Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722

Problem with aggressive user Nmate

I have a problem with aggressive user Nmate. I think Wikipedia is not a battleground and problematic user Nmate constantly attacks me 1 and deletes References 1 2 3 4 from Articles. His last attack and menaces are very disturbing 5. He wrote: I will delete every contribution to Wikipedia if you continue making personal attacks on me and Pov pushing ,and I will report to ArbCom whose outcome won't be as auspicious as it was last time.I think he has any mental disorder, because I don´t attack someone. Also I think his behavior will be more aggressive in future 6 7 8. Please resolve my problem with Nmate´s personal attacks, because I'm tired already. --Omen1229 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don`t want to "pour oil on fire" but it seems that the main activity of User:Nmate is to cause conflicts and write various reports (according to his contributions). There is a pattern and whenever he re-appears a new conflict is created with various users. Adrian (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nmate edits and personal attacks have been motivated by a nationalist standpoint regarding the history of Eastern Europe. Per Wikipedia:DIGWUREN and Wikipedia is not a battleground should be Nmate blocked forever. --195.28.75.114 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of Wikistalking accross many articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I also see talk page issues such as reverting someone else's talk page message by a third user. This behavior is highly disruptive and I am on the edge of a block for Wikistalking. The only thing holding me back is that the edits that are reverted appear to be slightly POV. I would say that they are sourced and in good faith and this is a content dispute that should be resolved by discussion and not by edit warring. I strongly suggest Nmate knock it off and find something better to do.--v/r - TP 13:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Nmate is already under editing restriction regarding Eastern European topics due to his past violations of policy. It seems that his continued edit warring and incivility over these articles constitutes a knowing and purposeful violation of the Digwuren ArbCom decision, and that violations like this have been enforced by either topic ban or block. Please note that any blocks or bans need to be documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. I would say the severity of his incivility would merit at least a lengthy topic ban, but I'm just one editor. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the restrictions and I see that Nmate was notified of the restriction in 2008. As it is within admin discretion and I can see how Nmate would think his edits were justified, I am going to WP:AGF on Nmate and leave a reminder on his talk page that Wikistalking and undoing good faith edits are disruptive. I'm not going to personally issue a block at this time, but another admin may decide otherwise.--v/r - TP 15:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the warning got ignored. [7]. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Take two

I wrote here yesterday 1. You warned Nmate yesterday 2, but this problematic user constantly deletes References 3 4 from Articles without discussion. --Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there is some pretty consistent POV pushing going on here. To have undertaken such an edit less than a day after being reminded of the ArbCom policies on Eastern European subjects is pretty damning. I'm not sure Nmate is ever going to get it. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly it was stated before that Omen is not a new user, but a self evident sockpuppet of someone. If blatantly obvious sockpuppet accounts, with openly throwaway names (such as Omen1229, or Sky8872, user22365, Wikp227612 et cetera), are allowed to write to this noticeboard, I think the net effect will be a big negative for Wikipedia. There is nothing to be discussed with a throwaway account, because after a time, well it's thrown away anyway and a new one is created. I am being straightforward here, because I don't believe that any honest person with experience in dealing with sockpuppets (like an admin at SPI) could say that the omen account is a real, legitimate and first account at Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that Omen1229 is a new user... Anyway we should avoid confusing the subjects and if there is a valid suspicion about Omen then there should be a SPI report - separated from this discussion. Adrian (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I´m a new user. I don´t know who are Sky8872, user22365, Wikp227612... lol --Omen1229 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

250 edits since February? Doesn't sound very suspicious to me. On what basis do you have this concern? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@Hobartimus: You state above "If I remember correctly it was stated before that Omen is not a new user, but a self evident sockpuppet of someone." Do you have any diffs to back up your memory of this? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about 2 editors

Hi Admin,

I would like to complain about Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite and their behaviour, culminating in Jasper Deng accusing me of “sockpupperty”. That is a very serious accusation, according to Wikipedia policy and one not to take lightly, so I filed a compliant after carefully reading and researching.

In my opinion they:

• 1) are bullies
• 2) tagging too fast to possibly "fast track" their way to Admin
• 3) accused me of disruptive editing
• 4) accused me of canvassing
• 5) nominated my talk page for deletion when all can see it's just a draft of an article
• 6) making me feel small about my English
• exhibit competitive behaviour toward me like it's a competitive sport who can tag the articles I edit for something first (which is rife if you look at my talkpage)
• 7)accused me of sockpupperty

1) An editor believes I am being bullied: [8] ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng are bullying me because I am a newbie and English is not my first language and they have more power over me with editing. I am trying my hardest to do edit Wikipedia articles within the guidelines and I really would like to get those articles correct before I move on. They quickly tag the articles I edit and create for deletion and mow my comments down or ignore my comments when I ask for help on making the article better and more notable.

2) Another editor complained that "he's tagging a little too fast" before nominating it for deletion [9]

An editor believes that that they want to "fast track" their editing power to Admin and are ”hit and run tagging “.[10][11]

3) Jasper Deng accused me of "disruptive editing" - I didn't correctly make my point as English is not my first language, and I was merely trying to correct an article so that it reads correctly (I think the page wouldn’t save at the time also)[12]. Jasper Deng says "it would be very unfortunate if we had to block you from editing because of this"[13] implying that he will block me from Wikipedia. I have never encountered that type of behavior in my life before this. "Please do not create articles that are about non-notable people or things" - I did not - I am trying to make wikipedia as encyclopedic as possible and I am asking for assistance and help. I have referenced and cited more than for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikki_Ziegler, but Jasper Deng or ConcernedVancouverite did not put a "notability" tag on this article and it's been around since 2008 with 10 cites and they are not even referenced properly.

4) ConcernedVancouverite accused me of "canvassing" [14] as ConcernedVancouverite stated: I am definitely not. Since when does "I would really like to get those articles correct before I move on" constitute canvassing? Another editor agrees with my point [15]

I am merely asking the editor's opinion, not using jargon which will sway the editors. Since when does seeking aid (not swinging votes and consensus!) a no-no? "Your posts here are disruptive" says an editor and “you are making an exhibition of his contribs”.[16]

ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng's flag or banner on my page is a black mark and I am upset - they should have explained to me first, should have given me a warning or something rather than rushing head on and tagging.

5) This was my personal draft page nominated for deletion by Jasper Deng [17] But it was a draft and another editor agrees[18] I have a limited amount on the computer and had more pressing issues to deal with regarding research for editing Wikipedia articles, rather than researching how to save my draft in another location, but I will research that as soon as I am finished here.

6) Then ConcernedVancouverite said "it is not so obvious that Domenico's first language is not English"[19], when I have said it in my previous posts I posted to another editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Schuck In this instance, ConcernedVancouverite picked me out on a gramatical error[20]. Regarding this, I meant "comments on" instead of "re-affirmed" [21] and that's that only line he commented on, not my pleading for assistance.

7) Then Jasper Deng accused of "sockpupperty". It is a very serious accusation. [22] and that is the last straw. [23] Then I made a compliant. Can you look at the IP addresses in the log please for J2theso? I am not J2theso and have never been J2theso. I reside in the USA, in NYC. If the IP address has come from anywhere else i.e. another state or another country, then it will prove that I am not a sockpuppet and that Jasper Deng's claims are false and he should be that one who should apologise and refrain from commenting. He says that he has been editing wikipedia articles for a long time, should he not pick on someone who has a little bit more experience than me?

By the way, another editor previously said that he was "too biased" of this Being Born Again Couture [24] article to edit it (I can’t find the reference to cite it and I‘ve been looking for 50 minutes) written up in his previous comments, and much later he went onto the talk page of BBAC and said “delete” in a bulleted list comment on the BBAC article: [25].

I have thought about this and there is a problem with Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite’s contributions: they make a lot of contributions and edits and so consensus is swung in their favour because they are the “voice” of the people, just there 2 people. “Consensus” will never be reached – 3 or 4 people around at the time will decide on deleting or keeping the articles, since the majority of people will never get involved in any AFD discussion because they are too tired/scared that their opinion will be bulldozed.

Please reprimand ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng for these reasons and take the black marks out of my page please.

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Have you notified ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng? You need to post {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk pages not here. Nil Einne (talk)

As a general comment, there's no real such thing as 'black marks' on your page. The primary purpose of message warnings is to ensure you are aware of our policies and understand the consequences and inform you of anything that requires your attention. You are free to remove most messages from your user talk page, whether they are deserved or relevent or not, although archiving is preferred, see WP:UP#CMT. (Do note this doesn't include ongoing MFD tags like on your previous user page (now moved to a subpage by me).) Previous messages and warnings themselves will not count against you other then implying you are aware of our policies and guidelines, as well as the possibility of being blocked for certain behaviour, although the behaviour that lead up to the message or warning may be scrutinised. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nil Einne, I have just notified the users in question, thank you. I will see WP:UP#CMT. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) Domenico.y —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

I should like to reiterate some of the concerns mentioned. Having first "met" Domenico.y via WP:RFF a few weeks ago upon reviewing a couple of the articles he created, please note that I have no former knowledge of the subjects, and no COI; generally I have no view on the keep/delete issue, articles can be improved to standards after AfD, whereas hounded contributors do not tend to return.

There is a history of events resulting from Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) and ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) which I saw fit to challenge and engage in. These include:

• Several AfD nominations (though within Wiki policy)
• AfD of "draft" on userpage, when moving to a sandbox would have helped - no AGF.
• Disruptive Edits Warning - no AGF.
• Canvassing Warning - false claim imo - no AGF.
• Undid a barnstar which was clearly placed accidentally on the wrong (his own) talk page with "WikiLove" and accusational edit summary left - no AGF.
• It was clear to me from day one that Domenico.y is not a native-English user, and various actions seem to treat him more like a "retard" than non-English editor - no AGF, very condescending attitudes.
• Accused of sock puppetry based on ONE post - no AGF, no justification - also a COI as accuser of socks filed AfD that he seeks to defend.
• These continued reprisals were almost tag-team or synchronised - no apologies for their mistakes, just continued challenges.
• Regardless of if Domenico.y's articles appear "promotional" or COI, there has been no support, no AGF, no attempt to work with him, apart from myself, and as I made clear in earlier RFF replies, I have no knowledge or interest in the fashion industry to aid in the development of articles.

I find the situation paramount to bullying, hounding, and severe levels of WP:BITE. The candor from those two, particularly Jasper Deng, who is clearly an "admin wannabe" and persists in attempting to stave off my defence of Domenico.y via my talk page, denies that he is doing anything wrong and makes cliché "NPA" remarks, when his entire "campaign" against Domenico.y come across as one big PA in itself. I feel it necessary to support this ANI, before the accused post a rebuttal, and once again try to take advantage of Domenico.y's inexperience. This pair should know better than Domenico.y, given their involvement in !admin-tool duties. I do not pertain to be "perfect" and am often aggressive in condemning their behaviour, but as far as this case goes, I feel it is a clear cut example of poor communication skills, lack of AGF, and selective abuse of guidelines to favour (advocate) backing their behaviour whilst belittling Domenico.y due to his lack of guideline knowledge.

Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 08:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish - when one SPA makes another, similar comment, there is a pretty big connection. But I really dislike you accusing me of a campaign against Domenico.y, which is clearly something that hasn't happened. But Domenico.y needs more help than most new editors and I'm backing off here.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After taking a look through all this, there are a lot of issues here, but the two most obvious are (1) Jasper and ConcernedVancouverite need to leave Domenico.y alone, starting now; and (2) someone needs to help guide Domenico.y in the right direction. I'll take care of #1 right now. Marcus, would you be willing to spend some time on #2? 28bytes (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree to this.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing a formal interaction ban? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I think politely asking them to give this editor some space should be sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been since the RFF, and on his talk page - I usually point to the right guidelines and policies, and copy-edit, but as I said above, not having interests in the articles he is writing about, I can't contribute/research them, Domenico.y seems to have the knowledge, but really it is a matter of notability, reliable sources, and non-COI neutrality to make sure the articles meet standards, and avoid AfD issues. Clearly Domenico.y is acting in good faith and keen to proceed, and I think it best he be allowed to work on articles in his own userpace/sandbox, to go via AFC or RFF, and take a gentler approach to creating new articles, whilst he establishes a sounder grasp of guidelines via editing, discussions and general wiki involvement - by editing articles that relate to what he wants to write about, he will get a better feel of what is good, acceptable, reliable, etc and work similar styles into his own drafts. I certainly don't mind answering his questions, giving general feedback, or doing a copy-edit/cite-check now and then though, but I don't want to be "involved" in creating articles on fashion, as it's not my thing. If that would appease the situation, it's the best I can do. I think the other 2 editors need to take him off their watchlist and let alone - now this has matter has been dragged through AFD, talkpages and ANI it is getting too much attention - Domenico'y wants support, not scrutiny - we need to make him aware of where that support is and how to use it effectively. Only then does he stand a chance of enjoying what wiki can offer him, and allow his independent editing to be accepted. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 09:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of a strongly conflicted new editor who is friends with the subjects of the articles not enjoying having those articles edited by others to reduce their promotional nature. My only actions on the Davina Reichman article which was created on December 28, 2010 was tagging it with a notability tag on September 25, 2011 - a normal quality control practice [26]. Later on September 27, 2011 I removed a BLP claim that did not match what it was citing [27] - once again a normal quality control practice. Similarly on the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show article which was created on March 12, 2011 my only original editing action was to PROD it and remove one entirely uncited section on September 24, 2011 [28] - another normal quality control practice. After that article was deproded by Domenico when he blanked the page, an admin brought it to AfD. I then !voted on the AfD which had been started by that admin here [29] and later made a comment and struck out a double !vote by Domenico here [30] - which are both normal practices on an AfD. I had much more involvement with the Adam Schuck article, which I initially nominated for speedy, as it did not make plausible claims of notability. I nominated it only after attempting to find sources and when the bulk of what I turned up was just social media passing mentions and social media profiles I nominated it for speedy deletion based upon my own research combined with the lack of any plausible claims in the article. My research that I had completed is detailed on the now current AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Schuck. So in two of the three cases where I have been attacked numerous times the claims of either bullying or tagging too fast are entirely baseless. Yet I received regular attacks for the same such as the editing notes (which quite frankly should be removed by an admin for their inappropriate attack nature) here [31] and [32]. While I can recognize there may be differing views on the Schuck article content, the regular personal attacks and canvassing are really not appropriate in my opinion. I will refrain from commenting on Domenico.y's talk page for now, but will continue to follow-up on the pending AfD discussions, which would be normal practice. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The grounds for accusing Domenico.y of COI are unsupported, to the best of my knowledge. He has not identified himself as being affiliated in any way with the articles in question. You simply "assumed" he was Australian because the majority of his edits are to Australian BLPs and events - yet he has identified a) his first language is a non-English based one, b) he resides in NYC, US. You need to take caution not to persecute editors for COI without solid proof that there are such conflicts - people do have and develop strong interests in things. As for "promotional nature" - again, I disagree and it is you who is pursuing Domenico.y based on your beliefs rather than any solid facts. Given his non-native use of English, the tone of articles is more likely due to difficulty in his wording than any desire to advertise, and you would do right to AGF than stereotype the tone of articles against contributing editors. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Domenico.y has reverted my !vote and Kudpung's !vote at the AfD for Davina Reichman. Is this allowed? Chillllls (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. However, admin Floquenbeam has already corrected the removal. I'll presume there are now enough eyes on the matter to preclude a repetition. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the COI case is pretty clear as follows: This promo photo of Davina Reichman was uploaded by Domenic.y [33] and states, "I Davina Reichman created this work entirely by myself." Additionally this promo photo of Davina Reichman which is attributed to Domenico Yousef [34] was uploaded by Domenico.y. Additionally, in this diff [35] Domenico.y stated as point #7, "...as I have seen Schuck's EMG Award with my own eyes." Additionally there is a clear relationship between Reichman and Schuck and Domenic, but the evidence of that is on another website so I will not post direct links here to avoid outing beyond the content posted on Wikipedia by the user in question. It is fairly clearly a COI. On a separate note I notice that since this AN/I has been in progress Domenico.y has continued to edit inappropriately and has been warned and communicated with by several other editors such as these: Edit warring warning from Floquenbeam [36], edit warring warning from Off2riorob [37]. I think part of the AN/I closure in addition to Jasper and I agreeing to not communicate with him on his talk page should include Domenico.y being banned from editing those conflicted articles until he learns the ropes of Wiki and how a conflicted editor can and should interact with the community. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Marcus now agrees that Domenico.y has a COI as per his post here [38]. Since it is relevant to this discussion, I thought it would be important to provide the diff to make sure others who are just reading this discussion are aware that Marcus has now understood the COI issue more clearly. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your comment is a damned impertinence. How dare you accuse me of "agreeing" with anyone - I made efforts to search and confirm or disprove any COI, and happened to come across a link - that they were in the same class in Uni - hardly bedfellows. You were making guesses, and casting aspersions, so don't try to wrangle your way out of your unjustifed behaviour with "see, I was right" malarkey or hide behind my methods. In this day and age we don't cast guilt without proof - you did. As such, I support the proposal below. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also going to add that your request that he be subject banned is further tripe, which would effectively have Domenico leave Wiki for good, because he only has one subject on interest, at present. As with any author of a new article it is respectful to give them room to develop the content with guidance. Not let them donate the ingredients but not bake the cake. The entire proposition is self-righteous nonsense, which I oppose strongly, and consider as further biting also - newbies aren't going to learn the ropes if you make them stop working on articles that they are interested in, are they? Logic is a virtue - use it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"You were making guesses" - actually is not correct. I based my conclusions on the research I had done - both the research documented here on the AN/I and additional research which I will not post here as I do not want to out the editor. Suffice to say though that such research conclusively demonstrates a strong prior relationship between all three (the editor and the two subjects of the articles) including photos of them celebrating together, as well as major pieces of work co-authored by them. The COI is not a guess. It is very clear. And as such, since the editor has also demonstrated a tendency to edit articles of subjects closely related in a way that is not appropriate considering the very clear COI. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks, you're taking the matter out of proportion. Being a friend of someone is no different to being a huge fan of a band/singer, or worshipper of a particular religion, or viewer or a favourite TV show - if we had members announce all their hobbies, interests and friendships and YouTube subscriptions to cover all the bases, everyone on Wiki would have a vague COI - 99% of people edit articles that interest them - so there's always a degree of COI. Being a friend is much lower down the scale than working with or for someone, which you are implying there is a personal, possibly commercial, relationship. Until he admits of denies that, it is pure OR speculation! Celebrating - haha - could be a New Year Party far all you know - don't draw conclusions unless you can support them! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither Jasper Deng nor ConcernedVancouverite understand what travesties they have committed, so it is time to escalate. I propose a 1 month interaction ban between Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite against Domenico.y; violation of this ban will lead to a block for the duration of the ban or 2 weeks, whichever is longer.

Moreover, I am personally admonishing Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite for excessively poor treatment towards a newcomer. You both know better than to hound and stalk like that, but neither of you took any effort to stop and think about any ramifications of your actions toward Domenico.y. Do not do that again, either of you! –MuZemike 02:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. I'm not familiar with ConcernedVancouverite, but I know Jasper Deng has a long history of biting users and assuming bad faith. I'd also propose, at least in Jasper's case, a topic ban from areas on Wikipedia in which he could bite other new users, such as the help desk, as well as reverting edits that aren't considered obvious vandalism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting suggestion Eagles247 - I'd just suggested the exact opposite. The fact is that Jasper does need to improve his work with other users and so I suggested that he did a little work on the help desk whilst focussing on not biting - seeing things from the new users point of view. He's going to come up against new users pretty much anywhere he works and I think it would be better to work on improving his "customer service" rather than trying to limit the places he can cause damage. Worm^TT · (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  Worm, this is not new behavior for Jasper. He's bitten many editors over the past few months and has been warned about it. See User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_7#Talkpage warning, User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_7#Accusation of Sock Puppetry, User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_7#Not happy, User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_5#June 2011. Yet the behavior still continues, even though, as my June 2011 warning to him above shows, he's had more than three months to practice not biting editors and the result is still the same. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  I've seen those, 28bytes mentioned that I should peruse Jasper's archives when he asked me to lend a hand mentoring. However, I haven't seen specific suggestions that he works on his people skills - rather that he should "stop biting". Effectively, we're telling him not to do single things one at a time - banning him from more and more areas is only moving the problem around, not dealing with the actual issue. Were I less busy, I'd suggest that I could monitor everything he did on the helpdesk, but I know I don't have the time for that. I think that suggesting he works in an area with a specific task in his head ("be helpful, see things from their pov") might be useful in helping learn to interact without biting. I know there's a NIMBY element, but where do you suggest that he does work if we were to ban him from anywhere he might interact with a new user? Worm^TT · (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe content writing? Looking over his contributions, it seems the only time he has ever edited an article is when he reverts another user's edit (vandalism or not), but I've never seen him actually sit down and work on an article. Could be worth a shot. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I opposed being lumped together and being blamed for actions of another editor I have no connection with, and would request specific diffs to support the claims made against me such as:

• AfD of "draft" on userpage, when moving to a sandbox would have helped - no AGF.
• Disruptive Edits Warning - no AGF.
• Undid a barnstar which was clearly placed accidentally on the wrong (his own) talk page with "WikiLove" and accusational edit summary left - no AGF.
• ...various actions seem to treat him more like a "retard" than non-English editor - no AGF, very condescending attitudes.
• Accused of sock puppetry based on ONE post - no AGF, no justification - also a COI as accuser of socks filed AfD that he seeks to defend.

My read is that the bulk of the complaint actions were not based upon my edits and that I am being unfairly accused of such actions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) I agree with ConcernedVancouverite here. I have had many indirect dealings with the user in the past when dealing with new editors and new editor contributions, and have not found any WP:BITE issues. This seems to be one experienced editor being BITEy with a new editor, and another experienced editor interacting with the same new editor at the same time in a manner which would not normally be considered improper (i.e. properly tagging, removing improper content, executing normal AFD etiquette, and informing the new editor in question of the user's concerns). Whether or not Jasper was acting improperly, the interactions between Jasper and Domenico.y and the interactions between CV and Domenico.y should be reviewed seperately. It makes no sense to judge one of these editors based on the other editor's behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The ban is a moot point since I pretty much self-interaction-banned myself from Domenico.y. This self-ban may be enforced as MuZemike describes above.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - though I feel Jasper deserves twice as long as ConcernedVancouverite, but in the end both were rude, aggressive and more to the point have not apologised for their conduct to the person they were distressing. As for Jasper, there's no way he should be granted Admin, after this conduct, imo, at least not for a long time yet - I feel if I had not interjected, this pair would have chased Domenico right off Wiki, and kept it hush. Abhorrent behaviour as noted by MuZemike. I didn't want to push the matter this far, but seeing as it's been done I stand by it- and the defence of CV is plain wiki-lawyering, imo. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Despite ConcernedVancouverite's replies here, it appears to me that he is still only interested in domineering over the AfDs in question, or more to the point, is attempting to rub salt into the wounds rather than admit to his own hounding: [39] I request this matter of interaction ban be considered, as there is little response to MuZemike's proposal thus far. Even Jasper has kept his distance, so no reason why CV should not be discouraged from continuing his propaganda charade, also. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Long-term returning user with COI on Itō calculus plus tag teaming

• Itō calculus (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Mdbrack (talk · contribs)
• Mattrach (talk · contribs)
• BechampAnalyse (talk · contribs)
• AmericanProbabilist (talk · contribs)
• JRMATH (talk · contribs)
• RHarryd (talk · contribs)
• AaronKauf (talk · contribs)

This successive list of single purpose editors have all attempted over the past four years to add identical content to the article Ito calculus by an associate professor Hassan Allouba from Kent State University. The material that they are attempting to add has not received recognition in secondary sources, such as academic textbooks, or mathscinet, the main international journal that currently reviews all mathematical articles since 1940. A large number of users, including regular editors of the article, have been aware of the problem this has been causing. The last two editors are now acting as a tag-team to reinsert this WP:UNDUE content without any justification. The long-term pattern suggests that there is some form of conflict of interest in their edits. The first six accounts have probably been operated by the same user. A previous report was made by another user on WP:FTN over a month ago,[40] where I first noticed this collection of editors, but since then the problem only seems to have become worse. None of the editors listed above, of whom only the last two are active, seems to be here to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. I am not quite sure what action should be taken, but the current tag-teaming and edit warring seems highly problematic. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Some of those accounts are long stale, so don't expect much from them. Unless some kind of SPI investigation comes out, there not really relevant due to the time that has elapsed. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before on WP:FTN. The first six users are single purpose accounts whose sole purpose has been to add exactly the same problematic content to the article. The large time gaps between the different accounts (the staleness mentioned above) ruled out any kind of SPI report but the conclusion about them being operated by the same user is hard to avoid. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• AaronKauf (talk · contribs) has not replied here but on his user talk page replied to the standard ANI notification as follows;[41] "Great, let's call a spade a spade then. Because your account along with your friends' will be in that discussion. Cheers!" In addition today he has made the following unsubstantiated comments on the talk page of the article:

• [42] "Please read the above comments before issuing your regular veto. This behavior of vetoing and threatening is unethical and based on unsubstantiated claims. Your account along with the other British ones are WP:SPAs."
• [43] "Why are you (along with Mathsci) enticing an edit war by constantly reverting and deleting any contribution we do to this section? You are not even willing to engage in a constructive mathematical discussion. It is obvious that you and your group are having personal issues with the author Allouba. And as I stated before, the Wiki is not a vehicle to settle scores. The constant harassment and threats issued by you and your friends are unethical, and against Wiki policies; and are being reported."
• [44] "We are talking about the quadratic covariation derivative which has been published in peer-reviewed articles. We are contributing to this article like every other editor. However, each time the aforementioned theory is written, accounts like Mathsci and William M. Connolley, quickly either revert it or delete it. This has been their "single mission" these days. I always discuss my contribution on the talk page, and those accounts refuse to engage in a constructive mathematical discussion. They instead resort to harassment and threats. This behavior is not democratic and doesn't adhere to Wiki policy and should be reported."

This editor does not appear to understand wikipedia policies. In addition neither editor has explained why the chain of single purpose accounts has been adding identical content for the past four years. It is the notability and dueness of the mathematics that has not been established within the criteria of wikipedia. AaronKauf in several edits, including the ones above, has repeatedly suggested that those unconvinced about the unnotability of the material are single purpose accounts with a personal agenda against Hassan Allouba: that is not the case. RHarryd has repeatedly argued, in trying to justify why this work has been not cited, that the work of mathematicians who have won Fields medals is also not cited so often. That comparison is unhelpful, since the work of Fields medalists is cited very publicly at the International Congress of Mathematicians, where the recipients are announced and their research described. Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note I moved this thread back here because the user requested a chance to respond. N^oformation ^Talk 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note. AaronKauf was informed twice about this thread with an explicit clickable link the second time, but did not respond to either notification. He unilaterally made a disruptive request for "mediation" which was refused.[45] I gave yet another detailed commentary there about his edits. At present his edits indicate that he is not interested in contributing to this encyclopedia according to any of wikipedia's standard editing policies. Possibly he could provide some of kind of justification for his disruptive edits (unfamiliarity as a beginnner). If not, then perhaps this is not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am also getting tired of user AaronKauf's attitude. I am a stochastic analysts and so I feel a certain responsibility for the pertinence of a Wikipedia page that describes the basic notions of my area of research. I've been trying to clean up the mess and to reason with him (and various other single-purpose accounts) about the pertinence of citing Allouba's article in such a prominent location. Unfortunately, instead of engaging in a constructive argument, things have now degenerated to the point where he accuses me and others of defamation and comes up with weird conspiracy theories. (For the record, I know neither user Mathsci nor user William M. Connolley and have not asked any of "my friends" to come and persecute AaronKauf.) This has now been going on for quite a while. Is there anything one can do about it? Hairer (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty clear case of tendentious editing by AaronKauf (talk · contribs), as well as mild edit-warring. The lack of clear violations makes it hard to make the usual WP:SPI and WP:3RR cases, though there is definitely a worrisome pattern there. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

He did actually make legal threats in his last comment, accusing me and others of defamation: "This defamation is liable here in the US. You don't need to know a person to discriminate against him or her.", which probably falls under no legal threats. I agree that WP:SPI is probably difficult to demonstrate at this stage. In the beginning, the pattern was that of a new single-purpose account being created every couple of weeks to give some additional "weight", but after being accused of sockpuppetry, this pattern changed. Now, only two accounts (AaronKauf and RHarryD) seem active and they might actually be operated by different users, even though their style remains suspiciously similar. Hairer (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin's note: the diff Hairer is referring to is here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, some arrangement should be made to ensure that the disruption won't continue. Reasoning with this editor does no good. He won't respond at ANI, but continues to make warlike statements on article talk pages. He takes the interesting view that he doesn't need to give his real name (we should trust him as an authority) but he criticizes other editors for not giving their real names. Since he really won't listen, an indef block is appropriate. This would not preclude a later negotiation if he belatedly decides to discuss things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatelty that does seem to be the only way forward. The diff from yesterday is extremely belligerent; it also shows an unawareness of how wikipedia works and why users edit anonymously. Unless something clicks with him, I can't see any prospect of constructive interactions between him and other editors. That could change and an indefinite block would always allow him to appeal the block if at some later stage things change. Mathsci (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin F. Shively

Resolved

 – Changes backed out. No administrative intervention needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

With the exeption of the infobox, this article is completely copied and pasted from [46] to the last word.--46.246.216.44 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just an instance of low-level vandalism. I restored the article back to the way it was before the changes. I also backed out some other changes made by the same IP and posted a warning on the IP's Talk page. Administrative intervention is not needed at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani-American

User:Saygi1, User:Atabəy and User:5aul are attempting to restore to this article an entire paragraph speculating on what the current population of Azerbaijani-Americans is, and what the Census will report about it. This is clearly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, but the editors have repeatedly adopted an WP:IDHT stance regarding the speculative nature of the material. (See [47] and, in fact, the entire talk page of the article is evidence of the IDHT attitude of these POV-pushing editors, and their willingness to edit against consensus; also [48])

Further, in a discussion thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard,[49] the consensus of uninvolved editors was that my removal of the material was justified, as the sources provided (the paragraph is a veritable Potemkin Village of references) are not reliable for the purpose of establishing what the number of Azerbaijani-Americans might be, or what the census might say, and concluded that the material violated WP:SYNTHESIS. As Nuujinn wrote:

Throwing lots of weak or non-reliable sources doesn't help in terms of referencing. I haven't looked at all of the sources, but what disturbs me is that no source presented attributes a number backed up other than by a raw assertion by some individual or group. Where are these number actually coming from? Is there a study, a survey? Or it is just the case that numbers were plucked from thin air and shopped around?

(The latter appears to be the case, as the figure of 400,000 appears in all cases to originate from pro-Azerbaijani sources.)

The editors named, however, will not recognize the consensus that the material is outside of policy, and continue to restore it to the article. I am near 3RR, so I cannot revert them, and while Saygi1 was the original protector of the violating material, 5aul and now Atabəy -- both pro-Azerbaijani editors, and the latter under indefinite 1rr/week restrictions connected to the ArbCom Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision -- arrived to help out and prevent Saygi1 from violating 3RR.

As far as I can understand, unless there's been some kind of well-documented investigation of the issue, there's no encyclopedic need to speculate on what the current population of Azerbaijani-Americans is: we have the most recent data, and more current official data will be released when it is released, and can be added to the article at that time. We are not here to be an Azerbaijani propaganda outlet, touting an increase in Azerbaijani-Americans from the current figure of 14,000 to 400,000 (!!) Certainly there is no need for material which violates WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES to be presented to the public. User:Saygi1, User:Atabəy and User:5aul need to be told to stop violating policy by restoring this material against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All three editors notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This same article was at issue a few days ago in another WP:AN/I thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I summarized my views on this issue at Talk:Azerbaijani American and in my response to Nuujinn at the Reliable Sources thread. The figure of 400,000 is unofficial, and merits mentioning in the article because it is based on a multitude of sources, including independent non-Azerbaijani ones, such as this. Therefore, I did partially restore the well referenced paragraph removed in a massive revert by User:Beyond My Ken, until the dispute on the talk page is concluded. In my edits, I have not violated any injunction of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as the restoration of material was my first edit of the article within the last week, compounded with further editing improvements to references and active participation on the Talk:Azerbaijani American throughout the week, outlining the rationale for my edits. I am not sure why User:Beyond My Ken deliberately labels me as pro-Azerbaijani when my edits in the page were constructive and neutral in every possible way.

I also moved the dispute tag to the relevant section of the article disputed by User:Beyond My Ken and others, as the rest of the material in the article does not seem to be disputed. I kindly suggest all involved editors, including those who hardly provide any rationale on the talk page but revert, to refrain from frivolous reporting and reverting of information, until the dispute is resolved on the talk page and consensus is achieved. There is a way to achieve consensus by seeking third party opinions through RFC and other due procedures. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted to a previous version of the page. "Guessing" about census data doesn't cut it, no matter how sourced those random guesses are. I have full-protected the page for 2 weeks. Open an WP:RFC or WP:3O. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I actually removed the sentence on guessing about the 2010 Census results in my edit, which you reverted, and only left the part on unofficial figures. Your revert prior to closing the article removed several other references added to other undisputed parts of the article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you hadn't been so adamant about including certain info, or else I wouldn't have had to revert to the WP:WRONGVERSION. Any changes that you introduced during your recent edits should be confirmed now on the talkpage to get WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, there was no "guessing" in the article - please see the last version of the article I edited before Beyond My Ken blindly reverted it by blanking the paragraph with 18 sources without discussing and out of simply personal issues. That's why I complained to the ANI-edit warring board about Beyond My Ken engaging in edit warring and blind reverts, and then coming to these boards to state everything and anything he can to blacken anyone who "dares" to disagree with him. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand Beyond My Ken's point. But as long as I understand, this case is not related with "Armenia-Azerbaijan 2", even if users frequently mention to Armenians and Armenia in talk pages. I've recommended User:Atabəy to avoid comparing Armenians and Armenia in irrelevant discussion. Those habits and behaviors of users misled third party users. Takabeg (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the scope and focus of WP:ARBAA2. The case originally provided for this remedy:

Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

This makes it clear that the case was not specifically and only about Azerbaijan and Armenia, but was instead about the general area. This remedy was superseded by a new one, which reads:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

This drops the language naming the countries, replacing it with the more general "area of conflict", which is unfortunate, but it is still clear that what ArbCom meant by "the area of conflict" is the aforementioned "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran". Hence, the sanctions in WP:ARBAA2 do apply to Azerbaijani-American. If you do not believe this to be the case, you can file a Request for Clarification at WP:RFAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

May I ask a question here? As a reality check, what was the number of Azerbaijani-Americans reported in the 2000 census, and does this number coupled with whatever the estimated immigration has been in the past decade dovetail even approximately with the alleged 400,000 estimate for 2010? If it does, even approximately, then an RfC should be opened on whether the sources cited for the 400,000 figure are sufficient or not. If it doesn't, then there would be something wrong with the figure and it shouldn't be used.

