at about 15 diffs by this user and found nothing objectionable or disruptive. If I missed something, then by all means provide a WP:diff. Until then, making statements like "he consistently has certain hatred/sentiment towards certain users, races, thoughts, expressions or notable figures" is dangerously close to earning you sanctions for violating WP:NPA. I advise you to refactor immediately. Manning (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

One-sided and bias isn't Wikipedia. Dear Manning, please take a look at previous entry by Myasuda at this page with his accusations to several users. We will see who actually performed personal attacks first. Stay objective and calm. IP:223.255.226.143 (talk) by: Vorapat Shinawatra 7:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

To the IP - I have looked and found nothing objectionable. Please provide a DIFF of these alleged attacks. Until then, we are unable to make any judgement. Manning (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to fellow admins - I've only just noticed that the 223.255.226.143 (talk · contribs) is actually the one who is making ALL of the above comments, and he/she has been manually tagging their comments so as to make them appear as being from Shotcallerballerballer (talk · contribs). This latter user might be completely uninvolved. Further investigation might be warranted (I have no time, sadly). Manning (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not too quickly make conclusion. All users should get fair treatment and both User:Shotcallerballerballer and User:Myasuda should be investigated further if necessary. This discussion should be objective.

---

Here is how some Wikipedians behave on 223.255.226.143 page which is immediately deleted by non- credible user to hide the truth, which looks like a pretty clear WP:BOOMERANG to me, and shows this case is not objectively reviewed:

Please do not sign your signature as another user. If you are that user, either log in or sign under your IP by using four tildes 223.255.229.19 (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC). Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC) <====Unwarranted accusation & WP:BOOMERANG

My name is Vorapat and my IP is 223.255.226.143. Never signed in as another user, clearly stated above this page.

Really? Bullshit. --Calton | Talk 09:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC) <====WP:NPA Violation & WP:BOOMERANG

1. Making statements like "Really? Bullshit" is clearly earning you sanctions for violating WP:NPA if Wikipedia admins really exist, credible and fair. Otherwise we will take this issue seriously. My name is Vorapat Shinawatra - IP 223.255.226.143 based in Thailand, living in Singapore and Indonesia. Shotcallerballerballer is represented by Patrick Shaughnessy, based in France, living in SE Asia.

2. We are fellow Wikipedians. We have registered accounts. For this issue, logging in using our account or not, that is our rights and it is not obligations or legally mandatory according to any law or rules.

3. Be careful.

Anymore questions?

---

-DAHotz — added by 223.255.229.19 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The evidence doesn't bear out the claim that the IP is based in Thailand. Investigation reveals a /21 IP range registered to "PT Hutchison CP Telecommunications", an ISP in Djakarta, Indonesia. That range encompasses all the IPs being discussed in this thread. Remote access is a possibility, of course. But experience tells me this is likely a dynamically-assigned IP range being accessed by a single user. This would appear to be borne out by the apparent altering of posted signature blocks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional: The IP editor has now apparently taken to refactoring and/or editing others' comments in this thread in a clear attempt to masquerade as those other editors, for purposes of misdirecting or misleading admins. I think it's time for the heavy end of the hammer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

To back up the above comment, here are two diffs. I found: first attempt and second attempt. I think a ban is in order before this IP heads to my talk page, which is likely next since I'm piping up (and I'm watching it now). =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, one case of the fake signature just to put evidence together: whammo. CycloneGU (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And now I see it's already blocked. I'm slow. =P CycloneGU (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99 is back (again)

Good morning! I've opened this thread cause I'd like to inform the administrators that banned User:Stubes99 is still online on en.wikipedia. His new IP socks are:

• 84.2.169.15 - edits on the usual article Ottoman Hungary (formerly edited by his socks Bestadvancer, Moneycreator etc) from a typical IP (former socks from this range were : 84.2.22.23684.2.22.23984.2.152.14284.2.201.13384.2.120.173)
• 84.0.91.240 - edits on the usual article Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, previousy protected against his attacks, from a typical IP (former sock from the range 84.0.91.xx was: 84.0.91.50, with many other socks from the more general range 84.0.xx.xx)
• 78.92.106.49 - edits on the usual articles Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages and History of Hungary (previously edited by his socks Brainerage, Moneycreator etc) from a typical IP (former socks from this range were : 78.92.104.4178.92.105.250 78.92.106.49)

Can you please block & revert this IP socks and analyze the possibility of setting a WP:RANGE or long-term semi-protections of his favourite articles? (Daccono (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

This is also something that could be handled at WP:SPI. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Serial harrassment of a newish editor

Resolved

 – Page was protected by Courcelles. Manning (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ymblanter (talk · contribs) is obviously a target of serial harrassment, with his talk page being plastered with disgusting personal attacks and also some threats. Is there anything that can be done to put a stop to this? Perhaps at the very least semi-protect his talk page? --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The only person doing the harassing was blocked for 24 hours on July 10, and has not returned to do the same thing. What else would you like? It's up to the editor to remove messages they consider offensive at this point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, are you actually looking at edits which myself and others have been reverting in the last few days?

• Dirty son of a local prostitute, bastard of burglar and peace of junk food
• == I know where you live == So I will come and try to sell something chinese and useless to you!
• Tu suka! Greetings! - Tu suka = You bitch!

etc, etc, etc. This isn't harrassment? Hmmmm. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Page has already been protected, and the harrassment edits deleted from the history, per the listing at RFPP. --Taelus (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(Link to RFPP listing for convenience.) --Taelus (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad ... saw enough negative issues to start with, looked resolved ... didn't go deeper. Nice to see you back, Taelus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The first two insults at least show some creativity. Kind of like a Japanese version of the French knight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not exactly a new editor, as he is a global rollbacker. My guess is that is why he was attacked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

He is being attacked because he banned numerous general pains in the ass on ruwiki, and has come across to enwiki to edit in peace. As one can see, he is not being allowed to have this opportunity due to harrassment. I have a sneaking suspicion who is responsible for the campaign on ymblanter. Funnily enough, they are now signing up for usernames, and are trying to pull the same crap on my talk page. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions

ArbCom have reimposed a general topic ban: see here for any further followup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – No consensus to remove restrictions from Delta/Betacommand. I read through the entirety of the discussion, and find no plausible consensus to overturn or modify community imposed sanctions. I advise administrators to continue to follow the instructions in the community decided editing restrictions. Keegan (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Note: if you wish to comment about Δ and other editors removing images from articles on claimed WP:NFCC grounds, please do so via the link below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Extremely long conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011. Moonriddengirl (talk) Nothing against Moonriddengirl, but if history has shown us anything, it's that the best way to make a complaint or proposal as regards Delta remain "unresolved", it's to dump it in his own personal ANI sub page (which for some inexplicable reason, he gets to personally set the archiving parameters of), which has never achieved anything in its long long existence except sweep his ongoing issues under the carpet. If there is any admin out there with the gumption to do so, please go and close those proposals affirmatively, with a proper summary, addressing all concerns & comments. I shouldn't have to say, but on past experience I need to, this shouldn't be an admin who has commented in the discussion either way, or has an identifiable undue interest in NFCC as a topic of debate either way. And while your at it, will one of you please, at the third time of asking, go and close the well overdue Rfc on banknote images at Talk:Non-free content, because Delta is still seeking to claim even in the backdrop of ANI threads about is his behaviour in NFCC enforcement, that the consenus on such things is unsurprisingly, how he wants to assert it is, rather than how it proveably is through actual discussion of the actual issue, by editors other than his select band of self appointed NFCC experts/enforcers. To leave these sorts of things unclosed when Delta's chosen approach continues to be a cause of such division, is frankly inexcusable. And despite what is claimed there, in circumstances like banknotes articles, how much is 'too much' as regards WP:NFCC, is an issue for en:wiki consensus alone, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Foundation or its resolution, unless or until they make a specific comment on specific usage situations, which they never have, and never will, for understandable reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC) It's not a bad way to organize things when a single issue overwhelms a discussion page. For what it's worth, that discussion can and should stay open until it is resolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Seriously...we finally get a clear majority on a proposal and we have someone derail the conversation with an improper close, and then I come back and someone has moved it off the noticeboard to a subpage. If we'd let the conversation go we might have actually got a resolution now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Doesn't this need a future date to keep it from scrolling off?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC) It might now. It didn't when I did it, though, because I used three tildes. :) MickMacNee, sorry if this squelches conversation in any way; it's not my intention, but 300,000 bytes on ANI is just too much. :/ It was over 2/3rds of the page. Crossmr, it's standard to remove conversations that overwhelm this page; that's why the instructions for doing so are right there at the top, under "How to use this page". --Moonriddengirl (talk) I've moved the latest comment about the situation to the subpage. I will be moving any conversation that belongs at that subpage to it, unless there is consensus to restore the whole 300,000+ bytes to ANI. It's inappropriate to fracture it and have conversation in two places. Moonriddengirl (talk) I'd suggest that this was a sub-optimal but perfectly understandable response. Yes, the page was getting huge, and was totally domination this page. However, as has been noted above, past indications are that subpaging leaves only the "partisan warriors" involved. (I'm not just talking about pages realting to Betacommand, but other editors perceived-by-some-as-problematic who've been "subpaged" as well.) The topic ban discussion was preceding independent of the squabbling, I'd like to see that section restored. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Also, can we agree on some naming convention or something to make these easier to find/organise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC) If consensus emerges to support the now 354,000 bytes of this conversation to take over ANI, then, certainly, we should restore the entire conversation. Restoring a single section would be a bad idea, as it does not give a complete overview of the conversation to anybody stumbling upon it now. But, respectfully, if ANI has never been able to resolve issues with Δ, then perhaps ANI is not the best forum for it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I wish to highlight this person aswell, I have tried to come to middle ground he just point blanks reuses, I have even moved the pic and cut them back to how there were done for the PAST 18 MONTH, so either he off his head of wiki have never cared before? I have stated in talk page and each pic talk description aswell, yet there not good enough, I have state there needed to better explain page, I also found its DAM cheek him he the one that in the edit war AND also placing the warning to me, Judge and jury?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) I think we need a bit of organisation here. We seem to have various Delta/Beta subpages spread out. Heck, the Delta/Beta archive pages aren't even all subpages of the same parent. I totally agree with moving all this stuff to different pages, so the rest of ANI can flourish, but the way it is at the moment is all very confusing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorsal Axe (talk • contribs) I have no idea what on earth this means, but it does not help me, and also seams that if this Admin is correct then for the past 18month, umpteen admins have failed in the duties. Previous subpages Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 2 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 3 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 4 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 5 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 6 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry Reverting of subpage Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Subpaging. In support of the principle above (which I objected to!) I attempted to move the sanction-lifting proposal to the subpage, but was reverted by Beta. I'm cross-posting both to add the timestamp, also because I consider this an "incident" and I'm requesting adminstrator action: Either move the new proposal to the subpage or bring the old one back, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I think it was highly inappropriate for the subject of this ongoing ANI thread to fracture the conversation by starting a new section at AN, and I have said as much at AN. Since he reverted your subpaging his new thread and since there is some disagreement from evidently involved (I haven't had time to check deeply), I've transcluded the subpage to AN so that everyone can see the entire history of that conversation. (ETA: Had to reduce that to a link, as an e-mail I received informs me that it is creating load issues...which is why it was subpaged to begin with.) Moonriddengirl (talk) Cross posting from Edit warring noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 Sorry for the crossposting, but this discussion is everywhere... I've placed a notice at the edit warring noticeboard concerning Delta. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Any uninvolved administrators left? We have a proposal on the subpage that has been open for 6 days. It' has a nearly 2/3's majority support, and the support has actually grown since it's been subpaged. At some point we need someone to step in enact the proposal that the community has clearly supported and clearly given plenty of time to considering.--Crossmr (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Community sanctions are imposed through consensus. A "nearly 2/3's majority" obviously means "no consensus". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I regrettably agree with that; however, the circumstances, increasing numbers of supporting administrators, and clear overwhelming majority opinion (short of the usual 80% community consensus standard for such cases) basically require that we file an arbcom case to enact that outcome now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC) There is no hard line of 80% at Wikipedia:CONSENSUS. It's currently at around 29/17 or 32/17 depending on exactly how you count it (3 users seem to support, but didn't explicitly label their comments support), which shows far more than a simple majority. This isn't some 18/17 split, and the discussions has obviously been trending towards support, in the last 5 days the discussion has run 9/3 in favor of support.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As the proposer there I have an obvious bias in favor of the proposal; I also have, as an uninvolved administrator done a lot of community consensus closes. I would not close this one, at this time, as enacted. One might relist it to gather additional input, but that's already been effectively done by the high profile nature of the case. Arbcom exists in large part to deal with situations "stuck in the middle" sufficiently that the consensus criteria can't be met. The supermajority we have here justifies action, but not community consensus enactment of the topic ban. It does justify a "community patience exhausted" arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Then as the proposer will you file this?--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Georgewilliamherbert is right: none of the proposals in the subpage, pro-Δ or anti-Δ, have reached consensus or are likely to. 28bytes (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC) How could they when they're closed/shuffled around and constantly disrupted? However, I still don't see anything in consensus that necessitates an 80% majority, nor even a supermajority. What I do see is a rather clean unambiguous majority supporting a ban.--Crossmr (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comment: the strength of consensus needed depends a bit on the severity of the sanctions being discussed. The proposal was an indefinite topic ban with limited exceptions for discussion: "Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals. This does not apply to policy discussions or development." Consensus for that is debatable (though getting there). But I would suggest that consensus is strong enough to support my more limited version: "make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed." This gets to the core of the matter, and ensures that things like the current proposals for Delta disambiguation fixing and NFCC 10c notification are unaffected. It would seem to me a highly constructive compromise; perhaps a brave admin is willing to declare it. Otherwise, Arbcom could be asked to pass it as an interim measure or something. PS As part of the discussion about a bot Delta has already said "If this is implemented I will stop my mass removals for six months...", while in the subpage discussion some exceptions for the "no removals" approach were suggested. On both counts, simplicity wins: "no removals" is simple to follow and simple to enforce - and given the vast amounts of collective energy expended on enforcement around these issues, that counts for a lot. Rd232 public talk 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Except people weren't indicating their support for your version so you can't use their support for a different thing. Delta's proposal, and his offer, is frankly insulting "I'll stop being disruptive if you grant me this exception". That simply cannot fly. Him stopping his disruption can't be based on the community granting him an exception. With that statement he's acknowledging that he knows his behaviour is disruptive and doesn't have full consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Crossmr, Nothing will ever have full consensus. What I stated was I would stop mass removals for 6 months to see if the talkpage tagging and DaB repair system was effective, if they are not, Ill continue, removal is the most effective method for solving NFC issues. ΔT The only constant 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) No, it isn't. Effect simply cannot be measured by how quickly you reduce the amount of non-compliant images, because there is a far more reaching effect to your behaviour. The effectiveness is greatly reduced when you enter into conflicts, piss off users, chase them away from the project, needlessly edit war, and remove some (not all) images from articles that should in fact actually have them. You've had dozens, possibly hundreds of users try to explain this to you over the years.Nowhere does it indicate in NFCC that you must do those things. Those actions are entirely your own choice.--Crossmr (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC) "so you can't use their support for a different thing" - yes, a completely different thing, apples and oranges. No wait, they're both fruit, that's too similar. Moondust and crocodile clips? No, they're both physical objects. Frogs and fridays? Well anyway, completely different. There's just no way that a near-consensus for a fairly complete indefinite topic ban could be translated by way of compromise into consensus for a lesser, time-limited topic ban that enables productive solutions to be explored. No way. So, best do nothing, as usual. (Heck, in this case, if Delta's bot happens and he puts mass removals on hold, it may not work out too badly.) Rd232 public talk 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC) For what it's worth, though I didn't say so in the community ban proposal, I think Rd232's proposal in conjunction with Beta's proposal is entirely acceptable as far as I am concerned. It was extremely healthy for Rd232, as someone else who wasn't otherwise closely involved, to propose alternate solutions that might have more community support. It would take a very bold uninvolved admin to close and enact that under the circumstances, but perhaps such does exist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Crossmr states that the proposal was "constantly disrupted" yet still wants the ban to be enacted. ? With respect, doesn't make sense. I noted before in that debate, and will repeat here; if you want to enact a ban on Δ, then start an RfC where evidence can actually be laid out, responded to, and considered in a fair and equitable way. This scattering across multiple boards, with closings/unclosings, etc. isn't yielding a proper process to cause someone to be banned for anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, because despite the disruption there is still clear support for it. Delta discussions generally generate huge amounts of respondents, except when people do things like that have been done here. If people thought it was going to take 70 or 80 people to make the decisions, they really shouldn't have done what they did, however we still have a very clear majority. I've twice posted several incidents of Delta inappropriately responding to users and causing conflict with his behaviour. There is plenty of evidence of his on-going issues when handling NFCC disputes.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Do you see what you're saying? Despite the disruption? Do you not see that the disruption has made the discussion completely invalid? Last I bothered to check, there was a clear majority to remove one of his restrictions. Should we apply that too? The best bet for your own sake if you want his head on a pike is to start an RfC. That will carry clear validity if it holds to uphold the additional sanctions you keep begging for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) An RfC is pointless. The years of discussion we've had has been an RfC. An RfC is a non-binding process that drags on for months and means nothing. Last I checked there is no support remove any restrictions. There was support to grant an exception for a specific task, that isn't remotely the same thing. The proposal was supported before it was moved to the sub-page, the majority wasn't as big, but it still existed.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) A note about User: Δ / Betacommand I've resolved the latest conversations as no consensus and we keep in place community sanctions. I'm quite tired of hearing "we ignore them" or "this user gets away with (fill in the blank)". No matter who the user is, if they are under ArbCom or community sanctions and edit in a way that violates the ruling, administrators need to uphold the ruling and block if need be, or no block at all/unblock if the situation is outside the scope. We have community sanctions for a reason. Keegan (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Not that I'm not neutral in the whole affair, but for gods sake, can we please not say or do anything related to Delta at this or any other noticeboard until the ArbCom Motion is over. I don't care if he sets the server farms in Tampa on fire, keep it off of every other page and take it to the ArbCom motion page. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Concur with Svan (and I'm not neutral in the whole affair either). Let's let the ArbCom ruling continue and see what happens of it. Short of appealing to Jimbo himself, this matter is already at WP's Supreme Court. Additional discussion here is pointless. Buffs (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Laughs ...Svan? Err... alrighty then. I don't know why that's hilarious, but it is. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the topic-ban discussion isn't marked as resolved. Keegan, was your intent to do so? Hobit (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I think it was, but since he hasn't specified, I closed it. Regards, causa sui (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I've queried this, see the sub-thread closure section. MickMacNee (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Closing this Arbcom resolved the motion to topic ban Delta from NFCC enforcement. Are we done here for now? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Since the 10th, the only activity on the subpage has been closing threads, so I'd say yes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi

Chesdovi (talk · contribs), who has been topic banned from Arab/Israel-conflict related pages, [137] and is involved in a long and heavy discussion where I am his main opponent on this Cfd and discussions that preceded it, has read one of my arguments, and in order to make his point (WP:POV, WP:POINT, WP:PUSH, WP:TE and WP:REICHSTAG) has now embarked on a spray of already some 50 edits, removing Category:Jews by country and replacing it by Category:Jews by region (or subcategories of the latter). As in this edit. His point being that Category:Palestinian Jews should be in Category:Jews by region rather than Category:Jews by country, although the four pages currently in this category clearly prove that the latter is correct, as has been consensus since the creation of this category in December 2006. Please stop this. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I have been advised on WP:WQA to report this editor for violating his topic ban on WP:AE, but have been reluctant to do so, for the reason I explained there. I think these additional edits show that enforcement might be the only option remaining to stop this editor from making non-consensus changes to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The definition of 'Palestinian Jews' and 'Palestinian Rabbis' does not at first glance have anything to do with the Arab/Israeli conflict. The Palestinian Talmud dates from 400 CE and thus preceded the Arab/Israeli conflict. If these are not ARBPIA topics, then 'enforcement' under WP:ARBPIA is not an option. Curiously, supporters of one or the other real-world side on real ARBPIA disputes see the term 'Palestinian' and then get into predictable positions on these other controversies. This doesn't seem to be enough reason to change our criteria. However, admins could block Chesdovi (or yourself) for disruptive editing if they think that either of you is not carefully listening to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when one of the arguments brought by many editors is the confusion between modern use of the word "Palestinian" as opposed to e.g. the Roman province "Palestina", then the connection becomes more readily visible. If, in addition, Chesdovi accuse me of being "anti-Palestinian" and having a "strong Zionist POV", then this becomes even more relevant.

In addition, the first paragraph mentions a spray of edits to make a point. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? I'd say that is rather disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As Ed said, they are bound to overlap, but the issue at hand is the 16th-century, long before the I/P conflict. And I did not call you "anti-Palestinian", but rather anti-"Palestinian" when it comes to Jews, which is not an accusation, but your stated position. And I would have thought acknowledging someone's seemingly strong zionist ideals would be taken as a compliament if anything. You have not denied you are a Zionist. Do you find the label offensive? If so, why? Remember Deb, its okay to have strong POV's. It's what makes the world interesting. Chesdovi (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider myself sympathetic to the regular Israeli Zionist ideals, rather to the contrary, so yes, I do find that offensive. I appreciate your explanation, that you mean 'anti-"Palestinian"'. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I also oppose the basic zionist ideal of establishing by force a jewish national home in Palestine. See, we can actually agree on something. Now please forgive me for ever assuming you were a zionist, but that was the only explanation I could think of of why you are opposed to calling Jews who lived in Palestine Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course we do agree on some things, and have agreed on things in the past. But that does not contradict that I hold you are a disruptive editor. Which is why I opened this thread. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think you are a disruptive editor that's why I opened a thred on you also. See, not only do we sometimes agree, we also think we're the same! Chesdovi (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to change the topic, but didn't we have another Jew-related category discussion involving the same user two weeks ago? CycloneGU (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. There have been a number of Cfd's on Jewish topics recnetly. Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We did, this one. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi has exhibited similar behavior before, when he was warned not to continue creating the "Palestinian rabbis" category tree. [138] This editor does not know what it means to await consensus, or even what consensus is: the fact that editors disagree with him, does not make him budge the slightest. And the same is happening again on Cfd. [139] I see no option but to block this editor. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Extremoz

User:Extremoz continuously removes a section of Eleni_Papadopulos-Eleopulos that they do not agree with, despite consensus on the talk page and attempts to engage in discussion. As well as that, they have proceeded use legal threats for slander and the like on Talk:Eleni_Papadopulos-Eleopulos#Dr.3E_Eleni_Papadopulos, despite multiple warnings to remain civil and not to do so, as well as a friendly attempt at intervention by an uninvolved admin. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the Talk page, I see Extremoz trying to shove an unverified claim down everyone else's throats despite being told multiple times of the requirement for proper sourcing. I do not, however, see a direct legal threat; only the comment that "the courts protect private individuals". Extremoz is still cruising for a block based on POV-pushing and soapboxing, but that's it as far as I can see. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, "Everyone of you, who has contributed to this article and Wikipedia Investors, who has contributed to it has violated every Wiki "standard" and should facing slander charges". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I probably blipped past it since he (I'm presuming it's male) obviously doesn't know the difference between slander and libel. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for legal threats; we'll see what happens. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If an eye could be kept on the IP making this edit [[140]] that would be good too, as it seems pretty clear to be our friend. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All good - someone already blocked the IP (I didn't check who). Manning (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with an enthusiastic deletion tagger

Resolved

User:Assassin's Creed is a relatively new editor who has gotten very into deletion tagging - of all sorts: speedy, prod, and AfD - lately. Sometimes he gets it right on the nose; sometimes the articles are deleted but for different reasons, and sometimes they just should not be deleted at all. These deletion tags are often placed within a very few minutes of an article's creation, and may be accompanied by e.g. claims that an article is an autobiography, when there is nothing to suggest that situation. I believe AC is working in good faith, and I and several other editors have tried to educate him on better deletion practices and suggested slowing down, participating in AfD discussions, and following the edits of more experienced editors. (See AC's talk page for evidence of this.) Concern remains about his editing style, however, and in discussion on my talk page, concern has been raised about the effect on other newbie editors of his erroneous tags. I am not sure how to proceed at this point. Would removing Twinkle priviledges to slow down the tag rate be helpful/the next logical step? LadyofShalott 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur that AC may be working a little too quickly. I've picked up on a couple errors. To their credit, the two problems I raised were responded to fairly quickly, and neither were immediately obvious, but in both cases, it didn't take much investigation to see that the situation wasn't as simple as it appeared.--SPhilbrickT 22:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that the user in question seems to have an enthusiasm for achieving a high edit count quickly, and that some of their tagging with Twinkle has indeed confused and upset at least one other new contributor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just put the tags to only illegal articles you can check my tagged articles that, 85% of them are correctly tagged and had been deleted, I think actually I am new patroller and I'll be understand all tagging criteria as time pass. I really try to tag correctly as I see any issue about that article, but I don't know why it happen wrong. Now I have to work slow on it because of this issue, I'll also be experienced one day as you, I think you were also done mistakes first time and many times when you were a new patroller. As above I want a little bit to make quickly edits but it is not an issue for my this work, now what I have to do for this issue.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to blame a system that allows completely new and inexperienced users to patrol pages, and not those who use it in good faith. New Page Patrol is a trainwreck for the very reason that it is open for absolutely anyone to do - ironic when we have the completely useless user right of 'reviewer'. In spite of all our efforts to monitor, gather statistics, and evaluate it, new page patrolling is still mainly a target for very new and inexperienced users. I suggest one final reminder with a request that the editor refrains from patrolling until they have read WP:NPP and WP:DELETE, and WP:CSD. We don't have incremental warning templates for mistagging - we only have notices. I further suggest that if the editor does not make a voluntary break in patrolling, they should be warned that 3 more mistagged CS may result in a topic ban from patrolling articles. I would be quite happy to mentor this user in the use of NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

85% is a pretty horrible success rate, especially for stuff like this. That means of every 20 items you are tagging for deletion, you screw up 3 of them. That's bad. It is likely a symptom of moving to fast and being in a rush. My suggestion is to slow down. By being more careful, and working slower, you can only improve your quality of work. There is no rush to be the first to tag an article for deletion, if you are working at WP:NPP you have hundereds of colleagues who are also working there, so if you miss something there is a high probability someone will pick it up instead. Take your time, make sure you are doing it right, and if people have raised questions about the quality of your work, slow down and do less of that work until your success rate goes up. --Jayron32 02:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be too hard with our criticisms Jay. Please see User talk:Kudpung#Re:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain what parts of my statement were inaccurate? --Jayron32 02:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was inaccurate Jay. I just thought the words 'horrible' , 'screw up', and 'that's bad' were a tad OTT. The rest of your advice was excellent. FWIW the user has now accepted an NPP mentorship programme and agreed to stop tagging in the meanwhile. Please see User talk:Kudpung#Re:. I think this ANI discussion is now resolved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording was a bit strong, but it is worth pointing out to the editor that an 85% rate is not considered close to acceptable. To put it in perspective, I've seen editors run for admin and get into serious hot water with a 98% correct hit rate. Yes, we all make mistakes, but anyone interest in continuing to tag CSDs should understand that the goal should be something better than 98%.--SPhilbrickT 12:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. I hope the mentoring works. LadyofShalott 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - In my view Assassin's Creed's work in tagging to AfD has been highly unsatisfactory. Frequently there have been no reasons for deletion stated and not the slightest indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed. He should be strongly encouraged to slow the hell down and get it right. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above and (see:User talk:Kudpung#Re:), he has agreed to stop tagging. However, there are now new issues concerning his other work. I shall continue to monitor his contribs very closely, and help him as much as I can, but if his disruption continues and becomes intolerable I will be one of the the first to let him know if he is getting close to a block , and consequently block him if it persists. However, I will just add again for those who may have missed it: We need to blame a system that allows completely new and inexperienced users to patrol pages, and not those who use it in good faith. New Page Patrol is a trainwreck for the very reason that it is open for absolutely anyone to do. But that's another discussion taking place elsewhere. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

vandal users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

whoop, whoop, whoop, *whack*. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) take a look of this user's contribs please, acting vandal tacticks. Being Greeks from all over the places, doesnt mean nothing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebetiko&action=history --94.69.234.5 (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG. (The IP, not FPaS of course.) -- Atama頭 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Geneva2011 claims that his Wikimedia Commons photos (covering that of Vivian Balakrishnan) are his own work

Certain photos he has taken are high-resolution and seem to be taken in an official capacity. Geneva2011 has been especially smart to upload them on commons, where the review process (and even speedy deletion) is much slower and where the user faces less scrutiny. User:Strange Passerby has already started a deletion request on one of them here. The Commons deletion process is one thing, but Geneva2011 insists on reinserting some of his images (or posting new ones) when it is likely he either took them while employed by the government of Singapore, or got them from the government of Singapore without an OTRS ticket.

This is of course, overlooking the fact that the user hasn't declared his conflict of interest by being employed in an official capacity. Evidence to this is the perspectives in which File:VivianBalakrishnan03.jpg and File:VivianBalakrishnan.jpg are taken -- I have commented these out on the Vivian Balakrishnan article. However the user insists the images are his. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Commons is out of scope of the enwp ANI board. Try Commons' own AN. StrPby (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I realise this, but I ask for advice on using these images here, and how aggressive we should be in reverting them or even considering blocks. The ideal outcome is that OTRS tickets get issued and we can use these high-quality images. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

COI should only be an issue if the edits cause problems with the article i.e. NPOV, self promotion, etc. Googled for the image of this event, and don't see any image that matches it. However, I did find this [[141]] which is similar. Press photographer using unpublished photos? In any case, it would be great if Geneva2011 could just give us some indication on how he owns these photos. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, people being paid to edit Wikipedia cannot at all be neutral, since they have been given instructions on how to edit, and undoubtedly that means in the very least, not writing any genuine (beyond token) criticism of their employer. You only need judge this user's edits for yourself. This editor insisted on taking down user-taken free photographs and replacing them with "official" photos, perhaps intentionally to undermine the project. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• You could just as easily argue that people who edit Wikipedia in their free time do so because they have an axe to grind. In some cases this is true, and in some cases it is not.
• Unless there is evidence of wrong-doing, you should assume good faith.
• It is possible that this person is a government employee; or maybe he/she is a press photographer; or maybe he/she is a freelance. You are speculating. We do not know. And if he/she is one of these, why should he/she not upload spare photos instead of deleting them? Why should he/she be compelled to out him/herself?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is policy. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is highly likely that the person is in the employ of the Singaporean government, taken in conjunction with the editing pattern. Furthermore, there is a pattern of suspicious sockpuppetry that I think I will need to ask CheckUser for. There is already evidence of wrongdoing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations after accusations. You seem to have forgotten you have repeatedly abused your tools whenever the edits are not to your liking. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that declaring COI is a guideline, strongly encouraged but not a requirement. Also, under COI is a subheading called defending interests which all parties should really take note of, as I see various degrees of evidence of possible questionable editors from various editors with different views in that and related article especially in the past 2 months, with accusations of vested interests thrown all over the place. That is the big problem here, the picture is just a symptom.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, we don't forbid COI editing, we don't even forbid paid editing (though people have tried). If the editor is abusing an alternate account (through deception or block evasion) or otherwise being disruptive then that needs attention. We also strongly encourage that someone with a COI disclose their affiliation for everyone's benefit (other editors know who they're dealing with, and the person with a COI should be trusted more) but we don't mandate that.

For the IP, don't make accusations of the abuse of tools or other accusations unless you're willing to provide evidence (and preferably it should be relevant to the current discussion). -- Atama頭 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[The abuse happened on the same page]. Whenever I make edits, I would be accused of violating copyrights, of being from government, and that i am a sockpuppet. Page would be protected to prevent IPs from editing and La_goutte_de_pluie can edit to her liking even when there's a dispute over information to be added. Each time I asked for new information to be added in, she would act stupid and ask me to do it myself. I am asking you, what's the point of giving La_goutte_de_pluie such rights when she keeps abusing them? Why was no action taken against her? from the above anon IP user218.186.16.247 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, that has no relevance to the discussion here. If you believe an editor is incorrect, you can disagree with them and explain why you believe that your view is correct. Slinging mud about their own actions is hardly helpful to this discussion. You seem to be aware of the conversations that are already taking place, and you can voice your opinion there. I certainly hope you haven't chosen to track edits so you can point out mistakes someone may have made whenever they choose to get involved in a discussion. I am certainly not saying you are, just that such behavior would be less than constructive. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 21:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? All the issues she has a problem with revolves around the same few politician pages. I don't think i hide my opinion about how things are going on around here. I questioned her behaviour and got blocked. There is no need for me to track edits as this has been going on for 2 months and User talk:La_goutte_de_pluie's behaviour is still the same. She's always throwing accusations on people whenever they edit the pages she's "GUARDING". I have also asked for information to be added [here] but was told to do it myself even when page is clearly semi-protected. Is that how an admin/editor behaves? And what's wrong with adding useful information? She seems unhappy about it when it's her own idea to add old posts on other pages and just wants to focus on building up a certain portion where she got an agenda. from the above anon IP user202.156.13.238 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that protected the page. I have nothing against adding more (reasonably sourced) information. I'm not guarding anything. I have something called a "watchlist". I have 3300 pages on it. Cheers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, IP user, none of that has anything to do with what, if anything, to do about these photos. No one has accused you of hiding your opinion. My point was that your opinion of, and allegations against, La_goutte_de_pluie have nothing to do with this discussion. There are numerous places for you to lodge your complaint, and this board may be one of them, but it is inappropriate in the context of this discussion. You may have valid or invalid points about her behavior. I don't know; I haven't looked into them because they do not belong in this discussion. Whether or not she has used similar tactics is inapposite. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

UTC)

The point is that La_goutte_de_pluie has lodged a malicious and facetious complaint, and there is obvious evidence of her bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.143.39.4 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Twinkle abuse ('cause I made him mad) can someone have a quiet word please?