If the matter is brought before the Arbitration Committee, we will discuss whether a disagreement about the number of people of Azerbaijani descent in the United States falls within the scope of editing limitations that were initially designed to deal with disputes on the other side of the planet. I would really like to think, however, that things will not come to that. I would also like to think that some of the obnoxious rhetoric employed in this discussion will not be repeated. (And I would like to think that I will win the lottery tomorrow, an event with probably about the same probability, alas.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@NYB: According to this, from the 2000 Census, the number of people in the U.S. population born in Azerbaijan is 14,205. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this, the U.S. approved 109 refugee applications from Azerbaijan in 2002, and there were 338 visa lottery winners from Azerbaijan between Dec 2003 and Dec 2008. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One further comment: the disputes weren't really on the other side of the world, the disputes were right here on Wikipedia, and the same battling POVs are in play, because the same mindsets are involved (and maybe even some of the same editors, under different names, on all sides of the issues). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hear what the editors on the other side of the issue have to say. One question that occurs to me is whether the number of "Azerbaijani-Americans" is the same as the number of "Americans born in Azerbaijan"; I assume not, as say, a child born in the United States to two Azerbaijani immigrant parents would presumably be Azerbaijani. But it seems to me that either there would be a number of Azerbaijani-Americans (defined broadly) contained in the 2000 census results, or else there would be no comparable number expected to be reported in the 2010 census, or else the data to be reported have changed between the two censuses (in which case there would be an official source somewhere for that). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that how one defines "Azerbaijani-American" is going to make a difference. (In fact, our article has a remaining bit of synthesis in the "demographics" section in which Census numbers are added to Homeland Security and numbers from other sources to come up with a 2000 A-A US population of 14,944.) I would doubt that official sources would want to deal with such vague categories, which is why we get "People born in Azerbaijan", a hard fact that's not further characterized. I don't think we're wrong to have an article called "Azerbaijani-Americans", but I do think that the facts presented in it should be of that variety, hard and from official (or otherwise very reliable) sources, not factoids which have been mixed up like batter and baked into a cake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The WP:ARBAA2 is not applicable to Azerbaijani American as it does not specifically deal with any territorial or national dispute involving Armenia, Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan on either side. The issue here is the opinion of few editors who dispute the numbers provided for an unofficial estimate of Azerbaijanis in the U.S. The problem with Census data is that the official numbers provided by the Census only estimate the number of U.S. citizens and residents from the Republic of Azerbaijan, while, in reality, an overwhelming majority of ethnic Azerbaijani speakers in the U.S. come from Iran, Russia, Turkey and other countries, and in comparison, incomers from the Republic of Azerbaijan are not in significant numbers. That is why the Census figures can not, naturally, reflect the true estimate, which opens way for the unofficial figures cited in various sources. Again, for the purpose of the article, Azerbaijani-American implies any person either born in Azerbaijan or otherwise identifying him/herself as Azerbaijani, due to linguistic, ethnic, national, etc. affiliation. This definition does not conflict with people who identify as representatives of other communities at the same time. Again, I am not sure why ArbCom injunctions are being recited here by Beyond My Ken, when the involved editors can and are discussing issues on the talk page of the article. WP:ARBAA2, or WP:ANI for that matter, should not be used as a way of enforcing certain opinion on the articles, but as a way of reinforcing sanctions for specific violations of editing policy. What are those in this case apart from a pure editorial disagreement over sources or information? Atabəy (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - as I've stated before (for example, here [50]), for the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom to apply, the articles have to be directly and completely relevant to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in this case, the article Azerbaijani American it is neither directly relevant to Armenia, nor is it really that directly related to Azerbaijan. Yes, it's about Azerbaijani people, including those born in Azerbaijan, but it is primarily about America, and them being a minority and an ethnic group in U.S., not in any other region of the world. It is not about Azerbaijan, it is not about Armenia, it is not about Turkey or Iran. It is about United States of America. Otherwise, one can claim that pages about International Monetary Fund, World Bank, FIFA, United Nations, and anything else that has Azerbaijan's membership (and incidentally, Armenia's, Turkey's and Iran's) should all be part of the ArbCom, and that's just not the case. By the way, I hope you understand that your edits of anything directly relevant to Azerbaijan and Armenia falls under the Arbcom, too, then? Now that you've read it thoroughly, you should keep it in mind (and thanks for educating others such as myself, too). I won't mind at all if you will be restricted from reverts and edit warring to once per week - I won't have to report you then like here [51].

Meanwhile, Newyorkbrad, the article Azerbaijani American, just like the articles Iranian American or any other hyphenated Americans articles, is not about the Census. The Census is just one of the sources that can be used - albeit the most comprehensive one. So let's not bring everything down to Census as if it's the only source that can or should be listed. The estimate 400,000 is clearly labeled as a non-Census estimate. Same like the Iranian American article where I placed references that despite the 2000 Census reporting only about 338,000 Iranian-Americans, numerous US sources place their numbers at two million. No one has challenged that or removed that, either.

Secondly, as you've correctly predicted, the 2000 US Census figures reported Americans "Americans born in Azerbaijan". Considering that far more ethnic Azerbaijanis live in other countries than in Azerbaijan (there are too many sources on this question, I am more than happy to provide them if needed), then obviously the U.S. Census figures simply can't report the true numbers (we also added to that all the citizenships received by Azerbaijanis from Azerbaijan in years 2001-2010, which adds another 10,000 or so people, to bring the total of US citizens from Azerbaijan Republic to approximately 24,377. This number does not the refugee applications or any other data. All of the numbers are straight from the Department of Homeland Security, as cited in the article).

Especially when you compare and look at the Iranian American page, and check the MIT Iranian Student Group survey (a poll or survey done by Iranian-Americans at MIT - that's a scholarly source, and no one has removed or challenged it, even Beyond My Ken who likes to challenge everything "approves"), that at least 11% of Americans from Iran are actually ethnically Azerbaijani.[52] I inserted that source in that article, after it was cited or supported on a talk page by other active editors of that article, like Khodabende14, Alborz Fallah and Kurdo777. Since the U.S. Government (White House and State Department) say there are 2 million people from Iran (and not 338,000 that the 2000 Census reports - should we raise the same problems for the Iranian-American article like BMK is raising for Azerbaijani American?), that's some 240,000 Azerbaijani-Americans just from Iran alone. Doesn't include Azerbaijanis who came from Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, etc.

This is compounded with the problems of census undercount that are true for all ethnic and other minority groups - I've cited like a dozen high-quality sources on this subject, including three from the U.S. Census Bureau itself, one from a U.S. Senate testimony, and one from the U.S. House of Representatives. They all reveal a big problem across the board, which is applicable to all (but they don't name the Azerbaijani-Americans by name - and neither do they name 1,000 other ethnic groups in America by name, too).

Now, if you look carefully at the article version that Beyond My Ken blanked out [53], the 400,000 figure has well over a dozen citations (much more than needed), is available in a Google Books scholarly source, plus three (US local or state) government sources and from foreign government (such as statement from an Azerbaijani Consul General in Los Angeles, whose job is to know such things, as that's what consulates have to deal with: visas, passports, and other demographic questions all the time) and U.S. NGO organizations like AAC and USAN that were specifically chosen by the US Census Bureau for the Census 2010 partnership (to help with the census 2010), makes that estimate of 400,000 more than worthy of inclusion/retention.

So as you can see, there is plenty of evidence, direct and indirect. But more importantly - these sources and that paragraph specifically should not have been removed/blanked out by Beyond My Ken without explanation. All of the sources and the paragraph in question comply with WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE among other. It is more reliable than similar articles like Iranian American and Armenian American, for example.

And the paragraph in question does not make any predictions or speculations about the future that would violate WP:CRYSTAL as Beyond My Ken tries to allege. The admins should have restored my version and thus undone the damage that BMK has caused with his disruptive edit, which he did without any talk and discussion, whilst admitting not to be an expert on the issue. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The quality of the sources cited has been dealt with very thoroughly on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the consensus of uninvolved editors was that they do not sufficiently support the claims made. For instance the Brooklyn Borough President, a county-level official, is cited in support of the 400,000 figure. (There are currently 3,143 counties or equivalent in the U.S., are we expecte to believe that every County Executive is an expert on ethnic demographics in the United States?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, the argument being made here is:

1. Some ethnic groups have been shown by studies to have been undercounted (reliably sourced)
2. The census doesn't count "Azerbaijani-Americans", or American Azerbaijanis born in other countries, only Americans born in Azerbaijan (unsourced, but plausible)
3. Therefore Azerbaijani Americans must have been undercounted (synthesis, no source)
4. A number of different figures are floating around, in the neigborhood of 300,000 - 500,000, but 400,000 is often mentioned (sourced primarily but mostly indirectly to Azerbaijan-related entities, otherwise weakly sourced to entities not reliable for demographic figures; no official or intensive studies or surveys are cited)
5. Therefore, there are probably 400,000 Azerbaijani Americans in the U.S. (synthesis, unsourced)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More synthesis in the article

Copied this discussion to Talk:Azerbaijani American#Edit to this fully-protected article requested; new comments should be posted there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)]]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have posted a request that the last paragraph of the current article be deleted, on these grounds: WP:SYNTHESIS states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. The Demographics section of this article contains the following paragraphs: According to the 2000 U.S. census, there were an estimated 14,205 Americans born in the Republic of Azerbaijan,[1] out of which 5,530 were naturalized U.S. Citizens[1] and 5,553 identified themselves as Azerbaijani in a primary or a secondary ancestry.[20] Census 2000 did not count Azerbaijani-Americans born in countries other than the Republic of Azerbaijan. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in 2001-2010, a total of 9,391 people from the Republic of Azerbaijan were naturalized as U.S. citizens. The table below presents the distribution for each year between 2001 and 2010: These statistics do not include the legal permanent residents (green card holders) who numbered 781 in 2010,[21] refugees, legal non-immigrant aliens (temporary visitors) who numbered 4,938 in 2009, as well as a very large number of ethnic Azerbaijanis born in other countries, such as Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Thus, based only on Census 2000 and DHS data, the official estimate of the U.S. citizens born in the Republic of Azerbaijan is approximately 14,944, and the number of U.S. residents born in Azerbaijan is approximately 24,377, minus the natural decline. The last paragraph of these is a classic case of synthesis, since none of the sources cites actually gives the numbers 14,944 or 24,337. These numbers were obtained by join[ing] A and B together to imply a conclusion C which is not mentioned by [the original] sources, which is explicitly forbidden by WP:SYNTHESIS as original research. Therefore, I request that the final paragraph of the three quoted be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Adding up some numbers to reach a total is not, it seems to me, the sort of synthesis that the policy warns against. Although your concern that the 400,000 estimate may be speculative or exaggerated is a reasonable issue to raise for discussion, the figures you quote here do not seem to be reasonably subject to dispute by anyone, and hence your invocation of the policy here strikes me as hypertechnical and as detracting from the force of your earlier arguments. A more serious concern about the paragraph you challenge is whether the emphasis on the exact numbers gives an impression of greater accuracy, to the last person, than is possible given the sizes of the numbers involved. But that probably is a nuance better suited for discussion on the article talkpage than on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Brad, I'm totally stunned by your comment that this is "hypertechnical". The paragraph I cited is a black and white example of the policy cited. Numbers from different sources (using the same? different? antithetical? methodologies) are added together to come up with figures which are mentioned in none of the sources. How can that not be a violation of WP:SYN, when it's precisely what the policy says not to do? Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I really don't understand your take on this -- how can a policy not mean what it says? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC) The 2000 number and the 2001-10 numbers are both actual counts from official government statistics. It amounts (in round numbers) to "there were 15,000 Azerbaijan-born people living in the US in 2000, and another 10,000 more arrived since then, so there are about 25,000 now." The fact that the paragraph adds 15,000 and 10,000 and gets to 25,000 strikes me as not especially problematic, though of course others may disagree. As I said above, I think there are more serious issues with the paragraph, including whether there is an excess of misleadingly exact detail. Let's see what others have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC) To flesh out my thoughts a bit more, I would think that the policy against original research through synthesis is violated, in a fashion that should concern us, when an editor adds material to an article embodying an inference that is not present in those terms in the original sources and the accuracy of the inference could reasonably be questioned. Do you think the latter is the case here? (Not a rhetorical question—I'd like to know the specific reason you are concerned about the figures, which seem quite reasonable, as opposed to the figure you were questioning yesterday, which I had questions about too.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Brad: That the figures are the same order of magnitude as the official Census figure certainly lends them a certain believability, but that's really neither here nor there. My feelings about the numbers are pretty irrelevant -- there are many things I know as fact from personal experience, but I cannot add them to articles without a citation from a reliable source, because that what policy requires, so I go out and find a reliable source to back it up. I see no reason here that policy shouldn't be followed as well. I believe one problem may be that you seem to be approaching these figures as pure numbers which can be manipulated in any way reasonable – in another time and place, I have indeed argued, and continue to believe, that adding up numbers is, in and of itself, not "original research" – when, in fact, they are statistics, arrived at by a complex process. As I implied in my parenthetical remark above, we have no way of knowing if the numbers that came from these various sources were produced using the same methodologies or methodologies that are antithetical, if the database the stats came from are compatible or not, etc. etc. These are significant issues when manipulating statistics, which have been completely ignored here. This, it seems to me, is an extremely good reason for the sythesis policy to apply here: we're not just adding up numbers, we're combining results from different sources as if everything else is equal about them, and we just don't know that. If someone were to do a proper meta-analysis, manipulating the figures appropirately so that they can be combined, that would certainly be usable, but having editors do it themselves, that's not good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry to butt in here, but a) isn't this a content dispute more suitable for another noticeboard and b) isn't this a case of WP:CALC? --John (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC) John: Thanks, I was unaware of WP:CALC, which does seem applicable, as there is not the required consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC) The faster than light neutrinos may also have been an artifact of improper synthesis :) .Count Iblis (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WalkerThrough

Resolved

 – User indeffed, with talk page privileges revoked. VanIsaac_WS^contribs

I was halfway through writing this request for more eyes when User:Black Kite re-indefblocked this editor. I place it here anyway as:

1. The editor has requested unblock, reason given "religious discrimination"
2. Black Kite is discussing possible unblock with the editor, and if he is unblocked I feel strongly more eyes on him would be a Good Idea.

WalkerThrough (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

When WalkerThrough's previous indef block was reduced to 12 hours, I promised here on ANI that I would keep an eye on him. So far, he has:

• Canvassed for support [54][55]
• Edit warred [56] [57] in his extreme ignorance to remove the simple statement that the Bible is regarded as a religious text, though not canon, to Abrahamic religions, including Islam, and the Baha'i. This resulted in this frustrated "ranty" post by the highly regarded and respected (and darn near unflappable) Tznkai[58]
• Meanwhile, on my talk page, please see the section Maybe we can have a fresh start which will illuminate the issues with this editor's views of policy, Truth, and Wikipedia.
• See also his poor reaction to a warning, even after I explained this was to his benefit: User_talk:WalkerThrough#September_2011

I regret that I am posting and leaving; I will only be around for a very short period after this; I will answer any questions when I can, probably tomorrow early morning or late afternoon. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I will only be around for a short time too; it's 2.36am here and I'm only still awake because my daughter is. I think however that the user's talk page is clear enough; if anyone wants to unblock then that's fine, but I think the editor needs to promise to stop inserting POV (and one could argue OR) into religious articles exactly as the comment below my block statement represents. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think an indefinite block for this is very harsh. Indefinite blocks should be used for wilfull malevolence and disruption, or for someone who has shown himself to be unable to conform over a longer period. This is not what we have here, Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration after initially getting of to a bad start for lack of understanding of the editing culture. We should help Walker Through to learn how to contribute well, not block him. If Walker Through wishes I could mentor him in this process. I agree with Black Kite that we need a clear statement that Walker Through understands that inserting Bible quotes into articles without prior consensus is not a good way to edit - because it is controversial when to do that. But I am quite certain that he can understand that. This is not religious discrimination, it is the way that secular encyclopedias are written. He also needs to show that he understands that he is not presenting "the christian viewpoint", but a particular Christian viewpoint that is likely to coincide primarily with his own. I am not going to review the unblock request because of my previous involvement with the case, but I do think that indefinite is excessive in the absence of any evidence of actual malevolence. I hope the reviewing admin will consider my statement.

  This is his second chance. He has shown himself to be resistant to following, or even caring about, policy. He has been edit warring to promote his POV, and stridently argues that he is following policy and attempts to guide him are "harassment". I'm not optimistic. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that most editors on Wikipedia are American, and most Americans are Christian, it's safe to assume that at least a significant portion of Wikipedians are Christian. In this light, WalkerThrough's claims of religious discrimination honestly come across as a bit immature, and his continued insistance that he is presenting some monolithic Christian view on different subjects (looking at the varied nature of Christians) is outright haughty. All of it seems like he will never get WP:NPOV, and will screw up on other policies when in his favor. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So now we use two strikes and you're indefinitely blocked. I didn't get the memo when that policy change was made. Contrary to what you state he has shown himself to be fully able to participate in civil discussion and consensus building.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, that's not what I stated, actually, so its not "contrary" to what I stated. I said I wanted more help watching his edits and guiding him, and listed problematic edits and patterns. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You stated that "he has shown himself resistant to following or even caring about, policy". I think his actual behavior contradicts that. I agree that more eyes is good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Resistant is not synonymous with incapable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I AM a Christian and I fully endorse an indefinite block in this case. I have a high tolerance for giving second (and third, and fourth) chances, but not in the case of Truth-bearing SPA accounts. The only absolute guarantee with this individual is that giving him a third chance will mean having this discussion all over again a few weeks from now. If he were a more established editor, sure... but the amount of drama he has caused in such a short period of time makes him a liability to the project. I would support the standard offer in a couple months. Trusilver 04:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse block. The way he went from Bible to Acts of the Apostles just to insert more or less the same contentious stuff there, right after he had been told he couldn't have it in Bible, shows he seriously isn't getting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• An indefinite block is clearly the right thing. The editor clearly does not have any intention of stopping inserting his/her point of view, which he/she calls "the truth". I see no evidence at all to support the statements above that "Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration" and "he has shown himself to be fully able to participate in civil discussion and consensus building". What I do see is him/her showing some signs of going through the motions of discussing, but in fact using discussion only to provide arguments in favour of allowing him/her to continue to push a point of view, and showing no signs at all of any intention of actually changing the way he/she edits. There are statements such as "Please allow me to reassure you that I do want to follow WP policies", but in practice we have (1) quoting from policies and guidelines selectively and out of context, in such a way as to twist the policies to support what WalkerThrough thinks should be the policy, rather than what it is, (2) arguing against policy when it clearly does not support WalkerThrough's view (this occurs over the "verifiability not truth" issue) and (3) totally misunderstanding policy issues, as for example persisting in treating the "verifiability not truth" policy as though it said "truth is irrelevant, so posting outright lies is just as good as posting verifiable facts", which of course it does not say. Numerous editors have patiently tried to explain what the issues are, but we continue to get "I didn't hear that". WalkerThrough either can't or won't see that trying to force his/her own version of a christian view into articles is pushing a point of view. That is the primary problem, but we also have several other problems. For example, there is a strong battleground mentality. Editors who have attempted to be helpful by informing WalkerThrough of how to work within the framework of Wikipedia methods have been subject to assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment, threats of being "reported", etc etc. Thus we have, among many other examples, "some admins have proven to be irresponsible with their powers. One admin, Killer, has been harassing me." To represent KillerChihuahua's actions as harassment is absurd. Walkerthrough seems to be quite incapable of seeing the problems in any other terms than as an evil conspiracy to suppress his point of view as to what constitutes THE TRUTH. For example, here we have "It is clear to me that there are many non-Christian editors who are determined to censor the Bible and Christian faith views from being presented" We also have such remarks as "strong presentation of the anti-Christian side", which appears to mean "presentation of anything which is contrary to WalkerThrough's version of christianity": to refer to it as "anti-Christian" is nonsense. A very simple indication of WalkerThrough's attitude is given by a recent section heading used on his/her talk page, namely "Blocked again...This is religious discrimination". Despite every effort made by numerous editors to patiently explain what the problems are, we get "I didn't hear that": this is all a conspiracy to suppress christianity. It is clear that WalkerThrough either cannot or will not see what the problems are, and has no intention at all of changing their editing pattern. Going through the motions of agreeing to follow policy, by saying things such as "I agree not to promote a particular point of view" is meaningless if it is followed by "putting what I believe into articles is not promoting a point of view: it is telling THE TRUTH." There is no case at all for unblocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: someone might want to talk to WalkerThrough about this. He says he no longer wants unblock but has left the unblock template on his talk page. If he's really dropping his request to be unblocked, then he should remove the unblock template. If he is still wanting unblock, of course, this is just more grandstanding. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock declined, talkpage locked to prevent future WP:SOAP. It's fundamentalists like this who refuse to compromise with others that give us Christians a bad bad bad name. Probably still believes only some aspects of Leviticus still apply (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, after reading through this & the talkpage I have struck my invitation for others to unblock, we're clearly better off without this editor. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I've archived the page since it seemed it was turning into a debacle with the protagonist unable to participate.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Resolved

 – Content dispute with a mild case of boomeranging. No need for admin intervention. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This user, BaboneCar (talk), sabotage me many times and I need help with that problem. Articles with disruptive editing: FC Universitatea Craiova, ACF Gloria 1922 Bistriţa, CFR Cluj, FCM Bacău, FC Farul Constanţa, CS Gaz Metan Mediaș, FC Vaslui, FC Brașov, FC UTA Arad. Please help me. Mortifervm (talk)

What exactly has he been doing? Could you provide some diffs? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

After doing your work for you and looking for evidence, what I'm seing are formatting disputes, and:

• BaboneCar attempting discussion and even citing guidelines (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

And:

• You failing to discuss your edits on talk pages or edit summaries, and you failing to assume good faith by reporting him here instead of trying to treating your fellow editor like a human being.

Failing to discuss edits is disruptive editing, reversion with discussion to meet site guidelines is not disruptive. Could an admin close this, please? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.190.2.186 It looks as though that this "person" is acting like an immature baby. I clearly said to this person that using speculation as a valid source isn't acceptable unless Univision themselves confirmed it. All I ever got was a nasty reply (and a very laughable one) and this person continues with the unnecessary bickering and name calling. Platinum Star (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks at all times on Wikipedia. Comments like "X is acting like an immature baby" are inflammatory, unproductive, and reflect badly on you as an editor. Please read and abide by WP:NPA hereafter. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "acting like an immature baby" is a comment on behavior. Asking "what are you, a 5 year old troll?" is more of a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the IP's post on the page, I'd agree that their actions are very immature as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pot: meet kettle. The IP may be in error about reliable sources, but name-calling is not the best way of bringing on a new editor who does not know the rules here. Friendly guidance is much more likely to have the desired effect than dragging someone to AN/I. Here, have this minnow. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. Platinum, please refrain from personal attacks at all times on Wikipedia. Comments like "X is acting like an immature baby" are inflammatory, unproductive, and reflect badly on you as an editor. Please read and abide by WP:CIVIL hereafter. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:68.226.153.93

The only edit by 68.226.153.93 (talk · contribs) has been a legal threat at WP:COIN regarding a song by an artist whose name they appear to share. OlYeller^Talktome 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't make hide nor hair of what they're on about - aside from that obvious legal threat is obvious. I've given the IP a warning, but I have no idea about what else to do - does an IP get indeffed per WP:NLT like a user? I'll leave that up to those with more experience. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The WHOIS shows it as a major ISP with a /18 range allocation for that area...that's almost 17,000 potential addresses xe could conceivably cycle through. If xe is only active on the one topic, I'd say semi it and/or play Whac-a-troll™. My gut says it was a drive-by, though, so this may all be worrying about nothing. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect: Problematic User

• Blueroom2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Repeatedly keeps reverting Anti-Islam redirect to Criticism of Islam when general consensus (met here) was reached that it should redirect to Islamophobia. The user has ignored every editor that has explained why it was redirected to Islamophobia instead of Criticism of Islam but the user refuses to acknowledge consensus multiple times and POV pushes anyway. The user isn't letting the issue go, even though consensus has been met. I've also reported it to this forum. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a SPA to me...eight edits to date, all but two to Anti-Islam. I'm having a hard time reconciling the extremely low edit count with knowing how to edit a redirect. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Page protected. Now he will have to discuss it, if he wants to change.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Since consensus was met not long ago, and since the page had been experiencing several problems with coming up with an exact definition, all the relevant users that had been involved took it towards deletion where external editors agreed that it should be redirected towards Islamophobia; as it makes more sense than arbitrarily redirecting it to "criticism of Islam". I'll use the example before that I'd used in that discussion that if someone is "Anti-Judaism" or "Anti-Semetic" it doesn't mean "criticism of Judaism" or "criticism of Semetism". Because everyone agreed to this consensus only a couple of months ago it's pointless trying to change it if only one person thinks otherwise. It would be equally pointless to hold another vote, so soon. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikinews Importer Bot

Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) is adding full URLs to wikinews links. The owner Misza13 (talk · contribs) has been notified, but has yet to act and has not edited since May. I propose that the bot be blocked until the issue is settled, and for all of the full URL additions to be reverted. I posted this at the robot noticeboard but have yet to receive a response.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This seems very reasonable. Ideally, we should be using {{Wikinews}} to link to Wikinews stories. That's what I've done all over the damn place. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked for two weeks (can be extended if need be). See WP:BON for discussion. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Saw a version of an article from 10 September

So I look at Eritrean–Ethiopian War and I discover, in the leading paragraph, that Eritrea and Ethiopia are two of the world's richest countries. Go to history to revert obvious vandalism, and after a bit of investigation I discover the page doesn't say that. In fact it hasn't said it since some very quickly reverted vandalism on the 10 September, after which many edits have been made, none of which, so far as I can tell, included that phrase. Now, I'm aware of adding purging the cache and so on, but surely it should have been purged several times after all that time and edits? Is this a known issue? It definitely wasn't cached locally, although it's possible my ISP is doing so transparently somewhere Egg Centric 14:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds strange, but FTR this kind of thread really be posted at WP:VPT. Not that it matters much, but you'd probably have a better chance of getting an answer there as well. Acather96 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Andy4190

I request to give this user a strong warning (assume good faith), as he already many article with hoax information and deleted. If assume good faith, which assume him obtained information from the web, which wrongly using rubbish information from transfermarketweb but not from himself. If assume him a vandal, please just block him.

The most recent hoax is Afonso Carson and newly discovered hoax is Adriano Quintão (see WP:footy for why it is a hoax, the first version his created is a hoax (his hoax French career) and someone edited the page but still hoax (his hoax Asia, Croatia and Italy career)), which created 2 years ago. Matthew_hk tc 09:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

yet Estanilau Li's content seems hoax. Matthew_hk tc 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this something for WP:ANI? And, have you notified the editor, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

yes it should be ANI. Matthew_hk tc 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hoax has a specific meaning at Wikipedia, and an article that is indeed a hoax is normally a candidate for speedy deletion (criterion G3). I think what you're really saying is that Andy has created a lot of articles you consider non-notable and deletable. Many of those articles have been nominated for deletion and deleted. I suppose if an editor creates enough non-notable articles, at some point such behavior becomes disruptive, but other than all the AfDs listed on Andy's Talk page, I don't see any warning about his behavior in this regard. I also haven't checked to see how many articles Andy's created that are notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

some players likes Adriano Quintão do notable (or somewhat notable as a non-professional player) but all the content is hoax. However i can't assume bad faith (as i receive a lot of being bad faith warning) as the information i found in some other semi-wiki(community) project likes zerozero.pt and transfermarketweb. I won't object that he create hoax than good edits (the results list?) Matthew_hk tc 18:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:NickOrnstein

Please review User_talk:NickOrnstein#Stella_Nardari-Vecchioto. I've asked the editor to revert the edits he's made that amount to wiki-stalking. The diffs are cited there. I'd hoped the request would be folllowed. But a day later, he's made no self-reverts and an provided an answer that's a non sequiter. David in DC (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here...where exactly is this "wiki-stalking" you're citing here? He reverted you on a page that he frequently edits...what makes that stalking? Also, what specifically has he violated in terms of ArbCom sanctions? Could you provide a link for us to the ArbCom case/sanction and detail what aspect of it he has violated? only (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Her name is coming from the Gerontology Research Group, an ORGANIZATION that tracks down people who have attained the age of 110 and older. Supercentenarians are validated via documenation - birth records, and 2 other documents. All 3 documents confirm that she was born Stella Nardini. David in DC previously thought that there needs to be another source (along with or besides) the GRG links because he considered the GRG unreliable.

The names are listed the way that they are [59] because the family of the validated supercentenarian CHOSE that particular name. An organization is far MORE trusted than a single news source.

I think all names listed on the GRG should be listed the way that it is, such as Maria Redaelli-Granoli rather than just Maria Redaelli or Leilia Denmark, M.D. instead of just Leila Denmark, but other Wikipedians have disagreed in the past.

David goes on calling me a "stalker"; he has cried to administrators and cited so MANY of my edits. You don't call that stalking???

God forbid if I or anyone else does not make an edit that is not appealing to King David in DC, he must report it.

I have been editing these longevity articles for over 3 years. I have made tons of mistakes and learned from them, I suggest David do the same. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The case can be found here. Please note the log of notifications at the bottom.

I was working on the Stella Nardari page and went back to the source. The source gave a different name. I inserted that name. We work from sources, not subjects' family's preferences. I inserted it on all of the lists the subject is on, too. Nick reverted me. In most of the places I inserted the name from the source. He also revert my update of the text of a reference. Again, the source says one thing, I used the info from the source, and Nick reverted me.

Please look at the source. Nick may well be rigfht about what he knows about the way GRG works. But the GRG document says something different. Quite clearly. The sanctions specifically warn against edit-warring and urge members of the World's Oldest People WikiProject to work together, recruiting mentors as need be. Instead, Nick's editing from a position of WP:OWN as to the name of this subject and the way refs to the GRG page should be written. And reverting accordingly. It's not stalking to keep track of when you are reverted and by whom. It is stalking to follow behind me and revert me on several different pages, within a day or less of my making initial edits. David in DC (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The diffs that amount to stalking:

an IP editor inserts yet a third name, Nick edits back to the name he says the family prefers rather than the one on the GRG source page I'd inserted.

Nick reverts my edit back to what he says the family prefers and away from the name in the source

Here the revert-stalking isn't about Nardari-Vecchioto, it's about truth-in-citations. The document is clear on its face as to title, the multiplicity of authors, and the fact that its publication date is two days ago, not eight years ago.

Nick's link above to the source document is broken. Here's an unbroken link.

It's galling to be repeatedly reverted for the sin of conforming text in a wikipedia article to the source, and for updating the reference to the source when the source itself is updated. David in DC (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Antonio86

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Antonio68

This editor is using some pages as his own feud, personal attack me and who try to change those pages and keep to violate netiquette.

After Interlibertarians and Leonardo Facco pages have been deleted, he moved all the topics in another page.

This page is full of trivial contents, lacking of notability, but, if someone is trying to delete partially them, Antonio68 is keep to undoing the modification.

Finally, he also personal attacked me in various discussion (some deleted after the deletion of Interlibertarians and Leonardo Facco pages) and he used to delete part of discussion.

I had to ask to block him and his sock puppets, in order to keep in order some political page where he continue to add unuseful info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisbeta (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Antonio86 has indeed been attacking Louisbeta at Talk:Libertarian Movement (Italy). He also has been changing other editors' comments on the same Talk page. I have left him two warnings on his Talk page. Louisbeta, you should not be accusing him of sockpuppetry without some evidence, and if you have evidence, you should open a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:E2e3v6

E2e3v6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Vandalism after final warning. Continued behavior after multiple warnings to not add information without a source.

Warnings:

• 11:50, 16 September 2011
• 18:11, 30 August 2011
• Level 4 warning, 07:52, 19 September 2011
  • Unsourced edit to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) after warning, 06:48, 24 September 2011
• Level 4 warning, 08:06, 24 September 2011
  • Unsourced edit to Password Plus and Super Password after warning, 15:11, 30 September 2011.

Sottolacqua (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AIV for vandal reporting. N^oformation ^Talk 07:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

He had taken it there, but was told to take it here as it wasn't a clear cut case of vandalism. only (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• None of those edits are vandalism. They may be unsourced, but minor changes. Most of the links above are links to the warnings given to the editor, and are also over a month apart. He has a recent move with some arrogant edit-summaries that might be far more problematic, but he seems to make a lot of gnomish edits across a lot of gameshow articles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a very long term pattern of making unsourced or nonconstructive edits. The user has been warned multiple times about his/her activity—I only linked to the most recent activity and warnings. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're establishing a long-term pattern, WP:RFC/U is the correct place. I honestly don't see anything worth taking there though. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted, reported to Oversight.

I could use some help over at WP:COIN. I try to assist as much as I can as a non-admin but there's a case there right now that I believe needs admin attention. The COI hasn't been established on-Wiki and the reporting user claims to have an email that links the user to a closely related company. I'm not completely familiar with WP:OUTING and regardless of whether or not there is a COI, I still think admin action is needed as the reported edit has called another user a racist, likened that user to Nazis, white supremacists, !voted twice in an AfD, and may be socking. OlYeller^Talktome 18:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I should have included the section: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ken_Sibanda. OlYeller^Talktome 18:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:OUTING, there was a violation. I redacted the personal info but it's still visible in the history. OlYeller^Talktome 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Request completed. - Mailer Diablo 21:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring by DragonflySixtyseven

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.

I'm closing this. I've looked through all this and there's really little more to be said. If anyone really wants to take this to ArbCom, they're welcome to, but a much better approach, IMO, would be for all the involved parties to pause to consider how they might better handle similar situations should they occur in the future. If they are not willing to engage in such introspection, there's nothing anyone on this noticeboard can do to fix that. 28bytes (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

---

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) has now twice unblocked an IP editor: 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with opposition from a number of admins. I believe that fits the definition of WP:WHEEL. Short chronology:

• I blocked 76.31.236.91 as an obvious sock of FaheyUSMC (talk · contribs) based on behavioral evidence (the similarity of these two edits: [60], [61] and others by socks of Fahey [62], [63])
• Admins Eagles247 (talk · contribs), EdJohnston (talk · contribs) both declined unblocking based on that evidence.[64], [65] Barek (talk · contribs) also recognized the sockpuppetry and re-protected Least I Could Do (see edit summary).
• DragonflySixtyseven unilaterally unblocked 76.31.236.91 with editing restrictions. I emailed DS informing him/her of my disappointment with this action.
• I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC.
• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) closed the SPI saying the IP "looks like a recruit at least, maybe not a sock, but they are here for all same general purpose, therefore in violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT."[66] S/he reblocked the IP for being a recruit and continued disruption and attacks on editors. [67]. [68]
• After the block the IP posted this uncivil unblock request.
• kuru (talk · contribs) declined the unblock and removes ability to edit talk page [69]
• DS then unilaterally unblocked the IP again despite DQ's objections.
• After the second unblocking, MuZemike (talk · contribs) did a CU on the IP and said that it is possible that the IP may be connection but also that he had some doubts.[70] (Not directly relevant, but mentioned to be fair)

The second unblocking seems like it fits WP:WHEEL:

• "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion."
• "Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action,
• Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation."

There is a lot more here including two SPIs, but I believe DS's first unblock was ill-advised. I believe the second unblock was wheel warring and in violation of policy. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

After extensive discussion with the IP, I have concluded that he is not a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet, of the original editor. Consequently, I unblocked him, subject to some behavioral restrictions: primarily, that he not edit anywhere other than a) the talk page of the article that's been the focus of this shitstorm, b) my talk page, and c) his own talk page. He is complying with these restrictions. During the initial edit mess on the relevant article, he was told that the subject (adding statement X) had already been discussed extensively; however, he was not given a link to this discussion, because it was on a page which had gotten deleted. So he had no idea what was going on, and then he was accused of being a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet, and summarily blocked, and accused of being a troll. He is understandably upset. I specifically stated that if he misbehaved, I would block him. To the best of my reading, he had not misbehaved at the time of his block. He was describing how he perceived the way he was being treated (although granted, he was being inappropriately rude about it and I would have at the very least chastised him if I'd had the chance, which I didn't).

Overall, I'd point out that this is teetering on the edge of becoming a stupid meta-argument. Meta-arguments can never be resolved productively, because they are arguments about arguments and about the methods used in arguing, and they befoul external attempts at resolution (such as this one). I have edited the article at the root of this whole mess in such a way that should be acceptable to everyone involved. Now piss off and go do something productive. DS (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DS, I'm trying to read your descriptions of your actions in the most charitable light, and it's still really hard to find anything positive to say about your unblocking of this IP editor. As far as I can tell, you've overridden the actions of another administrator based upon your personal, unrecorded, off-wiki interactions with the editor in question. Upon the basis of this, you're overriding the judgement of another admin. Even if you're wholly correct, and the editor in question should be unblocked right away, your method of deciding so sets an extremely worrying precedent. Do we really want a Wikipedia where admins override one another based upon their say-so? Quanticle (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Toddst1, what action are you requesting here? Do you want the IP's last block restored? I agree that the two unblocks by DS67 don't appear to have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like acknowledgement that DS's administrative actions were inappropriate. There was a similar issue with DS a while ago. See this archived ANI discussion. I'll leave it up to the community to decide if any sanctions against DS should be applied for repeating the misconduct. I think the IP should be reblocked, but that's of lesser importance. Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation from the sidelines, and commented a while back on DS's original unblock of the IP. While the issue of whether or not the IP is a sock and/or meatpuppet seems debatable, I see DS's actions here as extremely problematic. As far as I know, there's no provision for "own"ing a problem user, such that you and only you may block them, and certainly no provision for unblocking someone simply because you didn't say they could be blocked. My impression here is that Dragonfly is bending over backwards to AGF, to the point where he's approaching suicide-pact levels.

After the IP was blocked, a series of (other) IPs appeared on my talk page and Dragonfly's to leave abusive messages, and my AGF mechanism appears to be broken, because I'm having a hard time imagining that they aren't connected to 76.x. An IRC (chat) account that 76.31.x has claimed in the past (confirmed as him by both that account and Dragonfly) left me an abusive private message overnight, accusing me of "having someone" impersonate them. This IP is, quite obviously, no longer up to much good, whether they were contributing in good faith initially or not. With that in mind, I'm really, really surprised that Dragonfly would see fit to unilaterally unblock a user on a post-block rampage of abuse, especially based only on the rationale that no one except Dragonfly is allowed to block this problematic user. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I see two issues! the block/unblock war, and the user page delete/undelete war. No matter how you slice it, this kind of conduct is unflattering and is indicative of something. Someone else can figure out what that is, because it eludes me. My76Strat (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is never appropriate for an admin to unblock without discussion with at a minimum, the blocking admin, and probably as well, with the admins who declined an unblock. Especially without an explanation. In addtion, Dragonfly's "piss off" comment is entirely inappropriate. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a long-term issue with DragonflySixtyseven. It goes back at least to 29 October 2007.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time with this? Incidentally, I'd point out that by strict definition, it was Todd who wheel warred (by restoring an action that I had undone), although I fully concede that I continued where I should have let it go. Can we get back to work now? DS (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Todd was the initial blocker. How are they wheel warring? That seems like a flat-out lie. You repeated administrative actions when you knew other admins opposed it. It's the very definition of wheel warring. -- Crossmr (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't "long-term" imply that it's been continuous? Anyway, please don't impute motive - "flat-out lie" definitely implies malice; at worst, this is a clash of definitions. As I understand "wheel war", when Admin A performs an action which Admin B undoes, and then Admin A re-performs it, it is Admin A who is considered to have wheel warred. In this particular case, Todd is Admin A, blocking the anon, and I am Admin B, unblocking. I acknowledge that other interpretations can and do exist, and I also acknowledge that even if we do consider Todd to have been initially at fault, I was equally at fault by continuing the action -- and I took Todd's message to me last night, asking if I was going to report him to AN/I for wheel-warring, to be a tacit acknowledgement that we could be considered equally at fault here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have productive work to do. This is a meta argument, and meta arguments are always a waste of everyone's time. Please don't call me to AN/I again. DS (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

CORRECTION - it has been brought to my attention that Toddst1 is not the one who blocked the IP the second time; I acknowledge my factual error in this respect, as well as in my casuistric pickiness as to who precisely was wheel-warring. DS (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dragonfly is clearly unfit to be an admin, and should resign that authority immediately. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I politely decline the recommendation of the honorable gentleman. DS (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Dragonfly, but I have to agree with Baseball Bugs here. While you and him were both part of the wheel war at hand, (and DS, please reread WP:WHEELWAR again and again until you have learned by heart what is wheel warring, please.) Dragonfly, according to Kww's message above, have been doing this for almost four years, and that is something that Wikipedia does not tolerate. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. I did this something similar, four years ago, in a different set of circumstances. That's not "for four years", that's "once, four years ago". If I'd been doing this continuously, I wouldn't have lasted a month. DS (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, bringing up the fact that you were accused of wheel-warring before doesn't help your case. Yes, I know it was four years ago (an eternity in Internet time). Yes, I know that you were cleared of any wrongdoing. No, it still doesn't help you argument to state, "Oh yeah, I did something like this before, four years ago, and I was cleared." Quanticle (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"It goes back at least to 29 October 2007." is basically the same as "It has been happening since about four years ago." LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason I normally avoid unblock-l and #-en-unblock. So, okay. I hereby place myself under sanction: I will not unblock any accounts that I did not myself block. Any violation can be dealt with by reporting me to Arbcom. Sound good? DS (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's actually good enough, actually. When an admin blocks someone on Wikipedia, they're not acting on their own behalf. They're acting on behalf of the overall Wikipedia consensus. Given that, when an admin is considering reversing a block, they are obligated to determine whether there is any opposition to the block and evaluate that opposition before reversing.

In short, no admin "owns" a block. All blocks are placed on behalf of the larger Wikipedia community. Therefore, in order to overturn a block, even a block they themselves created, the admin must consult the wider Wikipedia community, determine if there is opposition and evaluate any such opposition before overturning the block.

Quanticle (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you, or any admin, should do is talk to the blocking admin first before unblocking. That's what you should pledge to do, as opposed to putting yourself on probation. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"I did this something similar, four years ago, in a different set of circumstances. That's not "for four years", that's "once, four years ago"." A clear case of selective memory. I distinctly remember this and this instance of unilateral unblocking, from 2009 and 2010 respectively. It's long clear that DS doesn't hold WP:WHEEL or his fellow admins in high regard, but what can you do? At any rate, his reply here was more than "I'm too busy to reply" or "I don't care about ANI threads", so that's an improvement.--Atlan (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The block of 76.31.236.91

As the user in question I think I have the right to speak here in my own defense. I came here in good faith, trying to make an improvement to an article. The behavior I experienced from Toddst1, Elizium23, and assorted friends of theirs was nothing short of uncivil. It was rude. It was definitely nowhere close to the Wikipedia policy of ASSUME GOOD FAITH.

I spoke with Dragonfly6-7 repeatedly, asking for advice. I was repeatedly advised to be calm, to take things slowly, to explain myself thoroughly. I felt I did so. I stayed honestly within the limits Dragonfly6-7 had put forth, namely, to ONLY edit on the talkpage (NOT THE ARTICLE PAGE) and on Dragonfly6-7's talk page. I broke this only once, editing MY OWN talk page only to inform Elizium23 that I was NOT to hold conversations there as my understanding of what Dragonfly6-7 had set forth. I never "disrupted" anything.

I will admit, I had heated words for some people. I had heated words because as I see it, Toddst1 and Elizium23 were violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in their conduct towards me. Sometimes, it was a matter of ignoring the debate over and over again for a protracted period of time. Sometimes, it was a refusal to address the points that were written. Other times, it was much more egregious insulting behavior. Toddst1 constantly accused me of knowing more than I "should", even though he KNEW that I was having continuous discussions with Dragonfly6-7 trying to understand wikipedia policy and what else was going on. He constantly accused me of acting in bad faith or being a "sockpuppet", something which even CheckUser MuZemike admits now is not likely.

When asked to apologize for his behavior, his reply was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALeast_I_Could_Do&action=historysubmit&diff=450598991&oldid=450571622. I don't really care that he "later reverted it", an insult is an insult, a "personal attack" is a "personal attack" as I've been told.

At this point I feel I have been treated completely unfairly. I came here in good faith, trying to improve an article. What I have received in exchange is people making bad-faith accusations against me. It has been hounding. It has been harassment. It has been ugly and insulting tagging that I was a "Single Purpose Account" despite the fact that I WAS UNDER AN AGREEMENT TO ONLY EDIT ONE ARTICLE TALK PAGE AND ONE USER TALK PAGE. It has been continual prodding and poking and infuriating behavior. While I was gone and nowhere near my computer yesterday, someone left a bunch of stuff which Toddst1 "cleaned up" yesterday, I presume in attempt to tar and feather me in a nice neat frame-up job.

They have now accused me of being "a user on a post-block rampage of abuse", which is nothing but a flat-out lie. I'd ordinarily ask what the hell you consider "abuse", but I don't really care. I haven't edited ANYWHERE except for Dragonfly6-7's talk page since, right until this moment.

I COULD have wasted a bunch of people's time. I could have gone around messing up pages all over the place until some hopped-up jerk with too much power and not enough compassion decided to finish the job. I didn't. In everything I've done, I have acted in good faith, I have been open and honest, and that's more than I can say for Toddst1, Elizium23, or pretty much any of the other people I've had the misfortune to deal with here recently except for Dragonfly6-7. All of them simply stood by and let the abusive behavior go on, not saying a word.

As far as I'm concerned, I have been the victim of a protracted WP:BITE campaign by people who ought to know better and ought to have some common sense. But instead, the very people who ought to have been called out for their behavior are attacking the one person I've met on this crappy site with any common sense, and they see nothing wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToddst1&action=historysubmit&diff=452446855&oldid=452444614) with their behavior. So obviously the "pillars and policies" of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL really mean nothing to them or to most of you.

Final point: I repeatedly, in my discussions, was pointing out that it is intrinsically dishonest and unencyclopedic to misrepresent a source. Lo and behold, I looked at the "arbcom" page one of you linked to today trying to tar and feather Dragonfly6-7, and it's RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE: Falsification of sources 2) Deliberate attempts to misrepresent or falsify the content of sources are extremely harmful to the project. Passed 6 to 0 at 12:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot)

But I guess not intentionally misquoting or misrepresenting sources isn't something you strive for any more.

As far as I am concerned, for those of you needing a tl;dr version: I feel I've been abused. I feel Toddst1 and plenty of the people he coordinated with have violated WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and probably a huge number of other policies. I don't know who the hell was making nasty comments on Toddst1 and Dragonfly6-7's talk pages, but it sure as hell wasn't me, because I was nowhere near my computer for most of yesterday. If someone wants to tar and feather me and lie about me, feel free to do so. I haven't vandalized, I haven't "gone on a rampage", and I sure as hell have no plans to. On your own misbegotten heads be it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I, and others, tirelessly quoted policy to you and explained why your argument was wrong, and you brought up the same old points that had already been discussed. Yes, there were times when I ignored you, because I didn't feel like feeding the troll, and I had already thoroughly explained policy to you, with quotes and links to the relevant sections. I will note that your predecessor tried to drag me into ANI, and was told to leave me alone, so don't try to accuse me of being uncivil. Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And that wasn't me. Nor was it, apparently, FaheyUSMC, who YOU even admitted wasn't that person. So why in the hell are you using that to justify treating me like that? I've been told there are "no excuses" for uncivil behavior. YOU are as uncivil as they come, no ifs, ands, or buts. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Feeding the troll." Sounds like a personal attack to me. But of course, since you're an abuser and not the abused, they won't call you on it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see from the sound of the crickets loudly chirping that I was right. Elizium23 commits a blatant personal attack, and none of you blink. He insists that he is somehow justified in this and excused from WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BITE on the basis of secret knowledge that I had no reason to possess - some of it from a DELETED PAGE, some of it from a place I didn't even know about until two days ago that apparently was FURTHER HIDDEN IN AN ARCHIVE before I made my first edit in this sad mess. And none of you are even honest enough to call him on it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are we to treat the block on the IP and the resulting administrative actions as two separate things? That is, if DS 67 was in the wrong, that is not going to automatically equate to a re-block on the IP, is it? –MuZemike 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no admin is allowed to block the IP, because DS will automatically unblock them. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But if the block wasn't a very good one in the first place, then it wouldn't be fair at all to re-block. –MuZemike 01:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that you are right. Per Toddst's original post, he wanted a discussion of DS's actions and wasn't looking for the IP to be blocked again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised. I don't see anywhere where anybody suggested that the block was wrong in the first place. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. I'll start. The block, along with the rest of Toddst1's constantly UNCIVIL behavior (violating WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and I don't know how many other policies because I still don't know half of the amazing number of "wikipedia policies" that seem to be salted into places on this godforsaken website that nobody who isn't an aspergers obsessive could spend the time to find), was completely out of line. What's worse is the number of you, including Toddst1 himself, who insist he "did nothing wrong" hunting me and continually harassing me. Oh, and the form-letter "rejection" the first time, followed by EdJohnston's ridiculous refusal, also are out of line and constitute violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BITE. Finally, the constant insistence of people to MISQUOTE a source, which is what I was here to fix when I saw the source misquoted on the webpage, violates precedence I didn't even at the time realize your "arbcom" had set, though it is now quoted above thanks to one of you being good enough to link to it for me. Dragonfly6-7 isn't to blame here, Toddst1 is. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Behaviorial similarities" seems like a bit of a stretch to block someone. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies on Edit Warring and Talk page usage? This could have easily been dealt with via the normal Bold, Revert, Discuss process or simple Edit Warring processes. Instead, an admin decided to use the tools because someone's quack sounded like someone else's quack. One of the first guidelines on the WP:ADMIN page is that no admin is EVER required to use the tools.

I've never even heard of this webcomic that the fuss is all about, and I could care less, but if you have an issue with an edit, just revert it and start a discussion like you would normally. Start the sockpuppet investigation if you must, but my goodness what a lot of fuss over so little.

The edits that prompted this original block hardly seem earthshattering, so I don't see how the block was really all that crucial. Regardless of whether you can get support for an edit, block, or any other action, let's try not to be too zealous to pull out tools and squish people. If you had absolute proof that this IP wasn't a sock, how would you have reacted (as an editor)? Next time, do the checkuser first, unless there is a real threat to the encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action is sought here? N419BH 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Avanu: You'd be surprised the types of disputes editors get themselves messes into here; we even have an entire page dedicated to them :) That being said (and not to disagree with your last paragraph, criticism of WP:DUCK aside), remember that sometimes CU can't tell you anything, which is certainly true with old socks i.e. ones that are stale in which CU can't check.

@N419BH: The main focus is the wheel war between Toddst1 and Dragonfly67 above. However, I would contend that, per my comment at the SPI case there, we couldn't be certain of a connection, and it's possible this could have been all avoided given we AGF'd a little better and gave the benefit of the doubt to the IP in question. –MuZemike 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one wheel warring was DS. Toddst didn't remotely get involved in that. He was the initial blocker and that was it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like a bunch of hot air over pretty much nothing. DragonFly probably shouldn't have undone the block, and definitely shouldn't have undone it twice (not impressed with the edit summary on the second unblock either) but Toddst maybe shouldn't have done it in the first place. But, alas, the only perfect science is hind sight. So how about trouts all around and we move on? N419BH 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass on that trout. Given the long saga of the FaheyUSMC socks/meats, the DUCK test was applied with the appropriate level of discretion - that's why the first 3 admins that reviewed the block (Eagles247, EdJohnston, Barek) all came to the same conclusion. It wasn't until MuZemike ran a CU that any credible questions on the block came up. I'm confident I employed reasonable judgement followed by due process. If you don't believe WP:DUCK should be used, then you've got a different issue. Toddst1 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to this characterization. After I was unblocked, it was made QUITE clear that I was very limited in what I was allowed to do per Dragonfly6-7. A note was placed on my talk page to that effect as well. At this point Toddst1 and Elizium23 both began to be very uncivil to me, constantly doing things designed to get me angry, I presume in an attempt to make me loose some profanity-laden tirade that would trigger Dragonfly6-7 to reblock. Toddst1 also began a campaign to get Dragonfly6-7 or others to reblock me directly, including creating a bad-faith "SPI" page along with highly uncivil edit summaries on the creation and notifications. Throughout the process, whenever I had trouble understanding, I asked Dragonfly6-7 to explain what was going on to me. For this, as I started to gain more knowledge of wikipedia policies, Toddst1 then started to insist that I "knew too much" and was "admitting guilt" for HAVING SOMEONE EXPLAIN POLICY TO ME. There was a COMPLETE lack of any assumption of good faith from his perspective and it is my belief that he knew precisely what he was doing, hoping to have me reblocked so that nobody would ever question his uncivil actions. As I am still unblocked, I am now asking if there's anyone honest here willing to actually look at the sort of uncivil nonsense I've been put through at his hands or not. I held up my end of the bargain, I edited ONLY where allowed to edit (despite Elizium23 trying to trick me into editing where I wasn't), and I tried to keep civil, though I'll admit that due to the constant NPA and UNCIVIL behavior from Toddst1 and Elizium23, there were times I lost my temper and described them as I really felt about them rather than couching it in flowery language. Their conduct, meanwhile, was patently ridiculous and obviously designed to harass. This whole section here is just the latest salvo in it, with Toddst1 upgrading his efforts not just to harass me, but to harass the one person (that'd be Dragonfly6-7) who bothered to look at the situation fairly and give me a chance to participate in good faith. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and: just to clarify one thing on the whole "long saga of FaheyUSMC socks/meats" load of manure that Toddst1 is now shoveling, I'd like to point out MuZemike's comments (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FFaheyUSMC&action=historysubmit&diff=452316642&oldid=452309394) in my case that seem to apply to the other case, as well as the fact that even Elizium23 in that previous case admitted to not thinking that FaheyUSMC was the same as the person leaving a bunch of nastiness. Given that someone tried to frame me this weekend, and having read the history of the undeleted talk:The Dating Guy page (which Dragonfly6-7 had to unlock for me! AGAIN with the super-secret-only-if-you-were-there-or-know-the-handshake bullshit knowledge!), I think the same happened to this other person, and I think that's a horribly bad and abusive block too. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Behavioral similarities" has another name: WP:DUCK. On a topic area where socking had been occuring, abuse had been documented, and a vendetta against one particular editor (Elizium) was noted, a new IP appears and jumps directly into the argument, making the same arguments as the last sock and badmouthing the same editor the last sock disliked. You don't need to be a particularly judgmental person to be almost deafened by the quacking in that situation, and in fact I said as much at the time, when Dragonfly unblocked him because he was "sure" he wasn't a sock. At that time, Dragonfly requested that I give both he and the IP a bit of rope, and I agreed and left a note on Dragonfly's talk saying that while the quacking was loud, the IP appeared to be trying to contribute mostly calmly and I was content to watch the situation develop. It turns out, the "way the situation developed" was with the IP becoming increasingly abusive in tone and increasingly paranoid in manner, throwing out accusations and refusing to compromise on the article's talk page (one highlight, as I recall, was declaring that since Elizium hadn't replied quickly, the IP was assuming he had won and could go ahead and implement his favored content).

So, let's review. We have an IP that was blocked for very obvious quacking, unblocked with Dragonfly's assurances that he wasn't a sock and Dragonfly would keep him under control, who proceeded to lose control, was re-blocked for quacking and disruption, and was unblocked by Dragonfly because he hadn't given permission for the block. And now, we have the IP here on ANI, throwing out wild accusations of conspiracy, people trying to railroad him, and people harassing him (for what gain, I remain unclear). An IP who, when blocked, either socks or meatpuppets to insult people peripherally involved in the situation and posts here increasingly nonsensical commentary demanding that, when we hear quacking, we conclude it must be a zebra, not a duck.

And...people are arguing that these blocks weren't needed to prevent disruption? I started off willing to assume good faith of the IP, but nothing he's done since then has given any evidence that he's here to contribute in a non-fighty manner, and I don't see either of the blocks as having taken any leap larger than a common-sense one in justification. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I get it Fluffernutter: you don't like me. But I don't like being lied about. So let's see: you first admit I "appeared" to be trying to work in good faith. Thanks so much for "assuming good faith." Then you ignore all the provocations and insults hurled my way, and insist I was "increasingly abusive in tone and increasingly paranoid." I'll remind you that this weekend, someone tried to frame me by placing a bunch of abuse while I wasn't around and was blocked. I think perhaps a little paranoia on my side may be justified by now. As for the rest, you insist that "since Elizium hadn't replied quickly", I was "assuming I had won." In actual fact it was two days later that I posted my comment, and it was if anything an expression of frustration at Elizium's never bothering to so much as acknowledge the prior point that I had made. I was, if you will remember, still under my agreement with Dragonfly6-7 and I was not going to "implement my favored content" or edit that article page in any way. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Also: "An IP who, when blocked, either socks or meatpuppets to insult people peripherally involved in the situation" - I'm nothing of the sort. I'll say it again: I was NOT the person doing that. I spent that entire day from 10am until getting home late at night at my girlfriend's church festival. I have NOTHING to gain by doing something like that even if I knew how. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "for what gain, I remain unclear." How about this "gain"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN) From what I understand after, again, reading the history (even the stuff that had to be restored from being deleted that I could not see when I came here because it was deleted), the previous argument went about halfway. FaheyUSMC and Agent86 along with someone else were opposed primarily by Elizium23 on the Talk:The Dating Guy page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Dating_Guy). Agent86 was driven away from that talk page or gave up in disgust, and FaheyUSMC and the other person were both "blocked as sockpuppets" after someone magically appeared - much like this last weekend - leaving a bunch of profanity and attacks and vandalizing and doing stuff I'm sure I was never even able to find just by following back from that one talk page. And you wonder why after being on the receiving end of it, I smell a frame-up? Because from where I sit, it looks like one. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to any commenting parties that this saga has been going since before June 3, and much of the past involves the deleted article The Dating Guy. Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kyphis/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC, Forum thread 1, and Forum thread 2 for most of the story. 76.31.236.91 turned up within 48 hours of protection expiring on Least I Could Do and immediately accused me of edit warring on it. He seems to have a crystal clear knowledge of all kinds of policies except for the ones we've been quoting to him such as WP:RS and WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Once again: I was "being bold" and following the "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle." I'm not "new" to wikipedia as in never having seen it before, but I also have never bothered to edit often enough to want to have an account or waste much time with it. I know of the "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle" because of someone quoting it to me a long time ago when they undid something I tried to improve. This is the most time I've ever spent on Wikipedia and that's only because I can't stand to see people behaving like bullies. I didn't know the history of any of it, I had never seen the forums you link to, there was NO MENTION OF IT on the Least I Could Do talk page and everything you claimed was "already discussed" was hidden on deleted pages where I couldn't see it. I don't have "crystal clear" knowledge of anything except what I've been pointed to, what I've had explained to me, and what I've read on my own in what I again will point out is the ridiculously convoluted, disorganized, impossible to decipher MESS that is the pile of Wikipedia "essays", "policies", "procedures", and on and on. Hell, until a couple of days ago I didn't even know about the page I am writing on right now, and THAT only because Toddst1 started going after Dragonfly6-7 about it on Dragonfly's talk page. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Event timeline

(edit conflict) This event has gotten quite long and fairly confusing. I have organized it into a timeline to make this easier to sort through.

Events timeline

- 1. On 05:05 September 12 76.31.236.91 makes an edit to the article Least I Could Do. The edit doesn't have a edit summary. 2. On 05:07 September 12 76.31.236.91 makes a second edit to the article Least I Could Do. The edit contains the edit summary of: "if you have a problem with it, please take it to talkpage rather than edit warring." 3. On 15:40 September 12 Elizium23 reverts the two edits with the edit summary of: "Reverted 2 edits by 76.31.236.91 (talk): Unsourced - already discussed. (TW)". 4. On 15:41 September 12 Elizium23 leaves a 'level 3 warning on User talk:76.31.236.91 for his edit to the article Least I Could Do. 5. On 15:43 September 12 Elizium23 requested page protection for the Least I Could Do citing “ Persistent vandalism – target of persistent meat puppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive - inserting unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material, same as The Dating Guy. ” 6. On 15:49 September 12 Barek protected the Least I Could Do article with the reason: “ Protected Least I Could Do: Persistent sock puppetry: resumption of sock edit-warring following expiration of previous page protection ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC) ” 7. On 15:52 September 12 Toddst1 blocked 76.31.236.91 with the summary “ 15:52, September 12, 2011 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) blocked 76.31.236.91 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Block evasion: {{ipsock|FaheyUSMC|blocked=yes}}) ” 8. On 19:29 September 12 (3h 27m later) 76.31.236.91 requests an unblock and asked where the information he added was previously discussed. (It appears it was discussed on a talk page that was deleted on September 10th) 9. On 19:31 September 12 76.31.236.91 makes a minor edit to his unblock request. 10. On 20:56 September 23 Eagles247 declines the unblock request with a templated message. 11. On 23:40 September 12 76.31.236.91 requests another unblock and asks how he has caused disruption. As all he did was expand a paragraph, which, in itself is not violating any Wikipedia policies. The information added was already in the citation already in the article. 12. On 23:42 September 12 Toddst1 removes the unblock request with the summary "(Undid revision 450172401 by 76.31.236.91 (talk) highly inappropriate unblock request - revoking talk page privileges)" Toddst1 then revokes] talk page access with the summary “ 23:42, September 12, 2011 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 76.31.236.91 (talk) with an expiry time of 2011-10-12T15:52:10Z (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: Block evasion: {{ipsock|FaheyUSMC|blocked=yes}}) ” 13. On 23:45 September 12 Toddst1 reverts his removal, EdJohnston declines the unblock request citing that the two edits 76.31.236.91 made was enough evidence to block him as a sock. At this point it appears that 76.31.236.91 found a link to #wikipedia-en-help connect where he explained the situation to DragonflySixtySeven. DS67, seeing that: 76.31.236.91 hadn't edited the article since it was reverted and he was warned. 76.31.236.91 had been blocked despite the fact that he hadn't made any edits since the warning. He was therefore not causing any disruption to Wikipedia The block reason was based on very flimsy evidence 14. Therefore at 01:33 September 13 DragonflySixtySeven assumed good faith and unblocked the user with the summary “ 01:33, September 13, 2011 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) unblocked "76.31.236.91 (talk)" ‎ (I'm not convinced that this block was appropriate: neither that it was a block evasion, or that it was otherwise abusive. If he steps out of line, I'll block him myself.) ” 15. On 13:21 September 13 76.31.236.91 states that DragonflySixtySeven unblocked him under the condition that he would only edit DragonFlySixtySeven's talk page, and Talk:Least I Could Do, and that he understands that if he edits anywhere else he will be blocked. 16. A article discussion begins at Talk:Least I Could Do. 17. On 20:44 September 14 Elizium23 comments on incorrect use of inline comment of 76.31.236.91's (A mistake many new editors make) 18. On 20:49 September 14 76.31.236.91 replies explaining that he is only supposed to edit the article talk and DragonflySixtySeven's talk and he asks Elizium23 to stop baiting him (into breaking his restrictions). 19. On 20:53 September 14 EdJohnston explains that Elizium23 was only explaining how to correctly format talk page comments. 20. On 17:21 September 15 Toddst1 accusing 76.31.236.91 of socking because this edit by a blocked user is on the same topic as this edit. 21. A heated discussion between Toddst1 and 76.31.236.91 develops at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. Both Toddst1 and 76.31.236.91 violate our no personal attack policy and our civility policy 22. DeltaQuad reblocks with the reason “ 09:33, September 24, 2011 DeltaQuad (talk | contribs) blocked 76.31.236.91 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Disruptive editing: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC, also No personal attacks.) ” 23. DragonflySixtySeven again unblocks with the reason “ 04:09, September 25, 2011 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) unblocked "76.31.236.91 (talk)" ‎ (Pay attention. I said, a) I'm not convinced he's a sock, b) if he gets out of line, I'll block him myself. I'm handling this. If he misbehaves, bring him to my attention.) ” 24. On 7:00 September 25 MuZemike comments that it is possible that 76.31.236.91 and FaheyUSMC may be the same person. However, he said that it was also possible that they were two different people. If I missed anything in this timeline please feel free to add it. Alpha Quadrant talk 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• In short, it appears that

1. 76.31.236.91 was bitten quite severely.
2. DragonflySixtySeven's actions were appropriate.
3. Toddst1 exhibited behavior unbecoming of an administrator and should be advised against doing similar actions in the future. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AlphaQuadrant, can you explain on what you're basing your belief that Dragonfly's unblocks were appropriate? Completely independently of the IP's being bitten or not (and I think whether it's considered biting depends almost entirely on how loudly any particular viewer of the situation hears quacking), it appears that Dragonfly was OWNing the user and substituting his own (involved, in the sense that his actions were done out of personal concern for the IP rather than based on the IP's on-wiki behavior) judgment for that of multiple admins who blocked and declined unblocks. Is your belief that because the blocks were debatable, Dragonfly was correct to unilaterally lift them in defiance of the emergent consensus of multiple admins? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dragonfly6-7's first unblock of the user, as the blocking admin blocked him on flimsy evidence. (Only two edits by the IP editor, which added information from one of the article's sources, and a claim that there was evidence of meatpuppetry on a forum that went dormant a week before the incident even occurred.)

The IP editor was causing a fair amount of drama for several days after consensus had been reached on Talk:Least I Could Do, continuing his argument that first party sources could be used to verify otherwise unsourceable information. However, this action by Elizium23 labeling every single one of the IP's (16) comments with Template:Spa was fairly disruptive. As the IP had agreed that if he was unblocked, he would only edit User talk:DragonflySixtyseven and Talk:Least I Could Do it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't have any edits on other pages. When Dragonfly6-7 suggests that Elizum23 and Toddst1 consider apologizing for "misperceiving the situation with our IP editor here", Toddst1 replies "apologizing" for not filing a SPI sooner. (later redacted) He also states that "This disruption by the erroneously unblocked IP has gone on long enough." At this point the IP and Elizium23 were both arguing their interpretations on whether or not a first party source could be used to reference the information added, and the only disruption caused so far was Elizium23's mass tagging of all of the IP editor's comments with Template:SPA. The "evidence" Toddst1 presented in the SPI was flimsy, citing that the two consecutive edits made by the IP was "overwhelming evidence". Both of FaheyUSMC's sockpuppets and the group of 13 forum meatpuppets who attacked Elizium23 all stopped editing on, or before September 3. Yes, they were blocked, but no new socks/meats turned up. An IP editor making a two sentence addition to a paragraph, nine days after the incident, is not necessarily a sockpuppet. There would need to be a bit more substantial evidence. If the IP editor had readded the information word for word, then I would agree that it is likely the two users are the same person, however the information added was written much differently.

On the 24th when DeltaQuad reblocked the IP editor for disruption, he had stopped arguing against consensus. However the IP was violating WP:CIVIL in making personal attacks against Toddst1. However, the personal attacks were not one way, as Toddst1 accused the IP of disruptive editing and of socking, both of which lacked significant evidence, therefore violating WP:NPA. Both comments were later redacted by Toddst1, but if he felt he needed to redact them, then should he have made those comments initially? Stating that it would be naive to even consider it a coincidence suggests that Toddst1 is unwilling to even consider that he may have erred. I do not believe DeltaQuad made a bad block, but if because the personal attacks were from both editors, both editors should have been blocked. I agree that DragonflySixtyseven's second unblock was done out of process. He should have at least discussed the block with DeltaQuad before performing it, as the block had no relation with the supposed socking issue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP didn't have any behavior that was blockable. S/he made two edits in succession on an article that were reverted and it was badly explained to them why it was reverted. They were then blocked. For what, exactly, i'm still not quite sure. Silverseren^C 17:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked, both times, for being a sock on the basis of behavioral evidence (i.e. quacking), not for incivility. If, indeed, the IP is a sock (and this seems to be the focal point of the debate), then it seems appropriate for them to have been blocked when they were determined to be a sock, whether they were editing at that moment or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You're onto it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said below, the information 76.31.236.91 added to the article was in the citation at the bottom of the paragraph he edited. It is quite plausible that two editors would add similar information to the same article. WP:DUCK is a flimsy argument because there was a significant amount of doubt about the two editors being the same person. After the checkuser was performed it made the argument for WP:DUCK even more questionable. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the LICD and Dating Guy issues have been highly (internet) publicized, so it is fully plausible that there are a number of unaffiliated users who have heard about it and are trying to put it into the article, per the reference that is already in the article. Blocking them all under WP:SOCK just because of that similar, plausible edit is an obvious violation of WP:BITE. So, no, you're not onto it. Silverseren^C 18:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the block was highly inappropriate and all of the blocking admins should be trouted for inappropriate process and biting the newbies. In fact, I don't see why Toddst isn't getting blocked for WP:NPA violation if you're going to block the IP for that as well. Silverseren^C 17:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's a diff for Todd's alleged personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Particularly this edit, as it is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS #5

“ Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users. ”

. He has been accusing 76.31.236.91 of socking. The only evidence of a possible link between the socking user and 76.31.236.91 is this edit. Toddst1 is claiming that he blocked per WP:DUCK because one edit is supposedly evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and that anyone who believes otherwise is naive. Despite the fact that the information 76.31.236.91 added to the article was already in the citation at the end of the paragraph he edited. Because the information he added was also in the citation it is quite feasible that two different people would have written the same information. Which ultimately makes the original block on 76.31.236.91 questionable. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think alpha missed an important diff that went with the one s/he presented: this. When you present diffs, sometimes the context matters. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. "But I took it back after I insulted the hell out of someone so it's ok right?" That's kindergarten level manure. I've never even seen so much as an apology from you. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AlphaQuadrant, if you're going to step into the content dispute then you're going to have to recognize that the proposed edits contravened WP:SPS and WP:V that state that self-published sources can be used to support claims about themselves, but not about third parties. And your timeline leaves out mention of the meat puppetry going on at exactly the same time 76.31 appeared, and his appearance within 48 hours of semi-protection expiring at Least I Could Do. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know WP:V well, and yes, the source provided is neither reliable or third party. All I said was that because it is present in the article it is quite possible that two different people used the same source to add similar information. As for the meatpuppetry I can find no evidence of that in the article's page history. All I see is a user who used one IP to sock. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of meatpuppetry, I have already presented most links (right before your timeline was posted, I hope you read them) but here are some relevant ones: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#coordinated_attack_from_Dragoncon Forum thread 1 Forum thread 2 (note these are forum threads with three or more pages, you will want to browse all of them for direct evidence of meat pupetry coordination, harrassment and attempted WP:OUTING. See also the three sockpuppet investigations. Also, protection and patrol log for "The Dating Guy" and protection log for "Least I Could Do" show that the following admins agreed that the material being added was disruptive: Toddst1 (talk · contribs), Barek (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree on the question of whether it violated either of those. As did a number of other editors, one of whom had the following to say regarding your conduct long before I was even here, Elizium23: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Dating_Guy&action=historysubmit&diff=448158277&oldid=448149545) So apparently I'm not the only person by any stretch who wonders about your competence and thinks you play around violating policies. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the kind of bullshit accusation that got dragged into ANI before, and you still haven't provided any proof - diffs or GTFO. Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to provide diffs and count the number of times you reverted that page as Agent86 mentions. Unfortunately, someone DELETED THAT PAGE and so I can't do that because I can't see it, not being a member of the secret-handshake club. As for the rest of the incivility, your edits speak for themselves but I'll give you a few:

1. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Least_I_Could_Do&diff=prev&oldid=450533861) this is just freaking rude. Especially since you had obviously read my talk page and KNEW I was under an agreement only to edit on that talk page and Dragonfly6-7's talk page.
2. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Least_I_Could_Do&action=history) If I understand what an edit war is correctly, and I think I do, you are engaged in one long before I ever came along.
3. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Least_I_Could_Do&diff=next&oldid=450567506) Dragonfly6-7 asked you to calm down and apologize. You were silent, Toddst1 responded by posting a major insult instead.

Do you really want more? 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a few demotions are in order. From what I understand:

1. The IP was unfairly blocked TWICE, due to simply having supposed similarities in behavior to a sockpuppeteer. The block did not have enough evidence to support it, as just because two edits were in the same behavior as a sockpuppeteer, does not mean that they are sockpuppets.

   This is why blocks should not even be placed in the first place without sufficient evidence. (Even DeltaQuad should have enough sense to have evidence like that)

2. DS here apparently was trying to help the IP editor in question. At this point, I am actually taking DS's side here.
3. DS does not seem to be wheel warring, because the IP agreed to editing only the articles talk page and DS' talk page. (This of course, also includes the IPs own talk page)

The real problematic admin here seems to be Toddst1 (talk · contribs), as Toddst1 reverted this unblock request here, saying it was inappropriate use of unlock requests, while from what I see, it is NOT inappropriate use. They couldn't have abused the unblock template either, as two times is NOT abuse. This is why we usually warn four times, and block the fifth violation, not the second.

DeltaQuad also blocked inappropriately, as I do not see any vandalism edits, and there is also a difference between sockpuppetry and making edits in a similar behavior to a sockpuppeteer.

Toddst1 inappropriately protected the users talk page, when he also blocked the IP that made the "if you hadent already figured it out" section. We do not do such protections on an IP talk page, as that also obviously prevents the IP of whom that talk page is for from responding.