Resolved

 – sorted itself out Manning (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So, my obvious talent for pissing people off without meaning to do so strikes again.

Hm2k (talk · contribs · logs · block log) clearly has his back up, first edit warring over a section heading in an AfD, first revert, second revert. In my ham-fisted way I suggested this was sub-optimal. (When I'm too formal, they get mad, when I'm informal, they get mad. Seriously, I need a cluebat.) He's reverted me once with twinkle and the "vandalism" edit summary, and (ham fists again) reverted my suggestion that that too was sub-optimal with a second "vandalism" edit summary. Can someone who can speak to humans please explain why this is not good, and give me a kick to the head for not knowing when to leave well enough alone, please? This is a small, stupid thing that my involvement with has not made any better. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And I've obviously not notified the user of this note, since even I know where I'm not welcome. Eventually. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

He used Twinkle to remove comments you left on his talk page - that's his right so there really isn't much we can do/say about it. Of course, his labelling your comment as "vandalism" was a bit OTT, but that's hardly actionable. Are you sure that it wouldn't be easier to just let this go? Manning (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just over the top, things like wrongful edit summaries end up in arbitration. I don't want wailing and gnashing of teeth, I just want someone who can actually communicate with him to explain why he shouldn't be doing it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, mark as resolved, this appeared to have been all the communication required, he's now stopped using the word vandalism when reverting. Going to bed now. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, I hit rollback instead of the contrib button when I looked at the history log. I'm not exactly helping matters either. Bedtime for me too I think. Manning (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, since the recent Twinkle rewrite, it is no longer technically possible to remove access short of blocking the user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that intentional? That seems more like a bug than a feature. 28bytes (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The feature was apparently left out of the rewrite per the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#New Twinkle blacklist proposal. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

...and BTW, I have finally notified User:Hm2k of this thread

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A note on section headings in AFDs

I know this thread has been marked as closed but Hm2k was spot on about section headings in AFDs. They really clutter and messs up the view of the log page they are transcluded on. I would rather that section headings not be used at all but if one must use them they should be limited to ==== H4 headings ====. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Indirect personal attack

No action needed. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – blocked for disruptive editing / NPA (not the first block for this issue) Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Unresolving it. This block has no merit IMO. Please discuss below. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC). So at this discussion, Dekkappai (talk · contribs) tossed off this rant: “ If I might be permitted a minor digression by way of illustration of the problem articles on non-notable subjects like this pose Wikipedia: Not long ago I had to start articles on several Rimsky-Korsakov operas. Now, I don't need to tell you, Rimsky-Korsakov's operas are the crowning achievement of the oeuvre of this Russian master, yet we had no articles on them until I started these pathetic stubs. What did we have instead? Articles on these fucking country clowns! It makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. No, gentlemen. We should all be working towards improving Wikipedia's reputation, not dragging it down into the mud and the gutter with some whiskey-soaked shit-kickers singing about beating their wives and they're so lonesome since their dogs ran away, and oh, how great the U.S. of A is, and all that drivel. I realise this is the project for the deletion of images, but someone really should bring this problem to the attention of the appropriate project for the deletion of articles. For the good of Wikipedia, please delete this aural excrement. They're all potential BLP violations anyway. ” I think that this is a stealth attack at editors such as I who are into country music, making baseless stereotypes like "dogs ran away" and referring to the genre's singers as "fucking country clowns" and "aural excrement" — the whole thing reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, since he's just bitching about how he hates country and derailing an overall decent thread. Looking at the posts on his talk page, he also got yelled at two other times for WP:POINT attacks — including another filibuster at this AFD where he tells other editors ("We welcome you with open arms if you come here looking for articles on some things, but not this. Why? Because we like some things, but not others. If you boo-hoo that Wikipedia is "not censored", we are forced by policy to agree. But we do have Notability and other guidelines which allow us to remove things we don't like. You got a problem with that? FLIP OFF!") He has also ranted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paula_Rosenthal, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pinky_(pornographic_actress) and elsewhere — literally nothing but ranting at AFD and fora since April at least. He's clearly got an axe to grind, and someone should put an end to his detrimental editing and ranting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comment I was drawn to this entry by the amusing rant quoted above. Dekkapai obviously has behavioural problems but I didn't find any evidence that his/her incivility is directed at anyone in particular in the discussions linked above. It seems that s/he has problems with Wikipedia in general and uses these discussions to vent them out. Maybe an admin might consider topic banning Dekkapai from XFDs since s/he has already been warned about this pattern of incivility some 20 days ago and again some 10 days later? Timbouctou (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC) So long as the rants aren't having a negative effect on the discussions (by derailing them, or dissuading people from contributing) then they're mostly harmless. This one was quite rightly redacted on the talk page in question because, well, it's no less offensive to use negative stereotypes of country music artists in our discussions than it is to use any other negative stereotype. If that keeps happening we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Still, seems to be a lot of drama surrounding someone who supposedly is semi-retired. However, my answer to all such rants is the same. The answer to this problem is to let the fanboys have their "cruft" (as long as it's "verifiable" cruft) and go write more "useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Hmm, it strikes me as slightly ironic for an apparent opera lover to be criticizing the words of country songs for their banality - I wonder if he's ever listened to the actual words of any operas? (I remember one I once saw had a segment of 10 minutes or so of lots of people singing about what a fine hat someone was wearing) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) If there were a strict separation between "cruft" and "useful stuff" then so be it, but it's often not that clear. It would be nice if we treated The Lord of the Rings as a seminal fictional work and concentrated on its tremendous impact on the fantasy genre, rather than on whether or not there really were Elves at the Battle of Helm's Deep, for instance. Cruftism colours one's view of what we should be about, and can taint articles on pretty much any subject if left unchecked. As for {{semi-retired}}, nothing screams "came for the content, stayed for the dramaz" more loudly in my experience. But still, unless this is actively interfering with XfD (and it would need to be cranked up with a few notches to do so) then there's nothing to do here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Well, we could always move {{retired}} to {{storm-off-in-a-huff}} and {{semi-retired}} to {{storm-off-in-a-huff-but-stand-at-the-sidewalk-and-scream}}. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Dekkappai's a disgruntled editor who's been riding the same hobbyhorse for at least four years; he doesn't accept WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NFCC, and reacted rather strongly when discussions involving his favorite subjects, pornography and erotica, especially involving the Japanese industry, turned against him. He used to cry censorship at the drop of a hat[142], but that wore out its welcome, and he became quite incensed over an extended dispute (involving me) over whether advertising copy from a porn vendor's website was a reliable source for a BLP. After a few blocks for incivility, and attempts to provoke more[143], he's "semi-retired" to a career of facetiously disrupting discussions, especially if I'm involved, as here. I'm sure he'll manage to cross the line into blockability again, but he's mostly trolling to see who he can get to take the bait on any given day. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Dekkappai is just a disgruntled, crappy ex-editor playing court jester. Ha ha. Ignore him. There are no problems here, so there is no reason to ask what went wrong. Let's carry on business as usual. Dekkappai started over 600 articles, not one of which has yet been deleted, greatly improved countless more, including an FA and two GAs, and received 15 Barnstars (including ones from BOTH the Japan and Korea projects, a feat for which he was particularly proud). This is a rather remarkable record for someone who totally rejects all Wikipedia policies regarding articles, as Hullaballoo claims above, wouldn't you say? Because Dekkappai did a lot of work in a very difficult subject area, one against which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is biased, his work was targeted for destruction, and edit-warred, with the tacit approval of the community. (Reality check: As the article on Pink film indicates-- an article almost entirely written by Dekkappai, by the way-- this genre is in no way equivalent to US porn. Sōjirō Motoki, producer of Seven Samurai had a long career in Pink. Yōjirō Takita, winner of the US Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, had a long career in Pink. Kinema Jumpo’s Top 100 (+18) Japanese Movies of All Time includes several Pink / Roman Porno titles: #31: Ichijo Sayuri: Wet Desire, #39: A Woman with Red Hair, #61: Angel Guts: Red Classroom, #69: Twisted Path of Youth, etc.) Hullaballoo has heard and scoffed at this a hundred times, of course, but denies it because he is biased against the subject. Now that he is attempting a run at adminship he has started a few stub articles, for the first time in his career at Wikipedia. What does he start? Stubs on obscure U.S. science-fiction collections, sourced to open Wikis and databases, whose only claim to notability is a passing mention in sci-fi magazine reviews. Yet he has repeatedly edit-warred out better-sourced information, and attempted to delete much-better sourced articles on Japanese films, with a much better claim to notability. So, Dekkappai finally realized it was pointless to continue contributing here, when rules can be applied in a biased manner by biased editors with impunity, as long as they appear to be doing the "right thing". I can name other formerly-productive editors who can say the same thing. Hey, has anyone nominated Hullaballoo for Admin yet? He'll certainly get my vote-- since being driven off this this project I've had a great time contributing sourced content elsewhere, while having a lot of fun looking in at the ass-grabbing nonsense going on here-- at boards like this one where Admins sit around watching good contributors driven by officious do-nothings, while tut-tutting, "civility", "NPA", etc. A big thank you to all incompetents, and all the Hullaballoo at Wikipedia! Have a nice day! Dekkappai (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Obvious troll is obvious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) As a personal observation, I won't be sorry to see the end of contributions under a username that means "huuuge breasts!" in Japanese. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC) He still won't give up. Someone block him already. All he's doing is trolling and insulting. See his edit history. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Bumping so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Please discuss Toddst's block of Dekkappai below. What on earth? I have removed the collapsing of this so-called "troll"'s reply. Is it sarky? Yes. But it is not trolling. It seems heartfelt to me. It isn't dekkappai who comes off worst to an uninvolved observer. Egg Centric 20:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Toddst1 notified ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Unblock. Blocked for a week? Agree entirely with EggCentric. I'm against this block, and I also note that Toddst1 doesn't need to make his reputation for trigger-happiness any worse than it already is. It's getting pretty close to RFC/admin time for you, Toddst. The discussion on this board does not justify the block reason you give ("WP:NPA per discussion on ANI") — unless you're talking about his adversary TPH's bloodthirstily explicit requests for a block? "Someone should put an end to his detrimental editing", "Someone block him already." ANI admins are not in the business of expediting such demands. Editors are allowed to communicate what they think (provided they don't insult people), and TPH's notion of indirect personal attacks is mere flap-doodle. ("Obvious troll is obvious", by contrast, is a personal attack.) For my part I find Dekkappai's "amusing rant" less offensive than the sour formalistic alphabet-soup post with which TPH introduces this thread. WP:POINT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT… all the dull wiki-clichès. I would like to propose a vote of thanks to Dekkappai for, whatever else he does, not citing these everlastingly quoted guidelines. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC). P.S. I correct myself. Toddst1 was getting close to RFC/admin a while back. I haven't been keeping tabs on him; nobody would be better pleased, or more apologetic, than I if he has mended his ways recently. I wish this block looked more like it, though. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC). I agree that this was an over-reaction. His comment itself was over the top, but it wasn't trolling. It was stating his position in an overly aggressive way. No matter how emphatically, or even rudely, someone states their position, it does not convert it into an attack on those that disagree. His words are directed solely towards the subjects of the article. Pointing at an essay that says his argument isn't great also doesn't make it a violation of policy. I believe the block should be removed, or at least shortened. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC) This has got to be the most uncalled for/ridiculous block. The posts are (as said above) sarcastic but it's not trolling. Ludicrous - seems to be more about over-protective feelings towards country music!!! DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I think everyone's missing the point. Dekka's done nothing BUT snark and bitch at everyone for the past 2 months. He hasn't touched article space since April, and even then it was to nominate something at AFD. He's clearly not contributing in good faith anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Seems strange to me to do anything with unquestionably talented editors who happen to be disillusioned other than to try to win them back. It's a huge structural problem of course (looking at things most prolific editors from 2006 and before have retired) and no one is expecting anyone to fix wikipedia, but let's work in the right direction, eh? Egg Centric 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. It's impossible to see how a week block was deserved, even after looking at contribs. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I trust that the unblocking admin discussed this with toddst1 first or at least assessed this discussion for some sign of overwhelming consensus against the block. Barring that or a determination that the block was so flagrantly inappropriate as to warrant an immediate reversal I can't understand why they would unblock so quickly. Perhaps we shall find out soon enough. Protonk (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Ignore me. Reading is fundamental. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Todd unblocked the account himself - citing the objections, (here?). Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC) But did he discuss it with himself first? Good unblock, as this block was much too hasty.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I unblocked the user myself based on the surprising reaction here. Surprising because of the WP:POINTy contributions and hostility displayed by this user. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Dekkappai does clearly have issues and is upset with all sorts of historic stuff and seems to occasionally return in a venting manner about it. Unless the user gets over the issue I don't see any improvement in the tea leaves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Possibly. But what was blockable in the current situation? I see some uncivil things being said and one user in particular taking offense and templeting Dekkappai with a "final warning" for NPA. IMO that kind of reaction is always counterproductive. Then after almost zero discussion here an admin blocks. To prevent more snarky comments? I don't get it.Griswaldo (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I have not looked at this specific issue, I am just commenting from memory of the general situation that is behind the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. I just think trigger happy blocking isn't a good thing. The same user who was offended is the same user who gave a "final warning" and is the one person in the discussion above who said "block him already." IMO, admins need to wait for more neutral observations at AN/I before handing out blocks, especially for civility.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, the appearance/actuality of being uninvolved is a primary objective to administrative actions. Dekappi was/is a great contributor and I hope he resolves any issues he has with the projects evolution and returns to constructive contributing, or that he goes off to new projects and enjoys himself in areas he feels happier in. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Keep blocked Reblock As I said, literally 100% of his editing since April has been bitching at other editors just to stir the pot. It's patently obvious he's no longer here to build a project, just create an angry mood. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) You mean "reblock" because he's already been unblocked. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Well you might have had some help shooting yourself in the foot there now that he's been unblocked due to objections. I'm glad to see that hasty action has not been rewarded. If this merited a block more voices were needed. Perhaps if you feel this strongly that it has been an ongoing pattern you need to start an RFC/U on the user. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC) For the past four years, Dekkappai has been rude and aggressive to those who disagree with his inclusionist views on notability. In the past few months he has changed tactics by adding pointy sarcastic comments to AfDs, including indiscriminately pasting the same comment to dozens of Playboy model AfDs. If his behaviour continues, then an RFC would be the next best step, but I expect he'll take this block as a warning. Hopefully, he won't just add "abusive" admin blocks to his things to "rant" about. Epbr123 (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Oh of course, because bitter ex-editors never find cause to complain about the administrators. I doubt that this block has helped, but on the other hand I don't think that Dekkappai is being particularly disruptive (I've seen disruptive inclusionism at AfD and this ain't it). As I said before, unless the level of disruption increases significantly the rants can probably just be ignored until Dekkappai gets bored or starts contributing productively again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Oh hi, Epr123. No, I ranted myself out on abusive admin blocks after the first one-- when I was blocked for restoring my !vote by the Admin who had removed it and had cast an opposing !vote. This latest block was mere child's play compared to that. The "change in tactics" you note in my commentary corresponds to the point at which I finally gave up on this project. (Your constant fiddling with "notability" guidelines in order to keep in just what you want, and exclude just what you don't helped that along of course. Kudos for that.) Now that the dust has settled, I note that my offensive rant quoted at the top was truncated to appear less obviously satirical... (Satirizing veiled "I don't like it" !votes, of course.) I'll have to preserve the complete version in a "Wiki-philosophy" memorabilia collection or something. Kind of a tl;dr version of WP:Wikispeak. I actually laughed out loud while writing it, and was flabbergasted that someone took it serious... Anyway, Best regards, old chum. Dekkappai (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While no action may be needed on the block request, I'm a bit disconcerted by the way so many editors have apparently blithely dismissed Dekkappai's acknowledgment that he's been WP:POINTily disrupting AFDs and related discussions that I've been involved in, simply because he objects to the fact that I've succeeded in developing consensus on points where he disagrees. It's also not helpful to see his usual line of false statements and groundless imputation of motives regarding folks who've prevailed in editing disputes with him let pass without comment here. And for all that he proclaims himself a productive editor, there are many equally productive folks who are on the other side of disputes with him. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You know... "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point"-- I've often wondered... Is it the disruption, or the point which is the offense in WP:POINT? If HW is to be trusted as an impartial observer ;-) and I actually am in violation of POINT here, then it must be the point-- accurate or not-- which is the offence. I could not possibily have disrupted Wikipedia for the past year, since I haven't even edited the encyclopedia in that time. (Oh, I should mention, I consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia project, not a chat-page project-- a minority view, I realize.) During the year I did make one AfD nomination (an article I started: AfD failed), and one PROD (succeeded). The talk-pages at which I've commented thrive on discussion, drama, etc. so if I have created more of that, I certainly could not have disrupted it. And, to be honest, I am pretty pathetic at creating drama... until this recent misunderstanding, no one has even taken much notice of my snarky comments. So we should not have a point to make when we post at these chat pages? Is that HW's position? And is it OK to disrupt Wikipedia without making a point? I'll wonder off and contribute content elsewhere as I ponder this... and listen to some opera... Dekkappai (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editors who commented here, but I hatted this because I believe Dekkappai has the good sense to quit while he's ahead. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure we'll be back here soon enough, and I imagine the result will be different. 28bytes (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Darwinek continues to make controversial moves to titles with diacritics