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) and EdJohnston (talk · contribs) do not seem to be problematic here, as they are being nice to the IP, and Elizium23 did not post anymore on the IP talk page, except for one Level 1 warning. This "dont post here please" request was indeed made by that IP editor, and Elizium23 followed it to the dot.

Basically, there are a few admins involved that should be demoted, or at least warned, and it seems DS had a good reason when unblocking. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Elizium23 did not, in fact, pay attention to the request and instead dumped a comment on me again later. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There was sufficient evidence, LikeLakers2. The blocking admins and the admins who declined the unblock requests clearly saw it. Fine, the IP may or may not be a sockpuppet per CU evidence, but I believed 100% that he/she was a sock based on behavioral evidence and thus I declined the first unblock request. A personal-attack-laden unblock request is subject to removal by anyone, DS clearly wheel-warred, and most of your arguments are incorrect. Do you need to re-familiarize yourself with policies? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, as I understand policies well. DS did NOT wheel war, as the IP clearly agreed to a proposal DS made, and DS clearly said that if the IP steps out of those bounds, he would block him himself. This does not seem to constitute Wheel warring. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And I always say that a few admins all believing something is this or that is nothing to me. You do realise that group of admins could be all 851 of them, and they could be completely wrong, correct? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And may I add that, even if you are correct, Eagles247, that there is still inappropriate use of admin powers by people that are not DS? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

<DeltaQuad> LikeLakers2-1: I didn't block him as a scok FYI

Just saying. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that... Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DS does not own the blocking rights to the IP. Any admin who sees fit to block will do so. Your assumption that individual admins do not do any research when blocking or declining unblock requests and just go with the "herd" is incorrect. Was it inappropriate for Toddst1 to revert an unblock request with a reference to admins as Nazis? Or was it inappropriate for DeltaQuad to block for valid non-sockpuppetry-related, but disruptive, reasons? No, DS was acting in a correct manner by unblocking twice without discussion with the blocking admin, right? Mind you, I like DS, but I feel he went a bit too far here. I suggest no action be taken here. Let the IP stay unblocked for the time being, and if he/she acts up, we can just block him/her again for non-controversial reasons. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sock Uncertainty Principle, and other ramblings

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. -George Box, statistician

The fallacy of the above discussion is much of it hinges on whether a user is a sock or not. This is a poor model, as we can't actually know whether they are or not. Can there be any doubt that some socks escape detection, or that some nonsocks get unfairly blocked? Since certainty is impossible, resolving that issue is moot. Therefore a probability model is superior; we should act in a way that simultaneously considers both possibilities. My first suggestion is that discussion of whether ip76 is a sock or whether the block was "fair" is moot; they're not blocked now and not mucking up the article in question.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. -Creepy mirror sunglasses prison guard, Cool Hand Luke.

As a nonadmin I appreciate DS's intent. There is a WP caste system and IPs are often treated poorly, and AGF is an important component to what makes WP that work. Unfortunately, their execution faltered. While sockedness is subject to uncertainty, the WP pillars are not, and one of them is WP:Consensus. Regardless of whether they are right about the ip's sockedness, their combative tone -- e.g. "stupid, stupid," "meta arguments" escalated the situation rather than calming it. Independent action contrary to admin consensus based on IRC information is a really bad idea. By trying to bludgeon their point of view through assertion rather then gentle persuasion, they contributed to an us vs. them mentality which caught ip76 in the crossfire. A "look, guys, I've talked to this guy on IRC, let's give him a chance" approach is more likely to bring consensus than a confrontation. (One option would have been to reach consensus on upblocking the talk page to let the ip make their own case.) Furthermore, modeling calm civil behavior to/for the ip would encourage him to adopt a similar manner. (e.g. I think the other admins have made a mistake, please stay calm while I try to reach consensus).

Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda, Star Wars Jedi Master

While efficacy requires admins frequently act quickly and independently, gray area cases require WP to act as a community, not individual agents. I don't know if the "unblocking with restrictions monitored by a single admin" thing is a common practice, but it's a bad idea. Block the editor or unblock. It juvenilizes the restricted editor, requiring them to run to Momma to ask permission to do this or do that, and it provides them with "admin approval" for actions they take. If an editor is not responsible enough to use the unblocked editing privilege wisely, they shouldn't be unblocked in the first place.

Short cuts make long delays -Some hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring

While I understand the frustration of editor(s) repeatedly inserting the same piece of contested text in an article, and the need for admins to accomplish tasks quickly, once consensus isn't evident, slowing down and being more explicit and explanatory is appropriate. While it's a good shorthand to use terms like DUCK initially, further conversation should more respectful on the probabilistic nonsock ip76. A quick response which "saves time" by producing a contrary quick response doesn't really save time in the long run. Clearly there is a history here (including a deleted page) which could/should be explained to try to bring everyone to a common understanding. Gerardw (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

1. - The question of whether the block is "fair" is not moot. I currently believe, based on what I have seen, the history I have read, and based on his own activities ("diffs" provided quite thoroughly above) that Toddst1's behavior violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and WP:AGF (and if anyone knows of any others, please let me know, as I am sure I don't know half of the complete mess that comprises "policies", "essays", "procedures" and the other godawful gobblygook that may be involved and impossible to find on wikipedia). It is as another person said "conduct unbecoming an admin" and if I don't speak up now he'll just keep doing it to anyone else he feels like doing it to. By his own words (again linked above), he will not admit a single thing he did wrong. This is a problem.
2. - When I talked with Dragonfly6-7, the impression I got from him is that now, or in the past, an area-specific unblock where I was limited to only editing a few places was considered normal because it would allow me to prove I was acting in good faith, being honest and staying within the terms of the agreement I had made. If this isn't the case, I have no idea. The term "probation" was used at one point or another. So I tried it. I didn't expect the horrible treatment I would receive from Elizium23 and Toddst1 and if I had known it would be that way, I wouldn't have bothered. I think that on the average, at least, I proved that I am honest, that I am acting In Good Faith, and that I stay within the limits of any agreement I make when I could easily have not done so.
3. - Honestly, you people talk in such a damn alphabet soup that it's impossible to make sense of what you are saying half the time without consulting someone on IRC and having them spend 20 minutes explain it. FFS (yeah I at least know that acronym and I'm sure you do too) would it kill you to speak in plain english? It's like the old joke about the prisoners who know all the jokes by heart they just call them out by number until one day the new guy shouts "5" and nobody laughs. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a couple more. WALLS & TLDR. Honestly, you aren't helping DS or yourself at this point. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr version just for you, the stuck up jerk who can't understand multisyllabic conversation. Toddst1 acted the jerk. Mentorships and probation agreements are common. Wikipedians need to relearn the concept of speaking english. Oh and IPs are tired of assholes like you treating us as third class wikipedians. Signed, Steve. 107.33.224.12 (talk)

Spoken like a true "drive-by". This, along with your frivolous MFD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who read and attempted to send talk page mail as an IP recently: IPs are treated like shit and Baseball Bugs has just demonstrated that by assuming that Steve is a "drive by" because he signed as an IP. Assume good faith, people! Now — let's get rid of the underlying problem, which is the fact that IP editing is allowed at all. Sign In To Edit. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a death pact...and the IP 76.31.x.x had begun to rant the same stuff repeatedly in long posts which is why I left a short recommendation. The IP 107.33.x.x...I wouldn't even consider a third class Wikipedian. He's here to troll. Why would one extend good faith to someone who left a post like that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:50, 28 September 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:Kurdo777 doing reverts, edit warring and malicious edits in multiple pages

user Kurdo777 has been engaged in multiple malicious POV edits and edit warring spanning across multiple Azerbaijan-related articles, such as Anti-Turkism, Nizami Ganjavi, and Ali Javan. For example, in Anti-Turkism he removed, as always without any discussion and explanation, the information about the discrimination of Azeri Turks in Iran [71]. After I restored it, along with a comment to check two scholarly sources on the subject, such as Prof. Alireza Asgharzade and Prof. Igor Dyakonoff (whose quote I cited), he reverted it, again without discussion [72]. I have replaced the info, along with nine verifiable and reliable sources to prove the validity of the information he was maliciously removing, and discussed it in the Talk page[73], but he still reverted [74].

In the article Ali Javan, he removed crucial information about a living person WP:BLP about his Azerbaijani ethnicity, and the spelling of his name in Azerbaijani language [75]

In Nizami Ganjavi he keeps removing the category "Azerbaijani people" which has been there for years: [76] and [77] and [78], even though Nizami Ganjavi lived and died in Azerbaijan (as this Iranian Encyclopedia writes [79] and I have left such a comment in the Talk page [80]), and thus was "Azerbaijani people".

User Kurdo777 has a very long history and pattern of such malicious edits, where he targets Azerbaijan-related or Turkic-related pages, and removes whatever facts he doesn't like. He has been notified about this complaint [81]. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to make a thread about User:Saygi1.He has been WP:Hounding me to pages he's never edited before. He appears to be a "Kamikaze-type" sock of an old banned user, trying to bait me and others, and to take us down with him, so to speak. There have been several threads about this particular user/WP:SPA, his suspicious behavior, and questionable conduct here[82], here[83], and here[84]. He was blocked twice in September for POV-pushing, edit-warring and disruption of Wikipedia[85], and warned by an administrator for his recent episodes of disruption upon a complaint by me and another user.[86] But instead of taking the warring seriously, he's become more combative and disruptive, going as far as stalking me and another editor. As for the his content-related "complaints"..(1) On anti-Turkisim, he's trying to dump a bunch of random citations into the WP:LEAD which is suppose to be summary of the article, and not a place for new ideas and citations per our guidelines. I even went as far as accommodating him, by leaving the disputed phrase in place. But that does not seem to have satisfied him, as his purpose is clearly a provocation of reaction/revert, so that he can cry that "Kurdo removed my sources" in order to fish an unsuspecting admin who is not familiar with these topics, or knows about the background here. (2) On Ali Javan, someone's ethnicity does not belong in the WP:Lead, that again is in line with our guidelines. The life section already covers the subjects' ethnicity. (3) As for Nezami, the edit summary speaks for itself, the subject neither was a citizen of Azerbaijan, nor an ethnic Azeri.Once again, Saygi1 is POV-pushing, and had gone to that page in the first place, by stalking User:Takabeg. Overall, the main issue here is the disruption of Wikipedia by a WP:SPA/sock who is stalking long-standing editors, trying to bait them into edit-wars. An admin who is familiar with these topics and this particular topical area, should take a close look at this user's conduct, and review the content of all those diff links I've provided above, which would clarify Saygi1's true intentions here. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the type of "editing" that Kurdo777 seems quick to engage in - throwing all kinds of unfounded accusations in hope something will "stick", from some strange allegations about me being a "Kamikaze-type" (what does that mean?) sock (? "sock" of whom?) of an "old banned user" (really? Which one? If he/she is "old user" then why does he/she need a "sock"? You are really confusing), "trying to bait" (how? You are removing sourced information that has been there for ages without any explanation, after all, not me. So you are "baiting" yourself). And what "suspicious behavior" or "questionable conduct"? How about you engaging in exactly that type of behavior, by maliciously targeting Azerbaijani-related articles on Wikipedia, removing sourced information, and then running to other users to engage them to become your meat-puppets as well as complaining to an admin (Elen on the Roads) you've never before interacted with - and the one who blocked me for 3RR on a different, unrelated to the above article? Why would you engage in such questionable behavior? I am not bringing up previous complaints about you and don't care about your blocks - so I definitely don't engage in any "questionable behavior".

Meanwhile, on anti-Turkism, like on other articles, the diffs speak loud and clear - you groundlessly removed facts and sourced information. The "random citations" are not random, they were placed there as you kept removing the information, so I placed the citations to show you that the information that was there for a long time belongs there. If you suddenly agree, then instead of removing these quality sources you could have placed them in another section of the article if you wanted so (although many other articles have footnootes references in the lead). But you don't do that, because you just want to remove, you are not interested in constructive edits in these pages. Same thing goes for Ali Javan - ethnicity is a crucial fact about any person, including a living person, and definitely belongs to the WP:Lead. And not just ethnicity - but the spelling of his name in Azerbaijani language, which you have also removed. That too doesn't "belong" in the lead? How about name in Persian - does that belong, or you just forgot to remove it? Lastly, on Nizami Ganjavi, the category "Azerbaijani people" has been there for ages, it is not about "citizens of Azerbaijan" or "ethnic Azeris" as was already pointed out to Kurdo777 several times, and user Kurdo777 has no evidence whatsoever that Nizami was not "ethnic Azeri". Nizami was born and died in Azerbaijan, and I supplied relevant references of that, so it's enough for him to be considered an Azerbaijani people. He belongs to that category - and it's not just me who says that, but dozens of people who've edited that article in the past years and never removed this info (I haven't yet traced since when is it there, but I've seen it in the previous versions of the article stretching back years). So Kurdo777's edits in these three articles are malicious POV and edit warring, whilst his attempts to make all kinds of unsubstantiated accusations and disruptive edit warring are just plain unproductive and all done in extremely bad faith. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is revealing that Kurdo777 removes text and reliable sources from the lead section without repositioning same in the article body. It appears that Saygi1 has a valid point. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the text in question is still there, the WP:Lead is no place for citations. By the way, it should be noted that User:Binksternet who commented above, has a long history with me. He has been blocked several times for harassing and stalking me.[87][88] He was only unblocked, under the condition that he'd stay away from articles I edit. So he's just piling on here, hoping to fish in muddy waters. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

About Kurd777's edits:

• Ali Javan: reasonable.
• Nizami Ganjavi: resonalbe.
• Anti-Turkism: content dispute, there are problems of usage of sources.

I think you (We) had better solve disputes with discussing on talk pages (Talk:Anti-Turkism, Talk:Nizami Ganjavi and Talk:Ali Javan). Takabeg (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, I agree completely. Kurdo777 made reasonable edits on Ali Javan and Nizami Ganjavi, but not on Anti-Turkism. The material that Saygi1 brought forward should be discussed on the talk page. I found one source, a blog on iranian.com, which was very low quality. Others should be evaluated on the talk page. However, Kurdo777 should not revert out of hand. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:Lead and see what it says about dumping a massive block of citations in the lead. And kindly, stop stalking me. For the record, I've given Binksternet a formal notice to cease and desist, as he is in violation of terms of his unblock, which prohibited him from interacting with me on pages outside our area of dispute, which is unrelated to these pages. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I know LEAD inside and out. What you did not do is move text and cites from the lead to the article body; you just reverted. In fact, you did that four times in 48 hours, arguably a pattern of edit warring warranting a block. You and I do not now and never have had an interaction ban, so no go on that accusation. Your formal warning was irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@Kurdo777: If there is some sort of formal or informal interaction ban on Binksternet regarding you, you need to post a diff to it. I've looked and cannot find anything of the sort. If you are unable to post such a diff, then you shouldn't make such claims in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You seem to have a short memory. You were indefinitely blocked for harnessing me. In your last unblock request, you promised not to follow me around. You said[89] and I quote "I promise not to follow Kurdo777 at all, and I promise to uphold the best editing guidelines at WP:Harassment—no hounding". You and I both know that "I saw it on noticeboard","I saw it on my watch-list" etc, are the same old excuse you kept using to justify stalking me, before admitting that you were indeed hounding me, and promised not to it again. As for the article, WP:Lead is clear enough on excessive indiscriminate dumping of sources into the lead section, I don't need to repeat myself. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@Ken. It's not a formal ban. But check my previous reply to him. He had clearly promised the admins to keep away from me, in order to get unblocked. He's just using technicalities to get around it now. Unfortunately, he always follows me to pages/discussions that he has no interest in, otherwise, simply to take the opposite position of whatever position I've taken, using excuses like "I saw it on noticeboard" or "I saw it my watch-list". The obvious stalking behavior got to a point, that he was blocked for it. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(Full disclosure - Saygi1 and I are in dispute at the moment; nonetheless, I believe the following is a fairly unbiased evaluation of his general behavior.)

The OP, Saygi1, is a relatively new editor (account created June 24 2011) who immediately jumped in to edit articles related to Azerbaijan, especially Azerbaijani American (their first substantive edit was a fairly extensive expansion and re-write of that article). He has also been very active on discussion pages and noticeboards: of their 250 edits, 160 (64%) have been to article talk pages, user talk pages, and Wikipedia space, in support of only 89 article edits (36%), a relatively high ratio of meat to gristle.

In discussions with other editors, Saygil's pattern of behavior has been fairly combataive. He begins politely and factually, but soon digs in with a serious I didn't hear that stance, and begins to repeat (sometimes practically verbatim, often copying-and-pasting them in various places) "too long did not read"-type comments which tend to ignore the policy-based arguments of those opposing his edits, to focus instead on quasi-personal attacks. These are never strong enough to violate WP:NPA, but his focus does become the editor as opposed to the argument. He derides anyone who arrives to agree with his oppponent as "friends" who have been "called in" to be meatpuppets, and does not back down from these allegations even in the face of firm denial from the participants. (A good example of Saygi1's style of argumentation can be seen here and here, a linked discussion which wound up with Saygil being blocked for refusing to accept that his sources were not considered to be reliable.)

As one would suspect, a new user with a definite POV (pro-Azerbaijani), ownership feelings about an article he contributed heavily to, and a propensity for talking rather than editing would show up on noticeboards with some frequency, and that is the case. In the merely three months that Saygi1 has been editing, he been the subject or intiator six noticeboard threads: not only the ones linked above and this thread, but also this (initiated by Saygi1, and also complaining about Kurdo777, re: dispute tags on Azerbaijani-American) and this and this, which I initiated. (And that's not counting his attempt to get me blocked for edit warring on WP:3RRN, which was turned down.)

Saygi1 appears to be a disputatious editor sometimes lacking in neutral point of view who has difficulty following, and perhaps in understanding, Wikipedia policies if they conflict with the results he desires. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of power: Sockpuppetry and Indef block

Block-evading thread moved to User talk:WalkerThrough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

IP Hopping Vandalism

Several radio station articles are being hit with vandalism by several IPs (most likely the same person) including: 85.131.129.182 (traced to Berlin), 85.17.25.66 (traced to Amsterdam), 204.16.202.134, (traced to Toronto), and 71.161.58.223 (traced to Fredericksburg, Virginia). They have previously used 71.161.44.88 (traced to Fredericksburg, Virginia). Each time I have warned the user (the recent ones just with a manual "only warning". The 85.131.129.182 also vandalized other radio station pages with personal attacks on myself, while also vandalizing the articles. In all cases, I have reverted the vandalism via the Rollbackers function. User:OlEnglish semi-protected the WFVA page for 3 months due to the vandalism there. I am unsure as what to do since the vandalism is coming via proxies and other IPs besides playing whack-a-mole. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out a few of his proxy networks, and the Verizon IPs look range-blockable. Line em up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the ones I have listed are all I know of at this moment. If he uses anymore, I will definitely let you know. Thanks for blocking and rangeblocking several of them. Hopefully, this will get the message across. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers by Andrwsc

Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

I've been doing cleanup for Book:1952 Winter Olympics. Part of this involves tweaking the various appearances of templates, such as {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, to display correctly in the PDFs, etc... In particular, I fixed {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, to exclude the navigational content (the list of years in which Argentina [or for what matters any country] has been in the Winter Olympics is completely irrelevant to print version, and adds an unimaginable amount of clutter to the books. Andrwsc immediately reverted me, and full-protected the page to his preferred version, justifying with the rational that any edit mades to a template should go through the sandbox first, in direct violation of WP:BOLD, etc... This was not done out of concern for vandalism, or concern that the edit breaks the page, this was purely done so Andrwsc could control the template to his pet version.

I don't know if this is part of a longer pattern, but the page should be unprotected, his edit reverted, and Andrwsc should at the very minimum be chastised to use his admin tools to beat regular editors into submission. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitely like to hear from Andrewsc. I'm interested in his reasoning on the page protection issue. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates that are transcluded on more than 3,000 pages are fully protected to prevent test edits to the template. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Headbomb made a few test edits before making his/her final edit and Andrewsc is correct to protect the template. Had he fully-protected an article, this would have been abuse of his tools. I don't see any discussion with Andrewsc before coming to ANI, either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Headbomb appears to be blatantly ignoring my attempt to initiate discussion on another set of his recent edits. I'm all in favor of WP:BRD, but that requires, you know, the "D" part... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. In any case that's moot per this ongoing RFC on the topic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Two things. Andrwsc should have attempted to discuss these changes with Headbomb first, before preemptively using his tools to change then protect a template. Also, it seems that Andrwsc is an involved editor on that template and there appeared to have been issues with edit warring on the page in the past, although I didn't get into reading the details, or how involved Andrwsc was in that past dispute. My opinion is that it is never ok for an admin to preemptively protect a page or a template, minus any suspicion of vandalism. Full protection is and should be reserved as the last line of defense, not the first action taken. As for whether or not Headbomb should have made those changes is for discussion to decide, and not a decision for admin tools, unless consensus asks for it.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)That template is high-use, transcluded on ~3900 pages. I had already seen several of Headbomb's edits today, taking multiple edits to figure out how to achieve the end result (e.g. {{Infobox figure skating competition}}, used on >900 pages, took 7 edits in a few minutes to accomplish what he was doing, plus the earlier edits to Infobox Country Olympics). I did not want to see further experimentation on a high-use template without some discussion (either on the template talk page, or on the WikiProject talk page) or at least create a sandbox version, which is what my edit summary tried to convey. It is disruptive to affect so many articles with broken, intermediate versions of high-use templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I should have used the sandbox. However the version you reverted worked just fine, and you didn't revert it because it was broken, but rather because you didn't like it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are the consequences of a broken template in this context?--Tznkai (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:High-risk templates#Rationale. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that rationale is to avoid large-scale vandalism occuring from simple edits. In this case, malformed infoboxes from broken template edits could result in layout or formatting problems on a large number of pages. It's a good faith edit, but still needs to be made carefully—which is why we have sandboxes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but we're all agreed that Headbomb, whatever he was doing, was not vandalizing. Were the templates disabled? Portraying incorrect information? Causing infinite data if/else loops?. Whats the approximate viewership of the most popular of those pages so affected? Recall, that with a vandal, they have no intention of leaving a changed object in a functional state at any point. --Tznkai (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Headbomb: If you are willing to discuss the proposed change, then I'm happy to hear it. But your modus operandi today has been like a bull in a china shop, without much discussion. For this, and other edits you have been making today, I still recommend WT:WikiProject Olympics. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

Rather I've been the opposite of one. I came in and fixed stuff that was critically broken. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you fix things carefully, yes. But my observation of your edits today reveals your carelessness. You made a few edits, didn't like what you saw, then self-reverted. That type of experimentaton should never happen on a live high-use template. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't make omelets without breaking some eggs. Testing the rendering of print version or toolserver tools such altviewer is already cumbersome enough without spending half an hour setting up sandboxes and testcases, which are not guaranteed to replicate actually articles when you can do it live in 5 seconds at the cost of an imperceptible load increase on the servers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPTING a few thousand articles to test for a printed one is not the way to make omlettes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

30 seconds of "disruption" only visible to logged in editors who chose to read the most-up-to-date (cache-purged) version of an article is hardly the end of the world. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, I'd have to agree with others here and would go further then that. If it takes you 30 minutes to set up a sandbox and testcases for a small number of templates, you probably shouldn't be editing templates period. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm the single-most experienced editor with templates and their print versions. The only reason you're saying this is because you never actually dealt with print versions and their fickleness before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you need to view 9+ pages before you know if changes like [90] to a template works in a print version? Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That edit was part of debugging with User:Dispenser's altviewer for various book reports, such as Book talk:1952 Winter Olympics#Book report. Recreating the book, sandbox version of the template, create sandbox version of all 44 articles, make them all use the sandbox version of the template, etc... is a huge amount of work that would take probably over an hour. And you're shit out of luck if the bug is namespace-dependant, which you can't know, a priori. Compare this with 5 minutes, which affected essential no one.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're confirming then that you had to view the print version of all 44 articles before you knew whether the change was working? Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm confirming that the live version of the template had to be edited in order to isolate the origin of the bug, unless one wanted to go through hours of work that could be instead be done in 30 seconds. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you've so far failed you explain why you need to test the live version by your ambigioty. If you really need to test the print version of all 44 articles to find the bug, I'll give you that it would have been rather difficult to test it in a sandbox. If a few select cases would have achieved the same thing, at it was easy to determine apriori which test cases, then it is not difficult to test in a sandbox situation. It's not needed to precisely replicate something, if you can be resonably confident of replicating what is needed with a few simple cases. Obviously if you fail to do so with a few simple cases, it's resonable to consider whether expanding the effort, or taking the risk with the live version would be more appropriate, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just told you why I needed to test the live version... I didn't need to test the print version of those articles because this was not something related to them, this was related to the behaviour of User:Dispenser's altviewer for various book reports, such as Book talk:1952 Winter Olympics#Book report, which was behaving erratically, and needed the live version of articles to monitor its behaviour in various conditions to isolate the issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You can forgive me for thinking it had something to do with print version when you told 2 different people something along the lines of 'I'm the single-most experienced editor with templates and their print versions. The only reason you're saying this is because you never actually dealt with print versions and their fickleness before' as justification for why you couldn't use a sandbox when it turns out that is apparently irrelevant here. As for your newer claim, I admit I didn't understand it at the time as I'm not familiar with book reports and was confused how to access them (it would have been helpful to link to an example of what you were referring to like [91] although I acknowledge not finding out was mostly an error on my part). I'm of course willing to take you at your word that you needed to test a book report in its entirety, and couldn't just test one or two articles with the altviewer in an initial attempt to identify the problem (which may not have been guaranteed to work but if it did show the problem in isolation, may very well have). I'm of course presuming you also mean it was resonable to expect the problem was in a flaw in the template design (and not a flaw in the tool which could perhaps be mediated by redesigning the template but was still a flaw in the tool). Nil Einne (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not happy how this is playing out. Clearly, HB has a reasonable goal; the short term impact of the test edits is an issue, but I'd trust HB to back out on failure. Andrwsc could have offered better advice on how HB should proceed to edit the template. The template discussion is not collegial. Andrwsc is basically saying the template does not have problems, it is being misused by others, it serves Andrwsc's purpose, and HB should make a new one. And now we have a mess at ANI. Discuss the template change and be done with it. Glrx (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, those comments ("misused by others") were referring to another set of templates that Headbomb edited today. The current version of those is not what I originally intended when I created them, but it is acceptable. There are three distinct areas where Headbomb and I have crossed paths today; this ANI report is about just one of them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To call standard protection of a highly-visble template "abuse of admin powers" certain lowers HB's argument to ... um ... nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That conveniently forgets that he didn't do it to protect it from the vandals or whatever, he did it because he didn't like it and didn't want me to revert. He's involved, thus abused his powers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask any software designer: you never test on live code. Make a copy of the template. Choose an article. Make a copy of it for yourself. Remove the instance of the OLD template, add your REVISED template. Test. Fix revised template. Test. Apply changes (if accepted by consensus) to the real template. Taadaaaaaaaa! We have a "show preview" button for normal edits - testing on a test copy does the same thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason you're saying this is because you never actually dealt with print versions and their fickleness before. You can't do a preview, you need the live thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe true. But that does not stop the fact that you fecking with a template appeared to be disruption, and the protection was valid, and this was never admin abuse. You had better methods of getting this done, and calling wolf was not on that list (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

However, reverting a working version because you didn't like it, then protecting the page so it cannot be restored, certainly IS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Please disengage the finger pointing. There are good and bad points to both sides. Stop jostling for position and do what is good for WP. Figure out what should happen to the template(s). Glrx (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This should have never been brought to ANI. Discuss with the admin first, then, as a last resort, bring it to ANI. As the top of this page says, "For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this should not have been brought here, but the fact that Andrwsc is not only a major contributor on that template, but actually its creator should disallow him from using admin tools on that template, because he clearly has a conflict of interest. Furthermore, his edit summery did not suggest a disruption to the template, but suggested that he was not in favor of the change. Again, a conflict of interest. Its OK if he reverts as an editor, but as soon as he used his admin tools on the template, he created a conflict of interest between his edits as a wikipedia editor, and his privilege of admin tools.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest there are 2 issues here. When Andrwsc protected the template, it seems clear from the comment he? felt the template needed to be protected to ensure proposed edits are tested in a sandbox first. The proceeding edit [92] appears to be a disagreement with this change. I agree ideally Andrwsc should not have protected the template but instead requested someone else to handle it. However the requirement to test changes in a sandbox first was not unresonable, and HB has so far IMO not sufficiently explained here or elsewhere why this wasn't possible (and definitely doesn't seem to have been explained before they began). Was the situation sufficient urgent to allow Andrwsc to ignore proper practice? This is hard to say, since it's not clear to me if Headbomb would have continued to edit without testing if Andrwsc had told them to stop. I do find it concerning that Headbomb suggests the Andrwsc change should be reverted. If Headbomb agrees not to edit without testing or at least discussion establishing it is okay to edit without testing and says they would have stopped if Andrwsc had politely told them to stop, then protection should be removed and Andrwsc reminded not to use administrative tools when they are involved when it isn't highly urgent. But even in this case, I see no reason for reverting Andrwsc's edit. Per BRD, Andrwsc was entitled to revert a change they see as unwelcome. In an article, it may be acceptable (albeit not encouraged) for Headbomb or someone else to further revert Andrwsc thereby reintroducing the change with some minor discussion but I would suggest a highly visible template is a wheelwar like situation and so once Andrwsc had reverted, the change should not be reinstated if it didn't clearly fix something but was effectively a content dispute, until consensus was reached to introduce the change. This of course means that IMO if Headbomb had planned to revert Andrwsc further without reaching consensus on the change, it ironically somewhat justifies the protection even if Andrwsc wasn't aware of this (and therefore doesn't perhaps really justify his actions). Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I explained it multiple times why it was not possible (or rather why it was undesirable) to "test" those changes in sandbox versions. What more do you need? A white paper on cost vs benefits of spending hours setting up dummy version of a book vs making a live edit which has a lifetime of a few seconds if it's breaking something? And why do edits which are known to be valid / not break stuff / fix old problematic stuff need "further" testing before they are reinstated? They work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I made my above reply before your latest reply above where it was still rather unclear to me, what you were saying, mostly by my own fault but not helped by your initial irrelevant justification (and use of non direct links as examples). I don't know what 'valid / not break stuff / fix old problematic stuff need "further" testing before they are reinstated' has to do with anything. I made it clear it's nothing to do with further testing but reaching consensus on a content dispute in a highly visible template before a clearly disputed change is reinstated. (Obviously it may be justifiable to reintroduce a change which fixes a clearcut undisputed problem even if it has been reverted.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Edit: And yes, if you didn't understand or heck still don't understand and still think reversal of Andrwsc edit without reaching consensus is okay that then IMO protection was a good idea even if it was perhaps not ideal for Andrwsc to do it. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Both Andrwsc and Headbomb are experienced editors; I think some collegiality is in order from both sides. If Andrwsc was concerned that HB's edits were breaking the template, then the appropriate response (considering this is an experienced, obvious non-vandal editor) would be to revert those edits and post a message on HB's talk page or the template talk page. Then, if HB ignored the message and continued making test edits, that would be the time for page protection. And, it would have been respectful if Headbomb contacted Andrwsc on his talk page before bringing it to the drama board. So, can we all kiss and make up and close this thread? —SW— ^verbalize 23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thread can be close when the protection is undone and the templates fix re-instated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly unwilling to make that change without proper discussion at WT:WikiProject Olympics, which I have twice asked you to do. You made a bold edit, I reverted, so now is the time for discussion. This is not just a technical edit—you wish to exclude infobox content from the book version that was deemed to be useful by the WikiProject when those infoboxes were developed years ago. And even if we got consensus for removal, I'm not convinced that your addition of a couple of newline characters would not affect the infobox rendering. We need a sandbox version to verify that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you admit that you improperly used your tools in a dispute? And that you are reverting without understanding your own actions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Drop the stick Headbomb - you're in no place to give orders. High-profile templates are always protected - you found one that was not, and now it is. Off to the template talkpage and go back to being congenial (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

~3000 transclusions is not a "high profile" template in need of permament full protection like {{cite journal}} is. If anything is needed for an infobox, it is little more than permanent semi-protection. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what Headbomb was trying to do. All I know is that it was not vandalism, by my knowledge. What concerns me is the fact that a regular editor on that template reverted to his preferred version then fully protected it when it was not before. That is the issue here. What say you Andresc to this charge? Admins do not get final say on content, and when they revert and fully protect any page or template, then a conflict of interest arrises.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin has examined the issue and made a decision. I'm fairly certain the decision was made with the potential WP:COI weighed into the equation. So how's about we let it go now? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, from the edit history it seems the template was fully protected before but this was quickly reversed. Searching easily finds Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#HJ Mitchell mass fully protecting templates with some losely relevent discussion. The template is or was in Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions/1. From that discussion, it's not clear to me everyone agrees that having over 3000 transclusions is enough to automatically justify full protection although a lot of the concern there was that is was felt the list was fairly untargeted and included stuff like WikiProject templates Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There were two distinct actions on my part. The revert was simply the second step of a normal BRD process. (And I'm still waiting to see the "D" started at the project page or template talk page.) The protection was because I had already seen several of Headbomb's template edits within the previous hour, and felt that it was not safe to experiment on this live high-use template. It is appropriate to protect a template at a known stable version. This is not article content, it is table markup that affects thousands of articles. It's obviously a different situation than protecting my "preferred version" of prose text. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

But you don't get to make the decision on whether or not a page if fully protected on your own. No one asked you to do it, and your strong connection to that template, (the fact that you created it and are a regular contributor there), should doubly disqualify you from even hinting at using your admin tools on that template.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about instead of making blind reverts to things you don't understand, you actually let people who understand what they do take care of things? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that I don't understand templates that I've created? Personal attack noted. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no personal attack. You've admitted it yourself, multiple times, that you didn't understand the edits you were reverting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I knew perfectly well the impact of your change, as you can tell from the edit summary. What I don't understand is why you attempted to make changes to that same template about an hour earlier and then self-reverted. I presume you understood the effects of your edits and merely changed your mind? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you sure you're not a lawyer rather than a physicist? If Andrewsc has admitted it "multiple times", why do you keep asking him to admit it ("So you admit that you improperly used your tools in a dispute? And that you are reverting without understanding your own actions?")?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm withholding comment on any accuations of potential misuse of the tools and/or WP:OWN issues. But, Headbomb, your conduct here is not helping your case. Repeatedly staing that you're the only person who understands and therefore are the only person qualified to work on the templates is not how Wikipedia works (and gives the impression, to me at least, of a potential ownership issue on your own part). Wikipedia is a cooperative project; the opinions of Andrwsc, or anyone else, have exactly the same amount of value as yours, regardless of who does or does not "understand" template syntax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm the only person who can understand templates, I'm not, but as far as print version are concerned (which are an entirely different beast than online versions), the only guy who knows half as much as me is the guy who codes the renderer. Andrwsc said that he made the reverts because those were "experimental" edits of uncertain effects. This is patently false, as those edits did exactly what they were supposed to, and fix the templates' broken behaviour, and are completely uncontroversial routine stuff that's been done for as long as we've had PDFs (~3 years). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. It is utterly ingenuous to claim that this edit is a "fix", because it removes a significant portion of the infobox content from the print version. That's not fixing "broken behaviour", and certainly isn't "completely uncontroversial routine stuff". The Olympic history summary in the infobox is very useful (a good example is Germany at the 1952 Winter Olympics) and not just a set of links that have no value in printed form. I knew exactly the implications of your edit, which is why I reverted and asked for discussion. The experimental edits I was referring to are ones like these, where you tried to do something, fixed a mistake, and then backed out altogether. I was also skeptical of your multiple edits at {{Infobox figure skating competition}} which also included a self-revert before trying something different. That is why I pre-emptively protected {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, to prevent any possible subsequent disruption before discussion and/or sandbox edits. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment WP:HRT is there for a reason; highly-referenced templates are to be protected. It's SOP. --Rschen7754 00:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

High-risk templates should be protected pursuant to the guideline, but the question is what constitutes a high-risk template. The guideline gives some criteria but also says: "There are no fixed criteria, and no fixed number of transclusions, that are used to decide whether a template is high-risk. Each template is considered separately." Oddly, the guideline says that the determination should be made by the "community" - not quite sure what that means. However, assuming that in practice an uninvolved admin can determine that a template is high-risk, then I agree that it appears that Bwilkins had done that. Even assuming that Andrwsc should have asked an uninvolved admin to make that determination, there's really no harm no foul. Headbomb should let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to HB's argument that a 4 minute exposure on 4000 transclusions need not fall under the protection of a highly referenced template. We have two experienced template editors. I don't see a lot of disruption. The template protection has a COI issue. However, there isn't much point to debating either position; they're both toss ups. What's left is a content dispute about the template that doesn't belong here. Glrx (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to get all philosophical here folks but this is a WIKI. The bias is in favor of editing, directly onto the page. Mistakes are easy to undo, especially ones made in good faith. This is not a permission culture. It is how all of us got started.