Resolved

 – a whole bunch o' nuthin' going on Manning (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Darwinek is continuing his well established and disruptive pattern of moving biographical articles to titles with diacritics. In the past day alone he has unilaterally moved Petr Vondráček, Katalin Móni, María García (canoer), Emilio Merchán, Éva Kóczián, Gábor Gergely, and Lívia Mossóczy. Darwinek is well aware that such POV moves are controversial, and that holding a discussion per WP:RM prior to such moves is required. Darwinek has been warned to stop making such moves without discussion [144], and has been the subject of the subject of previous ANI discussions on this issue.[145] [146] A page move ban should be implemented as it is clear that Darwinek is not able to control himself. Dolovis (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Question: What is POV about these page moves? NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. How does this violate NPOV? - SudoGhost™ 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, why are you accusing an established editor like Darwinek of POV edting? Secondly, both WP:ANI threads that you link to were initiated by you. Also, the diacritics subject is highly controversial, meaning that there is no real agreements with regards to diacritics. HeyMid (contribs) 07:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: When you say he was warned, you should be clear that he was warned... by you. When you say there have been two previous AN/I discussions about him, you should be clear that you have initiated two AN/I discussions about him... and both of them were archived with no action. Given that you were just banned from pages moves of this nature, this report seems like an attempt to end-run around that by preventing "the other side" from making the sorts of page moves you are no longer allowed to do. Frankly, there have been way too many noticeboard discussions involving you and diacritics, and I think you and the project would be much better served if you just forgot about diacritics entirely and moved onto another area of interest. 28bytes (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, you are the only one who brought me here repeatedly. Your ANI reports, on the other hand, were initiated by multiple different users. As for the "case", which you have raised. Several mentioned articles (Merchán, García) already included references with relevant names. For the other ones, I have provided references afterwards. I would like to mention that User:Miller17CU94, editor who created several of aforementioned articles, gave me a barnstar in 2009 for exactly the same thing you are accusing me of. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add, that User:Dolovis had initiated a libellous sockpuppet investigation against my person, and it seems to me, that his ANI reports are a part of continuing offensive campaign against my person. - Darwinek (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To avoid sounding like you are making a legal threat, you may want to simply call it incorrect, rather than labeling it libelous. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. It's best to avoid using cartooneyisms like "libellous" when discussing the actions of other editors. Even "my person" sounds a little "cartooneyish". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman - there is tremendous truthiness to your words. Manning (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In wiki-correct political language then, how about we address the wikistalking that Dolovis seems to be engaged in, targeting Darwinek? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the page move ban was just earlier today (the 15th, I haven't gone to bed yet), I think? This is definitely a case of trying to prevent "the other side" from making page moves he disagrees with. Nothing less. Maybe more; it might even be wikistalking, which if I recall is a Wikiquette issue. CycloneGU (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I note the SPI was closed as "inconclusive". Absent a confirmation of sockpuppetry, I have to assume good faith. Good faith, however, doesn't extend to excusing WP:FORUMSHOPPING, which is what that SPI filing feels like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible threats of violence

Resolved

 – Off-wiki drama, I will watch the page in case of future trouble. Manning (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A somewhatly overzealous user canvassed posts similar to the following: [147]. I told the user I'd post here, in a rational way, what his concerns seem to be revolving around. It appears that the root of the post is that someone may be making threats of violence related to the article of interest, Pearlasia Gamboa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and that those threats might be being reported on off-wiki venues (as the links might be pointing to). I, personally, have no idea what the whole background story is, so I'm tossing it to ANI. Feel free to take it from here. --slakr^\ talk / 03:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The user is alerting us to threats that are being made off-wiki (see here), so they don't concern us directly. As we don't know who is making the threats we can't apply sanctions or take any action. I'll start watching the page in case any on-wiki drama arises. Regardless, it's a very impressive rant - violence, legal threats, invocations to Satan, the works. Manning (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The threats are being made to WP editors who have email accounts posted at WP, so it is not exactly "off Wiki". The threats are by PG, and the Wiki article editing related threats were copied to US Attorney Timothy Lucey in San Fran, and PG responded that they are "metaphorical threats", yet the Swedish press says Bo Stefan Eriksson (the egent of her colleague User:Warriorboy55 aka Kimball Dean Richards of Allied Artists International, actually cut someone's hands into pieces for writing about their crime ring. Claiming a threat of physical violence is metaphorical is part of the crime ring Modus Operandi.

User:Warriorboy55 is also emailing threats to WP editors as email nick BobWashere55 (the name of "the snake" in David Lynch's Mullholand Drive)

Please keep in mind that the identity of the ip is unknown. An unknown person is posing as a living person and making, or linking to threats. On that basis the edits of the ip have been suppressed under the Biographies of living persons policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the IP identity for the posts I restored. He/she has been threatened for editing at WP, and is using a multi-shared remote IP now.

Fred - I'd posted the link to the offensive material above, redact as you see fit. Cheers, Manning (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fred, I'd certinly hope the IP isn't just posing as a living person. - SudoGhost™ 07:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I intend to make lots of edits to Wikipedia and various discussion boards from the afterlife. I would assume they have a WiFi hotspot in whichever place I'm - if not, there's a Starbucks everywhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take this crime ring seriously and stay safe.

Not in Australia - they went bankrupt. There are only a handful of stores left in the country. Manning (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Good thing too (being Australian myself), people can go back to supporting the local cafes where the coffee is ten times better. --Blackmane (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an Italian cafe in Burwood (Sydney) that still only charges $2.00 for a cappuccino. Heaven. Manning (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How does that help me when I'm either knee-deep in excrement in the underworld OR lounging on a cloud playing the harp and need a few minutes to edit WP:BLP's from a WiFi hotspot?

It helps because if you are good, then you get to go to heaven - also known as Australia :) Manning (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You have no idea how many times I get asked about why I moved to the UK when I came from heaven... talk about falling :p. Oh and there's a delightful little cafe just past the Coca cola sign in Kings Cross when you're driving towards Rushcutter's Bay which does its own beans and is open all night. I'm a espresso or long black drinker myself (and don't you evil people read too much into that) so I'll have to pop down that way (since my house in Sydney isn't far from Burwood) when I next return home. =D --188.220.173.91 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

[Redacted: I may not know much, but I think I know a massive WP:BLP violation when I see it.] --Calton | Talk 04:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC) - PPdd (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of File:Lowell milken.jpg

I'm trying to find out what happened to the image File:Lowell milken.jpg. It is used in the article Lowell Milken and was valid at least through June 15th. It's gone now, and I'm not finding an entry in the deletion log for it. The article currently shows a "200px" redlink for the image.

The history at Lowell Milken shows Commons Delinker bot working with that image.[148] So presumably it was transwikied to Commons. From the Commons Delinker message, someone may have replaced it with another image with different capitalization, but I can't find that image either. Commons claims to have a page by that name [149], but if you actually try to reference it there, there's no such page.

I didn't upload this image, although I've edited that article. A new editor uploaded it, was going through the ORTS ticket system to justify its ownership, and was trying to figure out the proper procedures. See Talk:Lowell Milken#Photograph. I suspect that somehow, too many routine actions resulted in a loss of the image. But why isn't it in the deletion log? --John Nagle (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On Commons deletion log, it seems to have been deleted as a scaled down or duplicate of File:Lowell Milken.jpg, which itself has been deleted on Commons as Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons (OTRS) - provided I'm reading this correctly!--Kateshortforbob _talk 20:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a rejected ticket, or what? Did someone contact the uploader? The uploader is, by their own admission, Lowell Milken's "web coordinator", and after some previous edit problems with overpromotion, has been very careful to obey Wikipedia rules. The image was taken by a professional photographer, and they were in the process of buying all necessary rights and reporting that through ORTS.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably have to take this up with the deleting admin on Commons. Nothing we can do about it from here. Since the admin referred to OTRS in the deletion log, I assume they are the one who processed the ticket and discussed it with the uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User changing athletes' heights without sourcing

124.182.10.125 (talk · contribs) is going around changing the heights of a large number of athletes without any sources for the changes. I asked them once to please stop without providing a source for the change, but they continue. The rest of their edits do seem reasonable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Problem is always (often) that unverified information is changed without verification or explanation. Still, possession is 9/10 of the law. I reverted one or two of their edits and left a templated warning, which may, possibly, make more of an impression. I don't think there's much we can do right now--while that "changing height" thing pops up in Recent changes, I don't think there's a consensus that such unverified changes constitute vandalism, for instance, or even disruption. I'd love to hear what the various sports project editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the blocking. Making repeated unsourced changes to personal statistics (DOB, height etc) in BLPs after the relevant policies have been clearly pointed out to an editor is disruptive and blockable if it continues. If the changes are unsourced, challenged, and continue without discussion or explanation, they are disruptive. That being said, the IP has not edited in hours. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of athletes, where a ton of articles lack appropriate, complete, or reliable sourcing, it's hard to argue that a BLP violation occurs if the previous information was just as unverified as the new information. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The majority of athlete articles include at least a link to the player's online profile which can (and should) be checked to confirm whether the editor's changes are valid. I would never block an account for making stat changes in sports articles without checking to see if the changes matched the official profile (and usually a quick Google check is sufficient when the article lacks a source). In the situation I mentioned above (unsourced, repeated, and contested stat changes with zero communication after multiple requests) then a block for disruption would be appropriate. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not a BLP violation to change information without a source that didn't have a source in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. It would be like one person vandalizing an article by saying "Jenny is a slut", then someone else comes along and changes it to say "Jenny is a whore". Both editors are equally culpable, and if for some reason the first edit slips under the radar and isn't removed, that doesn't give a license for the second one. I'll concede that changing unsourced info isn't quite as troubling as introducing unsourced info from scratch, but I think it's dangerous to completely give people a pass on it. This is especially true when an editor is doing this in a widespread fashion, to numerous BLPs, and continuing after being asked to stop. -- Atama頭 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Atama. This sort of thing goes on all over the place. I'm coming round to the view that if anyone materially alters any existing information in an article, they must have got the new information from *somewhere*, and at this stage in Wikipedia's life there's no reason not to politely ask them what their source is. Anyone contributing in good faith would be only too happy to respond, so if there's no response in a reasonable time then undoing the edit is the logical step to take - with warnings etc. to follow if necessary. —SMALLJIM  21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I always revert, automatically and instantly, when an IP changes a number without using an edit summary. Other types of changes I examine, but those changes I simply revert. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• In cases like this, it's usually best to notify the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce so that we can keep an eye on the user and do checks on whether their edits are correct. It's why the taskforce was created in the first place, to deal with changes of height info, game stats, dates, and the like. Silverseren^C 03:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• One main problem with this is that athlete heights can be different in different sources. Let me give an example: Steven Stamkos. One source (which appears to be 2006-07) lists him as 5'11". Another lists him as 6'1" (two others, including the Sting profile for him from when he was in the OHL, match this). Yet another - this time a video, probably from around NHL draft time - lists him as 6'. The weight also varies between the sources (though again the three from the second case match the weight exactly). Since some sites will not update their information about a player who may have left their league, outdated information is out there. Maybe it's the correct info; a quick search of "PLAYER NAME player profile" turns up multiple results (depending on the player name) and they can be checked for when they were updated, and so on. For instance, the most updated information on Stamkos: 6'1", 196 lbs. What's in the article? 188 lbs. and unsourced. CycloneGU (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Now they're changing the heights of actors. I've issued a blp4 warning. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When someone changes a height, a date or other random statistic in an article, which has been stable for a while, it is appropriate to revert and ask the editor to provide a source, even if the information was previously unsourced. "The new number might be correct" is not a valid reason to allow an unsourced and uncommented change to stand. It is too often subtle vandalism, and is far more damaging to the project than blatant vandalism. If the someone is unhappy that some number is unsourced, he can tag it as needing a reference. Edison (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I recently reverted this edit which, aside from replacing sourced information with unsourced, seemed suspicious in light of the above. It's beginning to look like a Colbertesque wikiality-modification trolling campaign. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, that edit was before the final warning. The IP has yet to edit since the warning. Based on editing pattern, he'll be back in about four or five hours from now. CycloneGU (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding actor/musician's vital statistics, over that of athletes - most athletes do not have publicity agencies, whose role is to impress people without too much regard to fidelity to the truth. Unless an athlete was notably competing while a teenager height should be consistent throughout their career - weight however may not. We go for the best reliable source in every case, but where actors especially and musicians are concerned reliable does not mean accurate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that final warning on 124.182.10.125 (talk · contribs), 120.145.17.135 (talk · contribs) has started doing the same thing. Also on Telstra, but a different IP range - is it likely to be the same person? If so, I'll block it because it looks like purposeful avoidance.  —SMALLJIM  10:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• There was someone doing exactly the same thing some time ago - just randomly changing people's heights (but by small amounts so they were plausible) - and they ended up blocked. Can't remember who it was though - ring any bells for anyone? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  And I have a feeling it was someone from the same part of the world as these two IPs. They're on the same ISP, same part of the same country, making the same type of changes - that's close enough, so I've blocked them both -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well done. It's an important issue that we should have a consensus on, I think. Anyone disagree that this is the right thing to do? And what about reverting the changes they made?  —SMALLJIM  10:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  If it's useful, here's one IP's list. CycloneGU (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'll take that as a subtle hint :) But I didn't mean "who's going to revert them?" - I meant "do we think it's worth the trouble of reverting them, since the existing figures were unverified too". Sorry if that wasn't clear.  —SMALLJIM  15:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nope, no hints. I thought you were considering reverting, so was providing a list of the pages. =) Thank you however for the clarification. CycloneGU (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A user is posting spam in talk pages of others, possibly a malware link!

Resolved

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the user User talk:Ahmad4d is posting messages to random users asking them to translate an "article" to some language. The link he posts is obviously not a wikipedia page, nor does it have anything to do with any sister projects. Please review this immediately! Sentient Planet (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of any malware at the link. What he's doing is spammy and perhaps not appropriate, but it looks like he might genuinely be wanting people to help him with translations - there's already English and Arabic at the site -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I know we should assume good faith, but he (or it? possibly a bot?) acted very suspiciously. Sentient Planet (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked indefinitely. He's trying to get people to do translations for his website as B!sZ says. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the block at first, but now I think that Ironholds made the right decision. We don't want people to come to Wikipedia and randomly solicit them for off-wiki assistance (and it would have to be done off-wiki to avoid copyvios). Whatever the intention, this is spam. -- Atama頭 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost users Rlevse, BarkingMoon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing for an admin (or anyone else) to do at this point. 28bytes (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Unfamiliar with Admin things, I don't know if this is the right place to post a late comment to the archived so-called investigation. Wikipedia lost a promising contributor over this, BarkingMoon. What I read hardly deserves the name investigation. I remember Wikipedia losing another valuable contributor, Rlevse. Both have in common that they went out of their way to support my work. The dialogue with both was completely different, though. You can investigate my talk, if you like. But even if the mind behind the two was the same, I wouldn't see a problem. - Back to content. I wish I could notify the subjects of this. I miss them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can perhaps e-mail BarkingMoon, that is still there. Reading what happened on his page, however, makes me sick that we are badgering a great contributor over something that he says he has no involvement with. Was an SPI really that necessary? CycloneGU (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! "Makes me sick" is well said. No, I can not e-mail BarkingMoon, but keep the talk updated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your kind thoughts and deeds Gerda, but I don't think there's really anything that can be done here. I suspect that neither editor has any desire to return to such a hostile environment at this time. We have a few folks that delight in keeping the elite "status quo", and spend time bullying folks off "their" pedia. Sad as that is, I just don't have an answer to it. I suppose we just work on the things we enjoy, and try to ignore what can't be changed, and try to change the things we can. You are of course always welcome to ping me if you need a hand with something (although your knowledge of classical music is far above mine.) .. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Trust me...if anyone ever tries that with me, they will see (or rather, feel) my Wikifist down their Wikithroats. I do not take such treatment lightly. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It just shows the state of the community. Things are becoming less about actually working on an encyclopedia and more about getting one up on other users. It's also easy to treat other people like **** when you're doing it over the internet. The users who were involved in that SPI should be ashamed of themselves. Silverseren^C 23:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rlevse is welcome to return under his own name by undoing his "RTV" departure. But WP:RTV is not an appropriate prelude to restarting under a new name, WP:CLEANSTART. Due to some issues that needn't be discussed here, it would not be appropriate for Rlevse to return to editing under "clean start" without disclosing his prior account. When BarkingMoon departed it had not been definitely determined that he was Rlevse, but considerable evidence pointed to that connection. I think this thread is likely to just stir up issues that are better left undisturbed.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucracy this project has placed on contributing to a user-generated content site is amazing. Juliancolton (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep! Writing articles would be so much easier it if it weren't for NPOV, V, NOR, and all those other pesky rules. ;)   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining verifiability to avoid real-life harm and the dissemination of misinformation is hardly comparable to "a user can come back under THISALLCAPSANCRONYM but absolutely not THISONE". Not a knock at you, just something I've been wanting to say. Juliancolton (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a +1 to JC's comments. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree w/Beback's initial comment in this string. We have better things to waste time on than this.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What admin assistance is being requested here? If none, this thread should be closed. Night Ranger (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rlevse is welcome to return under his own name by undoing his "RTV" departure. But WP:RTV is not an appropriate prelude to restarting under a new name, WP:CLEANSTART. Thanks for clarifying what your rules are. Later all. — Ched :  ?  14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the policies, get them changed or leave. Don't abuse your position of trust by abusing others who actually think that policies should be followed. You demean yourself and all admins when you do. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, if Rlevse wants to come back, then he would have to address the multiple instances of plagiarism he has engaged in, which was what pretty much started all this in the first place. –MuZemike 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This thread should be closed. Unless the user who started this thread has been given an indication by one or both of the subjects that they would like to return and were looking for views about under what circumstances it would be acceptable (in which case, MuZemike has already pointed to one of the main things which need to be addressed), we're wasting our time on a hypothetical that is unlikely to become a real situation for a long time (if ever). And if the preliminary comments are anything to go by, it'll just lead to more unnecessary and unjustified tension. Someone close it already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

“beating people over the head”

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, trouts should be sufficient. If not, WQA. 28bytes (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Four days ago User:TenPoundHammer nominated the article lump sum for deletion.

Fair enough. But when a good faith contributor suggested the article could be improved, their response was mocking and counterproductive, they wrote: “Improve with what? Hope the Article Fairy sprinkles her pixie dust on it and turns it into an FA overnight? Get a grip on reality.”

After four days they did withdraw the nomination. But, in doing so, they congratulated themselves, writing: ...once again I have to beat people over the head to get an article fixed.

I don`t think any of us should feel they should start by “beating people over the head”. I don`t think this merits self-congratulation. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an appropriate topic for the Administrators Noticeboard, since there is apparently nothing here that requires sysop tools to handle. Perhaps a better place for this would be WP:WQA or WP:DRN. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a clear Wikiquette issue. Use WP:WQA. I myself am familiar with TPH through multiple situations (including a twice-prodded and nominated for deletion article, which was kept); he means well but comes across gruff, demeaning, or just plain rude at times. If you submit a WQA, I'll watch it as I want to know what's behind this one. CycloneGU (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cyclone. I actually congratulated Ten for withdrawing his nom (on his talk page), as not all editors have the ability to re-assess their nominations. But the wikiquette issue is a valid one, at the same time.

And indeed, his behavior was not the worst there -- that would be the editor who, with nearly unanimous opinion against him at the AfD, has now tag-bombed the article with three tags .... w/regard to precisely the same refs that nom and the rest of us (including Ten) found compelling! See lump sum and the related talk page discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I strike that closing comment and reclose it with a proper comment? CycloneGU (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(I've since trouted him for the negative closing comment. CycloneGU (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

Is it valid to close an AFD discussion solely because the nominator has changed his mind? There were valid 'delete' arguments. Shouldn't this be treated the same way as a sockpuppet-nominated AFD which has valid arguments? Personally I'm surprised that the nominator thought that the article had been "fixed". It now seems to be a DICDEF with two thoroughly random examples of use of the term. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you're correct, it was not a valid close according to the letter of WP:NAC, since User:Hrafn and User:Cullen328 both had unwithdrawn delete !votes. But it probably would have been kept (if not snow-kept) sooner or later anyway. I'm not inclined to re-open it against the wishes of the nominator. 28bytes (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I also wasn't about to argue it. The nominator himself closed it, but his closing comment was improper, leading me to merely replace his comment. If the nominator wished to withdraw the nomination in the light of evidence the article should stay, then let him. CycloneGU (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removal of tags

We have a user here, Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs), who has taken the liberty of quoting 9th and 10th century primary works and presenting his own WP:OR as undisputed facts in articles on early Islam (around 80 articles under Category:Battles of Muhammad). While the OR tag could be used, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Hadith also suggests using the Template:hadith authenticity tag on such articles:

"Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity."

which I did and explained in the edit summary and this article's talk page. Misconceptions2 responded by removing the tag twice (here and here) without any sort of agreement, claiming that it's not a WP policy and claimed that those primary sources have not been verified. We actually do have many works on verifying the works he cited, but consider what he's saying: that because we don't have any verification of those events , then let's just assume they did occur and present them as facts, because, they were never verified !

Given his history of getting blocked for edit-warring, systematic bias and misrepresentation of sources in Islamic articles which got him banned multiple times (one of which was indefinite) and given my recent experience with him (here and here where he repeatedly removed POV and OR tags I added (here, here, here)), I urge the admins to do more than just saying "sort it on the talk page". I've been creating talk pages and raising my concerns there, but Misconceptions2 doesn't seem to respect that.

Note: those primary works narrate events that allegedly occured at the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions; each single event is reported with its chain of narration (the men who transmitted the reports) which is later used by hadith scholars to assess the reliability of the report (authentic, sound, fabricated or weak). In summary, Misconceptions2's edits are problematic not only because of the clearly WP:OR issues, but also in the way he attributes those events to the medieval writers as if they approved of everything they had written down. It is known that medieval Muslim scholars included the list of narrators when reporting an event so the reader can later check it's assessment (using the principles of hadith studies).

Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Misconceptions2 has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and socking - not for any of the reasons given by Al-Andalusi, which are essentially a content dispute relating to the use of particular sources. Nobody is going to block an editor because they have differing views on the use of Islamic scriptures. Also, Misconceptions2 has a point - if there is a question about the authenticity of a source, just tagging the article is pretty useless. Address the issue in the article through secondary sources that discuss it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring because of a dispute over the handling of sources, which is very similar to the case I'm experiencing. I will comply with what you've suggested, and add to the talk page a secondary source discussing the assessment of the reports, after which I see no reason to have the tag removed from the article until the issue is addressed. For now, I have added the OR tag to the article. Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather unhelpful complaint which does not require admin intervention. The two editors just need to learn how to talk to each other without winding each other up. Al-A attempting to win the debate by bringing up past block logs is not really acting in good faith. The "Template:Hadith authenticity" issue isn't presented honestly either: as Al-A quotes, the page says (my bold) "consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity". Al-A didn't do this - he simply tagged a large number of pages, which were linked only by M2 having created them (I think). See Template_talk:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad#Hadith_reliability - Al-A has been asked several times exactly why he thinks all these articles should have been tagged, and doesn't provide any satisfactory reply William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But I do agree that the articles grouped around Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad aren't really satisfactory William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the reasons have not convinced you, but you cannot claim that I haven't provided any explanation for adding the tag (which I did Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad#Hadith reliability and Talk:Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)#Hadiths assessment). So I find your accusation of "dishonesty" to be disturbing and wrong. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't claim you hadn't provided *any* explanation. I said Al-A has been asked several times exactly why he thinks all these articles should have been tagged, and doesn't provide any satisfactory reply. Which remains true: you tagged a large number of articles, and still haven't provided a *satisfactory* answer as to *why*. At one point this issue was so urgent that you reverted the tags back in after they were removed, but now the tags are out and you haven't even tried to explain why you want them in, article by article. Which is why I say you're not presenting the issue *honestly*: you're giving a very partisan account of the dispute William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you claim that my reasoning was not satisfactory and was rejected when you haven't even made a single contribution on the talk page of the disputed article to which I recently I added the tag (see this revision of the talk page on July 15, a day before I raised the issue to the incidents board. William replies on the incidents board a day after the fact, and claims that my introduction of the tag to the mentioned article hasn't addressed any his questions or concerns, when he didn't even take part of the discussion. Please note that despite the multiple times this board's report has linked to the disputed article and its associated talk page, William only came to know of what we is being discussed...just today. This was his first and only contribution to the talk page section on the hadith tag.

So maybe William needs to explain his inaccurate account of the article's dispute which has misled others, instead of falsley (and hypocritically) accusing others of not being honest. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You mass-tagged a pile of articles: 20? 30? I lost count. The primary discussion was at Template_talk:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad#Hadith_reliability - splitting the discussion onto multiple article pages would have been unreasonable. But as to Talk:Expedition_of_Ghalib_ibn_Abdullah_al-Laithi_(Al-Kadid): your explanation there isn't satisfactory either. I've left questions for you that you still haven't answered. It would be better if you could try and sort these issues out on the article talk page rather than coming here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You left the "questions" on the talk page 2 days after this incident report, and 2 days after you wrote here claiming that your questions haven't been answered. In other words, you misled the admins. We're still looking an explanation for the dishonest account. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Al-A, if you can find a reliable source discussing the authenticity of a specific quote. then add it. i dont mind giving some information about the authenticity of the quotes in the articles. Whenever i can do that, i will. I have done that for the Expedition of Usama bin Zayd article. But i can not do that all the time, as it is hard to find reliable sources discussing the authenticity of non famous quotes. there are just to many quotes of muhammad from various books out there, and not all are notable, such that people have discussed its authenticity. Usually if its from a book which has a reputation of being authentic e.g Sahih Bukhari then the quote is considered authentic. Sunni's consider Sahih Bukhari authentic but shia's dont (because its a sunni book). Whats the point of mentioning something like "Sunni's consider quotes from Sahih Bukhari authentic, shia's dont, Christians are neutral"?. It should be mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari article itself, not the article which quotes from it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Swearing and insulting language, beyond comprehension

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Boldly closing before this gets out of hand here. If an admin. disagrees with this, reopen at discretion. CycloneGU (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Our category system: Minority tagging User:AndyTheGrump said to another editor (not me) This Changed to link by -- DQ (t) (e) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC). I dont care what someone else said to cause such language and their actions are not and should not be concerned here. Andy's consistent use of disparaging remarks, rude behavior, and continued use of foul language is ALL thought should matter. Andy has been warned several times about langauage and commenting on commentators instead of the topic. And it seems to be related almost exclusively to religious/ethnic/racial category discussions. Im fed up, and I dont want to see this continue, and I have said it before, and I'll say it again- comparision to User:Noleander abound in topic and attitude. Not accusing sockpuppetry, but showing that this is a very similar case and it shouldnt have to lead to ArbCom to do a topic ban. A 24 or three day block and a stern warning that further language will result in escallating punishments should suffice one would hope. But to allow Andy to continue only allows things to get worse as he continues to see he can get away with more and more drastic insults. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The seemingly endless discussion on BLPN has now been closed. Hopefully, editors will respect the closure. Tempers ran a bit high based on the controversial nature of the subject matter under discussion. That doesn't excuse Andy's comments, but I find myself becoming inured to his grumpiness, even when it descends to this level. Of course, the editor on the receiving end may not be as used to them as others who've seen them many times before. I seriously doubt, though, that a warning or a block will do even a smidgen of good. I'm sure he's well aware of the issues and of what he's doing. He may even relish it just a bit. Finally, he's generally very focused on the integrity of the encyclopedia and his comments, albeit acerbic, are generally very insightful. I never thought I'd defend such blatant and gratuitous incivility, but there you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed (re: focus and the rest). I considered blocking but have left Andy a final warning instead. I don't know if that will do any good or not--when tempers flare, warnings are soon forgotten. Hey, Andy, if you're listening, STOP, or I'm going to call you a bad word. My wife teaches our kids to say "sorry"; perhaps you should take a page out of their book. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Excessive indeed. I would have blocked if I had seen a previous warning, but he's on tight ropes it looks like. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta, may I ask that if I see this behavior again that I come directly to you and can expect swift and fair action? You at least seem to see the severity of this. And there have been numerous informal admonitions against him, and I thought a non-templated warning on is on his talk page right now about incivility.Camelbinky (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And while I am not aware of WHY or for WHAT I do know Andy has been blocked at least once before, though I think it may have been more than once. This should be taken into consideration.Camelbinky (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's block log is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• A preliminary response. I suggest that those reading this look at the context, and will have nothing further to say on the subject except in response to discussions that look at the said context, rather than ones based on dubious comparisons with other editors of whom I'm not being accused of being a sockpuppet for (nice try at guilt by association Cameklbinky, but it didn't work last time, so why do you think people will fall for it here?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Andy, I am not comparing you to anything, and I did look at the context; in fact, I read most of it, and that's time I'll never get back. While I understand your frustration (let's call it that) with the editor, you can't say "fuck off troll"; it's as simple as that. DQ, there is a previous warning, and Andy is Grumpy often enough, but they've never been blocked for NPA or incivility per se. Camelbinky, that sock suggestion is silly (let's call it that; I'm trying to be nice to everyone) and shopping for a future block is in poor taste. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment about 'comparisons with other editors' was directed at Camelbinky, not at you Drmies. I should probably have made that clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Drmies beat me to it. A quote like that is just entirely uncivil, and is plenty of context by itself. CycloneGU (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be civil. As for why it wasn't, you need to look at the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Context never matters with incivility. You simply cant insult people like that. Period. Talk about context all you want, it never matters what anyone says to you first. You're inability to grasp that basically ensures we'll see you here again. And yes, everytime I see you say things like what you said to ANYONE for ANY reason, I will bring it here. Plain and simple.Camelbinky (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in your opinions on this matter Camelbinky. I suggest you leave this discussion to people who don't use AN/I to try to get sanctions put on people with whom they have unrelated content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Context always matters, regardless of what you're discussing. In some cases, something that would be unacceptable elsewhere can be excused because the editors in the thread had taken a clear path of joking with each other, or something along those lines. The degree of inappropriateness of the incivility is different if the response was made to an editor who was trying in good faith to express a contrary point of view or whether the thread was already was hostile. I'm not saying this excuses it, but it does change the severity. Andy was not the only person with dirty hands in this thread. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For context look at the comments by others there: think I'm beginning to see what all this is really about now. Back to the closet, eh?, How about discussing real ones instead Lithuanian transvestite one-legged pole vaulters, just so we can gauge exactly what categories you consider 'ridiculous, CHRIST I HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS BY WOMEN OF COLOR THAT THIS ISSUE MATTERS. You will not let these women take part in these conversations because of canvassing policies! When I told women to take part, I was told by Wikipedians that I broke the rules, so I can solely only inform my friends of the conversations going on at this point without linking. They have told me to go on, but it's become so unbearable with people like you accusing me of being racist, of being a horrible person who is only trying to advance a political agenda, even relating a point I made personally when it had nothing to do with you and assuming I'm criticizing you. I'm not making this up. I am not patronizing you, you are patronizing me, and it's honestly fucked up that certain categorizations of people like disabilities and illnesses has never been nominated even though gender categories should be ignored. That is what I find messed up. If you want to ignore one type, you have to ignore it all and stop classifying people, period. , I don't know what paradise planet you're from, sure sounds like everybody are probably clones of each other and fart rainbows there though. Can I move there?, Why thank you for breezing in your majesty and pronouncing your verdict. Your vague patronizing statements of the superiority of your judgement make it abundantly clear that we are all so misguided. Especially when you are losing nothing in the process, Or does latent bigotry prevent you from seeing that? and so on and on and on. Unless accusing folks of "latent bigotry" is now acceptable, I suggest that Andy is far from the least civil participant! Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Andy was also insulted by the other user. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that Camelbinky would bring people here when they say idiotic and offensive things like "A simple class for you would help you get an introduction to cultures, because it's clear you know nothing at all..." rather than just finding the phrase "fuck off" insulting. On the plus side, Shakesomeaction's apparent familiarity with every detail of all cultures on the planet should mitigate any potentially negative effects of a phase like "fuck off" written by a member of the minority on Wikipedia who use such words. I expect them to arrive to defend Andy any minute now. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Collect and Rob. Not that I've ever understood the daily variations of "civility enforcement", but it seems insane to single out Andy as having crossed some imaginary line when the entire tone of the discussion was so poor. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After I finally got the discussion at BLPN to close, it's now moved over here so we can rehash every back-and-forth barb. Kudos to Rob for supporting the closure at BLPN. Can you close this one, too, Rob?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record I have never had a content dispute with Andy since he and I dont edit the same articles! And I'm sick of this culture at AN/I of "bloody the witness". ArbCom threw out and squashed the very beginnings of any such "well so and so did this" crap at the Noleander case and eventually if AN/I doesnt stand up this will go the same way and good luck trying to bloody me at ArbCom because Noleander's "defence team" wasnt able to do it there back then. Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why. You want other's to be held accountable, start a thread on each one. This one is about Andy's actions, and his alone. Which hey, let's go to Jimbo's page and ask him about swearing at editor's on the project he created. I know his position on swearing, I'd love for him to be asked for his opinion on this matter. I wont because then I'll be accused of forum shopping and canvassing (both of which Jimbo has made clear is never a charge applicable to coming to his talk page and asking for his opinion) so if someone wants to do that. But I know many of you dont care or think it is relevant what he thinks. Just throwing out that there's plenty of people who take this type of comments seriously, among which is the "first among equals".Camelbinky (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: No matter what the reason or context, if This isn't crossing the line of WP:UNCIVIL then nothing does. Dolovis (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Additional discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