I asked repeatedly what the real damage here was. The only answers seem to devolve down to inconvenience to editors and momentary ugliness for the reader. Guess what kids, we're not important. The reader is, and any good faith attempt to improve things for the reader is to be congratulated.--Tznkai (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute that the edit in question would improve things for the reader. It was the intentional removal of the "Olympic history" summary section from the printed version of the infobox on ~3900 pages. That's why I reverted per BRD, and I am still looking for a discussion about the merits—or lack thereof—of the change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't discuss the matter of a content change on administrative noticeboards, and the issue continues to remain whether protection is merited generally, and whether how you handled this protection in particular is merited. Those are the only merits to be discussed here. Let me repeat what I already typed, but point out the more important bit. "'any good faith attempt to improve things for the reader is to be congratulated." Regardless of how you feel about the change in particular, there has been no evidence that Headbomb's changes were so unreasonable that normal content editing standards, which preclude the use of administrative tools could not handle it. The burden is on you to justify extraordinary action. Administrators are not guardians of the Truth, nor the Project, nor Good Templates. The role we have is to use our tools in order to facilitate and protect normal editing environments, which by their very are chaotic, messy, and full of lively argument over what is best.--Tznkai (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Could the template be unprotected now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The template can be unprotected, but you should not revert it to your version (or make changes to that effect), per WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

I have explained my actions and motivations above, but this is now a long thread, so I shall summarize again. There are two distinct actions:

1. My revert to {{Infobox Country Olympics}}. This was nothing more than the "R" of WP:BRD. (I should report that although my requests on this page for Headbomb to initiate a discussion at WT:WikiProject Olympics were ignored, we are now engaged in a 1:1 discussion on his user talk page, so that's a good sign that the "D" is underway.)
2. My subsequent protection of the template. I was concerned at Headbomb's earlier edits that day, and I felt it was necessary to quickly prevent subsequent disruption. Headbomb's work had touched on dozens of pages on my watchlist, and we had an earlier interaction about another set of templates, so I had an eye on his recent contributions. I was very concerned about an earlier attempt to change {{Infobox Country Olympics}} with a series of experimental edits that he gave up on (see here here and here) and a series of edits at {{Infobox figure skating competition}} that also included a self-revert of an experiment that didn't work. At the time that I protected {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, it certainly looked like the beginning of another series of edits that would be disruptive to ~3900 pages while it was work-in-progress. In my edit summary I suggested that a sandbox test first would be appropriate, because that's what we do with high-use templates. I note that for almost two years, template documentation has encouraged the use of sandbox versions and test case pages.

I dispute the comments that I should not have applied protection to the template because I was "involved". To draw an analogy, if I see an obvious vandal hitting pages on my watchlist (i.e. ones that I am "involved" in editing), I certainly don't wait to file an AIV report to get some other admin to fix the problem; I will immediately issue the block myself (and then do the page cleanup work). I am certainly not suggesting that Headbomb's edits were vandalism—far from that, it was obvious good-faith work—but the principle is the same. I saw work-in-progress that I deemed to be disruptive (based on the editing patterns from earlier that day) and felt it necessary to immediately prevent further disruption until we could talk about it. Being "involved" in the template is irrelevant; preventing disruption trumps that. I was surprised (to say the least) that Headbomb's next edit was to come straight to ANI instead of engaging me in discussion (and also ignoring another discussion thread that I had started on his user talk page just prior to that time).

I also dispute the comparison between my revert and protect actions as similar to protecting a preferred version of an article in dispute. With a meta-template like this, it is most prudent to protect the most recent stable version, and not to apply protection in the middle of a potential series of edits that could leave thousands of pages in a broken state. This is a completely different situation than protecting prose text in an article.

I see comments above and below that WP:HRT does not necessarily have wide consensus. My actions in this whole incident are based on that guideline, and over the years I have repaired many cases of both obvious vandalism and accidental breakage to templates on my watchlist, many of which are transcluded hundreds or thousands of times. I think HRT is a sensible guideline, especially since many high-use templates are rather stable and the use of {{edit protected}} is completely appropriate to suggest evolutionary changes. But I will now add HRT to my watchlist to see how that guideline changes, if at all. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• An editor with admin tools can and should take action on pages, even those pages in which the admin has been involved, in cases of vandalism per WP:INVOLVED. That was never in question. Obviously this was not vandalism, and you seem to concur. Your action on that template was not an attempt to thwart vandalism though, but an apparent attempt to stop another editor from making changes to a template in which you created. Very much a case of conflict of interest, even if you feel in your mind that you were helping. Also, I must point out, that full protection is only reserved as the last case scenario. And per WP:FULL, Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes. If you have content dispute with the editor, you should have discussed the changes. Also, no one is arguing whether or not you had the right to revert per WP:BRD, but we are here for the simple reason, and that reason is that you seem to have misused your right to the Admin tools.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  You couldn't be more wrong. I have already explained why the protection was not part of a content dispute. As for COI, you completely misunderstand that guideline. A conflict of interest "involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups". It certainly does not mean that I am not allowed to edit or protect a page that I created or one where I have made signification contributions. Please re-read WP:Conflict of interest and let me know if you still think it applies here. Lastly, lecturing me that I "should have discussed the changes" is rather lazy. Headbomb came directly to ANI with his next edit, and subsequently ignored multiple requests I made of him to discuss his edits until several hours later, if you'd examined the talk pages. At no time was I avoiding the discussion part of BRD; I was the one encouraging it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You have explained, and your explanation has been found wanting, at least by some of us, who in fact, are at least as smart and experienced at being an administrator as you are. Here is a partial timeline of events:

From 19:51 SEPT 29 to 19:56 Headbomb makes and then self reverts two edits/

At 21:06 Headbomb makes another edit, with the summary "hide in print" which changes perhaps among other things, the look and feel of the infobox and the infoboxes that include it, and the articles that include that.

At 21:08 Andrwsc messages headbomb over the medal templates Headbomb replies at[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Headbomb&diff=453112270&oldid=453112087 21:09 and 21:10 Andrwsc at 21:12 Headbomb at 21:13 and 21:15

At 21:16 Andrwsc reverts Headbomb's edit, with the summary "undo. The list of years of past appearances is relevant for the print copy as well"

At 21:16 Andrwsc protects the page as a minor edit "(Changed protection level of Template:Infobox Country Olympics: Highly visible template: used on >3000 pages, proposed edits should be sandboxed first ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))"

At 21:21 Andrewsc messages Headbomb again on the medal template thread

At 21:26 Headbomb [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=453114810 starts this ANI thread[.

The discussion you were having with Headbomb was a heated content discussion, including among other things, you asserting that "I am not confusing these templates with those others. Look at the edit history—I created these over 4 years ago, and in 2009 I modified them for WP:ALT reasons. I know what my original intent in creating these templates;" (which is worrysome in itself. In the midst of this discussion about medal templates, you also reverted Headbomb's changes to a different Olympic relevant template, for content reasons "The list of years of past appearances is relevant for the print copy as well" (emphasis added) and then immediately protected under high use rationale. So, to review. You were having content arguments with Headbomb about a template you created, you undid his changes to another template in the same subject area, and then you protected that template, and then you came here and claimed, among other things, that Headbomb refused to discuss it with you, shame on him. I can't blame him at that point.

This is not acceptable behavior for an administrator. An administrator has wide discretion on Wikipedia, wider than we're actually explicitly granted by anyone. This means that we have to have good judgement in to justify this trust. Not everyone is going to have good judgement all the time, which is why we also have to recognize that there are times when our judgement will probably be faulty, but we will not think so at the time. Thus why we must abstain from acting when we are "involved." Why we ask for assistance and review from other administrators. And, why, when we do do something stupid, irresponsible, or otherwise unacceptable, we stop digging ourselves in further and promise to improve. The alternatives kinda suck.--Tznkai (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So be it. Sorry for the troubles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Response to Andrwsc: Read WP:INVOLVED, which links to WP:COI. You were and are an involved editor on that page. Your constant refusal to admit this fact, that everyone but you seems to see, is hurting your cause. If you had simply unprotected that template in the beginning, this thread would never have gotten this long. They way I see it, there may be enough support now to begin a discussion of whether or not to temporarily or even permanently remove your admin tools. I hope it won't come to that, but in the end the choice is up to you.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On high-use templates

We do not routinely protect every template above X transclusions simply because it's in high use. HJ Mitchell got into rather a lot of trouble for doing that. People need to get this out of their heads, because all it does is make it harder for people to contribute to templatespace. This goes doubly when admins are going around reverting to their preferred versions and *then* fully protecting of course.

Anyway, I've started a sandbox to improve this template in the meantime. I'd still strongly recommend that it be unprotected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly what the guideline says. But it still begs the question how the determination is made and, equally important, who makes it. We now have several admins disagreeing on the application of the guideline. Just the fact that you say emphatically that people don't understand the guideline would imply there's a problem. If anything good were to come out of this thread it would be some understanding of how this is supposed to work - and perhaps a change to the guideline to make it clearer. This thread probably isn't the place to resolve that, but at least it could launch a discussion, perhaps on the guideline Talk page, as to how this should work going forward.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, no one should be screwing around with high-use templates if they don't know what they're doing. In the real world, a programmer could get fired for something like that. Test it first using a test version of the object, and once it looks good, either change the real one, or request a change if it happens to be protected. That's not rocket science, it's Programming 101. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The same can be, and has been, said for FAs, policy pages, and pretty much everything else in the project. We'll never get new people into editing templatespace if they have to jump through excessive hoops to do anything useful. Protecting everything is letting the vandals win, to slightly modify a common feeling in the contemporary liberal West. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, protecting them is keeping the blunderers from blundering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It can be said that an apple is an orange, but that doesn't make the statement accurate. Editing an FA or a policy page impacts one page. Editing a template potentially impacts thousands of articles. Vandalism on an article impacts one article. Vandalism on one template potentially impacts thousands of articles. Greater risk, greater need to secure against it. Resolute 04:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh. The guideline is clear enough. If anything I'd simplify it to simply WP:Template protection, explaining why we typically protect templates indefinitely rather than temporarily in cases of vandalism. Admins should not be preemptively protecting templates, nor using their tools to protect in cases where they're involved, and we have no hard rule that says that any template absolutely has to be protected (we have templates with 80,000+ transclusions which have survived for years without full protection just fine). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're inured to confusing Wikipedia guidelines not to see that this guideline is one of them. :-) As someone with less, but growing, experience on Wikipedia, I can't follow key parts of the guideline. In particular, what is the process (not the criteria, which are spelled out) for determining a template is high-risk and should be protected? If this is something that is supposed to occur on a template's Talk page, the guideline should say that. (You've already identified the issue with vandalism vs. high-risk in the guideline.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that high transclusion count is simply a factor for consideration when it comes to proposed protection, much as high page views or other notability is a factor when it comes to popular articles. I'd very much like to remove the whole "high transclusions == protection" thing from the group consciousness if possible. As for the process, well, it's debate, either on the template talk page or on RFPP. I don't see that we need to have a higher-level discussion of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP doesn't normally have much discussion - not really that kind of noticeboard. I believe the discussion should occur on the template's Talk page. If I have some time, I will propose changes to the guideline to make that clear and to address some of the other isssues.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific templates: Even though we don't automatically protect templates with a high transclusion count, we do protect them when they get vandalized, or have mistaken edits made. We (and HB) agree there were mistakes made in his edits. (In other words, no matter how much of an expert HB is, he did blunder, and the templates probably should be protected, even by an involved admin.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no "blunder". This edit works 100% fine, as intended, nothing was broken, and it fixed the template's improper behaviour. Yet it was reverted because of Andrsc's personal feeling on it, and the page subsequently protected to deny me the ability to edit the template. The template has never been vandalized in its 5+ years of existence, I never broke it, and its permanent (or even temporary) full protection is completely unwarranted and inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED (and per WP:COMMONSENSE too). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What about your three edits that preceded it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Explained here . Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A seemingly obvious question

I'd prefer not to look at this as a matter of "administrator abuse" nor to see any continuation of the bickering here, but as someone suggested, to collegially resolve the underlying issue.

I gather that the problem seems to be that the version of this template that is optimal for use on-wiki, may contain too many internal links to be optimal for use in a book. Is that the nub of the issue?

If so, isn't the obvious answer to have a modified version of the template that would be used when the articles are "booked" (or whatever the correct terminology is), without changing the template as it is used on the on-wiki articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the focus of the discussion at User talk:Headbomb#Olympic infobox. There is still some disagreement as to whether the "Olympic history" section of the infobox should be included in printed versions of the article or not. I assert that it is more than a collection of navigation links, and has content value. Headbomb points out that this particular content is irrelevant for any combination of books that those pages might be included in, such as Book:1952 Winter Olympics that he was working on. But the change that Headbomb proposed would apply not just for books, but also for printable versions of the page by itself (i.e. click on "Download as PDF" or "Printable version" from the toolbar on the left). There is no template solution (that I am aware of) that would work for books but not for standalone printed articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". Take a look at e.g. Argentina at the 1952 Winter Olympics. Is Argentina's participation in the 2010 Summer Olympics, or lack of participation in the 1896 Olympics relevant to the 1952 article? No it's not. What do these link summarize about the Argentina's participation in the 1952 Winter Olympics? Nothing. These links are there for navigational purposes, and none are germane to the article's topic. That Argentina at the Olympics is underdeveloped is not an excuse to clutter other articles with irrelevant information.

More generally, these should probably be moved to a navigational box ({{navbox}}) at the bottom of articles, since it's where our readers would except to find these sort of things ({{NOCin1952WinterOlympics}}). But one place they most certainly should not be appearing is print versions. As in done in countless other infoboxes and other templates. And bludgeoning "common editors" "sorry you can't edit this until i give you special permission" is complete and utter bullshit. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First Marshal of the Empire

Another naive redirect.

• Creation of redirect
• First Marshal of the Empire

Yaris678 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And? What do you expect ANI to do about it?--v/r - TP 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not an issue for AN/I. If the IP's edits of this sort are long-term and disruptive, WP:AIV would be the place to report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides that this issue is better off at WP:AIV if there is long term abuse, I think my "And?" is a very serious point. "Another naive redirect" and two links is very vague for an ANI thread.--v/r - TP 17:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Google cache changes have made part of the DRV template nonfunctional

A few days ago, Google altered the way its caching links are displayed [93], and, it appears, the url-format used to generate those links. As a result, the links in DRV discussions no longer function.
I certainly don't know how to repair the template, which I assume is protected, and if this isn't susceptible to a quick fix, I think a warning note should be added to the DRV page, perhaps also explaining how to reach the cached page manually. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the necessary change to {{DRV links}}. It should be working now, or at least it is on the ones I've checked. Any other templates that used Google cache links should probably be fixed the same way. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Close Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Equestria_Daily

Resolved

 – AFD properly listed for discussion

Sorry, but this nomination was by a banned user, and must be deleted on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an obvious SNOW keep from this point, and the nominator has been blocked. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And I'm trying to figure out why. It doesn't seem related to the AFD, the only thing in the block log is the word "abuse", and there is nothing on Havermayer's talk page about it, However, there is a vandalism warning from 3 days ago for an edit that on the outside doesn't appear to be vandalism but there might be something going on here that I don't know about. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"abuse" in the block log means, almost-universally, long-term abuse; i.e. a permabanned editor. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That indeed qualifies for WP:SNOW. I would close it, except some of the votes there are of a strikingly poor quality. Goodvac (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I agree the site is non-notable, but I wouldn't expect that to make a difference to the admin that closes it. Even if it gets closed as delete (highly unlikely), it would be brought to DRV and overturned. So, I think a renomination in a few months would be the optimal course of action. Goodvac (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's due for normal closing anyway. However, what I find odd is it iswas not in any of the AfD log pages. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your closure. The AfD should be transcluded on today's log page and remain open for seven more days. As it is, the only people who would have seen it are those with the article on their watchlist and those who saw this thread. This needs wider input. Deor (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Bushranger. The AFD should be relisted. And it's not a snow close. A lot of those were shitty votes by IP editors and shitty votes by newbies. Relist it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Eep, sorry, I had a bit of a brain fart there. Relisting now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of SPA's as well, I wouldnt close it as speedy keep when half the !votes are SPAs.--v/r - TP 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If the nominator is banned, then he's not allowed to edit, and hence not allowed to nominate things for deletion, either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, it may be a disruptive editor (I haven't thoroughly checked), but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it's a banned one. See also User_talk:Closedmouth#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Close_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEquestria_Daily. Deor (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going by what Jeremy said about it. If he's not actually banned, then his edits are not necessarily revertible on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

He was apparently blocked for participating in a 4chan raid which is unusual for an account created in 2005. This has to be the ultimate plaxerang. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, anyone participating in a 4chan raid is assumed to be a meatpuppet for JarlaxleArtemis and thus treated the same as he. (Using 4chan to harass and vandalize by proxy is part of his modus operandi, which is why the usual response to a registered user joining in a raid is an immediate solipsism block.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So when he goes there and says "frog", they jump. So much for them being rebels. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The relevant filter gets about 20-40 hits per bout of vindictiveness; when he starts posting multiple threads in succession everyone on /b/ susses it out (since he always fakes moot's tripcode, albeit unconvincingly in one skin) and refuses to join in, instead trolling anyone who joins the thread. Someone else usually trolls him directly. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlisted AfDs being listed (in their original logs) then (nearly) instaclosed

• Related vaguely to this, several other "previously unlisted" AfDs were found, added to their revelant logs - and then almost immediately closed today.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MdL (producer)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littleton Chorale
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord's Bank
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kristus Center
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Is Falling
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Only Wish (This Year) (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minh Van Dang

Seeing as I (rightfully!) was chastised for closing this AfD due to its not having been properly listed for everyone to comment on, I'd think these closings should be undone and the AfDs relisted as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If their poster is believed to be a banned user, then those AFD's (including the original one in question) should themselves be deleted, as banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, there's no blocks or banned invovled here. It's just that these AfDs "slipped through the cracks" and weren't posted to the logs (apparently Twinkle does that every once in awhile), and were added to the logs today only to be promptly closed without a proper viewing in the logs for comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As the closing admin for 5 out of 7 of those, I think it would've been appropriate to notify me of this discussion instead of leaving me to stumble upon it on my own. That said, I am not opposed to a relist but I think there was reasonable discussion taking place in those AFDs.--v/r - TP 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; I meant to do that but got distracted IRL while working and my brain presumed that I had. Mea culpa. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• DRV would overturn any of these closes in a heartbeat if anyone appealed them so it would make sense to relist the lot to avoid further drama. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

West Memphis Three Article

Hello. An ongoing dispute is going at the West Memphis Three talk page regarding the use of a particular reference; http://www.callahan.8k.com. This reference, an anonymously-compiled website, claims to host numerous legal documents regarding the murder case, which are impossible to verify. Further, the user who is repeatedly re-adding the reference (opticks3 (talk · contribs)) initially attempted to employ this "Satanic conspiracy" website (sample quote "These sacrifices are, literally, sacrifices to the ‘gods’, the reptilians, and they have been happening for thousands of years. The mass sacrifice of people by the Aztecs in Central America, and so many others, were to provide food for the physical reptilians and crossbreeds who eat the bodies and drink the blood, and energy nourishment for the non-physical reptilians of the lower fourth dimension."—!) as a reference before being called out on it. The article remains in a surprisingly poor state. I, however, have little time to contribute much more to it, and I request as many eyes and hands as possible to get the article in shape and keep poor sources away from the material. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New User Page with some... excessive detail

Resolved

 – User gone bye-bye

A new user has created User:AwesomeOne01 which, among other things, makes some questionable statements about some living persons. Wasn't quite sure what to do with it, so seeking advice here. The Interior (Talk) 02:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like all fiction, but even so, certain things aren't allowed as per WP:BLP. I've removed some of the ones I thought would be objectionable under BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dayewalker. Looks like they had other issues. The Interior (Talk) 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Intoronto1125

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.

---

Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs) has decided that he does not want me to post anything on his talk page after he and I had an argument over some previously hidden content on The Amazing Race 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because I don't listen. He has seen fit to remove every single comment I make on his talk page ([94] [95] "this idiot not allowed to post on my talk page" [emphasis mine] "PLEASE DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE" [96]). Now, even though removing a message is confirmation enough that it has been read, this is really inhibiting any sort of discussion with the user, particularly discussions that do not have to go to the talk page of the articles because they only concern him. I do not know what to do if all he is going to do is ignore me when it comes to his user talk, but respond to me elsewhere. If he and I continue to work on the same articles, I should most definitely not be ignored by him on the one place where he gets direct messages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You can post on my talk page, but it will be removed (which indicates it has been read). Plus, I was already warned for the first diff. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you responded there instead of removing it entirely and calling me an idiot who will not be listened to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That was ONCE, and I was warned about it. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is really a broader issue that concerns this guideline subsection: good luck in changing that one. Can't you two, failing civil user talk discourse, use article talk pages to communicate when you need to? If he doesn't want you to post on his talk page, there's really nothing that can force him to converse with you there. Doc talk 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is what I wrote in my last revert of his message on my talk page. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:27, 3 October 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::Iloveandrea

Resolved

 – user has removed the alteration of my username

User:Iloveandrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report this user, I asked him politely on his talkpage to stop referring to me as a Toryspinner and as per usual he just removed the post - the user is removing all comments from his talkpage, and after my request to not refer to me in such a manner they have posted a long post on the talkpage of George Osborne in which they call me off2riotory ten times, clearly a deliberate action after my polite request for them to not do that. He is imo editing the George Osborne in a far from NPOV manner and has begun attacking me as I am attempting to defend the article from his desired additions and requesting talkpage discussion. If someone with admin status can just ask him to not distort my username in such a demeaning/battlefield way I would appreciate it, he's not listening to my requests at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Iloveandrea appears to be a problem editor. His edits have a strong bias to them, to the point of him making personal attacks upon other editors if they happen to disagree with him, as Off2riorob described above. The lengthy post that is on Talk:George Osborne I find somewhat concerning; much of is is a thinly-veiled personal attack upon Off2riorob and the rest isn't terribly helpful for a collaborative effort as Wikipedia is meant to be. He seems content to indulge in edit wars, to remove messages placed on his talk page without any communication to the editor who left them there (which he has done in the past few minutes since this incident was reported and after Off2riorob had the decency to inform him of this AN/I discussion), and to further disrupt Wikipedia to further a possible anti-Conservative bias. – Richard BB 17:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"He seems content to indulge in edit wars, to remove messages placed on his talk page without any communication to the editor who left them there". Well, given that I assumed (for some strange reason) that I didn't owe an obligation to anyone regarding what I do and do not keep on MY talk page, I can only plead ignorance. "He seems content to indulge in edit wars". off2riorob doesn't? Care to provide some evidence? "Iloveandrea appears to be a problem editor." Really? Care to take a look at my Mau Mau article and the rankings it's got? I basically wrote the entire thing using dozens of books and journals, and every sentence that I wrote has a cite. I know so much about Mau Mau compared to people who read that article that's it's now almost uneditable by anyone but me, since no one knows enough to either ammend or add to anything I've said. "His edits have a strong bias to them". Really? What was the bias in my donkey work for the First Intifada article, my bias for the History of Sugar, etc.? off2riorob is the problem editor as far as I can see. I would have bothered to alter my tone with him on the George Osborne, but if he is going to dip his writing in sarcasm ("piece de resistance" etc.), then why shouldn't I? Please take the trouble to read my long post on the George Osborne discussion page, rather than simply accept this other editor's one-sided rendition of it, where I present a point by point rebuttal of everything off2riorob has misinterpreted, misunderstood or been plain deceitful. Iloveandrea (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Again the user attacks me, with his statement that I have been deceitful. Would you please go back to your post and remove the alteration of my name? Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine. And I would add that I'm not the only one who seems to have a problem with off2riorob. Check his talk page. Iloveandrea (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

People that want to attack Labour politicians and people that want to attack conservative politicians all have a problem with me, I won't allow them to attack people they want to attack using wikipedia en as a vehicle. I appreciate your replacing my correct username, please attempt to discuss in a colloquial manner or there will likely be no opportunity for agreement - If uninvolved users would join the discussion at Talk:George Osborne - that would be beneficial, a first discussion has started but there is also more to be presented, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A check of the recent edits at George Osborne confirm that Iloveandrea is unclear about the role of Wikipedia and the significance of WP:BLP; also WP:CIVIL is a mystery. Perhaps we can quickly agree that Iloveandrea must be civil when referring to other editors, and edit summaries should never include commentary about other editors (diff). Re Off2riorob's talk page: as an editor who is active in removing nonsense and other misunderstandings of WP:BLP, it is natural that Off2riorob gets complaints—readers of this ANI page understand that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing at ITN

• Deterence (talk · contribs · logs)

This user's contributions are largely dedicated to commenting on nominations at In the News, and they have developed a pattern of soapboxing in many of the discussions there. Some of their comments are relatively benign, some are undoubtedly inappropriate, but overall, there's a clear pattern of inappropriate behavior that is showing no signs of letting up. Here's a sampling of diffs: [97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111] [112]

I left them comments on the matter here and here, and an administrator has commented on their behavior here and here (they have clearly dismissed these messages). With a clear pattern of this behavior evident, and absolutely no sign of it being corrected, I think administrator intervention may be needed at this point. Thanks, Swarm 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Warned here. m.o.p 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the warning was perfectly handled, but the soapboxing has continued in spite of it. Here they liken the arrest of protestors to kidnapping, and here they attack the law that the protestors were arrested for. And this is just within the short period after they were explicitly warned. The occasional, highly opinionated comment is more than common and fairly tolerated at ITN, but this seems to be an unending pattern of behavior that's continuing in spite of warnings. Swarm 02:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Deterence seems to have understood what exactly other editors don't want to see done; as of my warning, the soapboxing has dropped off. I'll keep an eye on ITN/C over the next few days just to make sure all is well - drop me a note on my talk page if you think the edits are still disruptive. m.o.p 06:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Need review of RevDel

Resolved: User blocked, revdel supported. m.o.p 07:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please look at these diffs, which I've RevDel'd? I'm pretty sure they meet they meet WP:RD2, but I'm involved regarding the victim. And, if appropriate, please block the IP who made the comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorsed. The last sentence definitely seals the deal. Blocked user for 31 hours. m.o.p 07:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama death threat

Resolved

 – All parties heard from, no further admin action needed here. If there's a policy change suggestion, take it to the appropriate board.

Please see [113]. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• hai guiz i am school boy can i edit shit on wikipieda pls ok thx. (just block the IP for a week.) Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Disruptive, but not an actual threat to kill him.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh please please please can we treat it like it is? I take great pleasure in the image of some 13 year old trollz and lulzer pissing his pants while being grilled by a couple of secret service MIBs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Funny, but as far as I know, there has to be a credible threat in order for there to be an actual violation of real world law. We can block the ip account for disruption though, if that makes everyone happy.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I found a threat (by one kid against another) a long time ago at Lingle, Wyoming, just a few minutes after it happened; after I contacted the local police department, I got an email back from the police department saying that they were investigating and then an email from the student who'd posted the threat; it was interesting imagining the kid's reaction when he found that he'd been caught by someone in Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Aren't you lot big boys, potentially frigging up some retarded kids' lives because of momentary stupidity that does no one any harm. Egg Centric 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Actions carry consequences. Such is life in the real world. Resolute 04:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
              • • Agreed, "momentary stupidity" can turn into a pattern of trolling and generally making the lives of ordinary net users a living hell. Hearing that somebody's "anonymous stupidity" led to real life consequences may give others pause when they consider doing something nasty. Just ask Brian Chase. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • A ridiculous argument. If that actually happens, deal with it then. Otherwise it almost certainly won't. And how on earth can a wikipedia editor make other users' lives a living hell? Only though insane amorrow type crap - and trying to policy that provides rational (dis)incentives for INSANE PEOPLE is stupid. Egg Centric 20:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes. A threat against the President is a federal crime, and it's not our place to try to decide whether it's "credible" or not - that's the FBI's job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
                • Agreed, it is a Federal offense to "threaten" to kill the President. But this was not a threat. Wishing the President was dead is not a threat. There is a difference.--JOJ ^Hutton 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • The FBI will make that judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • Of which I have no doubt, although I believe its the Secret Service that deals with these issues, not the FBI.--JOJ ^Hutton 05:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
                      • But they're both part of the Federal Department of Not My Problem Anymore.--Tznkai (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) Blocked. Forwarding information to the FBI, who I expect will ignore it, but maybe a fed will decide that they have time to teach someone a lesson. Otherwise however, we should ignore it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to threaten Obama myself in protest, this is insane. As for it being a lesson in the real world - fine, contact their principals or whatever - but getting the law involved is stupid. And screw an abundance of caution, you know damn well there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that these threats are meaningful - you're actually wasting law enforcement time too. Egg Centric 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT in the real world? And it doesn't matter - whetner or not it is meaningful, that is not our call to make, it's the job of those who are paid to protect the president. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • FBI: Did they give any other information? Foundation: Yes, they said they'll fart on you. It's a comedy block also, a 24 hour block 2 days later. Egg Centric, don't get angry, just laugh at them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
      • You may have a point there zzuuzz . Nevertheless, this sort of policy is going to cause harm one day (unless the anti vandalism bots/filters etc become practicaly perfect, which would be the ideal solution) and it is seriously disturbing to see these sorts of attitudes expressed. Bushranger, seriously... just cause it's not our job doesn't mean we have to leave it all to other people. Or do you want to call 911 on everything you see, and let the emergency services sort it out? Egg Centric 20:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • The only thing that would "cause harm one day" is to FAIL TO REPORT such a threat and then see it carried out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
          • But it wasn't a threat. Anyone can want someone else to be dead. Wishing that a President would die is not the same thing as saying that a person is going to kill the President. Two very different aspects. A guy in San diego was arrested soon after the election for writing online that "Obama should be killed." A judge let him go because it wasn't an actual threat. If they let him go for that, I wouldn't waste the Secret Services valuable time with this nonsense.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
            • It's not a waste of their time, it's helping them do their job. If the legal system decides it's not a threat, then at least it's been dealt with. Making assumptions about things leads to Columbine and to assassinations and to 9/11's. Better safe than sorry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright listen up kids. Here is the situation:

1. An internet troll makes a jackass statement and said statement includes a statement that some interpret as calling for the death of identifiable human being, who is also a high office holder of a state.
2. As per our normal blocking policy, we block the troll.
3. As a private person, I make the call to contact the appropriate law enforcement (which, upon receiving a reply from the FBI office, turns out to in fact directly be the Secret Service) on low priority, non-emergency channels (also known as their public e-mail address). I describe in that e-mail what I know (this is what was said, this is when it was said, this is all I know about who said it) and what I think (probably harmless). In so doing I take personal responsibility, as a private person, for following up on the issue.
4. I flag the issue as resolved, because Wikipedia as a whole no longer needs to care.

You'll note the lack of an established specialized process or judgement call for death threats, or determining what is a death threat, or not and the like. The reason for this is that its not my call. Likewise, I neither have the ability nor the authority to discipline internet trolls by discovering their real life identity, and calling their mother. As far as Wikipedia as a whole is concerned, its no longer our problem. Some of us prefer, in an abundance of caution, to allow law enforcement officers to sort through any further implications, based on what limited information we have. If you think that my actions in this case, limited as they are, is barmy, there are ways you can tell me that. If you think that this shows my judgement is critically flawed to the point where I am Evil and Must Be Stopped, there are places for that too.

I have now written several times more words on this subject than it deserves.--Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It may I have to do even more and write WP:RETARDEDKIDS. Whatever happened to commonsense? Egg Centric 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(Although I certainly don't wish to question either your sanity or good faith; apologies if you felt that way) Egg Centric 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)I let it pass the first time, and I shouldn't have. There are some people, including children, who through no fault of their own, have mental retardation. There are also internet trolls. One does not imply the other. Generally speaking, we learn, as a matter of common sense, not to slur the former as a general term for unwise behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse that sentiment 110%! It's very offensive. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you cared about the mentally deficient you wouldn't be reporting them to law enfocement (unless you want to argue that deficient in IQ is somehow better than deficient in the way these guys are). Secondly, once you've claimed retard as your "offensive word", the kids in the playground are going to adopt your preferred PC term and make it just as offensive. Please focus on the relevant subject Egg Centric 21:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with the "PC—>slur" sentiment, I think that callously using a term which is pretty widely understood to be offensive just makes you look like a WP:DICK. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand. I shouldn't offend these kids. But other wikipedians should screw up their early lives? Egg Centric 21:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think the results would have been if they made this comment in the local shopping mall, or in the auditorium at their school? Do you think people would just have laughed it off as kids being kids? If you don't think it should have been addressed, don't address it. Others disagree with you. Problem solved. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I do indeed think that it would have been laughed off in a local shopping mall. If someone said "Die Obama BOLD TEXT BOLD TEXT BOLD TEXT" in a school audtiorium, maybe they would have got school detention. Maybe. Egg Centric 02:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

They probably would be suspended and severely reprimanded, at the very least. Maybe things are different in your country. But in America we do not take threats to fellow citizens lightly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Egg Centric, this isn't really about political correctness actually. You made a fundamental error; you assumed, and continue to assume that this internet troll is "mentally deficient" in some way as opposed to simply unwise. As if only the those with mental deficiencies are capable of internet trolling. The English language is full of verbal landmines, and I'm the last person who is going to get on your case about each and every one of them. In this case, however, the callous use of language suggested you really don't get it. You want to comment on administrative matters and go on about common sense? Then you should show some of the common sense and frankly, maturity that you seem to demand of others.--Tznkai (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)x2Juvenile convictions and such are generally expunged from an individual's record when they reach the age of majority in the US, as far as I know. Given what was said here, I really can't imagine this going to court, in all likelihood. At worst, some suits will show up at his parents' door and scare the living daylights out of him. Either way, nothing is going to be permanently "screwed up" here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And do you think it will have no consequences for them growing up? Maybe they're headed to be national merit scholar or something, or otherwise on a gifted student track (plausibility of exact specifics unknown: I am not from US, but w/e) and this bars them by statute. Whatever the case, getting legal authorities involved is either wasting their time or potentially causing harm, there is no other option. Egg Centric 02:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It SHOULD have consequences. And it is up to legal authorities, NOT US, to decide if it's a "waste of their time". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I want to go on about common sense. What other standard do you suggest I use? Stupidity? Egg Centric 02:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from WMF

There's no reason you should have to be conflicted on things like this - WP has no policy, only a guideline. If editors are not comfortable making the judgment call on a threat against the President or anyone else, there's an email address in the editnotice of this page to send it to the WMF. We have a well-vetted and well-established protocol for the process of judging whether something is a credible threat. It sends us through a number of steps and is the sort of thing that we have engaged with our federal law enforcement contacts to develop. We're getting pretty good at it.  :)

That's not to say that we demand to take over a situation like this - not at all - our job is to support the community of editors and readers, not to take over for them. However, if you're in a position where you aren't sure how best to handle it, use the email address. My team will be notified, and our computers and phones wake up the dead in a case like this.

You're not alone; you have resources. We're here to help.  :)

In any case, please do me a favor - because we do frequently get follow-up calls as a result of reports made by volunteers, please make sure we're aware if you notify law enforcement. Use the same email address. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to hand this off to Someone Not Me. What would help however, is you actually tell us what the e-mail address is.--Tznkai (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's in the edit notice every time you edit this page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Durr. I can read, really!. --Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with User:Havermayer.