IP remarks - hopefully this is over now. CycloneGU (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This thread just shows how fucked up WP:CIVIL. Things have gotten so bad that that alleged policy should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.140.185.250 (talk • contribs)

Though it didn't make it back onto the page here, a final warning was issued by another admin, and I added additional comments beyond that. Andy acknowledged that he should have handled it differently on his talk page. This was not swept under the rug. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. That's exactly what happened here. 112.140.185.249 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommended to the user who created this thread that this was not an AN/I issue, and that if he wanted to pursue anything further to take it to WP:WQA as a Wikiquette issue. The fact that he didn't means that he either felt it was not worth pursuing, or the issue was resolved. I will now close this as well. CycloneGU (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

User:JesseRafe refuses to follow WP:V

User:JesseRafe has been adding information cited to unreliable sources to the article The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons multiple times (see the history page of that article). User:Gran2 has thoroughly explained the issue to the user at User_talk:JesseRafe#The_Two_Mrs._Nahasapeemapetilons, but JesseRafe is refusing to follow the WP:V policy because he thinks it is wrong. Gran2 suggested that JesseRafe take it up on the policy talk page, but he didn't, and continued to re-add the information to the article. I think some admin intervention is required here (I'm involved so I'm taking a step back). Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, Wikipedia takes verification seriously now? It stopped willfully ignoring a massive problem because 'it gets in the way'? That's great! So then those 250,000 unsourced articles are an illusion?

If the user is being disruptive, apply a block. If not, failing to verify information puts the user in, if not a majority, a solid plurality. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuously adding information cited to unreliable sources (despite warnings) to WP:DOH's Good articles, that we have spent an enormous time writing, is disruptive. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the sources that are in the article now: reliable or not? If not, remove the sentence and I'll tell JesseRafe that readdition will be grounds for a block. If they are, well I think we would be done here. NW (Talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources are reliable so I'll revert the edit. If you could do that I'd really appreciate it! Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the material can not be referenced or cited. It is a joke, and it is an explanation of the joke. The Simpsons is famous for its parody titles, and the average viewer might not be familiar with 1940s cinema. How can one possibly cite the "getting it" goal of a joke? I searched for the first joke I could think of that would likely have its own page, and succeeded with The Aristocrats (joke). I read all the material in the Notes and none of it explained the idea of the joke as it was explained [accurately] in the article. This is my point about references to jokes, that those who get it all get it equally in quantity and quality and those that don't don't. If someone had heard about The Aristocrats or the joke itself but did not get it and was too embarrassed to ask or something of that nature, reading the wikipedia article on it would do a job of explaining it. Even though it's unsourced, it's accurate. And if there were someone explaining it, would that make it a source -- or just that person's opinion/orginal research?

Not everything can be found in a peer-reviewed academic journal (and even then, it might not be reliable, see: The Sokal Affair), and the majority of these sources are just people's opinions. So, if some comic explains the comedy behind The Aristocrats, is it a source or is it his opinion or his original research or what? Long and the short of it, I don't think jokes can be cited to references explaining them, and the pun in the title of an episode of the Simpsons is a lot more substantial/important to the article than a random bit of unsourced Trivia which could be found on the IMDb page, but would not belong in the wikipedia article.JesseRafe (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As per Sven Manguard, I am clearly not being disruptive. I am adding more information. A simple, single sentence. I am not undoing anyone's work. I am improving the article with good-faith efforts, and providing people with more information than they might otherwise have access to, or know how to go about obtaining. JesseRafe (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You completely misinterpreted what I said. I said that the simple act of adding unsourced information is not something that the community terribly cares about. It's unfortunate, but true. The original complaint was boilerplate-esque, and I was telling him that boilerplate-esque WP:V complaints were in and of themselves not something particularly actionable without disruption. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that just not how Wikipedia works. No matter how accurate your information is, you must be able to back it up with a reliable source otherwise it can't be included. If you can find a reliable source that says the name of the episode is a reference to The Two Mrs. Carrolls, then you can add it. But if you continue to revert without providing a reliable source, it will lead to a block. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still not addressing the issue. One, I believe I wrote on Gran2's page about other random Simpsons article with unsourced statements. Why not remove all of them. Two, you have not established how I have been "disruptive" - read this again:

"Oh wait, Wikipedia takes verification seriously now? It stopped willfully ignoring a massive problem because 'it gets in the way'? That's great! So then those 250,000 unsourced articles are an illusion?

If the user is being disruptive, apply a block. If not, failing to verify information puts the user in, if not a majority, a solid plurality. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)" JesseRafe (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have explained how you have been disruptive: You have been violating Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you have no explained how I have been disruptive. You have claimed that I violated the verifiability policy, but you have no explained how this qualifies as a "disruption". I have not interfered with anybody's edits or content, therefore I have not "ruptured" or "broken apart" the article or otherwise created a "disruption" -- you are misinterpreting the gist behind what Sven Manguard suggested, and you superseded the edits that NW made as per this discussion. In fact, you are causing a disruption, but I am not name-calling. JesseRafe (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As a result of you adding the unreliable sources, you have lowered the standard of the article. If the sources were to be kept, the article would no longer meet the Good article criteria and lose its Good article status. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• This seems to be a content dispute, and not something for Administrator action.
• Perhaps the addition could be rephrased in a way that it is included but in a way that is verifiable. See, for example The_Two_Mrs._Carrolls#Cultural_references. I'll add this last comment to the article's talk page.

Cheers. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:The_Two_Mrs._Nahasapeemapetilons#Content_dispute_re_episode_title

Regarding the comment that the issue isn't being addressed: saying other articles have unsourced statements is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and not really valid to the discussion. If there are unsourced statements and you attempt to verify them, but are unable to, you can legitimately remove them. Just go ahead. And that's not a challenge; that's a WikiFact.

I was going to boldly close this, but I'll leave it in case Jesse has further questions. CycloneGU (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a content dispute on a Good Article, then the GA needs to be delisted as it now fails WP:GACR#5 as it is no longer stable and changes significantly due to a content dispute. –MuZemike 23:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

May I also ask why this was not brought up at all on Talk:The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons until after it was brought here? –MuZemike 23:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't brought up on the talk page because the discussion took place on JesseRafe's talk page. There wasn't really any point in starting a discussion at the talk page since the only people who would contribute to the discussion would be me, Gran2 and JesseRafe. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Third opinion or WP:RFC are still options to amicably resolve the issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's edit history seems to support that the article does not currently meet WP:GACR#5. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

An article isn't delisted from GA just because a user decides to ignore policy on it for a couple days. And Jesse, it really doesn't matter at all what other Simpsons articles look like. Nor does it matter that there are millions of other articles with poor sourcing. You still cannot add Wikipedia content sourced to IDMB, fan sites, and Wikipedia mirrors. Doing so is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, not a proper content dispute. NW (Talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick semi

Resolved

 – Non-admin closure; article is now semi'ed so there's nothing else to do here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We need a quick semi PP at The Talk (U.S. TV series). 4chan is suddenly riled up over something that happened a couple days ago on the show.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Put in an RFP request. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe refuses to follow WP:V

User:JesseRafe has been adding information cited to unreliable sources to the article The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons multiple times (see the history page of that article). User:Gran2 has thoroughly explained the issue to the user at User_talk:JesseRafe#The_Two_Mrs._Nahasapeemapetilons, but JesseRafe is refusing to follow the WP:V policy because he thinks it is wrong. Gran2 suggested that JesseRafe take it up on the policy talk page, but he didn't, and continued to re-add the information to the article. I think some admin intervention is required here (I'm involved so I'm taking a step back). Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, Wikipedia takes verification seriously now? It stopped willfully ignoring a massive problem because 'it gets in the way'? That's great! So then those 250,000 unsourced articles are an illusion?

If the user is being disruptive, apply a block. If not, failing to verify information puts the user in, if not a majority, a solid plurality. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuously adding information cited to unreliable sources (despite warnings) to WP:DOH's Good articles, that we have spent an enormous time writing, is disruptive. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the sources that are in the article now: reliable or not? If not, remove the sentence and I'll tell JesseRafe that readdition will be grounds for a block. If they are, well I think we would be done here. NW (Talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources are reliable so I'll revert the edit. If you could do that I'd really appreciate it! Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the material can not be referenced or cited. It is a joke, and it is an explanation of the joke. The Simpsons is famous for its parody titles, and the average viewer might not be familiar with 1940s cinema. How can one possibly cite the "getting it" goal of a joke? I searched for the first joke I could think of that would likely have its own page, and succeeded with The Aristocrats (joke). I read all the material in the Notes and none of it explained the idea of the joke as it was explained [accurately] in the article. This is my point about references to jokes, that those who get it all get it equally in quantity and quality and those that don't don't. If someone had heard about The Aristocrats or the joke itself but did not get it and was too embarrassed to ask or something of that nature, reading the wikipedia article on it would do a job of explaining it. Even though it's unsourced, it's accurate. And if there were someone explaining it, would that make it a source -- or just that person's opinion/orginal research?

Not everything can be found in a peer-reviewed academic journal (and even then, it might not be reliable, see: The Sokal Affair), and the majority of these sources are just people's opinions. So, if some comic explains the comedy behind The Aristocrats, is it a source or is it his opinion or his original research or what? Long and the short of it, I don't think jokes can be cited to references explaining them, and the pun in the title of an episode of the Simpsons is a lot more substantial/important to the article than a random bit of unsourced Trivia which could be found on the IMDb page, but would not belong in the wikipedia article.JesseRafe (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As per Sven Manguard, I am clearly not being disruptive. I am adding more information. A simple, single sentence. I am not undoing anyone's work. I am improving the article with good-faith efforts, and providing people with more information than they might otherwise have access to, or know how to go about obtaining. JesseRafe (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You completely misinterpreted what I said. I said that the simple act of adding unsourced information is not something that the community terribly cares about. It's unfortunate, but true. The original complaint was boilerplate-esque, and I was telling him that boilerplate-esque WP:V complaints were in and of themselves not something particularly actionable without disruption. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that just not how Wikipedia works. No matter how accurate your information is, you must be able to back it up with a reliable source otherwise it can't be included. If you can find a reliable source that says the name of the episode is a reference to The Two Mrs. Carrolls, then you can add it. But if you continue to revert without providing a reliable source, it will lead to a block. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still not addressing the issue. One, I believe I wrote on Gran2's page about other random Simpsons article with unsourced statements. Why not remove all of them. Two, you have not established how I have been "disruptive" - read this again:

"Oh wait, Wikipedia takes verification seriously now? It stopped willfully ignoring a massive problem because 'it gets in the way'? That's great! So then those 250,000 unsourced articles are an illusion?

If the user is being disruptive, apply a block. If not, failing to verify information puts the user in, if not a majority, a solid plurality. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)" JesseRafe (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have explained how you have been disruptive: You have been violating Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you have no explained how I have been disruptive. You have claimed that I violated the verifiability policy, but you have no explained how this qualifies as a "disruption". I have not interfered with anybody's edits or content, therefore I have not "ruptured" or "broken apart" the article or otherwise created a "disruption" -- you are misinterpreting the gist behind what Sven Manguard suggested, and you superseded the edits that NW made as per this discussion. In fact, you are causing a disruption, but I am not name-calling. JesseRafe (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As a result of you adding the unreliable sources, you have lowered the standard of the article. If the sources were to be kept, the article would no longer meet the Good article criteria and lose its Good article status. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• This seems to be a content dispute, and not something for Administrator action.
• Perhaps the addition could be rephrased in a way that it is included but in a way that is verifiable. See, for example The_Two_Mrs._Carrolls#Cultural_references. I'll add this last comment to the article's talk page.

Cheers. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:The_Two_Mrs._Nahasapeemapetilons#Content_dispute_re_episode_title

Regarding the comment that the issue isn't being addressed: saying other articles have unsourced statements is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and not really valid to the discussion. If there are unsourced statements and you attempt to verify them, but are unable to, you can legitimately remove them. Just go ahead. And that's not a challenge; that's a WikiFact.

I was going to boldly close this, but I'll leave it in case Jesse has further questions. CycloneGU (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a content dispute on a Good Article, then the GA needs to be delisted as it now fails WP:GACR#5 as it is no longer stable and changes significantly due to a content dispute. –MuZemike 23:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

May I also ask why this was not brought up at all on Talk:The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons until after it was brought here? –MuZemike 23:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't brought up on the talk page because the discussion took place on JesseRafe's talk page. There wasn't really any point in starting a discussion at the talk page since the only people who would contribute to the discussion would be me, Gran2 and JesseRafe. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Third opinion or WP:RFC are still options to amicably resolve the issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's edit history seems to support that the article does not currently meet WP:GACR#5. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

An article isn't delisted from GA just because a user decides to ignore policy on it for a couple days. And Jesse, it really doesn't matter at all what other Simpsons articles look like. Nor does it matter that there are millions of other articles with poor sourcing. You still cannot add Wikipedia content sourced to IDMB, fan sites, and Wikipedia mirrors. Doing so is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, not a proper content dispute. NW (Talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick semi

Resolved

 – Non-admin closure; article is now semi'ed so there's nothing else to do here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We need a quick semi PP at The Talk (U.S. TV series). 4chan is suddenly riled up over something that happened a couple days ago on the show.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Put in an RFP request. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User:David r from meth productions

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

---

As I understand it, this semi-regular user has been involved in adding negative information to articles about journalists involved in spats with Johann Hari (that they were alcoholics and anti-Semites and so on) and in fluffing the article of Hari and some of his friends. The account was at one time found to be using an IP at the The Independent, Mr. Hari's paper. It was claimed that the account was a Hari acquaintance at The Independent. Hari was suspended for 2 months today because of concerns about all this and because of accusations of plagiarism (which The Indy appears to take slightly more seriously -- slightly -- than Wikipedia). There was a discussion of this at the COI noticeboard that petered out inconclusively [150]. I propose at minimum a topic ban from all journalism and political articles, broadly construed, but really an indef block for this kind of behavior is the right course of action. Guardian article on the suspension [151]. Influential Brit blogger on the allegations related to Wikipedia [152]. The Spectator's Nick Cohen (one of Hari's "opponents") on all this [153]. He hasn't edited lately, but his pattern has been long pauses and bursts of activity all along.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You want to do a pre-emptive topic ban or block? This is nonsense. As you say, "He hasn't edited lately". From WP:BLOCK:

Blocks should not be used ... where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

The same goes for any other sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right? He's been vandalizing BLPs inserting unsourced claims that his real world antagonists are anti-Semites and so on and puffing up his own work, and there's no sanction necessary? That would strike me as preventative of further abuse. How is any of this "preemptive?" It appears this account has been quietly editing with an agenda to defame other people for years here (years in which 2-3 months pauses in editing have been quite common). This should be left open for further discussion. The account has done harm and caused real world distress (if the comments of the targets are accepted at face value) and "nothing to see here, move along" as the first response to my post strikes me as both irresponsible and callous.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been significant recent press coverage alleging that this editor has committed BLP violations of a serious nature, in connection with articles involving rivals. I have not investigated these allegations in any detail, at least not yet, and Toddst1 is quite right that David r has not edited in awhile, but I do not think we can afford to be so instantly dismissive of the concern that has been raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The COI thread seems to have been edited by an IP address from the same ISP used by David R (though it's a big range); this IP address seemed to argue that any talk of sanctions against David R should be put on ice. Other IPs from the same telco seem to have been active, at times, on the same cluster of UK journalist articles. For instance, consider [154] [155] [156] - I expect there are more like that. So, if there's an investigation, it should not be limited to the activities of the David R account alone. bobrayner (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I respect Toddst1, but have removed the resolved tag for now - this is a fairly high-profile issue and I think it's worth waiting at least a few hours for input from others (not many people in the UK are awake right now), whether it's about external coverage, or activity by other accounts/IPs, or indeed something about David r himself.

Also, since that account has been intermittently active, in the same areas, for several years (and IP addresses before the account started) I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the problem has gone away just because that account hasn't edited recently. Sooner or later, the same person can be expected to return to similar articles, with or without this particular account. bobrayner (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This person should be community-banned, if for no other reason than that the lack of such a formal signal of disapproval by the community would bring the project into disrepute. Also because of the possibility that he might try to come back. Banning him now is preventative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This user has been violating BLP in a slow, but persistent manner for over two years now. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Courcelles 06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call; I've been digging into this editors contributions and there are multiple issues (mostly now all resolved) relating to serious libel on BLP articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree also, good call. But I would also like to second the call above for a full community ban. This is the kind of thing that puts the whole project in disrepute. There are no valid excuses for their behavior. And as bobrayner noted above, gaps in their editing are part of their pattern and sooner or later, the same person can be expected to return to similar articles, with or without this particular account. A community ban would allow the immediately blocking of any new accounts and immediate reversion of any edits. This would be a preventative measure to protect the project. Heiro 19:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Additional concerns about other accounts & IPs have been raised here and here. A couple of people above have already suggested that a community ban would be appropriate. So: I propose that the person behind the User:David r from meth productions account is community-banned due to concerns about long-term BLP problems, apparent socking, and/or pov-pushing.

• Support as proposer. bobrayner (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support clearly a longstanding problem with COI and BLP violations, possibly abusive sockpuppetry. No evidence this editor has any intention of contributing productively and has damaged the project. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd prefer if the editor was around to speak for himself, but I think the editor's actions already speak for themselves. This person has caused more damage to Wikipedia than the most annoying vandals and sockmasters I've dealt with, even bringing Wikipedia into disrepute in the media through his actions. -- Atama頭 16:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian solutions - I strongly suspect that the user is a tad unlikely to draw attention to himself in the future by making improper edits, for sure. The horse went out of the barn, and locking the door is a teeny beit futile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Brings the project into disrepute and has been editing abusively for years, apparently. Night Ranger (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - For reasons already given: up with this sort of thing we should not put. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - there's not much worse than BLP libel, and this has been going on for far too long. --NellieBly (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as noted above. Heiro 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose If his harmful edits only involve any article that has something to do with Johann Hari wouldn't a topic ban be more appropriate?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Support His sockpuppetry and lack of helpfulness make's it seem worthy that he is banned.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With the hope that people will remain vigilant re suspicious IP and possible sock edits to articles this guy has targeted in the past. We simply can't tolerate this kind of behavior.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor could be topic banned, but community ban is way too strong for him.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ^{(Non-administrator comment)}
• Support The user has grossly abused Wikipedia to make direct attacks on living people with whom he had personal or professional differences. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated. He has not made significant contributions to other topics so a topic ban is not the appropriate remedy.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The edits made by this user are have serious issues with policies, especially with those on WP:BLP and WP:COI. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is the only appropriate response to this level of disruption, and the the period it was conducted over. Courcelles 03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Long-term BLP violations and sockpuppetry are simply unacceptable. -cc 09:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Here is another vicious attack by this editor, which hasn't been mentioned here, against Cristina Odone, a former superior at The New Statesman: I fell out with Johann Hari – then 'David Rose' started tampering viciously with my Wikipedia entry. At this point it's obvious that we (Wikipedia) are being used, and would be enabling him by allowing him to edit here again. First Light (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The evidence is overwhelming. We have absolutely no use for such an editor. --JaGa^talk 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We've been running for three days, consensus seems pretty clearly in favor of a full siteban. Can an admin please close the discussion, add the necessary userpage tags and list at the banned users list? Night Ranger (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Topic Ban Proposal

Proposal withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Instead of an outright ban since it appears that he is only making harmful edits that either involve journalism or biographies. I'm instead proposing that he is topic banned from all articles covered under WikiProject Journalism, and articles cover under WikiProject Biography Support as the proposer.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Proposal Withdrawn Ok, if he hasn't made any edits that is actually useful, than there's no point in keeping him around.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Support as more measured and rational. Collect (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Support, but for a limited time, like 1 year, to get better. Also, good to prevent possible switch to any biography. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Support If the editor promises never again to use socks. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Support. A full-scale ban from the site feels excessive, and it's entirely likely this editor's contributions may be valued elsewhere. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Struck this out, as I'm moving towards a full ban given the gross BLP violations and sockpuppetry. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Sockpuppetry and gross BLP violations warrant more than a topic ban. Night Ranger (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Long-term use of Wikipedia to attack and libel people warrant much more. First Light (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Has never shown the ability to edit in any other manner than a destructive one. Insufficient remedy. Courcelles 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Too soft. --JaGatalk 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Kingston University and WP:COI SPA

Resolved

 – Primary and secondary issues have been dealt with at both COIN and by topic ban (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Can an administrator please have a look into Lorifredrics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and her WP:COI pushing of a case at the university WP:BLP issues may also apply. Mtking (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The user, Mtking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have an excessively extreme reaction to any noteworthy and well-referenced edits to this article. The matter is being dealt with via the article's Talk page, and should be resolved without further ado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think you should given your conection to the subject (see here) you should be the one adding anthing to the article, you appear to be using WP as some form of mouth piece. Mtking (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as we're discussing Lorifredrics' edits, would you care to explain this one [157], a seemingly unfounded claim which could be taken as a threat of off-wiki harassment? Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see why I should have to be subjected to personal attacks like this from this user: [158] Rangoon11 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Daywalker, so you saw this edit too. There is now evidence that has been gathered -- by whom? (Glenn Mulcaire?) -- of payments made to you -- in fat envelopes, or to one of my numerous Liechtenstein bank accounts? -- for your Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum. (News of the Screws? Weekly World News?) I found it mysterious and exciting, and curiously reminiscent of those messages I get from people with access to large Nigerian funds who require my expertise (and a small up-front administration fee). -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Er... behavioral problems of Lorifredrics aside, doesn't linking that news article present some WP:OUTING issues unless Lori posted it themselves somewhere else that I am missing? I'm not too familiar with that policy, but it seems like it would.. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at it further, I guess that posting the link isn't an outing since she is posting under a real name (I had misread a section of the policy earlier.) Kevin (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having followed the situation of Lori Fredric's husband (Howard) at Kingston University over several years now (via regular reading of the Times Higher Education Supplement), I would suggest that Lori Fredrics is really not the right person to be editing about Kingston. She is not here to edit in the normal mode, she is here with an agenda; her grievances (on behalf of her husband) strike me as quite legitimate, by the way, but it still constitutes bringing an external dispute to Wikipedia. There would be no problem in her participating on the talk page -- but I would strongly suggest that she be given explicit instructions not to edit the article (with specified consequences if she doesn't adhere to this). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I would suggest further that the same stricture be applied to Peter Scott (educationalist). Lori and Howard Fredrics quite clearly loathe Scott and have been waging a bitter campaign against him for years. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that should be the case (see below) Mtking (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Her User Page

I did ask Lorifredrics to make a deceleration of her intrest on her userpage, she has done that here however I think she has gone beyond a simple deceleration and is using it to advance her course, futher advice from an administrator would be helpful here. Mtking (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're apparently trying to use my full disclosure of the context of my associations with Kingston University and Howard Fredrics to attack me, when such disclosures are not supposed to be used for such purposes, according to WP:COI policies. Such disclosures are supposed to be used to establish good faith and should be treated as such. There is a clear disclaimer on my userpage regarding the purpose of this disclosure. Moreover, the disclosure is well referenced and therefore well-supported.--Lorifredrics (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am saying I think you are going beyond a simple deceleration and using it as a soapbox. Mtking (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways -- a full declaration of interest and a page that avoids providing a context.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)A full measure of good faith is appropriate for disclosures, but it's certainly not a blank check. It would obviously be inappropriate for someone to disclose bias on an article's subject by saying something along the lines of "I have a conflict here because I know that X is a murderer." I'm not saying your page is so egregious, but it seems borderline at best. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've simply reported relevant facts on actual events that are well documented through press and government generated reports. Nothing less/nothing more and no intent at making this a soapbox. I've not even mentioned names of individuals found to have committed proven wrongdoing, as determined in government investigations. And I've only referred to the most salient of facts needed to minimally understand the gist of the context.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree as to your characterization of your page as minimal. There's no reason at all to go into attributing blame or wrong acts to disclose that you have a conflict of interest, as shown in the example that the conflict of interest page links to. You could simply state that you and your husband are connected to Kingston University and controversial events that took place there. That is all I would need to know to understand and look out for your conflict of interest. It is not a place to trash the subject of your conflict. See my statement below as to why the "factual" nature of the information is irrelevant. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd strongly suggest someone adding {{NOINDEX}} to the user page since it is essentially publishing content which by consensus has been removed from actual articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to every single page on Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added {{NOINDEX}} -- but perhaps it should be taken further, with deletion at least of the problem bits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth asking the BLP Noticeboard for an opinion, once the page/topic ban proposals are resolved here (one way or another). Otherwise, it ends up as noticeboard overkill. A look at the assertions made by Lorifredrics about Peter Scott on Talk:Peter Scott (educationalist) might also be a good idea. Her latest edit provided a link to a copy of what appears to be a police memo about the case marked at the top "Data Protection Act - Dispose of as confidential waste" (hosted on her husband's web site). I'm not too sure whether that's appropriate even for an article's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Voceditenore. The DPA reference is in relation to the subject of the memo, my husband Howard Fredrics, who as the subject, is entitled to release the material for public use, as he did. The heading of the memo is in relation to the Police being required to dispose of the material in accordance with the Act. You're just trying to stir up needless trouble.--Lorifredrics (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your husband's name does not appear anywhere on the document, only the names of what I assume to be the police investigating the case, and I'm still not sure that it is appropriate to link to it on the talk page of the article. Likewise the assertions you make about the article's subject in that post. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That has got to be one of the single most moronic comments I've seen on Wikipedia. Where do you think he got the document? Obviously from his solicitors, Christian Khan, whose name is at the top (Fax header). Do you actually believe that this is NOT what the police said about my husband's website/case -- no evidence of harassment? Come on. Talk about petty and an obviously malicious comment. Why don't you find someone else to bully on here?Lorifredrics (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Page and Topic Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is an unambiguous consensus in favour of the proposed ban. Apart from the opposition from the user who is the subject of the proposed ban, only one objection has been raised, which is a purely procedural objection on the grounds that the reasons for the ban have not been listed in the proposal, as opposed to elsewhere in this section. However, there is no consensus for the view that that invalidates the proposal, and the rest of the discussion gives a clear consensus in favour of the ban. User:Lorifredrics is banned indefinitely from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt). At present I am leaving the rest of this section open, as other issues apart from the topic ban may still be under discussion, but if discussion does not progress the whole section should probably be closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

That User:Lorifredrics is page banned from editing both Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt).

• Support as proposer. Mtking (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Oppose" as subject of proposed ban. Clearly this ban is being proposed in response to a full disclosure made in good faith in relation to alleged COI . I have not made further edits on these pages since being asked to take such matters to a Talk page prior to editing. A ban is clearly excessive. --Lorifredrics (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this proposal was made a full 2h 50m before you made your full disclosure. You have also made a number of edits after being asked to take the discussion to the talk page such as this and this, a ban is clearly NOT excessive. Mtking (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Clear conflict of interest, as she's admitted and does not automatically mean a ban. But it seems necessary given concerning behavior. Her only Virtually all of her contributions have been on these topics and she has reverted 4 separate users on these pages, including one where the summary said: "Have taken to talk page, but am leaving article posting due to immediate importance and relatively non-controversial nature of edits." Assuming as much good faith as I can, labeling the addition of material supporting your husband as being of "immediate importance," for me, leaves little room for doubt that you had something other than improving the article in mind when you made the change. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 06:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Her only contributions have been on these topics." -- that is simply false. Please see:Belt (Music) and Trio for Violin, Horn and Piano (Ligeti) as ex's of other topics. Immediate importance referred to the timely relevance of the recent (July 7, 2011) Parliamentary Speech. The nature of the most recent edits were purely factual (e.g. changing 'acquitted' to 'no case to answer,' an important UK legal distinction) and non-analytical in nature (hence non-controversial), relying solely on accounts of events described in reliable sources.--Lorifredrics (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I've corrected my statement. I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand what you mean by immediate importance referring to a recent action. The recent nature of information hardly makes it more important. All information on Wikipedia should be factual, that does not make it non-controversial. Whether or not it is appropriate and neutral to include on a page is a matter of discretion on which consensus must be reached. But my major concern is that you were reverting other editors. Editing articles where you have a conflict is discouraged, but reverting other editors in an area where you have an interest is never appropriate except in the case of vandalism, which was not the case for any of your revisions. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy makes the point clear: "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit." ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support unless the editor voluntarily pledges to restrict herself to proposing and discussing edits on the talk pages for these topics. Three relatively minor edits to other articles are irrelevant, and one of them was really most inappropriate in terms of her edit summary. The edit-warring, coatracking, and attacks on at least two other editors [159], [160], who have opposed her crusade on behalf of her husband are very disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that the user's "attack" on me (if that's what it was) didn't disrupt my activities in the slightest. Indeed, it had considerable amusement value. However, it did waste some of John's time and quite a lot of Mtking's, and this I regret. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, in itself the declaration of a CoI is good. And yes, some people who have conflicts of interest can improve articles. This person's list of contributions provides no such assurance. She'll still be able to suggest edits, and the suggestions can be considered on their merits. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunate Support Making a COI statement is great, but it is not a blank cheque to make wholesale changes/deletions contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and that clearly hold WP:POV. I laud the addition that talkpage additions/suggestions can be made so that someone on the inside can continue to provide valid input. The other benefit is that the editor has other interests on Wikipedia, where they can use a lot of their energies there in order to better our knowledge of the subjects. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The COI statement is more of a political campaign. A real COI statement would be "I used to work here and my husband was involved in a controversy". A period of only being able to use the talk page would be beneficial on both articles. The COI report on another editor, without any evidence at all was the clincher for me --Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support and propose that the ban be extended to the article talk pages too. As can be seen below, Lorifredrics has continued to use the other Wikipedia pages to make unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of an editor. Frankly, given the obvious COI, and her unwillingness to use pages for the intended purpose, I can see no reason to let her make any further comments. Regardless of what happened concerning Kingston University, the abuse of Wikipedia facilities to engage in soapboxing has to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- even with this ANI discussion on-going, LoriFredrics continues to engage in repeated reverts to push her preferred version. Enough already... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - What finally pushed me over to support the topic ban was the violation of 3RR at Peter Scott (educationalist) in the midst of this discussion. -- Atama頭 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, this way her voice can be heard on the talk pages without the need to block for COI edits. Dayewalker (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Access to the talk pages is enough for this editor. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the several conclusive argument already raised, adding text (diff) suggesting that the "rightful registrant" of a domain based on the name "Sir Peter Scott" was the editor's husband (see here) exhibits a COI that cannot reasonably be handled by other editors. I further propose that all links to the website be removed from Wikipedia (see here, namely editor's user page)—such promotional activity is way outside Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. C'mon, after me, let's all have a pile on and to hell with natural justice! Any page/topic ban proposal should say why. This proposal demands Lorifredrics be banned from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott pages -- but doesn't give reasons. Related comments elsewhere on this page are not an inherent component of this proposal, so as evidence has not been presented in this proposal it must fail. Moriori (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is very clear why it has been proposed in the main part of this section. Mtking ^(edits) 09:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given my opinion here in this section which you titled Page and Topic Ban. I have not edited the Kingston University and WP:COI SPA or Her user page or Misuse of the COI noticeboard by User:Lorifredrics sections. In this Page and Topic Ban section there is no evidence given to support your proposal. Any proposal anywhere in Wikipedia should be able to stand by itself. Still, if you think that's fair, pile on. My 2c. Moriori (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a sub-section of the main "Kingston University and WP:COI SPA", so I think you are splitting hairs on this. Mtking ^(edits) 10:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You personally, who have been in conflict with this editor, have proposed that this editor be page/topic banned. Your proposal does not contain a skerrick of reason why. And you think I am splitting hairs. Heaven help Wikipedia. !