After a previous ANI discussion, there were some concerns of Havermayer being a possible sock master. I'm not experienced with SPI at all, and not one other account has been suspected of being a sock of Havermayer. As of right now, Havermayer is currently indef blocked for "abuse". Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, not a sockmaster, a meatpuppet. According to the blocking admin, he was involved in a 4chan raid. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 14:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If he was involved with that guy, then any AfD he has made should be closed and remain closed. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because good-faith users have already commented on it and, therefore, the AfD will have to run its course: cfr. Wikipedia:SK#Applicability, which states if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). A fortiori this applies when we're dealing with a meat and not a sock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the AfD was created before the block/ban was enacted. Therefore I'd assume "created in contravention/evasion/violation of a block" wouldn't apply anyway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Allowing banned/indef'd/long-term-abuse users to get away with any kind of editing, is a mockery of the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

:en article written in unknown language

Not sure whether this is the right place, coming over from Commons where I checked a probably copyvio image, I stumbled over "article" Mia penava, that is completely written in an unknown-to-me (eventually slavic) language. Might be an error (in Wikipedia version) or, as of the image box' content, alltogether a hoax. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's Croatian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Page has been deleted as a copyvio. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I was going to tag it for translation before I realized that it was pasted from her Facebook. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Meishern

User:Meishern has made some unwarranted accusations against me, namely that I have added unreferenced material that even constitutes vandalism in his opinion: his edit (substantive, but marked as minor), his first comment. Despite me pointing to him that the material was referenced from a reliable secondary source, [114] and even improving the referencing back to the newspaper book review cited [115], in his his second comment User:Meishern declares that he "stand[s] behind" what he wrote previously about me, which I read to include his opinion that I have vandalized the article with false information. Despite his promise for a further retort on the article's talk page (see previous diff), he has yet to post anything there [116], and he has edited elsewhere since then. It appears to me that at least a semi-official WP:trout slapping is needed here. I will notify him of this discussion in a moment. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Meishern was notified of this discussion. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Two concerns here. One, reverting vandalism is supposed to be marked as a minor edit, so that was actually proper. If the user genuinely believed that the information was defamatory, and given that it was unsourced, by WP:AGF, I think we can safely dispense with the first concern. Two, as far as I can tell, you haven't written anything on talk:William Muir either, so you haven't really done due diligence in diffusing this conflict, either. Others can delve into the AfD incident to discern whether it is abusive editing, or merely a heated argument, but I'm looking for a lot more effort from you, mörser, at coming to a consensus on your issues at William Muir before I believe ANI should get involved. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I did put a warning on User talk:Meishern in regards to other comments on the List of killings of Muhammed AfD discussion about AGF and CIVIL. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you repeat that it "was unsourced". There was an inline reference footnote at the end of the paragraph when User:Meishern deleted the passage that bothered him. Perhaps you care to illuminate me what the Wikipedia standards are: a footnote after every punctuation mark? A footnote after every word? And what about AGF in my direction? Why does something "unsourced" (as you claim) automatically constitute vandalism? I supposed you and him have heard of . (See WP:PRESERVE.) I did not make this report because of his first comment, where I did AGF that he may have been somewhat confused. I have made it about his second comment, where he "stand[s] behind" what he wrote despite: (1) me repeating the footnote right after the passage he had deleted. (2) enhancing that footnote with the primary source cited by the secondary one (3) providing him with a link to the academic page of the author of the secondary source. Is it still "unsourced" by your/Wikipedia's standards? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"There was an inline reference footnote at the end of the paragraph when User:Meishern deleted the passage that bothered him" - Yes, but the text you added was well before the reference in the paragraph, and did not indicate that it was from the same source as the reference for the paragraph, as opposed to being fully unreferenced or even vandalistic material hijacking the reference in order to give the appearance of being legitimate. Assuming your added text was from the same source as the paragraph's reference, if you had noted in the edit summary "adding more information from (source)", that might have made things much clearer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my actions. I certainly did not "hijack the reference" as you allude. I have added the reference and text together. In three consecutive edits I have added the book as a general reference, sourced an unreferenced pre-existing fact to the newly added book by adding a footnote, and added the material that Mishern removed as vandalism, also sourced with a footnoted reference to the same book. Your point about mentioning in the edit summary when adding material from the same source without adding a new footnote is valid (and I shall remember it), but it is inapplicable to the material that was removed here, because I added a footnote in the same edit as the "vandalism" material. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And it is clear that people are not accusing you of highjacking the reference, only that it was not an unreasonable perspective that the information added was unreferenced, and that the paragraph level reference did not apply - a situation that would be highjacking the reference. I repeat: reverting vandalism is supposed to be marked as a minor edit. It was reasonable (though incorrect) to conclude that your particular contribution was an unsourced accusation, and hence vandalism. Therefore, User:Meishern did not do anything wrong. The proper venue for resolving these issues is in the talk page of the article, not ANI. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In light of his massive post below (which was added before your reply above) in which he accuses me again of "vandalizing" the article by adding (again sourced) text he just disapproves of, I find your continued defense of him increasingly tenuous and suspect. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You should also note that Meishern did not undo a particular edit of mine (had he done so, one might give some credence to the reverting-presumed-highjacking theory), but he simply removed material he objected to while labeling it vandalism. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what you are supposed to do with content that you believe to be vandalism. To the book. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Corroborated with his post below, in which he accuses me of a giant plot to subvert Wikipedia, for which he says I should be banned, I think his edit summary "POV fest, unreferenced times quotes. every paragraph attacks Mr. Muir. vandalism." should really be interpreted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks for the lesson in plausible deniability, Wikipedia style; I shall remember it. The best defense is a good offense (or perhaps just Big Lie) seems to work wonders on ANI readership. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

---My Explanation--- sorry, flooding here badly.cant change formating.

I am happy to answer any questions and would like the sanctions places against me removed as I was following the course of action mandated by Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Please look at the victim's (Have mörser, will travel) (HMWT) log for October 1, starting 13.51pm. till 8pm. The log shows a premeditated plan to vandalize an article through overloading the article with one sided POV information. This was an attempt to influence the deletion vote for 'Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad 2nd nomination.' The vandal, HMWT, who somehow wound up being the victim in this investigation, has subsequently worked day and night making the article neutral again while attempting to use his expert understanding of Wikipedia laws to manipulate the situation to turn me into the bad guy for catching him.

It started when HMWT replied to an unrelated comment of mine on the killings of Muhammad 2nd nomination delete discussion page:

HMWT (replies to unrelated message) "...explain how removing context and discussion of primary source credibility does not create a WP:POVFORK. Concrete examples have been given above, and you have not addressed them. Nor have you addressed the general problem that historical "facts" are not always certain and there may be a range of opinion on the credibility of primary sources, and this type of discussion is not suitable for a table. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)"

The question at 13.51PM is abstract but the seed of POVFORK has been planted. A few minutes later HMWT begins to vandalize a series of articles that deal with primary sources for the list of killings of Muhammad 2nd nomination, which is debated for deletion.

First, HMWT began redirecting Wikipedia articles, and removing content from Wikipedia articles about books used as primary sources for the killings of Muhammad article that HMWT voted to delete. HMWT also began a series of narrow POV edits on the Wikipedia page for William Muir, the author of the primary sources.

13:51, 1 October 2011 asks Meishern about POVFORK. William Muir not mentioned.

14:04, 1 October 2011 redirects ‘Annals of the Early Caliphate’ to page William Muir. ? (Reason: Says little else other than "this book exists") 14:04, 1 October 2011 redirects ‘The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline, and Fall’ ? to page William Muir (Reason: Says little else other than "this book exists") 14:06, 1 October 2011 redirects ‘A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira’ ? (Reason: Besides "this book exists", the article a single large section of "notable quotes". But his is unsourced. Notable according to who?) 14:08, 1 October 2011 (diff | hist) William Muir ? – first of dozens of malicious edits.

in 3 hours victim makes a reply post to me, this time not being abstract:

HMWT –posts reply to me - "If you read the recently improved (by me) article on William Muir, you'll see that his early works, especially his Life of Mahomet (which is heavily referenced in this table) are not "perfectly valid references" if by that you mean reasonably neutral and accepted as such by later historians. They speak of Muir's opinions, as any work speaks of the author's opinion at a point in time. And some of Muir's opinions had changed dramatically over his lifetime. They have been criticized by Muir's contemporaries and by later scholars. (Life of Mahomet has been described by a contemporary review in The Times as "propagandist writing" with Christian bias and as "odium theologicum".) The lack of discussion in this table is contravening WP:NPOV, and the format is not suitable to amendments. Most of the significant material in this table has been cherry picked from other articles by discarding such nuances, thus making it a WP:POVFORK. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)"

So victim spends 3 hours loading the article full of POV favorable to his views, and basically transforming the article through twists and turns not into (as HMWT stated, in the message) into a recently improved article, but into a poorly written, sophomoric POV fest overflowing with loaded words.

At this moment, the page looks completely different from the way it was before getting caught, when I removed an unreferenced and extremely powerful statement HMWT claimed came from a reputable newspaper, but had nothing more that the home page URL of the newspaper as a reference.

• I didn't revert or rollback since i looked at the publisher of the source the victim was using and it was a legitimate publisher for academics and the author was an expert in her field. I just found it curious that the entire source was a single chapter in the middle of the book which only described detractors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Muir&action=historysubmit&diff=453410562&oldid=449915731 <---this is what I saw

Lets look at the three paragraphs in the middle on the right which are new and so packed full of POV that the content becomes useless.

This is what happens when an article becomes vandalized and its subject has little in common with the real individual.

"Nevertheless, his earlier hypercritical Life of Mahomet was used as a poster child by contemporary Muslim commentators." Very awkward style of writing which belongs in tabloids and not in an encyclopedia. The word hypocritical is not a quote so was added by 'the victim' to further paint the author in a negative light.

His early book, Life of Mahomet, was criticized in a contemporary review in The Times for "propagandist writing" with Christian bias and for "odium theologicum". Muir's later Annnals was received with less reservations by the Times reviewer and other newspapers of the time. ... 2nd sentence implies that the first time, every single contemporary newspaper was not favorable to the book, and the new book was disliked only marginally less. T he three sentences in that paragraph are all under the same reference at the bottom. The Times is a conservative newspaper, whose editors 100 years back were church going men, so for them to write "propaganda writing" with Christian Bias in the 19th century would be monumental. So I removed it but left the rest of that smear campaign alone.

Here are phrases from just 1 paragraph: evolution of Muir's positions is his stance on the Crusades; he goaded Christian scholars; Muir redirected the invective hitherto reserved for the Muslims to the crusading leaders (nice use of crusades in 2 sentences in a row!); Muir's reputation as an unfair critic of Islam remained strong; Historian Avril Powell finds that William Muir deserves much of the criticism laid by Edward Said and his followers...

It goes on and on like this.

Wikipedia:Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Upon their discovery, revert clearly vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing.

You vandalized that article by deliberately picking a concoction of sentences least favorable to the subject of the article in order to influence a deletion vote to go your way. You created a caricature through the addition and change of content. When I exposed you as Wikipedia:Vandalism advises me to do. I was sanctioned and told to be nice. You did almost completely change everything, reversing your course immediately after my post.

Above, in the first post you recommended I get a slapping. I recommend you get a 30 day ban. After looking at your edit history which mostly takes place as a defendant on noticeboards, and endless complaints about your disruptive editing, I fail to see why this incident should be ignored. In 3 years I am here for first time. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"The log shows a premeditated plan to vandalize an article through overloading the article with one sided POV information". Just WOW. Completely unfounded accusation. I have added various views and quotes from Muir himself (which were cited by secondary sources) as the current version shows [117]. Meishern has contributed nothing to this article except his one "vandalism" deletion. His continued attack on the sources used in this article—which are as good and as academic as one can find on this topic—are simply appalling. As I said before, the first book-length biography of Muir (and his brother) was published in 2010 by this University of London academic; it cites many previous opinions on Muir's works, and I have included as many different ones as I could find. However, the fact that Muir wrote from an Evangelical and missionary perspective is of little doubt from his own words (included in the article), never mind the plethora of secondary sources that point this out. Labeling this mass of sourced evidence as "vandalism" is just astounding chutzpah. I hope some administrator finds the balls to censure the completely unwarranted attack launched against me by User:Meishern. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Before engaging in any writing in Muir's article I checked all the book stubs that someone had created for several of his works, hoping to find some useful material; these were linked by merge tags that had been in place since January 2010. I saw and see no problem with just redirecting those stubs as they had no sourced information and were basically just spam-support pages for external links to http://www.answering-islam.org/. Besides, Meishern never brought this up for discussion before his ANI post above, and he has not reverted any of those redirects. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As for Meishern claim that I "did almost completely change everything, reversing your course immediately after my post": that is pure fantasy. Practically every sentence I added in this "evidence" of my "vandalism" is still present in the current version [118]. Lord forbid that anyone expands an article beyond the mere copy of the sole EB1911 paragraph on the topic if a 30-day ban is warranted for that, as Meishern demands. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I found the "Christian bias" line rather eyebrow-raising myself, as even the most "yellow journalistic" of news organs at the time would hardly have used such a phrasing, I'd have thought... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Christian bias" are Powell's words (p. 256) and I did not put them in quotes in the article as it is a modern phrase as you correctly observe. "Propagandist writings" and "odium theologicum" are in quotes in Powell (p. 168 and repeated on p. 256), and she attributes them to the Times reviewer on p. 168 (chapter endnote #103 found on p. 172 has the citation details). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also a Google search for those two phrases finds the book for me, so the claim of Meishern that he searched and found only the Wikipedia page [119] is rather strange. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[120] I did due diligence. I would imagine that an important western Islamic scholar labeled for propagandist writings (which i think was in quotes in the article, so that's how i searched), would be somewhere out there in google land. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." As for "an important western Islamic scholar": he was rather obscure until not so long ago, as Powell (2010) points out on p. 3. EB1911 has only one paragraph on him, even though Muir was also a lieutenant governor, [121]; he didn't even get a 'rulers of India' type memoir. His Wikipedia article had no sources beyond EB1911 before I edited it, unless you count the multiple links to http://www.answering-islam.org/. And if that site was not a hint as to the nature of Muir's writings, you are rather naive. But given that you were so quick to describe Powell's book as "ultra-anti-Muir", [122] I suspect you have some views in common with the aforementioned web site. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:The Last Angry Man and Wehrmachtsausstellung

• The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wehrmachtsausstellung (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• War of Extermination: Crimes of the Wehrmacht 1941-1944 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This user was allowed back to editing by ArbCom after an appeal against a block and was subsequently given a warning about contentious editing relating to communism by EdJohnston.[123] Recently he created the second article listed above, essentially to make a single point. It is a short and improperly sourced stub which is on the identical subject to the first listed article, which was created in 2007. It is properly sourced and has far more detailed content showing glaring omissions in TLAMs very recently created article. I changed his new article to a redirect to the original, since it is not wikipedia policy to have distinct articles on identical topics. If he wants to add new content to the original article he may. However, he has edit warred twice [to restore his new article, [124] [125]where the main content is about a mistaken caption on a photo depicting mass killings by communist Soviet troops. This conduct is highly disruptive and against wikipedia policy. He appears to have broken his agreement with ArbCom and with EdJohnston about editing related to communism. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no agreements between myself and arbcom regarding which articles I may edit. You may wish to strike that comment. Please not the discussion on the talk page [126] which Mathsci has not bothered to join. See also [127] the article with the uncited and coatrack material removed. To say the german titled article has more content is wrong, to say the article I created is not properly sourced is an obvious falsehood, anyone can look, sources from Times Higher Education, Cornell University Press, Helion & Company and Verso Books. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the two articles, any further work on them needs to done on the basis of the older, existing article; otherwise what we're getting is a POV fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with this edit by TLAM; sorry, hadn't noticed that bit when reinstating some stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear POV fork. TLAM's article is about the same exhibition and mentions that a crime for which an image existed was wrongly attributed to the German army.[128] But it omits balancing views about the exhibition included in the other article. TLAM also created an article about the institute that hosted the exhibition, the Hamburg Institute for Social Research, which was deleted 21 June 2011and userfied Oct 2 2011. i would recommend a topic ban from Communism-related articles. TFD (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the forkishness I don't really see anything fundamentally wrong with the new article (and there were a few problems with the old one too). About the Hamburg Institute for Social Research draft I can't see much of a problem either; the sole reason it was deleted appears to have been that some admin found it wasn't making the notability clear enough, so it got A7-ed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This edit, which was self-reverted, was not helpful.[129] TLAM should simply merge the small amount of new content into the original article. I discovered the article by trying to find the corresponding article on the German wikipedia, the usual method. Similarly there is an extensive article here de:Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung, which is a better starting point for writing an article on en.wikipedia.org. I don't see any reason fat all for a topic ban at the moment; comments like this, [130] however, are probably not what ArbCom or EdJohnston had in mind. Mathsci (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re this POV fork rubbish, it is not a POV fork if I did not in fact know when I created the article that the other existed. Asking for a topic ban based on the creation of an article (not communist related) and creation of an article (on german army war crimes so not communist related) are just wrong. And TFD ought be admonished for asking for a topic ban on such a slim pretext. @Mathsci I do not speak German and am unable to use such sources. I shall continue to look for further English sources to expand the article, Thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's quite normal that articles like this should be expected on de.wikipedia.org. It was through the German article that I discovered the first wikipedia article on en.wikipedia.org. In creating articles on France. I usually check for fr.wikipedia.org articles as a guide (sometimes they don't exist). But once you've found about the pre-existing article, it takes priority as FPaS has said and your very recent article is considered as a fork. There's no point in contesting that. The Werhmachstsausstellung is now housed in the archives of the German Historical Museum in Berlin. The sources for that are in german. There are plenty of german speaking editors on en.wikipedia.org (e.g. Future Perfect at Sunrise) and if you want to add more content then you probably will have to work with them. As a vague approximation there are many automatic translators, although these should be used with care. It's not too hard searching on terms in german to discover english language sources, for example there is very long description with notes in the article Memory poltics in Bonn and Berlin by Mary Nolan in "Memory and the impact of political transformation in public space" (ed. Daniel J. Walkowitz and Lisa Maya Knauer, Duke University Press, 2004). Mathsci (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is related to Communism because the entire article TLAM created is about how crimes committed by Communists were falsely attributed to the German army. TFD (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, that does not seem to be the case TFD. I would note you have a history of editing conflicts with others, and a history of using noticeboards unsuccessfully (such as a large number of SPI complaints). You likely should have a large cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, one line in an article which I might add was a major part of the controversy does not make an article communist related. You are block shopping clear and simple to remove a person you disagree with on articles related to communism. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - from an uninvolved perspective it seems to me that TLAM should perhaps consider adding the useful information he has provided to the original article, just for continuity's sake. If the two articles endure then future edits could turn these into two identical articles with different titles - not good. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that in this situation it is the older article which should survive and the newer addition which should be merged. basalisk (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already agreed to that on the article talk page :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox has just been freed

Eyes on Murder of Meredith Kercher would probably be a good idea. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And related articles, such as Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, and the redirects of those who have been involved in the trial. GiantSnowman 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Article name on DE with BLP issues

Need some advice here - we have an article on EN for Aja (entertainer) and we don't have a reliable source for her real name. The problem I have is that the article on DE is under her alleged real name (and no, from what I can gather from the Google Translate version of the article they don't have a reliable source for it either). So anyone scanning down the list of links will see that name, so we can't link to it. We can link to DE:Aja (Pornodarstellerin) which is a redirect to the proper article, but the link maintenance bots keep changing to the BLP violation...

Any advice on what to do?? Tabercil (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

IMdB gives her birth name as Barbara Holder and July 14, 1963 in Tampa, Florida, USA as her date and place of birth. That's the same as the deWP--the deWP has the practice of not specifically sourcing inline if there's an obvious source, such as that. Unless contradicted, I consider IMdB sufficiently reliable, The usual place for a question like this would be the Reliable source or the BLP noticeboards. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

261 films as a porn actress? Ouch! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is general agreement that IMDB is not a reliable source for any personal information in BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS/IMDB Doniago (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, if IMDB counted as a reliable source I wouldn't be here raising the issue... Tabercil (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd question if she's even notable enough for an article period... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

She qualifies per WP:ANYBIO - "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", and Aja won the AVN Best New Starlet award in 1989. But that's getting away from the issue of the recurring BLP problem. Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I remember initiating a BLPN discussion like this about a similar article -- it may even have been this one -- and the solution was to add code to the article telling the bots "Hands off this one." I don't know if the code didn't work or if something else is going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It was this article, but the discussion -- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive121#A_new_wrinkle_in_the_porn_performer_.22real_name.22_problem -- which wasn't resolved as clearly as I'd thought. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've had to revert and lock out 4 additional bots since that BLP discussion. The easiest solution I think would be to get the German article moved to a neutral name - anyone know a friendly editor on DE, preferably one who's an admin there?? Tabercil (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader and sockpuppetry

(Copied from my talk page. See User talk:Eagles247/Archive 17#Ralph_Nader for more context. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

Hello Eagles. Once again, I request your assistance. User:Mystylplx is sockpuppeting on and vandalising the Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000 article. Here he talks with himself again to create the appearance of a consensus, as User:Mystylplx and IP 207.158.4.64:

(cur | prev) 17:31, 2 October 2011 Mystylplx (talk | contribs) (2,335 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:12, 2 October 2011 207.158.4.64 (talk) (2,103 bytes) (→Third Party Voting Controversy) (undo)

And where he repeatedly deletes sourced material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&diff=453454733&oldid=453432527

I'm tired of this repeat offender. Please assist.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.147.237 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

________________________________________

I am supplying additional links which may be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.158.35.55

   01:06, 15 June 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Music therapy ‎ (→Giving Wikipedia a bad name)
   01:00, 15 June 2011 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.216.228.53

   00:39, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Matt Gonzalez ‎ (correction)
   00:38, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Matt Gonzalez ‎ (→On the board: edits)
   00:36, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)
   00:35, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Hermann Oberth ‎ (Oberth!)
   00:34, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Dayton, Ohio ‎ (punctuation!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SCFilm29

   23:57, 21 June 2010 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)

Of course, in each case we see the odd " Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)" edit. Also, the "On the board" edit to the article on Matt Gonzalez "happens" to involve "Wikipedia Idiots" and the author, while "Talk:Music therapy" is directed at the sister of the author. The same IP visited the web site of the author's sister just one day prior to this edit, searching two pages listing the sister's appearance on radio regarding music therapy. Also, take special note of the IP addresses for each. SCFilm uses 71-, i.e., home IP for "Griot," while 207- is the self-confessed "public" IP for "Mystylplx," which appears to have been done repeatedly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=402117332

From the Ralph Nader talk page:

       IP 207.231.4.168, are you Mystylplx? 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

       Yes. That is me. Mystylplx (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 

Like his denial of knowing "Griot," amazing under the circumstances, considering the Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!) edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=402499673

Certainly, one cannot reasonably deny these strikingly odd and obscure identical edits.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.147.237 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This guy has been constantly accusing me of sock-puppetry and vandalism for a long time now, in many different places including my own talk page, the talk pages of others, and the Ralph Nader talk page. It amounts to harassment. Is there something that can be done? Mystylplx (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Andy4190 (part 2)

Resolved

 – User final-warned

Part 1 archived by a bot. I'm not good at given hand-written warning but template. please someone warn him seriously for reliable source. He is either a expect in this field or a massive creator of hoax. Information of "hoax" Emmanuel Nonny, Afonso Carson and real person hoax career of Adriano Quintão could be found in his wordpress and community based transfermarketweb and soccerway (seems sometimes "borrow" information from wiki) and semi-user based (as they welcome data submission to admins) ZeroZero. If assume good faith, he is wrongly borrow the hoax information to build article (at least most of it was hoax) OR the information is true for some of his edits but as he is expert, no more reliable source.

But if assume a vandal, please serious consider how to do. Matthew_hk tc 00:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He even claimed a "friendly" match existed in his wordpress. [131] (Bhutan Persiba Bantul) He either a expert (but with some reason made serious mistake to include hoax to Adriano Quintão) or pure humor creator. Matthew_hk tc 01:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is difficult to figure out exactly what your complaint is, and what your evidence. If you are claiming that Afonso Carson is a hoax, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afonso Carson doesn't seem to be going your way. Adriano Quintão was created two years ago, and has been edited by dozens of editors. Now, it may well be that Andy4190 is not a positive, but you have not given even remotely sufficient evidence to make that case. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed; I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. But please don't blank or partially-blank articles as you did at Afonso Carson while an AfD is in progress. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Quintão this version is purely hoax. Estanilau Li seems a hoax(at least in 2011 squad of Balestier Khalsa no such people) and Emmanuel Nonny also no reliable source could verify. He added a lot information to Timor-Leste national football team for unofficial friendly but all "source" came from his blog, so if assume good faith he may be a expert in this field or purely a humor creator just like he did in Quintão 2 years ago. (or assume he just wrongly using hoax web material to build) Matthew_hk tc 02:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Not verifiable" or "From an unreliable source" is not the same as a "hoax". Are you saying he is using a self-published source? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For Afonso Carson, the AFD already wrote Afonso Carson seems did not exist but "Da Silva" existed. All or most of the old content seems hoax or never verifiable. Matthew_hk tc 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

in good faith sense is self-published source for his wordpress. But as we can't find the footballers he created in real squad list, it is a hoax. But i said there is lots of hoax in transfermarketweb which people use it as reference, you can't assume he created the hoax (or did he upload the hoax to transfermarketweb too?). So, did someone good at English to explain to him some footballers he created was deleted and cleaned by no reliable source and little warning for hoax (as assume good faith, seems TP:BV not suitable) Matthew_hk tc 02:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

i checked his talk page. He created a hoax club FAST São Paulo (there is a FAST club in northern Brazil not São Paulo) and i remember he claimed East Timor has a friendly against this club. His blog seems a humor project. Matthew_hk tc 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW User:Carioca is a master editor of Brazilian football, which he could confirm FAST club never existed. Matthew_hk tc 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The user was warned for this edit (reverted and did it again in May) and he defence himself with his blog [132] But user:Banana Fingers replied Andy with the right source, seems Andy blog isn't a self-published source, just a hoax newspaper to support his fun. (East Timor use "enemy" Indonesia stadium? East Timor did not confirmed its home leg stadium until decided bt AFC in May, where he got the news using Indonesian one? From his brain? NO GOOGLE hit and google translate) Matthew_hk tc 08:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• So basically, we have an editor who

• (a) creates hoax articles (at least two that I can count, I'm unsure how many of the articles of his that have been deleted were actually real)
• (b) creates articles about real people full of hoax nonsense sourced to his own blog (as per Quintão above)
• (c) creates unsourced BLPs about non-notable people (look at his talkpage)
• (d) despite this, does make productive edits as well.
• However, he has hardly edited in the last couple of weeks; I would suggest waiting to see if he resumes his behaviour. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

a person whose edits need sorting out to distinguish the true material from the hoaxes is not a net asset to Wikipedia. Perhaps he will stop, but at the least there should be a level 4 warning linked to this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I would've left one if I hadn't suddenly realised I was late for work this morning. I will leave one now. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good summary. I'm very bad on summary. Matthew_hk tc 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright block review needed

Ken keisel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had previously blocked User:Ken keisel for 1 month for copyright violation, but his edits on his talk page since the block have shown that one month is not likely to be sufficient, so I upped the block to indef until he figures out how to work within policy. He has previously had unblocks declined for the one month block, but since I changed the block to indefinite, I'd appreciate it if someone could take another look. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been in dispute with Ken keisel on the Don Chadwick article, but I think the block is good. Keisel cannnot grasp the problem of copyvio, as shown in his long history and in his recent reverts to Kokosing Gap Trail, restoring text taken largely from this trail guide page. Indef block should stand. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Ken keisel claims that he was the original author of that text, and that the trail guide swiped it from Wikipedia. As I mentioned on his talkpage, Archive.org shows that there was a page there before he created the article, but does not show any content until 2 years afterward -- at which point the text is credited to a third party.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Compare this with the discussion at User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 4#Request to be unblocked, where he unquestionably used text directly from a published source, but claimed he was just repeating uncopyrightable facts -- which he just raised again in his defense.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's not grasping that it's his presentation of the facts that is problematic not the facts themselves. --Blackmane (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. And he just claimed again that Wikipedia text was not copyrightable under fair use law, even after I pointed him directly to Wikipedia:Copyrights, specifically calling out the "text of Wikipedia is copyrighted" bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I took that into consideration. Here is an archived webpage from three weeks before Keisel created the Kokosing Gap Trail article, showing that the Knox County Convention and Visitors Bureau had already mounted a webpage discussing the Kokosing Gap Trail. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine does not have the specific Kokosing page from that time, or the server is down. Keisel should go to OTRS with his previous authorship if it exists as he says it does. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. I've been following this, and find his argument completely spurious. Yes, sites do mirror Wikipedia text without accreditation, but they swipe the whole thing, not two paragraphs. No reason to believe that the copyright notice, which covers 2001-2010 is fraudulent. Ken Keisel appears to have no understanding of what copyright is, looking at the bizzare post above his unblock appeal, in which he interprets the Washington Post saying "facts cannot be copyrighted" as meaning that he can copy a Washington Post article verbatim, even though the Post explicitly makes it clear that what it means is he can use it as a source for an article, using it as a reference." It's encouraging to note that the WP understands Wikipedia policy, but gives me no faith that Ken understands copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, I think that text was from OTRS, not WP. Matt Schudel was the WP employee who responded to Ken keisel, and that letter was OTRS's gloss on what Schudel's letter meant for Wikipedia purposes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  OTRS#2011080310013936, if I'm reading the message correctly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah well. But the underlying point remains - while you cannot copyright facts, he seems utterly unable to grasp that you can copyright the way that you say 'em.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a second. If what Ken says is true this is an unacceptable solution. I do not question Sarek's initial block, as clearly with the information available it appears that Ken made an obvious copyright violation. Ken also needs to understand that when someone removes text based as a copyvio he needs to slow down and make his arguments or provide his proof and have the matter settled in his favor before reverting. However, it is not impossible at all for that website to have swiped a paragraph that Ken originally wrote from Wikipedia. Our editors aren't the only people who plagiarize, and yes people plagiarize sentences, paragraphs and other pieces of larger works all the time, not just entire works. What is Ken's recourse here to get this sorted out. Someone ought to be helping him find the proper channels to do so. If Ken is making this up then I think he ought to be community banned, but if he is telling the truth I don't see how this is acceptable at all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If what Ken keisel says is true, the VisitKnoxOhio webmaster took existing text about the Kokosing Gap Trail and replaced it later with text they copied from Wikipedia. This seems improbable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd find that to be extremely unlikely (at the very least). It should be noted that the editor in question also has a history of pointy editing in addition to copyvios. The shame is that he has been a good and productive contributor in the past; I have no idea why his Wikicareer has decided to spiral the drain, but I reluctantly have to support the indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sarek, that's faulty logic on your part. It has been established already that the text in question is a short paragraph, which is small fraction of the text on the current website and only part of the version you linked to above as well. It could easily have been added to what what already there in an update. It absolutely does not have to have "replaced" existing text. I agree with Bushranger that the scenario you have presented is unlikely to have happened, but then again it's based on a premise that is by no means a sure thing. I have no idea if Ken is telling the truth here, but we really owe it to the project to help him prove it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that in the email from Professor whatever that he's posted on his page, the prof says "In your message to me, you don't distinguish between the facts and the expression of the facts, but I'm assuming you know this crucial difference. You can use the facts, ideas, etc. from the Post obituary, but not the exact wording, unless you're provide attribution and insert quotation marks." Shame Ken hasn't got that little nuance - the prof goes on to say he is "surprised the Wikipedia folks didn't look at their own entries on the subject". Since we are all perfectly aware of this fact, one can only wonder what Ken told the prof to start with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And one can only wonder what the professor thinks of Wikipedia as a result of whatever was said... anyway, regardless of whether or not the text on the website was "stolen from Wikipedia" or not (and I find that highly unlikely), the fact remains that, unfortunatly Ken shows no signs of clue regarding copyright policy. Until clue level rises, I don't see how an unblock can be possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request. If he spent the same amount of time providing proof that he is the original author that his is trying to say we're wrong, he'd likely be unblocked. Because of the wikilawyering around this, I have my doubts. If he was the author, he'd simply just prove it and move on. At this point, because his misunderstanding of a) copyright, and b) process, we need to protect the project - and unfortunately, this so far means indefinitely - based solely on ken's own writings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins how can he prove it? I don't see how anyone has presented him with a way to do so. I agree with your decline, BTW. It's the right thing to do, but the other right thing to do is to help him understand how he can prove it. Like I said above, if he's lying I'd support a full out community ban, but we really ought to give him the opportunity to clarify this one way or the other. So how can he do that?Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see now where you suggested he submit an OTRS ticket about this. I hope for his sake that he does. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, you might want to look at this edit from the day before he created the Kokosing Gap Trail article, and compare it to this page from Archive.org, dated one month before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So what? That's a clear copyvio, but it from another entry altogether. I thought it was well known that he made some copyvios in the past. Did he argue that he did not copy that website? I see that in his edit he listed it as a reference, which tells me that back in 2008 he clearly didn't understand the copyvio policy. That's not good, but what does it have to do with this case, in which he swears he wrote it first? Has he acted like this recently in any cases where there were clear copyvios? If so those cases would be pertinent hereGriswaldo (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

One thing to keep in mind is that, regardless of the copyvio status of this particular article, this editor has shown exactly zero clue when it comes to copyright and Wikipedia. And he has a history of being extremly combative (including mass-bombing cn tags for already-referenced information on multiple articles when he didn't get them edited the way he wanted, and calling the removal of said tags vandalism: one example, [133]); and also has had significant issues with WP:OR and WP:RS (example here). This is a long-term issue, not one where he used to not understand copyright or suddenly is having a bad month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, even if the trail's website did swipe the content from Wikipedia: given his comments about that article, I'd be concerned about it being WP:OR itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are all fair concerns but they aren't the type of thing one deals with at AN/I. Sounds more like fodder for an RfC/U something I suggested to Sarek once before regarding Ken. The reason he was blocked was because of a specific incident. Ken has been editing since 2005. Before Sarek blocked him he had been blocked once before, in May of this year. If he has been seriously violating policy for years then the system has failed us all, and yes that needs dealing with now but not by indeffing him for one incident. I also don't like the idea that an admin issues a block, asks for review of the block, then takes it upon himself to up the length of the block after review. If you have reason to ask for your own block to be reviewed, then its best to let other admins handle matters from here on out. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As a non-admin I'm not going to comment on the block, but as an experienced copyright investigator I will comment on some of that issue. Part of the issue here appears to be whether the editor is the original author and so it may be of interest to people that the text currently found on the website in question is essentially the same text that was present on that website in 2001 (although at a different location). Long before the text was introduced here. If I were dealing with this as a copyright investigation I would remove the material on the basis that it was an infringement and ask the editor to follow the OTRS procedures if they do indeed own the copyright. In the meantime the material would have to remain removed to protect wikipedia. Dpmuk (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The problem is that this makes it clear that Ken was not telling the truth, which is extremely unfortunate. People do get confused about copyrights, but this now appears to be something else entirely. Too bad.Griswaldo (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a contributor copyright investigation on this user: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111004 (anonymized because of real name issues). MER-C 04:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination on Wikipedia

blocked for WP:NLT: there are articles which need improving more than this editor needs more clever commentary she can't reply to added to ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am very much thinking on enacting legal action upon wikipedia for its constant racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. I am however a fair person and wish to give wikipedia a chance to redeem itself. So I will allow it to have a chace to communicate with me. I realize that if I decide to take legal actions my editing privileges will be temporarily shut down. I hope they will not take it down yet and will instead try to work with me. I know that the people on wikipedia are not intentionally bigoted and look forward to helping them to fix the problem.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Well, fortunately for some editors, wikipedia does not discriminate on grounds of ability. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC) There's nothing here anyone can do anything with. Can you provide some examples of the issues you're concerned about?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, "Here's your chance to fix this problem to my satisfaction or I'll sue you" is the very definition of the "chilling effect" WP:NLT speaks of. You are not permitted to wield that stick even as an "I'm thinking about it" threat. I recommend you retract that ASAP if you intend to be able to continue working with anyone here to solve the problem. We obviously all want to reduce problems; if that's your goal too, you should consider not raising the stakes. DMacks (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC) To Rainbowofpeace - you write as if the problems are systematic and obvious. They're not obvious to me. What are they? Explicitly. You also write of Wikipedia as an it. In reality, it's a them. There are thousands of editors, with views ranging across the whole political and social spectrum, most of whom try to suppress those views when they edit. SO, I'm not sure who your target is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC) If you have a specific problem, bring it up and it will be addressed (perhaps not in the way you like, but it will). If you want to rant about a systematic problem, use foundation-l, or a similar mailing list, where you will find many like minded individuals. If you don't want to do either of those things, then do nothing. Also the result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories seems reasonable to me. Listing people in that way is more trouble than it is worth. Prodego talk 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC) The "homophobia" reference is pretty funny, given the fairly high-profile presence of gays on wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is not guilty of any of the ills claimed by the OP, but it is subject to those kinds of things from time to time, as a consequence of the "any bozo can edit" axiom. If he wants to get that rule changed, he'll face an uphill battle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Comment- Why are we even discussing this? Block for Wikipedia:No legal threats and lets move on. Most likely trolling.--JOJ Hutton 23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC) I don't think that accomplishes anything. Prodego talk 23:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC) It is, however, strict policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC) The guy should be indef'd until or if he retracts his threat. What does it accomplish? It accomplishes stifling someone who might be attempting to intimidate other users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC) A look at User:Rainbowofpeace shows that this user has had these views at least since setting up that user page in April last years. It's not a recent urge to troll that we're seeing here, but a recent urge to bring those views to everyone's attention. It would be nice to know where such views come from. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC) In lieu of indeffing the guy immediately, he needs to converse here instead of taking a hit-and-run approach. He's been on for at least a year now, and should know better, but maybe not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC) NLT-blocked. If they retract, no need to consult me first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) No legal threats. If the user doesn't know this, he should. Dave Dial (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC) User makes it clear in the initial post here that he is aware of it (or at least the block that would result, even if not appreciating the rationale or exact location of the bright line). DMacks (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC) The user makes it clear they knew they would be blocked for actually taking action. It's not clear to me they understood they would be blocked simply for threatening legal action. Of course, either way, the block was appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC) {ec}RainbowofPeace I suggest you branch out to other areas of wiki. As a member of Wikiproject:Discrimination it's your prerogative to edit in those topics, but I wouldn't be surprised if focusing solely on such a topic isn't beginning to skew your perspective. However, on the point of the legal threat, that's definitely indef worthy. --Blackmane (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC) A memorable unblock request(?) that should be added to WP:GAB as what not to do.[134] Threatening to sue the WMF to get your editing rights back demonstrates why this block was well-deserved. Doc talk 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Done. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC) (ec) Now I don't take the post that started this very seriously. But as most people who've had some business management experience, especially including HR, will know, if someone makes a good faith report of illegal discrimination through appropriate channels, and the organization involved responds by, say, firing or expelling the complainant, it could be subject to liability for retaliation. I can't say which, if any, civil right laws Wikipedia could be subject to, but I don't know that an automatic block in such circumstances would be a good idea. There are cases where we'd need to be more careful, even though this may not even look like one. If someone were to raise a sexual harassment complaint, though, particularly someone with particular authority was doing something with real-world impact, and a passing admin responded with an NLT-block, the best we could expect would be a convoy of bad press. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC) There are no "rights" here, what are you talking about? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC) We would have handled this situation differently if it were "a good-faith report of illegal discrimination", or if it were made "through appropriate channels". This thread, however, involves a threat of legal action on vaguely-specified, poorly-reasoned grounds. Continuing to respond is feeding a troll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Request: Since I agree with the block, can you name me in the lawsuit? Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, gay and Mizrahi (odd that they speak Yiddish if they are Mizrahi and Sphardic)? This person probably experiences a lot of discrimination in real life. They went about dealing with the perception of it here entirely the wrong way though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 6 Tishrei 5772 04:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Not that it matters, but I support the block. It had been a while since I read WP:NLT and it is quite clear, as a policy. Coming here to issue a legal threat and then continuing the same approach in an unblock request so blatant that it winds up in the 'Hall of Shame' leaves me shaking my head. Jusdafax 05:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Every so often we get one like this ... they're blocked, and we try to resolve their percieved issues with them directly - if they're pleasant enough to do so. If not, it's a downward spiral that won't be helped by smartassedness by anyone. I have reached out a sincere olive branch on their talkpage to see if we can reign them in. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Editors that keep asking the same question over and over, after it's already been answered multiple times, are typically just trolls - and I'm becoming convinced that the editor in question here is likewise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Troll or newcomer, who's to really say here? Although, I would suggest that the editor/their usertalkpage have now spiralled out of control, and I think that a friendly word to the WMF legal folks might be in order to take the discussion offline. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User 86.176.153.183 editing tendentiously and ignoring policy advice

User:86.176.153.183 has been trying to make Big Brother 2011 (UK) and List of Big Brother 2011 housemates (UK) into unencyclopaedic fan pages. A number of editors - Leaky caldron, Carl Sixsmith, LadyofShalott and myself, among others - have tried on numerous occasions to point the IP at the policies he/she is violating, both on the article talk pages and on the user's talk page. Shortly after a return from a 24 hour ban for 3RR violation, the IP blanked their talk page [135]. After being disabused of some WP:OWN misconceptions [136], the user continued to try to argue for including minor details ([137], for instance) despite repeated pleas to read WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ([138] and [139] to name but two). User also seems to have missed or ignored the indication that the relevant project page advises against the style he/she is trying to use [140]. The IP has tried to report others on various boards with generally predictable results, but even when editors drawn by this have given good advice [141], IP seems reluctant to learn [142]. We have gone from correctly assuming ignorance to trying to educate the user, but grown exasperated by his/her refusal to engage in any meaningful way in discussions of policy. Although at one stage [143] the user seemed to realise that social media would be a better venue for what he/she is trying to do, the attempts to turn the articles into fan fluff have continued. It seems to me that if the user doesn't indicate that he/she has read the relevant policies and agrees to edit in accordance with them, a topic ban until a week after the end of the series would be the best way to prevent further disruption. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone tried directing him to the BBUK wikia? He might do better over there. lifebaka++ 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to second what Dr Marcus Hill said... the IP is demonstrating a high degree of ownership over the content, at one point even apparently claiming to revoke permission for his editing content to be used on Wikipedia. He was humorously disabused of this notion by User:LadyofShalott, but needless to say, he purposely seems unable to get the point. Second the topic ban idea. Moogwrench (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka, I didn't know there was a BBUK wikia, but I more than once suggested that the IP editor either start one or find one that possibly already existed. Various editors have also suggested he use a blog or Twitter to post every tidbit he insists is critical detail about the show, but for which there is not consensus to include on Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 01:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Editor is tendentious and combative. The enormous amount of trivia they are trying to add is disruptive and silly. Their claims of cabalish edit-warring by editors who know nothing about the show are indicative of the kind of ownership-mentality that is counterproductive. I would welcome a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• A short block or topic ban would certainly have been appropriate at the height of his disruptive behaviour, including direct, personal attacks on me here [144] and here [145]. However, recent article editing activity might just indicate that a corner has been turned, although they are still hostile on talk pages. Leaky Caldron 10:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• I will endorse the editor's tendentiousness and unwillingness to conform to basic tenants of community policy after being pointed at them multiple times. I became involved when they posted a malformed post at DRN and tried to help educate the user as they claim to have "The Truth" and will not be talked down. Page is semied for 24 hrs so IP editor couldn't respond if they wanted to Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• To be fair, as LC mentions, the editor does seem to have significantly calmed down in the last few edits. The mainspace edits are more clearly sourced and better written (though there are still a couple of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER debates, these are less clear cut than earlier ones IMO). Since the risk of damaging the mainspace pages seems to have passed, I don't think being shirty on talk pages is sufficient reason for a ban, so I'd now say give the editor a chance to contribute more thoughtful content. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

True, it seems to take quite a while for the editor to learn, but it eventually happens. Witness the great number of times several editors (and Sinebot) had to tell him to sign talk page posts,but he finally did get it. LadyofShalott 18:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I had fun and games with this user back on September 9 (when the new series started) and had to get the page protected. That said fun and games have gone on for weeks since the unprotection is... completely unsurprising to me. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, disregard that. Different IP. Silly me. Unless they are the same user on different computers. But I'm not a sockpuppet hunter. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• As an outsider to this edit-war who has a long-term interest in Big Brother, I would like to make an observation or two.

• First, there is noithing wrong with an editor blanking their own talk page. If something that petty is the first complaint that springs to Dr Marcus Hill's mind then he needs to step away from the keyboard. Seriously, how does it even occur to someone to complain about something so trivial?
• Second, there is nothing wrong with an editor politely advocating for their position in the hopes of winning a consensus in the talk page of an article. That is what talk pages are for. We do not punish well-intentioned editors for arguing their case, especially when they do so in a fair and reasonable manner.
• Third, I made a few brief comments in the talk page, and Dr Marcus Hill responded to one of them with what amounted to a blatant lie about the policies for Big Brother articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother. It now appears that he has tried the same misrepresentations of WikiProject Big Brother with 86.176.153.18 (and everyone else who is reading this noticeboard). Suddenly, I take everything he says in here with a very large grain of salt.
• Fourth, Dr Marcus Hill complaint is rife with half-truths and rhetoric and I urge caution before other editors take the substance of his complaint on face value. Most of the diffs he claims exemplify the inappropriate behaviour of 86.176.153.18 are nothing more than that user making a point that Dr Marcus Hill disagrees with.
• The worst that 86.176.153.18 can be accused of is bringing a little too much passion to the talk page while failing to fully appreciate the labyrinth of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. But, given the utter intransigence of a select few editors who disagree with his attempts to provide constructive input, I'm not the least bit surprised that his frustration is showing.

• For my sins, those are are of my personal observations on this matter. For the record, I have had no previous interaction/knowledge of Dr Marcus Hill or 86.176.153.18 or anyone else who is contributing to the Big Brother 11 (UK) article. Deterence ^Talk 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• You cannot have read sufficent of the interactions this IP has had if you think that this IP has been polite in his dealings. I give you this [146] and this [147] as examples and if you had even read this section of ANI fully you would see that they are already referenced above, making your point about polite advocacy look rather ill-judged. I also think you are not WP:AGF in calling another editor a liar, which is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. Leaky Caldron 20:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• If those are the worst examples you have, you need a thicker skin. As for me calling another editor a liar: he lied to me, so I called him on it. Deterence ^Talk 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• "he lied to me, so I called him on it" - what a puerile attitude - IMO. Leaky Caldron 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• A few minutes ago, you were complaining about the impolite comments of another user. How's that for irony? Deterence ^Talk 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Calling a fellow editor a liar is a clear breach of policy WP:Civil. Drawing attention to a childish reason for calling another editor a liar is just a straightforward fact. Leaky Caldron 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lying to another editor is a breach of Wikipedia's policies. I shouldn't need to point that out. I am disengaging from this ridiculous discussion before I become mired in more petty nonsense. Deterence ^Talk 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:LIAR. Just because you believe somebody lied and breached the civility guidelines does not excuse you breaching them yourself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Bushranger, that is an essay that applies to AfD. It is not a policy. Deterence ^Talk 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is good advice, however - and WP:CIVIL is a policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Not only are you out of order calling him a liar per policy but your claim that he somehow misled you via this link [148] is erroneous. That link suggests appropriate content and does not include the non-encyclopaedic, "social anecdotes" (arguments, showmances, pranks) that the IP has been pushing against policy, including WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Leaky Caldron 21:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to WP:AGF and apply Hanlon's Razor here, not least because the whole discussion now seems to be moot anyway. The reason I pointed to the diff where 86 blanked the talk page wasn't to complain about blanking the talk page, it was because a lot of the pertinent warnings and instructions given by other users (and Sinebot) occurred before that blanking, though I can see how you might think that I considered it to be an issue in itself. If you read the complaint carefully, you'll see that it isn't about the user arguing, politely or otherwise, for changes, it's with the user ignoring policy advice and continuing to make the same arguments repeatedly even after being told several times why they were wrong. That's why I put in diffs to the advice as well. If you think pointing to a project page that says there's no agreement but then lists what is "acceptable" is a lie, you seem to be working with an odd definition of "lie". If you think there are any "half-truths and rhetoric" in my statement, I'd thank you to point them out - as you've seen, I'm quite happy to admit when I'm mistaken and change my mind. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dr Marcus Hill, it is disappointing that you begin your thoughtful response by calling me "stupid" (for those who do not know, Hanlon's razor = "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity").
• Regardless, you cited the authority of Wikiproject Big Brother to claim that the content desired by user 86.176.153.18 (I really wish he would get a proper Wikipedia name) is prohibited. That is not the case. Wikiproject Big Brother (which may even be dead as it has no members listed) states, "There is no agreement upon what should be included in a Chronology section, but the following seems to be acceptable:" and then proceeds to provide a non-exhaustive list of specific types of content whose inclusion is supported by consensus. It specifically excludes none of the content that 86.176.153.18 is trying to include.
• Interestingly, Wikiproject Big Brother specifically states that the Housemates section should include, "Information to include in the section includes: ... Any major events that occurred in the house; that were due to, or involved, the said housemate." This STRONGLY suggests to me that content about showmances and fights/arguments, et cetera, is appropriate for the Big Brother article. This should come as no surprise to anyone who actually watches Big Brother as these "social anecdotes" (not my words) are what the program is all about. Especially the UK version, which is MUCH more of a social experiment than the game-show style of its American counterpart. Deterence ^Talk 10:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Hanlon's Razor wasn't quite the right term for my intent - honest error and misreading, rather than stupidity, was my actual assumption. As for the rest, that's a content argument and doesn't really belong on this forum. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Cohler

Resolved

 – Checkuser confirms socking. m.o.p 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Jonathan Cohler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cohler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Classmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I originally posted about these two SPAs on WP:SPI but I'm not sure that the sockpuppet element is a problem, more that a sock is being used to hide autobiography. Attempts to ask politely have now been responded to aggressively on my talk page. This is what I posted at WP:SPI:

1. In 2008 User:Cohler's sixth edit on Wikipedia created Jonathan Cohler, a straight copy and paste of Jonathan Cohler's official biography
2. Cohler's next edit was at Talk:Jonathan Cohler stating that the User:Cohler = the subject of the article Jonathan Cohler
3. Two years later Cohler added Jonathan Cohler to list of faculty at Longy School of Music
4. On 26 Sep 2011 Cohler made five edits to Jonathan Cohler
5. On 27 Sep 2011 User:Classmusic made their first edit - removing from the Jonathan Cohler page a Multiple Issues tag which made reference to Autobiography
6. On 27, 29 & 30 Sep 2011 Classmusic made many contributions to both Jonathan Cohler and Talk:Jonathan Cohler. All but 82 of the 125 edits to Jonathan Cohler have been made by User:Cohler or User:Classmusic
7. On 28 Sep 2011 User:Voceditenore wrote on Usertalk:Classmusic: "If you have previously edited Wikipedia under a different account/user name, make sure that you stick to only one of them for your future editing. There's more guidance about this here"
8. On 1 Oct 2011, noticing that Classmusic had not given a reply to Voceditenore, I wrote at Talk:Jonathan Cohler: "Hi Classmusic - can I just check that I haven't got muddled, and that this is your new account, taking over the work you were previously doing at User:Cohler? The edit history of this page suggests so, but I wouldn't like to be making an incorrect assumption [on] this question"
9. On 1 Oct 2011 Classmusic blanked both Voceditenore's warning from their own talkpage and my query from Talk:Jonathan Cohler. This suggests that Jonathan Cohler is using a sock to try to avoid being recognised as editing his own article
10. On 2 Oct 2011 Classmusic implied in this edit that they are not Jonathan Cohler
11. On 3 Oct 2011 shortly after Classmusic had made a few more edits of the Jonathan Cohler, adding links in references to positive reviews of Jonathan Cohler's CDs, User:Cohler put up an Account Retired template on their Userpage
12. On 3 Oct 2011 in these two edits to the Jonathan Cohler talkpage I re-made my query if User:Classmusic was a sock of User:Cohler; User:Classmusic claimed this was a misuse of the talkpage

As the situation is now, I'm very much unsure of what is the correct course of action. I think I'm trying to prevent autobiography and sockpuppetry but I'm being accused of trying to out an editor. almost-instinct 08:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

*"Attempts to ask politely have now been responded to aggressively on my talk page." If THAT is what you call aggressive, you need to step away from the keyboard and go for a walk. I'm not kidding. Seriously, my grandmother is more aggressive than that when she complains about "that rock music" I listen to. The most aggressive comment in his post is "It is really unseemly." I'm not even going to read the rest of your complaint if that is the sort of exaggerated nonsense you start with. Deterence ^Talk 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Comment struck: improper tone for this discussion. m.o.p 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The best thing you can do here is wait for an SPI report and see how that pans out. You're right in saying there's more than simple hearsay suggesting collusion, but it's not enough to justify a block for sockpuppetry.

Technically, Classmusic is right in that the article's talk page is not the place to bring about sockpuppetry concerns. That's something you'll want to take up with either the user themselves or us. As for outing - I don't think you've done anything wrong. You're trusting your instincts pretty strongly, but sockpuppet accusations are valid if they're backed up. We'll just have to wait and see what the SPI says. m.o.p 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my latest response to Almost-instinct (talk) here. There have been no substantive arguments on the Jonathan Cohler page ever. While I am new to editing here, I am interested in improving content as can clearly be seen by the edits I have made. My edits speak for themselves and they are largely uncontested and unchanged by Voceditenore or Almost-instinct. There is extensive independent sourcing on the page (much more than than is typical for a brief bio of this sort, I might add). But for some reason Almost-instinct has continued to bother me with these postings and accusations. I would like it to stop if possible as it is a waste of my time in responding to this. Thank you. --Classmusic (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Classmusic, Almost-instinct has full right to accuse you should they see fit - for now, you're not required to reply to said accusations if you don't wish to, though I would recommend it. After the sockpuppet investigation, we'll proceed accordingly. m.o.p 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms sockpuppetry. Blocking the main account indefinitely and marking as a sock. I'll deal with Classmusic on their talk page. m.o.p 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism For At Least Two Years

Resolved

For at least the past two years and I'm sure much longer, IP's have been adding DJ Nihilist to a long list of pages dealing with electronic music [149] I have been patrolling these pages for years now. After returning from a very long break I discovered that many articles once again had DJ Nihilist added to them. I searched and removed all mentions of this person from the project. This morning less then 24 hours later this occurs [150], it's constant and on a number of pages. If I report the IP and get the IP banned will change. If we protect the pages within 12 hours of the pages being unprotected they will be vandalized again. I have spent countless hours patrolling and reverting whoever is behind this. Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• After a look at their recent edits and their block log I've blocked them for three months. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Offhand, just keep playing whack a mole. The IP's been locked out by Drmies. If they reappear under a different IP, lock that one out as well and possible semi the the articles as well. Tabercil (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a very long term pattern of vandalism. Abuse filter? causa sui (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think causa has a point. Blocks are there to prevent damage to wikipedia but judging by the previous pattern of vandalism I don't think an IP block is going to do the job here. I think an edit filter is probably the best option. basalisk (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree. "DJ Nihilist" should not be difficult to filter out. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've created an edit filter request: Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#DJ_Nihilist. causa sui (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Filter has been made OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Trongphu calling others racist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)

See [151] and [152]. Axxeua (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Having read Trongphu's (lengthy) posts I can see no hint of him/her calling other editors "racist". Indeed, I can't even see where one could possibly infer that he/she was implying that other editors are racist. Making such a serious allegation, which appears to lack any substance whatsoever, appears wholly mischievous. Why was such nonsense brought to this noticeboard? Deterence ^Talk 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is a borderline problem: "For many that supported delete they either think Vietnamese people is not important or have nonsense reasons. " That seems to say that if I were to go to delete that article, I would either be speaking nonsense, or I must be racist against Vietnamese people. However, the comment is pretty mild as far as such things go, so I don't see anything here to really be upset about. It's clear that Trongphu is not a native English speaker, so the comment may not have been intended as strongly as it appears; it's also clear that Trongphu is a bit (possibly overly) emotionally involved in the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of his comments at the DRV for the article were a bit...strongly worded as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

After his further comment at the AfD that "Their votes are hatred votes not rational votes" I have warned him. I'm not going to take any admin action though, because I commented at both the DRV and AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost prepared to block him for the duration of the AFD for WP:DISRUPT and WP:CIVIL at this point ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You'd find no objections from me. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Trongphu for five days for continued disruption and incivility. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ravishankar9853

This editor has persistently uploaded copyright violating images (I can't give diffs because they have been deleted), has repeatedly been warned, and has continued today. I think a block is in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indef. The repeated copyvios, combined with zero communication or attempts to address the concerns expressed regarding their editing, do not instill any faith that a time-specific block will be effective. Should Ravishankar9853 have a change of heart and decide to edit constructively and within policy, they can request an unblock. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

IP persistently making unsourced, dubious additions

90.201.251.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I previously raised this IP's edits here. After the last block expired, the IP is still adding unsourced information ignoring warnings to source their edits and has made another false caption change [153]. It appears to be the same person editing from this IP throughout (another noticeable habit is capitalising everything in the infobox [154][155]) and I'm concerned this is long-term subtle vandalism by adding false information. January (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ian Cairns

{{resolved|1=Compromised doppleganger account indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)}}

I created the above account some time go as a doppelganger account to stop it being used to impersonate me (I am in the UK, and I am not Australian), and I deliberately forgot the password. Somehow, it has become activated today, and is being used. I am interested to understand how someone has done this - I can only think they have cracked the password? I would have no problem with the above account being indefinitely blocked - if that is seen as a way of avoiding the current situation. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Doppelganger accounts should probably be indefblocked at creation. causa sui (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per the above, I've indeffed the account in question - the 24 hour bit was a misclick so I fixed it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. Still confused about the password cracking though. Never mind - all sorted. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We now have the doppleganger requesting unblock - see User talk:Ian Cairns. Apparently, whoever has the doppleganger is editing the article about Ian Cairns, and claims to be that individual. How they got access to this account is unclear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've turned off the "resolved" marker for the moment, as I am not sure this is resolved. User seems to be claiming in their remarks that they simply set up an account in the normal fashion, which shouldn't have been possible if it was, as the logs reflect, set up initially in 2007 as a doppleganger. Something's not quite adding up here. Either somebody is lying or we are missing an important fact somewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would a checkuser report be worthwhile? If nothing else, it would confirm that User:Icairns and User:Ian Cairns are unrelated insofar as who is actually logging in and using the account. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've engaged the doppleganger in discussion, and they are more focused on the Ian Cairns article than the account - which is problematic, since we're trying to sort out the account. If everything seems aboveboard, and if checkuser (or whomever) can determine that this person just put their real name in and lucked into the password, then perhaps we need to give them this account, rename it (or confirm via OTRS the identity), then re-make a new "Ian Cairns" account to dopplegang - then immediately indefblock it, since it won't be editing. I still don't know how they got the password, though, unless it was something they lucked into. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The crux of this for me is this: how could it ever be possible for a user to believe they were setting up a new account, when in fact they were taking over an established account, albeit one with no edits? Either we have a very weird bug, someone is misremembering events or the currently blocked account hacked the account somehow and is a big fat liar. And since he dodges or brushed aside any inquiries into how he came to be using an account that was supposedly set up by another in user four years ago, its kind of hard to know what to think. CU may be of some help, or it may be utterly useless. I guess we could ask and see what they say. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request  Done. [156]. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Beeblebrox, cross-posting result of my checks: [157]. As a non-technical opinion, I'm inclined to side with Icairns here. We could always ask Ian_Cairns to void the password on the doppelganger, and create a new account. AGK [•] 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've (ICairns UK) kept clear of the above discussion as much as possible, since I felt I ought to report the problem, step back and let due process take its course. In view of the confusion of names, is there anything I can do from here to assist / clarify? e.g. reverify my email? change my Icairns password? something else? It would be more complicated / interesting if I still had the password for User:Ian_Cairns - but as I've said all along, that was deliberately forgotten years ago. To my mind, either Ian_Cairns (Aus) has got lucky with the password or there is an account creation bug that needs running to ground. I am concerned that all my current and past editing here on WP could be confused / compromised by an active User:Ian_Cairns, as per my reasoning in 2007. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Further update: As per User_talk:Ian_Cairns, Ian Cairns (Aus) is offering to take a new account = User:Ian_Kanga_Cairns, and has asked if I would be OK with that. I have no problem, provided that Kanga also stays within his signature. He has also offered to rename his WP bio article to include Kanga, but I don't think that is necessary unless he particularly wants to. So, I think we may have a compromise / solution here. I keep User:Icairns and signature "Ian Cairns"; he gets User:Ian_Kanga_Cairns and signature "Ian Kanga Cairns", and User:Ian_Cairns remains indef blocked. Of course, there is one issue above that remains unresolved - however, we can also begin to think about moving forwards. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have to say I'm not fully satisfied that he has been completely honest about how he got access to that account, but in the interest of moving forward I have altered the block settings to allow him to create a new account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible that if an account isn't logged into after a certain amount of time the server 'forgets' that the account exists (even though the userpage and account itself remain)? You would have thought (regardless of how access was gained) that the fact User:Ian Cairns existed with the doppleganger-account might have been noticed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick request re banned user

A banned user (WP:UNID) has created John low iq (talk · contribs). Would someone please block the latter as an attack on my admittedly weak user name. The banned user just needs WP:RBI although checking 165.228.176.170 in a few hours would be good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:John low iq as it's an obvious attack account. Probably a one-off, anyway. I've left talk page and email enabled; if this isn't right, feel free to revoke access. I'll keep an eye on the IP for a bit, just in case. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't thought about email/talk, but now you mention it, please revoke email access because the banned user is known to have abused email in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm not certain it's necessary to blacklist the site he was using, as the likelihood that it gets added to other articles is low; it'd stick out like a sore thumb elsewhere. I'd put money on the autoblock taking out 165.228.176.170 for the next day or so, and I've added The Queensland Party to my watchlist, just in case. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The account (as well as several others) are  Confirmed as Universe Daily (talk · contribs).  IP blocked. –MuZemike 05:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pressing Need: The it.wiki's freedom is under threat!!!

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

---

Not an incident and doesn't need discussion here. Village pump perhaps. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The WMF has made a statement on this already [158]. Pointer to discussion on meta for those interested: [159]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm an italian wikipedian. I don't know if this is the right place where post the ad, but please read this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.82.213 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything that the English Wikipedia can do regarding a law from Italy.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Where are the italian wikipedia's servers? aren't they all in the same place?--Crossmr (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The different language versions of Wikipedia are semi-independant... But where are the Italian Wikipedia's servers located? Looking at this and this, it looks like most of the servers are located in Florida, USA; Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Seoul, South Korea. I would argue that only US, Netherlands, and South Korean laws apply to Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're going to want an LLM in international law before you field that one.--Tznkai (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If Iran tries to apply their laws to my dad's favorite liquor store, it'd result in serious problems for Iran. All the Wikipedia sites are American, Netherlands, and Korean sites which feature different language versions hosted in those three countries. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But what if your dad is in Iran, ordering from his favorite liquor store via the internet? Iran may have limited control over the store, but it can do something about the common carriers, ISPs, and other things inbetween your dad and the store. Oh, and your dad.--Tznkai (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And I thought WP was strict about BLP's? Wow. Doc talk 22:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that en.wiki can't stop the law. I reported a fact, maybe you en.wikipedian admins can report it on the main page whit a little ad on the top. By this way you can help us!!! Thanks=)--93.71.82.213 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here.... —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Side notes: If passed, I think that that law will die under it's own weight/impossibility. But I imagine that Wikipedia already violates North Korean and Myanmar law by merely existing etc.North8000 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And there is a Burmese Wikipedia, as well, happily running. Prediction: tempest in a teacup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The probability of Italy being able to enforce that law against Florida is roughly the same as the probability of Amanda Knox taking another trip to Italy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But they could enforce the law against Italian editors, who, you know, live in Italy. Buddy431 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe that's why Italian Wikipedia has (reportedly) been shut down by Wikimedia, to protect them from themselves. I just wonder... when did Italy suddenly become China? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well at least Italy is hemorrhaging people like crazy so there won't be any Italians in Italy for this law to restrict (after seventy years). On a more serious note, Buddy is right that even though the servers might be in our 'Murica, that doesn't mean that local laws do not apply to Wikipedians in that country. I do hope that this law falls flat and liberty prevails in your fair country my good sir. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The news are somewhat disturbing, but what do you realistically expect us to do? Conquer Italy and change its laws? I think all Wikipedias are located in Florida, so the Italian law has no real effect on the Italian Wikipedia, except for the self-imposed lock-down that its administrators decided, which you can read about in the article I linked to and in the Italian press if you the language skills. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The laws will change again eventually.[160] Doc talk 08:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the protest measure taken by Italian Wikipedia administrators (blank and protect all pages) will be well received by the Wikimedia Foundation, but that's something to be discussed with them, and on Meta if you care enough about the issue. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding enforcing the law against Italian editors, as summarized, the mechanics of what the law dictates is that the web site must make a change when there is an allegation. So the "offense" would be "failure to make the change". Since every Italian could make the change, if they tried instead going after the editors, they would need to arrest the entire Italian population for failure to make the change, including the people who wrote the law. North8000 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 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.

EW at astrology

Resolved

I'm only taking this here because we have an editor who is edit warring very quickly at Astrology and it's getting seriously annoying. I've filed a 3RR report here, and though I have him at 6RR 8rr there, he's actually done quite a few more reverts with this and other edits. Refuses to discuss on the talk page and just keeps going at it. Can we get a bit of admin attention? Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 04:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This account is likely a throwaway sockpuppet so it hardly matters if it's blocked. (I could be wrong, because when a new editor's first two edits are to trivially bluelink their user and talk pages and they immediately display a high degree of proficiency with markup and Wiki-jargon, it's such a promising sign for the future.) The more important point is that Astrology could use many more people looking at it, both admins and ordinary editors. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

YFuture time stamped to prevent archival. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Comment period extended. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Repetition of ethnic slurs on talk page and edit summaries

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.

---

From edit summaries:

(→Proposed wording for rfc: what context of you fucking jew bastard, uttered by our current democrat secretary of state did i leave out?}

(→Proposed wording for rfc: Monkey God, rat bastard, Niggar, faggot, White nationalists)

(→Trivia: typical fucking jew Indian)

From the talk page:

You fucking Jew bastard, Hillary Clinton

• “f***ing Jew bastard” [The Times (London), 18 July 2000]
• “f—–g Jew bastard” [New York Daily News, 17 July 2000]
• “f****** Jew bastard” [The Times (London), 16 July 2000]
• “f—– Jew b——” [UPI, 17 July 2000; euphemized fucking is one hyphen short]
• “Jew bastard” [Reuters, 10, 16, 17 July 2000]
• “Jew bastard” [The Washington Post, 18 July 2000]
• “Jew bastard” [New York Daily News, 18 July 2000]
• “Jew b——” [AP]

Talk:Tea Party movement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darkstar1st continues to repeat ethnic slurs in talk page commentary and edit summaries at Talk:Tea Party movement, for example here, here, here and there are other examples including in the archives. I politely asked him to stop, but he replied, "if i enjoy them, why try to remove them from the page?"[161] Could other editors please explain to Darkstar1st that this editing is unacceptable and could result in a block. TFD (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just like you actually can say "FUCK" on the radio if you're directly quoting someone, I'll ask if the person being quoted actually did say those words. They are not being used against anyone, they're apparently a direct quote of an important individual ... or am I reading it wrong? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of them appear not to be direct quotes, but amalgamations of things said by individuals. Either way I find them in poor taste, but I think that's not an issue in and of itself. What is an issue, from what I'm seeing, is the attitude he has towards repeating them, that he's doing it because he enjoys it, despite the clear disruption it is causing. At the very least a TROUT is in order, if not more.Griswaldo (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

if i enjoy them, why (am i trying) to remove them(the offensive language) from the article? which quote did i get wrong Gris? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

From strictly a policy standpoint, the WP:BLP policy in particular, some of those contentious "quotes" are dubious or merely alleged — and as such, would not be found in Wikipedia article space, so probably shouldn't appear on talk pages either. Other "quotes" are incomplete snippets, or taken out of context to distort their meaning; also attributed to living persons, and thus equally inappropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

the tea party is not a blp and i am trying to remove the words niggar and faggot from the page, not add slurs which appears to be the opinion of the opposition to my edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the article is a BLP or not. Any statements about living persons fall under the BLP guidelines. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

true, so why is niggar and faggot on the tea party article instead of the persons page, or better yet not at all, why is wp publishing these slurs in the 1st place? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be publishing them if they are inadequately sourced, sure, but there's no rule that "slurs" should not be published at all. This is not Whitewashpedia. It depends on the context. Paul B (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Either way, Darkstar is trying get some of the discussed words removed. (as near-irrelevant to / undue in the article) One can't argue that it is an wiki-offense to use them in the talk page while at the same time arguing for their retention in the article! North8000 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This kind of behavior is covered by one of the oldest behavioral guidelines: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Darkstar1st is apparently repeating slurs in order to impress upon everyone with how offensive they are.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is offensive that Darkstar1st continues to repeat these terms, as he has in this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note For decorum's sake I did not repeat Darkstar1st comments. However I am now posting his edit summaries above, which are typical of the phrasing he has repeatedly added to talk pages. Editors may determine whether this type of writing is acceptable. TFD (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to paste all that bigotry here? I'm sure anyone reading this page can find the comments themselves. Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I added it in 9 hours after I posted this discussion thread and it appeared that no one had followed the links I posted. TFD (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, that seems a bit POINTY to me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about the postings by Darkstar1st, the subject of this thread?   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

IANAA but I agree with you that those are also POINTy. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This has sort of turned into a interesting three level situation. So it's:

• OK in the Article
• Not OK in the talk about the article
• OK (here) in the talk about the talk in the article.

?  :-) North8000 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue was raised here because that kind of writing isn't "OK" anywhere — not on the talk pages, article space or in the edit summaries. Repeatedly spewing just select words which, when presented by themselves after being extracted out of context might be considered offensive, is inappropriate. He's been doing it in edit summaries and on talk pages, and fortunately hasn't yet done it in article space. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment It would seem at the very least that TFD has misconstrued DarkStar`s statement here if i enjoy them, why try to remove them from the page It would seem to me that DS is asking TFD that if he (DS) enjoys saying these things then why is he trying to get them removed from the article. And as these words are in the article, then it is obvious they will be discussed on the article talk page. Perhaps they ought be removed from the article and that would be the end of it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD is saying that DarkStar appears to enjoy bandying them about on the talk page to be provocative. DarkStar denies that. Without seeing into DarkStar's soul it is impossible to know which of them is correct, but there is no misconstruction of a statement at all. The statement is Darkstar's denial. The words are in the article because they have been spoken by Tea Party supporters and are alleged by sources to demonstrate racism within the movement. Removing them would be to whitewash away legitimate sourced criticism. We cannot allow people to remove those naughty "bad words" from articles where they serve the explanatory function of showing that someone said them. That would be like removing references to mass murder from the Holocaust article because it is offensive to read about. Paul B (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That mis-characterizes the main debate/situation. But that's a different, much bigger topic. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is familiar from having been on both the same side and opposite sides (e.g. at Libertarianism article) from Darkstar, if one is trying to read motivation from writing style, one must know how Darkstar writes. Throwing out the key (usually very intelligent) thought or example for impact, often with a frustratingly small amount of related words or discussion. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Unless you have some argument, your assertion is as empty as my previous sentence. I've read the last sentence of your second message several times, but still can't understand it. Is there a verb in there? I'm not being pedantic. I genuinely can't tell what you are saying. Both Darkstar and TFD maybe being disingenuous and pointy. Both may be entirely sincere. Either way, the The Last Angry Man's argument that the logical resolution would be to remove the words from the article is...wholly illogical. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The indent suggests that you are responding to my "mis-characterizes" comment, but it doesn't seem to be addressing it. Either way, I should clarify that my "mis-characterizes" statement refers to characterization of the main debate at the article talk page, not to the discussion at this noticeboard. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the original poster's concerns, this complaint doesn't appear to have much to do with article improvement, or even article related content. I see a list profanity and misquotes that another editor keeps inserting into a talk page and edit summaries, with no relevance to the Tea Party movement article. Has this been addressed? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In a related matter, that same editor has reverted attempts to alleviate some of his BLP violations, as in this edit — that appears to me to be more pointy, provocative and unproductive editing. Am I getting the wrong impression? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st continues to add off-topic material to Talk:Tea Party movement. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 5 October 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.