If nothing else, a summary will help the closing administrator (something has to be logged at WP:RESTRICT if the ban is confirmed) and anyone else who is giving an opinion here. Mtking, you created the proposal so it would be best if you did so. -- Atama頭 16:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support because Lorifredrics appears to have a serious conflict of interest. She is continuing a feud with the sometime employers of her husband and herself on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support This should be good to resolve this, ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))
• Oppose indefinite ban, support topic probation. I agree we should force the problematic user to use the discussion pages and learn about policy, yes, but I disagree about the remedy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Closing? Lack of evidence under this specific sub-heading notwithstanding, this should be closed one way or the other. Do we need to request that somewhere? I assumed an admin would just come across this and do it, but that doesn't seem to be happening. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Misuse of the COI noticeboard by User:Lorifredrics

As can be seen, Lorifredrics has continued to make unsubstantiated attacks on Rangoon11's integrity here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rangoon11. Can I ask an admin to close the COI/N section, redact the allegations, and extend the ban on Lorifredrics to any discussion of other users supposed COI not explicitly backed up by diffs which clearly demonstrate such? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur, I just came to make the same suggestion --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree -- Diffs are not the only way to provide evidence of WP:COI. I believe I have provided enough to justify concern, whether or not others may or may not agree with that concern. Clearly some have, as evidenced in my list of external links and other sources of evidence provided in the COI report.(e.g. her edits in the [redacted] article.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, did Rangoon11 reveal her personal identity on Wikipedia, or declare herself to be the author of that material? If not, that is WP:OUTING and is instantly blockable. I've redacted it for now, the way the ANI board is I felt I should do it right away before I had to revdel 50 edits. -- Atama頭 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, now I see what you linked to, it's a mirror of Wikipedia. You should have just linked to Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section. I don't see why you feel the need to link to a mirror, not Wikipedia itself. Anyway, never mind about the outing, sorry.

No problem. Sorry for using a mirror, but that's what came up in my initial google search on the matter. Most certainly, no outing was intended.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, for Andy, I'm watching the COIN discussion and if it gets out of hand I can close it, but I don't see any reason to at the moment. -- Atama頭 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that the above section is merely a topic ban ... Lori seems to be itching for something more permanent/widespread (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly as she is continuing to edit the Peter Scott page... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. She said she won't edit the page any longer, then edited it later in the day. I don't think a voluntary withdrawal can be trusted, and a topic ban would be necessary if the community does not want her to edit those pages further. -- Atama頭 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit was quite minor and was put before other editors on Talk page, but they did not address the merits of the proposed edits, so sensing no controversy, therefore, I enacted these edits, which were mere factual corrections/additions of references.--Lorifredrics (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And it should be noted that one of the 'references' is to what looks like a copyright violation: an image of an article in the local paper, hosted on the contentious 'www.sirpeterscott.com' website. I will of course remove this link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, you put your proposal on the article talk page, waited 4 minutes, then decided that since nobody had objected yet that it would be okay to add the info. That's not acting in good faith to seek consensus for an edit. Again, you're hurting your credibility here by claiming one thing and doing another, again and again. You also can't say that a ban is unnecessary because you haven't edited either article since concerns were raised, and then proceed to edit (and revert people when they object to the edit). I haven't weighed in on whether to support the proposed topic ban, but you're convincing me that I should. -- Atama頭 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Atama, that is not quite correct. This proposed edit was initially put forth for discussion at 23:53 on July 14. No one bothered to address the elements that I ultimately and more recently enacted/reverted to. --Lorifredrics (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, I have really been trying to assume good faith, but you seem to think we are incapable of actually checking on the things you tell us. To say "they did not address the merits of the proposed edits, so sensing no controversy" is, at the least, misleading, and closer to an outright lie. Three separate editors explicitly disagreed with your proposed edit, and then you did it anyways. You cannot propose a paragraph of text, have it objected to on the whole, and then claim specific parts were non-controversial. To the extent your later comment specifically addressed this issue, you put it there and then waited a little over 2 hours, after other editors had made clear they disagreed with what you wanted to do. As I stated above, quoting from the conflict of interest policy, any objector makes it controversial. But I don't need to quote policy. There is no way you could have reasonable believed this was not controversial. You were also reverting another editor, which is problematic for the same reason I stated above. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mahewa, specific objections to aspects of the paragraph were made. Individual components not objected to were then reverted to by me, since no one had objected to those elements of the paragraph and no one seemed willing to address the substance of the proposed edits, which clearly seem entirely non-controversial. I challenge you to find any controversy in simply including a factual difference -- the issue of 'no case to answer' vs 'acquittal' and the addition of a published reference to fully clarify it. We're really splitting hairs here, and I am beginning to feel that this sort of nitpicky and punitive approach is far disproportionate to issues at hand, and that it borders on editorial harassment. Please try to get a grip on the bigger picture here. If someone has a problem with the CONTENT of my edit, please let me know.--Lorifredrics (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit consisted of 3 things: a link to the WIPO document, a link to a copyright violating article on a page made for the purpose of attacking the person you have a disagreement with, and a change which made the article a little more specific, but wasn't really needed (the page was just as correct as it was, when a judge says there is no case to answer, he directs acquittal of the defendant). In terms of the second part, yes, I have a problem with the content of your edit. While the first and third may seem benign, if you had any desire to act as though you take the concerns on this page seriously at all, you could have just suggested them on the talk page and hoped another editor would agree. There is no reason the edits needed to be made, especially after you said you would no longer edit the page. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

She has also breached WP:3RR while going about it, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lorifredrics reported by Mtking (talk) (Result: ) for dif's. Mtking (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Her apparent response to this is to threaten to report a user who has no more than 2 separate reverts in a 24-hour period. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that if a user has 2 reverts in a 24 hr period, it is reasonable to warn them to avoid a 3rd revert in that time period. If I am mistaken about that practice, I apologize.

--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not mistaken Lori. It's reasonable to warn an editor about edit-warring after 2 reverts. An edit war isn't defined by making more than 3 reverts on an article. And your message was a threat to report if more reverts occurred. I don't think there was anything wrong with the note you left. -- Atama頭 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is substantially less reasonable, unreasonable, I dare say, when those two reversions were of your 3rd and 4th reversions in a 24-hour period on an article you have a conflict of interest in, have agreed to stop editing, and have been undone by two other editors. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 04:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I still wouldn't say it's unreasonable, but the warning is fairly toothless if nothing else. -- Atama頭 16:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Just as an FYI, Lori has agreed to drop the COI allegations against Rangoon11 at WP:COIN and I've closed the discussion there. -- Atama頭 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The charge is that Lorifredrics has continued to make unsubstantiated attacks on Rangoon11's integrity here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rangoon11 and that this is misuse of the COI noticeboard. I'd say instead that she questioned Rangoon11's integrity there. As part of the questioning, she insinuated that Rangoon11 was being paid. That was neither pleasant nor justified, but I don't see that it's necessarily an attack. Also, there's a non-trivial attempt to provide reasons for the questioning. The reasoning didn't convince people, and it doesn't convince me; some of her follow-up comments seem timewasting -- but this does not all add up to "misuse of the COI noticeboard". Let's not indulge in pile-on. ¶ What is a bit alarming is her comment near the end that The issue of paid editing is one that is near and dear to my heart, and I shall continue to remain vigilant in my questioning of those who appear to be paid editors who don't openly acknowledge as much. She doesn't promise to present more convincing evidence for any future claim, and (simply because they're already bored by the thread?) nobody demands that she does so. While her COI-related utterances can be amusing, they have so far been a waste of other editors' time; if she continues to make feebly-backed allegations then she should be blocked as disruptive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Further allegations lacking sufficient evidence, especially against the same person as before, can be considered as personal attacks. I tried to make that clear to Lori. I closed the discussion there because she agreed to no longer push the issue at this time, and discussing Lori's COI at the noticeboard would be useless because it's already being discussed here, and she isn't denying it. -- Atama頭 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that you did and say. And I also agree that this was a poor use of the COI board. I disagree with AndyTheGrump, not you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, my vigilance means that. But that doesn't mean that I intend to make unsubstantiated allegations. As before, I raised genuine and legitimate questions for other editors to comment on, and did not make allegations, even though some may have chosen to interpret them as such. I will be sure to come armed with strong evidence of the sort suggested by Atama when I make actual allegations, you can rest assured. I happen to believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask any questions that come up when one's alarm bells are triggered, whether or not other editors bells are triggered by said warning signs.--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Lorifredrics has once again chosen here [161] to make unsubstantiated allegations of "editing harassment/bullying by some editors". Isn't it high time we told her to take a hike? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No. She prefaces her (rather mild) allegations with "may", "appears", etc. This doesn't mean that I agree with them or even that they're reasonable. I might tell her to put a sock in it. But for us, plural, to tell her to take a hike? No. Topic-ban her from articles (not talk pages), treat her like an adult, argue back where necessary, and be patient. (And yes of course, patience should have its limits. When it breaks, try enforcing a 31-hour vacation.) Who knows, she may even turn into a constructive editor on voice technique, etc. ¶ Or are we so very sensitive to unwarranted allegations? Me, in my time I've been accused of all sorts of things, including serious neurological damage. I shrug or laugh it off. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary here in that even though my patience is running low here, I think that we should give the page/topic ban a chance (maybe with a short trip to the cooler), I would like to think it would have the effect of stopping any article disruption and bring her to the discussion table. That said I fully understand AndyTheGrump's feelings.Mtking (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify. While I can understand why Lorifredrics is keen to expose what she see as an injustice (and very possibly others too - it is less than clear that justice has been done), she seems to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is an appropriate forum to seek a platform for the issues raised. When others have pointed out that this isn't what Wikipedia is for, she has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks - all phrased in such a way that a cursory inspection may give the impression that she is merely asking whether her suspicions might be true. This sort of weasel-wording might (just) stand up in a court of law, but Wikipedia requires (or at least asks for) a higher standard: WP:AGF. To expect other editors to contribute meaningfully in an environment where any dissent it taken as evidence for maybe being a paid agent of (...fill in the blanks...) isn't conducive to cooperative discourse. While Lorifredrics continues to see Wikipedia as a platform to continue her battle against Kingston University, Sir Peter Scott etc, etc, she is likely to run into conflict with Wikipedia policy and standards. On this basis, I suggest that there is actually little to 'discuss', and to continue a dialogue with her might give the false impression that she can 'win' her arguments here. At best (from her perspective) she might get Wikipedia articles to reflect her point of view, but this will achieve nothing much for her cause, and even less for our reputation (such as it is). I honestly think that if she is intent on pursuing the issue, she would be better off doing it elsewhere - and so will we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up here and moving on

I really think that the topic ban was the only thing here that needed to or should be resolved here. I think much of this discussion has degenerated too much to be of any more use. I would suggest closing everything here and moving to the BLP noticeboard to discuss the user page issue. This would keep the discussion from splintering while giving us a clean start for a separate issue. I would also suggest that, unless there's a reasoning I have not thought of, that there is no reason at all to bring up this block or many of the issues raised here. The only things that I think need to be known for that issue is that he user page contains BLP-type content that has been rejected from article namespace. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 16:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on both suggestions. The COI Board issue was resolved there three days ago. There's no point in keeping the rest of this open on ANI. Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Giornorosso redux - more of the same and then some

• Giornorosso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous discussion threads:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#Requesting_block_for_editor_making_overtly_racist_edits
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Overtly_racist_edits_redux
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giornorosso/Archive
4. User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_32#User:Giornorosso_IP_still_not_blocked.3F
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive685#Question_regarding_overtly_racist_editor_and_recidivist_sockpuppeteer
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive155#85.162.27.170_reported_by_Severino_.28Result:_Rangeblocked_1_week.29
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive702#User:Thonos.27s_offensive_userbox

I am still puzzling over why the IP of a user indef blocked for pushing a racist POV was left unblocked even after being checkusered as part of a sockpuppetry investigation, but User:Tiptoety, the checkuser, seems to be on an extended break. The IP was blocked for a week only after my direct request to Tiptoety and then subsequently blocked again for 3 months following a second sockuppetry investigation. That block has now expired and it is evident by the recent contributions that the same user is still in control of the IP.

The IP asked admin User:Thryduulf to edit a semi-protected article on their behalf. That request was done without question. Without meaning to suggest any wrongdoing on Thryduulf's behalf, I find it surprising that an IP with a block log such as this can so easily get someone to proxy for them. Note that User:Thonos, who is identified as a Giornorosso sockpuppet, participated in a talkpage discussion] related to that exact edit, as did an IP (User:196.216.56.18) who shares Giornorosso's obession with rape statistics.

Would someone mind giving User:90.177.208.162 a long block? I would suggest that a checkuser look for new accounts created from this IP. Thanks. Incidentally, User:Dezidor (who was briefly blocked as a sockpuppet for making identical edits to Giornorosso) is quite evidently pushing a similar viewpoint, albeit with slightly more subtlety. This edit is particularly telling (note the misleading edit summary as well). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This untrue accusation again? I really hope that this was close when blocking admin apologized me for his incorrect block. You are not true, again, when you claim that we have similar viewpoint. I am NOT Gaddafi supporter [162]. No way. I am not also support of anti-Gaddafi forces but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I also do not agree with some another edits that Giornorosso made, often only a provocative without serious content. On the other hand I strongly disagreed that he was blocked by Jpgordon without previous shorter block after one year of editing at English Wikipedia. It was unfair political decision. I also pointed that he made series of uncontroversial and useful edits at Czech Wikipedia from which I know his name. In his legitimate content disputes he was sometimes right (and there was no reason to delete his edits) and sometimes wrong. --Dezidor (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that you are a sockpuppet of Giornorosso. You are really a footnote to this, but I think the links offered in this discussion of your addition of "white nationalists" to Wikiproject Conservatism will show your POV adequately. If not, your contribution history speaks for itself, should anyone care to take a look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edit I made, I read the request and agreed with the user that the statement that very strongly implied that all child pornography is a record of child abuse was not appropriate for the lead of the article, so I made the edit. I explained fully on the talk page why [163]. I did not look at who the user was, the request was clearly focused on improving the encyclopaedia article and based on the talk page did not appear to be controversial. I don't recall having interaction with the user before, so I saw no need to investigate further. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So, no admins willing to look over the handful of edits since the IP's block expired and determine that this is the same user? An indef-blocked POV-pusher with a history of sockpuppetry? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe 'cos WP:SPI is thataway ...? --> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the IP and the account has already been confirmed by two checkusers. The IP has made edits of a similar nature to some of the same articles since the block expired. This is really a no-brainer. I think it would be wise for the blocking admin to follow up with a checkuser in case there are new socks, but I thought filing SPI cases to fish for socks was frowned upon. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

IP editor ignoring advice & warnings

Resolved

 – Editor blocked for 24 hours and a link to the relevant guideline left on their talk page Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

2.26.250.49 (talk · contribs) is the worst kind of wikifiddler - repeatedly deleting perfectly valid red links, and overlinking centuries, countries and other items. The user has been repeatedly advised and warned, yet he/she persists in ignoring all contact and carries on regardless leaving a trail for others to clear up. Given the amount of contact from others, through the user's talk page, that has been ignored this can't simply be a case of an ignorant but well-meaning editor. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)