Pro se litigants

• Former pro se 2 (talk · contribs),
• Hopeless2011 (talk · contribs), and long-banned editor
• Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs)

are all making the same comments in regard Pro se legal representation in the United States. I don't have time to put together a formal sockpuppet report, being on my laptop at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Quack, quack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-banned editors warned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The references were actually quoted as well as linked and are newspaper articles, 10th Circuit opinions published on their website, property tax rolls, and city council minutes. Arthur Rubin has repeatedly deleted similar postings while never once offering any detail as to how or why they might be inaccurate. His purpose appears to be to control the content of the article. That is contrary to the stated purpose and guidelines of Wikipedia. Former pro se 2 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Again? This has been going for quite a while (at least since 2008). See much of the discussion in the pro se article talk page archive 4. Absolutely NO QUESTION this is Kay back to try again. WP is not a personal soapbox to right great wrongs. Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding opened. Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to enact a community ban to make it easier to block and revert further socks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Rev-Del on a COIN report

I'm really not sure what the backstory is on this, but an IP user has made a COIN report with a You-tube link that is, I believe, an attempt to "out" another account's RL identity. Request rev-del. Don't want to link the vid here, but it's the newest report at WP:COIN. Thanks The Interior (Talk) 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This times in with the Stalking? section above. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's done (I was already on it). But err... check the big red box before adding requests for revdel here again. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted. My bad. The Interior (Talk) 20:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fringe Board Hanger

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here

Check the wikipedia fringe board. This is all the same guy:

• 86.176.222.119
• 86.182.19.180
• 86.177.230.221
• 86.182.191.108
• 86.178.192.40
• 86.182.20.197
• 86.184.85.227
• 86.178.193.2

Hes joined wikipedia to only hang around the wikipedia fringe board calling people "crackpots" and going onto articles calling specific articles he doesn't like "utter crankery" etc then deleting valid references he doesnt agree with, not constructive at all, hes come onto wikipedia to delete articles and bully other users, he has never added anything to wikipedia. Hes also got many other IP accounts atleast another 16 of them check the Wikipedia Fringe Board, some of which he pretends to be a different user, from his posts it even looks like hes talking to himself, he posts on the Fringe board everyday. Clearly a troll account, not constructive, hes also been deleting valid references and lieing about whats in them. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How would you describe this edit, or this one. Could you provide some diffs (click here to see how) to show exactly what you're talking about? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It seems to me that the IP you're reporting (86...) has been fairly constructive in identifying and improving articles which are woefully poorly sourced or outright crankery. I don't see any evidence that he's pretended to be anything other than one user with a dynamic IP, although I'm open to seeing evidence to the contrary.

Curiously, though, when I glance at Special:Contributions/212.219.63.252, I see the original poster removing an apparently reasonable source from a university press and disagreeing with 86... at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Pivar. It looks like you don't agree with this editor on a content matter and are reporting him here as a "troll" and sockpuppeteer (sans any actual evidence) in hopes of getting him sanctioned. I hope that's a mistaken impression. MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is going to want this closed before it WP:Boomerangs back on him. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sucks to be him, then, eh? Looks to me like the Anon-of-many-numbers is making very helpful edits. I'm waiting to hear 212.219.63.252's explanation, see diffs, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to WP:KETTLE. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing this; no admin action is going to be taken. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If I was an admin I would block this troll Special:Contributions/212.219.63.252 for 31 hours, he just posted a link to hivemind on Jimmy's bio talkpage and has now gone of attacking dougweller on another talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the diff of the personal attack on Dougweller, which I removed: [[162]]. I agree that 212 should be blocked for personal attacks and making a frivolous report her on ANI. Boomerang applies in spades. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Davenport (criminal)

Resolved

 – Article moved to a more neutral title, discussion ongoing at article Talk page, lots of eyes on it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In light of the conviction and jailing today of English businessman Edward Davenport on charges of fraud, the page at Edward Davenport (property developer) has so far moved thrice, and is now subject to high levels of anon editting. Kittybrewster moved the page first to Edward Daenport (fraudster) and then to Edward Davenport (fraudster). Following application of a title POV tag and discussion on the articles talkpage by Yunshui, I moved the article to Edward Davenport (businessman). User Kittybrewster then moved it again to its current title Edward Davenport (criminal), to which I have applied a title-POV tag. I am sure that other news stories and hence reliable sources will now appear over the next few days/weeks, but at present on balance of the facts and sources to hand, one act of reported fraud seems not to be reflected in the current title. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I dont think anyone should have moved the article either way without a serious and extended discussion. WP:BLP applies. The current title fails WP:POVTITLE as it stands. But lets just have a discussion before making the move. Fmph (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be moved back to its original location, where it should be semi protected and indef move-protected; and the redirects Edward Davenport (fraudster) and Edward Davenport (criminal) be deleted. (Edward Daenport (fraudster) is clearly a typo, I speedy deleted it as such). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP only requires that things are well sourced, it does not say that negative point of view things cannot be said about a person.--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

have another read of WP:BLPSTYLE why don't you. And WP:POVTITLE. Fmph (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:TITLECHANGES trumps WP:POVTITLE. Changing an article title simply to foment controversy is bad juju. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the news article, "(businessman)" also seems to fail POVTITLE to me. Not saying what the right answer is, but I think "don't describe someone negatively in an article title" may be over-simplistic. We have "Charles Bronson (prisoner), for example. What about solving the issue by researching the subjects full name? --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation page shows four articles bearing the name "Edward Davenport", with this particular person referenced as a "property developer". And researching the full name won't address the recentism of the controversy. As a sidenote, I tried moving it back to "(developer)" myself, but ran into problems, most likely because of pre-existing material at the target. I don't have a lot of experience at page moves, but based on what I came across it'll probably need admin action, if the move back to the original target is what WP:CONSENSUS determines is needed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As a sidenote, a discussion is ongoing on the article Talk page as to what the correct article title should be. I think we can put the ANI discussion on hold until consensus is reached there. It still may need admin assistance to complete a move, should one be needed, but that's in the future. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Pain

Resolved

 – Socks blocked, page protected

On October 1, 206.116.19.28 (talk · contribs) made two edits, both times removing the first two paragraphs of the Pain article (quickly reverted). Since then the two new accounts Alomigor (talk · contribs) and Bananas 77 (talk · contribs) have carried on repeatedly doing the same thing -- they are all obviously the same editor. This appears to me to be deliberate disruption. I am bringing the problem here because there are multiple possible ways of handling it: (1) indef 'em all as voa's, (2) protect the article, (3) run a CU to see if this is part of some obscure vendetta, conceivably against Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs), who has been the most active editor of the article. I will, somewhat reluctantly, notify Alomigor of this section. (The Bananas 77 account is currently under a 24 hour block for edit warring). Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you don't get a quick response here, I recommend WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection for a week or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to leave Alomigor a warning about deleting sourced information from articles as well as a note about the apparent sock/meatpuppetry, when I saw the comment there about this ANI.

I think the accounts could be blocked for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly suggest WP:SPI, the quacking is pretty loud. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked, page semi'd for a week. Not sure if SPI is necessary when it's this obvious, but follow your heart. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- let's see if that takes care of it. Looie496 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Floydian's continued proud violations of WP:INCIVIL and WP:STALK

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.

---

Despite being repeatedly warned on his incivility, User:Floydian has shown no interest in stopping. And despite being explicitly warned to by an administrator to avoid me, User:Floydian will not stop stalking and making personal and uncivil attacks on me wherever he follows me to. I've been very patient with this user for several months but it's now getting ridiculous.

And as you'll see below, he has no respect of administrators who disagree with him.

Starting with this user's multiple failed AfD's earlier this year that I was involved in, in which this user demonstrated some of the most egregious violations of civility I've ever seen, this user suddenly became obsessed with me, hounding me, showing up in discussions about articles that he had absolutely nothing to do with. Throughout his 7 month long obsession with me and interaction with other editors, he has demonstrated complete inability to interact properly with those he disagrees with. This list of his violations is long, but these are only the ones I've come across in just the few minutes of searching.

Incivility

• Here are just some of the amazing examples of this user's incivility at other editors and a couple to me. These are just some, starting from February into this month (September):
  

"are you fucking blind?"

"Use common fucking sense. That is a reason and an argument. Your vote is useless."

"Fucking tards"

"Way for two voters to change it to whatever the fuck they want to, because they're Admins. WHOO!"

"Its admins like you who don't pay attention to the bigger picture that make doing things take twice as long.", "Thanks for wasting time by making assumptions."

"wait...charitable? You're about as charitable as an insurance company!" , "Prove where I lied (but don't copy my post or I'll be an anal retentive prick because I have nothing better to do with my life)"

"are you really that thick?"

"This feels as fruitless as wiping a kittens nose in its pee to get it to stop peeing on the floor. If you can't be bothered to address basic points of debate, including but not limited to understanding what you yourself have posted, addressing points raised by others, and backing up your consensuses, then you are a waste of time."

Hounding and Stalking (and more incivility)

After the proud spree of incivility in the first few diffs above, Floydian began stalking me by showing up in discussions I was involved with that he had nothing to do with.[163][164]. He then showed up on my talk page, again regarding a topic and discussion he had nothing to do with, and just kept on hounding and baiting me, all on my talk page. [165][166][167][168][169][170][171] He just wouldn't go away.

In an apparent attempt to save face, the user inexplicably started an ANI against me for calling his behavior childish in the above exchange, despite him attacking me by calling me "childish" [172] and then "thick". [173] In that ANI, administrator Chris Cunningham/Thurmberward closed the ANI with no action but appropriately warned us to avoid each other.[174]

Since that ANI last April, with the exception of one AfD on a road [175] (I have a long history of strong interest in transportation articles), where user Floydian strangely attacks my "honesty" [176], I have managed to stay away from him. User Floydian on the other hand has repeatedly violated the administrator's notice in his own ANI and has continuously been hounding me. Just after that AfD he dropped in on Talk:News International phone hacking scandal (a topic obviously having nothing to do with roads which make up a majority of his edits) right after I made a comment there just to counter my opinion. [177][178] (His opinion was almost unanimously out of line with consensus). After I made an edit related to the Hollywood Freeway chickens article [179], someone quickly started and AfD on it and he immediately jumped right in to advocate its deletion.[180] (with the exception of a SPA, his opinion again was unanimously out of line with consensus).

The final straw came today after I created a stub for Hollywood Walk of Fame honoree George Hicks (broadcast journalist) where I removed a prod and began collecting citations to place in the article. Floydian jumped in out of nowhere and drops this foul language-laced attack on the article's talk page, the very first edit on it. When called on his stalking and his uncivility, his response was:

"once again you just say a bunch of nothing, and do a bunch of nothing, at the same time. What a great contributor!"

While noting that adding citations is always good to any editor, it's clear this user's sole motivation was to hound and harass me instead of improving the article. As of writing this user has made zero improvements to it. (I've made great improvements to it.) I'm tired of contributing and having to worry about his guy who is obviously monitoring my history page and has no sense of civility and boundaries, from jumping into articles I'm working on or discussions I'm involved with to throw attacks at me. My toleration for this is over. It's disruptive, immature and and at best extremely bad form.

Conclusion

What's terrible about his editor is that he thinks his uncivil behavior is perfectly fine.

For the first two diffs above, when called on his incivility by several users [181][182][183], he not only didn't apologize but actually doubled down. His response was most telling about his view of Wikipedia's civility policies.

“ I will continue to use profane language as I please, there is no rule against that (or can you provide to the contrary?) ”

[184]

And he stuck to his proclamation.

As administrator User:Fastily stated about his incivility in Floydian's failed RfA (have a read, it's quite amazing) which was almost unanimously opposed due to his incivility, "Many users have been blocked for much less." This user has been called on his behavior for the last several months by several administrators and users and yet he has not stopped. Clearly this user has not learned anything about civility in the last year. Nobody has ever been blocked for disagreeing with other users, but profanity laced personal attacks and hounding on this project should not be tolerated. Let's finally demonstrate that our rules against stalking, harassment and incivility are valued. Otherwise this user will continue with this poor behavior and others won't be deterred from it.

Feel free to delve deep into the evidence, diffs and histories and come to your own conclusion. Thank you for reading.--Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Aside: I assume you mean User:Floydian - on at least three cases you mentioned User:Floridan. I presume those were typos? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate it.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been complaining about this for some time. Why was this not resolved in April? Doc talk 06:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my response in the ANI started by Floydian against me. It hasn't been resolved because Floydian has ignored that ANI closing Admin's suggestion for us to avoid each other. Also his incivility was not scrutinized there so he just continued with it. I wished this was all done, but alas.--Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a "civility" block based on a pattern of incivility - I wish you luck in that endeavor. Doc talk 06:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• What does a bunch of evidence from months ago show? I've actually taken many steps to improve my civility since a failed RFA in the late spring; I have completely cut out my use of foul language (though Oakshade would like to consider words like "hell" and "damn" as foul, we don't live in the 1950s), completely toned down my edit summaries, and disengaged myself from most drama (where possible). I still tell people when they are being poor editors, but that is far from incivility - that is factually based, and telling someone that the edits they make are doing more harm than good is not personal, its part of building a good encyclopedia.

I'm assuming this report is a result of my posts at this talk page. As an aside, Oakshade regularly accuses people of OWNership, as you'll see in his generous collection of evidence, yet treats any interaction I have with him on articles he's created as stalking. Back to that article, Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia, makes no attempts to improve them, and fights vigorously against those who try to encourage him to include a source or write more than a sentence before hitting submit. Many of his articles are taken to AFD where the community's time is wasted for seven days because nobody wants to do the work that the initial creator should have done in the first place (WP:DEADLINE applies here in my mind). But I digress; after avoiding this editor for at least 3 months, I brought in a source to the talk page of their recently created article and asked them, for the love of god, to please include a source and do a little more research. The reason I found the page was because of the PROD placed upon it. Anyways, I don't feel Oakshade has any case here, and so I don't plan to reply any more beyond this once. Just the same thing as months ago, with the exact same evidence, and half a year of separation between then and now.

And as a last point, you added just over 11000 bytes of data in the edit to make this complaint (though as has been mentioned, most of that is probably copied directly from the report in April). Meanwhile, you added 1300 bytes of content to an article. This provides a value many like to refer to as the content : drama ratio. For what really should be a non-issue, you have spent far more of your time focused on this than benefiting Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You say you have taken steps to improve your civility. I find the following edit summaries contradict that statement:

• once again you just say a bunch of nothing, and do a bunch of nothing, at the same time. What a great contributor! from 28 September
  
• Soon I'll just get your whole university blocked from editing :)
  
• Dummy edit to give dummy IP a hard time when they try to hit undo
  

I also find your response to this report contradicts that statement as well; Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia. I draw attention to the fact that my own ban history was gained through far, far fewer "incidents" and far far less serious reasons. I cannot believe that after the first list posted above, this user has not been blocked. Colofac (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we can't point out when we think someone is not providing a net benefit, then slowly the encyclopedia will be taken over by entropy. I'm sorry if people take it personally, but perhaps those people should double their effort and prove otherwise instead of taking it as an insult against their character. It's not. It's an observation based on the concrete content that you submit in the form of text, nothing more, nothing less.

The edit summaries you've cherry picked are certainly taken out of context. Perhaps read into them and the surrounding edits before jumping to conclusions? Please observe the history of that IP over the past 3 months and you'll see that yes, a rangeblock for their school is soon to be necessary.[185][186][187]

And if you think calling such a persistent vandal a "dummy" is an attack or personal assault, well, then you don't have a lot of hours logged to Wikipedia. Dealing with clever vandals over the course of three months, regularly trying to mess the articles you've committed a lot of time to, then YES! You become frustrated! Calling a persistent vandal a dummy is well-earned on the vandal's part, and I can't lower myself to the social interaction of a McDonalds Playplace, treating even the most extremist of people as fine and dandy. Vandals are vandals, I'm sure the verbal pain I cause them will be absorbed. As for the first summary, that's exactly the problem with Oakshade - Sooner than taking a source that I offered, along with my observation of Oakshade's persistent creation of two sentence unsourced stubs instead of taking the initial time to create an infomative and sourced article, he accused my of stalking, acting in bad-faith, and reported me here. You tell me where the good-faith was broken in that chain. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling someone a "dummy" is very much a personal attack. For someone who feels they can talk about logged on hours, you of all people should know this. Short articles are not "dismal", in fact, would you post the links to short articles the editor has created on my talkpage so that I can edit them to make them better? Calling all their edits "dismal" is uncivil and bad faith. I'm gonna advise you to drop your line on "worth" and "benefit", it is shockingly arrogant and totally unnecessary. I would rather short articles than that attitude. Colofac (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am very much surprised to see you attacking Floydian for incivility. Does this mean we are not going to see anything like this from you in the future (maybe I missed where you conceded that it was wrong and undertook not to repeat it -- it's hard to stay up to date when people keep purging their own talk pages), or are you just being hypocritical? Hans Adler 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, have your own history Hans. Things like calling people "pedants" for example. Hypocrisy can be called both ways here. Colofac (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you are just being hypocritical. Thanks for the clarification. Hans Adler 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because the way I see it, you decided to hound me first, despite your own actions. Hypocrite. Colofac (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In 2009? On Talk:Leeds by referring to a group of people you identify with as pedants? I couldn't help noticing that you were using Twinkle by your 8th edit. Anything to declare? Hans Adler 22:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I please block User:Hans Adler, User:Colofac, and User:Floydian for personal attacks on each other? --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a big leap of a judgment call, seeing as I'm not part of whatever they've got going on above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - This was archived due to 24 hours of no activity. It's restored here as this should have a definitive ending (block, warning, Floydian's behavior warrants no action, etc.).--Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No response means nobody feels any action is warranted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but there were already responses including two advocating your blocking, and while 8 days of no activity might be definitive, 24 hours isn't.--Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment tl;dr. This seems more suited to a user conduct RFC anyway. --Rschen7754 02:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 13#Birchmount Road, I stated about nominator Floydian, "Statements such as, "I very much doubt Oakshade's 'honesty' " should have led the closing admin to understanding the nomination in general as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the reliance of other editors on the statements of the nominator as misplaced."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• This case is very depressing. Despite the stringent language in Wikipedia policies WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL, it appears that in practice no administrator is willing to enforce them. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Yep, the entire state of the ANI board is very depressing. Loads of admins are little more than passive but arrogant couch potatoes themselves who fail to block even the most arrogant (ab)users like User:Floydian. I think a week-long ban is in order. I'm sorry, Floydian. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I think you'll find it's because the vast majority of admins aren't going to issue a civility block unless there's a recent, persistent pattern of serious incivility, and (except in the most egregious cases) evidence that it has continued after at least one warning. At the moment, the evidence amounts to three diffs of very minor incivility (if indeed they are even incivil) presented by an editor who is not exactly averse to producing such edits themselves. If anyone wishes to open a user RFC then that is their prerogative, but this is going nowhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:03, 2 October 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.

Post-close comment

Sorry for commenting here after the section has been closed, but I don't think it can go to the archives in its current state. The section was started by User:Colofac, a 'new' user of less than 350 edits. Here is an incomplete list of some ofthe user's activities so far:

• Edit #3 [reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apl.de.ap&diff=prev&oldid=446839542] a bad but apparently constructive edit from a school IP. Edit #4 reports the IP at AIV for blocking. This was declined.
• Edit #6 is a templated vandalism warning.
• Edit #7 is a WikiLove message to User:Mann jess.
• Edit #8 is the user's first Twinkle edit.
• Edit #11 restores presumably correct, but unsourced, information about Jews in Catalonia after a Spanish IP who doubted it has removed it. Edit #12 is Twinkle giving automatic vandalism warning to the IP. [188]
• Edit # 21 supports someone's block at ANI.
• Edit #22 advises on ANI to report someone to AIV for blocking.
• Edit #25 self-reverts via Twinkle as vandalism.
• Edit #27 is a weird test edit to the Sandbox ("blood leaking from their vagina").
• Edit #32 supports someone's block at ANI.
• Edit #51 aks for page protection at RPP.
• Good report of sock drawer / vandal Pokemonblackds at AIV and ANI.
• Edit #83 asks for a page creator's block at AfD.
• Edit #90 is an outspoken comment at ANI. [189]
• Edit #29 removes an expletive from Muslims Against Crusades, expressing sympathy with the vandal. [190]

The point where I first became aware of this user (but did not get involved) was WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Flood of usernames with "NNU" and random numbers. Colofac opened that ANI report drawing attention to a large number of similarly named accounts of students of Jiangdu middle school in China. Colofac asked if there was a way to "stop this", expressing concern that the students might "try and push their vile propaganda through the site". In this context, Colofac had nominated an article with clear and obvious claim to notability for speedy deletion [191] and removed the automatically generated (by Twinkle) welcome message on the creator's talk page with the edit summary "removing unintended welcome. I'm not here to welcome." [192] This led to the user's first and so far only block. [193]

I am not sure who this is, but based on the edits I am pretty sure it must be a returning user, most likely a blocked one. Maybe someone recognises this English nationalist from earlier interactions? I don't recognise him, although his attack on me with a 2-year-old diff suggests I have met him before under an earlier account of his. In any case this user is clearly not a net benefit. As far as I'm concerned further discussion can wait until the account has started editing again, but somehow it didn't seem right to keep the section closed after an admin has asked for insane civility blocks for everyone, apparently without any proper research.

I have not examined the diffs presented by Colofac against Floydian in any detail, for a simple reason: If we allow incivility reports against 20,000-edit users (Floydian) by severely incivil 350-edit accounts (Colofac) to be anywhere near successful, we are setting ourselves up for extreme chaos. Hans Adler 12:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Is User:Oakshade the same person as User:Colofac? The initial report above complaining of Floydian's behavior was written by Oakshade who has made about 11907 edits. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Two very different editing styles. I think Hans eyes just tricked him, but the rest of the post should be taken into consideration. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a header for this post-close discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and run the checkuser if you are so confident. It would seem Hans has a personal vendetta against me. You should know that once the checkuser has failed to make any connections, I will be opening an arbitration case against you. Colofac (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need to show that previous dispute resolution (WP:DRN, WP:RFCU) has been attempted first. An arbitration case without those steps will inevitably be rejected. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just predicting the inevitable failure of those processes. Maybe too hastily. Colofac (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's your arbitration that would fail.... But if you look before you leap and scratch a face off, you'll see that Hans didn't suggest a check user, but rather another editor did. You're hanging out the bait (that is your aggressive assertions) to get a reaction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you say so. I will begin communicating with checkusers now. Colofac (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my confusion, though I am sure I am not the only one to blame here. The initial report by Oakshade was formatted very, very badly. With two sub-headings before the user's signature it's easy to make a mistake when trying to figure out who created this report. Colofac's overreaction to this distraction didn't help either. Hans Adler 15:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As the WP:CIVIL and WP:STALK violations were so numerous and extensive, this needed to be broken up into sections for readability just like most artciels and RfCs are outlined with several sub-headings. If it was all bunched up into one paragraph, that would've been much worse. If you got suggestions that address your concerns if this needs to be brought up again (let's keep our fingers crossed it doesn't), I'm happy to read them. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ludwigs2, User:HiLo48, User:Tznkai and Talk:Pregnancy.

I have edited pregnancy in the past, and opined repeatedly on images in the article. While reviewing the talk page, I saw that there was a request for an uninvolved administrator to close an rfc, and further there was some... unproductive discussion going on. So I yelled at the two culprits that seemed obviously at fault. This turns out to have been a mistake and the conflict wandered onto my own talk page. As far as I can tell, the overall problem is:

• The pregnancy image is divisive, and has become for a proxy contest about Censorship!!!!
• RfC is a process that invites conflict
• HiLo48 has been kind of a dick to Ludwigs2
• Ludwigs2 has decided that gives Ludgwigs2 license to hat posts that are, in Ludwigs2's opinion, unhelpful, and will not be dissuaded from this.
• Their fight has managed to frustrate me to the point where I want to indef them both and melt the servers.

So, since I'm obviously incapable of handling this myself, I'd like some help, to sort out who needs blocks, trouts, or other solutions as necessary, including myself.--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to notify at the time I posted, did so here and here, adding myself to thread title.--Tznkai (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not censored vs. No gratuitous images, just like in the Rfc and completely off topic HERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just one comment: WP:NOTCENSORED. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I think Tzn's looking for something a little more... helpful. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC) {ec}But this is gratuitous nudity. The picture of the human penis passes muster because that's what the article's about. An article about pregnancy has no reason to put a photograph of a totally nude woman right at the top of the article. Yopienso (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Honest to goodness, if this thread causes a fight about Censorship!!!111 on ANI I will find a way to melt the servers down.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Be aware of the NLT rule. (No Liquidation Threats). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) The photo is beautiful, very tame by internet standards, and actually shows what a pregnant woman looks like. Educational, not gratuitous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) You mean it shows what a nude pregnant woman looks like, right? And that seems to be kind of their point. What does being naked have to do with pregnancy? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I would think that at your age you'd know how these things worked. You see, the mommy and the daddy... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I knew someone would try that joke.......even if it isn't accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Ok, this is NOT the place to re-fight the Rfc. Seriously. ANI is NOT for content disputes, so please both of you (and anyone else who is tempted) take all that stuff to the talk page of the article. Tzn has asked for admin assistance with editor behavior problems; if you can help, do so. If you cannot, then fine, but do NOT re-ignite the argument here on ANI. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I missed the point. Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that while I will happily trout myself for my behavior on large portions of that page (I despise losing my temper like that), I wouldn't do so for the {{hat}}tings and {{nono}}s. I was very careful only to obscure comments that were unnecessary and insulting (such as being called unwise, unproductive, or other such comments directed at me as a person), and did it primarily so that I wouldn't feel the need to challenge them, which would only serve to create more conflict. It seems a small enough price to pay for peace on the page, though I understand the frustration of not being able to get one's licks in. In fact, I opened a question on this over on wp:AN just before this notice was posted, because it would make my life (and everyone's lives) a lot nicer if this were an accepted practice. --Ludwigs2 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the latest personal attack and left a general warning, naming the last two offenders (the one who made the attack and the one who edit warred to restore it.) Hopefully they'll take my advice for a nice cuppa tea and come back more civil. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Ludwigs; Stick to talking about the article from here on. I'm not asking you to be the poster child for AGF but I am expecting you to follow TPG. Please post a diff here immediately if anyone else starts making remarks about other editors. Do not reply; do not engage; do not hat. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Floydian's continued proud violations of WP:INCIVIL and WP:STALK

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.

---

Despite being repeatedly warned on his incivility, User:Floydian has shown no interest in stopping. And despite being explicitly warned to by an administrator to avoid me, User:Floydian will not stop stalking and making personal and uncivil attacks on me wherever he follows me to. I've been very patient with this user for several months but it's now getting ridiculous.

And as you'll see below, he has no respect of administrators who disagree with him.

Starting with this user's multiple failed AfD's earlier this year that I was involved in, in which this user demonstrated some of the most egregious violations of civility I've ever seen, this user suddenly became obsessed with me, hounding me, showing up in discussions about articles that he had absolutely nothing to do with. Throughout his 7 month long obsession with me and interaction with other editors, he has demonstrated complete inability to interact properly with those he disagrees with. This list of his violations is long, but these are only the ones I've come across in just the few minutes of searching.

Incivility

• Here are just some of the amazing examples of this user's incivility at other editors and a couple to me. These are just some, starting from February into this month (September):
  

"are you fucking blind?"

"Use common fucking sense. That is a reason and an argument. Your vote is useless."

"Fucking tards"

"Way for two voters to change it to whatever the fuck they want to, because they're Admins. WHOO!"

"Its admins like you who don't pay attention to the bigger picture that make doing things take twice as long.", "Thanks for wasting time by making assumptions."

"wait...charitable? You're about as charitable as an insurance company!" , "Prove where I lied (but don't copy my post or I'll be an anal retentive prick because I have nothing better to do with my life)"

"are you really that thick?"

"This feels as fruitless as wiping a kittens nose in its pee to get it to stop peeing on the floor. If you can't be bothered to address basic points of debate, including but not limited to understanding what you yourself have posted, addressing points raised by others, and backing up your consensuses, then you are a waste of time."

Hounding and Stalking (and more incivility)

After the proud spree of incivility in the first few diffs above, Floydian began stalking me by showing up in discussions I was involved with that he had nothing to do with.[194][195]. He then showed up on my talk page, again regarding a topic and discussion he had nothing to do with, and just kept on hounding and baiting me, all on my talk page. [196][197][198][199][200][201][202] He just wouldn't go away.

In an apparent attempt to save face, the user inexplicably started an ANI against me for calling his behavior childish in the above exchange, despite him attacking me by calling me "childish" [203] and then "thick". [204] In that ANI, administrator Chris Cunningham/Thurmberward closed the ANI with no action but appropriately warned us to avoid each other.[205]

Since that ANI last April, with the exception of one AfD on a road [206] (I have a long history of strong interest in transportation articles), where user Floydian strangely attacks my "honesty" [207], I have managed to stay away from him. User Floydian on the other hand has repeatedly violated the administrator's notice in his own ANI and has continuously been hounding me. Just after that AfD he dropped in on Talk:News International phone hacking scandal (a topic obviously having nothing to do with roads which make up a majority of his edits) right after I made a comment there just to counter my opinion. [208][209] (His opinion was almost unanimously out of line with consensus). After I made an edit related to the Hollywood Freeway chickens article [210], someone quickly started and AfD on it and he immediately jumped right in to advocate its deletion.[211] (with the exception of a SPA, his opinion again was unanimously out of line with consensus).

The final straw came today after I created a stub for Hollywood Walk of Fame honoree George Hicks (broadcast journalist) where I removed a prod and began collecting citations to place in the article. Floydian jumped in out of nowhere and drops this foul language-laced attack on the article's talk page, the very first edit on it. When called on his stalking and his uncivility, his response was:

"once again you just say a bunch of nothing, and do a bunch of nothing, at the same time. What a great contributor!"

While noting that adding citations is always good to any editor, it's clear this user's sole motivation was to hound and harass me instead of improving the article. As of writing this user has made zero improvements to it. (I've made great improvements to it.) I'm tired of contributing and having to worry about his guy who is obviously monitoring my history page and has no sense of civility and boundaries, from jumping into articles I'm working on or discussions I'm involved with to throw attacks at me. My toleration for this is over. It's disruptive, immature and and at best extremely bad form.

Conclusion

What's terrible about his editor is that he thinks his uncivil behavior is perfectly fine.

For the first two diffs above, when called on his incivility by several users [212][213][214], he not only didn't apologize but actually doubled down. His response was most telling about his view of Wikipedia's civility policies.

“ I will continue to use profane language as I please, there is no rule against that (or can you provide to the contrary?) ”

[215]

And he stuck to his proclamation.

As administrator User:Fastily stated about his incivility in Floydian's failed RfA (have a read, it's quite amazing) which was almost unanimously opposed due to his incivility, "Many users have been blocked for much less." This user has been called on his behavior for the last several months by several administrators and users and yet he has not stopped. Clearly this user has not learned anything about civility in the last year. Nobody has ever been blocked for disagreeing with other users, but profanity laced personal attacks and hounding on this project should not be tolerated. Let's finally demonstrate that our rules against stalking, harassment and incivility are valued. Otherwise this user will continue with this poor behavior and others won't be deterred from it.

Feel free to delve deep into the evidence, diffs and histories and come to your own conclusion. Thank you for reading.--Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Aside: I assume you mean User:Floydian - on at least three cases you mentioned User:Floridan. I presume those were typos? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate it.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been complaining about this for some time. Why was this not resolved in April? Doc talk 06:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my response in the ANI started by Floydian against me. It hasn't been resolved because Floydian has ignored that ANI closing Admin's suggestion for us to avoid each other. Also his incivility was not scrutinized there so he just continued with it. I wished this was all done, but alas.--Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a "civility" block based on a pattern of incivility - I wish you luck in that endeavor. Doc talk 06:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• What does a bunch of evidence from months ago show? I've actually taken many steps to improve my civility since a failed RFA in the late spring; I have completely cut out my use of foul language (though Oakshade would like to consider words like "hell" and "damn" as foul, we don't live in the 1950s), completely toned down my edit summaries, and disengaged myself from most drama (where possible). I still tell people when they are being poor editors, but that is far from incivility - that is factually based, and telling someone that the edits they make are doing more harm than good is not personal, its part of building a good encyclopedia.

I'm assuming this report is a result of my posts at this talk page. As an aside, Oakshade regularly accuses people of OWNership, as you'll see in his generous collection of evidence, yet treats any interaction I have with him on articles he's created as stalking. Back to that article, Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia, makes no attempts to improve them, and fights vigorously against those who try to encourage him to include a source or write more than a sentence before hitting submit. Many of his articles are taken to AFD where the community's time is wasted for seven days because nobody wants to do the work that the initial creator should have done in the first place (WP:DEADLINE applies here in my mind). But I digress; after avoiding this editor for at least 3 months, I brought in a source to the talk page of their recently created article and asked them, for the love of god, to please include a source and do a little more research. The reason I found the page was because of the PROD placed upon it. Anyways, I don't feel Oakshade has any case here, and so I don't plan to reply any more beyond this once. Just the same thing as months ago, with the exact same evidence, and half a year of separation between then and now.

And as a last point, you added just over 11000 bytes of data in the edit to make this complaint (though as has been mentioned, most of that is probably copied directly from the report in April). Meanwhile, you added 1300 bytes of content to an article. This provides a value many like to refer to as the content : drama ratio. For what really should be a non-issue, you have spent far more of your time focused on this than benefiting Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You say you have taken steps to improve your civility. I find the following edit summaries contradict that statement:

• once again you just say a bunch of nothing, and do a bunch of nothing, at the same time. What a great contributor! from 28 September
  
• Soon I'll just get your whole university blocked from editing :)
  
• Dummy edit to give dummy IP a hard time when they try to hit undo
  

I also find your response to this report contradicts that statement as well; Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia. I draw attention to the fact that my own ban history was gained through far, far fewer "incidents" and far far less serious reasons. I cannot believe that after the first list posted above, this user has not been blocked. Colofac (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we can't point out when we think someone is not providing a net benefit, then slowly the encyclopedia will be taken over by entropy. I'm sorry if people take it personally, but perhaps those people should double their effort and prove otherwise instead of taking it as an insult against their character. It's not. It's an observation based on the concrete content that you submit in the form of text, nothing more, nothing less.

The edit summaries you've cherry picked are certainly taken out of context. Perhaps read into them and the surrounding edits before jumping to conclusions? Please observe the history of that IP over the past 3 months and you'll see that yes, a rangeblock for their school is soon to be necessary.[216][217][218]

And if you think calling such a persistent vandal a "dummy" is an attack or personal assault, well, then you don't have a lot of hours logged to Wikipedia. Dealing with clever vandals over the course of three months, regularly trying to mess the articles you've committed a lot of time to, then YES! You become frustrated! Calling a persistent vandal a dummy is well-earned on the vandal's part, and I can't lower myself to the social interaction of a McDonalds Playplace, treating even the most extremist of people as fine and dandy. Vandals are vandals, I'm sure the verbal pain I cause them will be absorbed. As for the first summary, that's exactly the problem with Oakshade - Sooner than taking a source that I offered, along with my observation of Oakshade's persistent creation of two sentence unsourced stubs instead of taking the initial time to create an infomative and sourced article, he accused my of stalking, acting in bad-faith, and reported me here. You tell me where the good-faith was broken in that chain. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling someone a "dummy" is very much a personal attack. For someone who feels they can talk about logged on hours, you of all people should know this. Short articles are not "dismal", in fact, would you post the links to short articles the editor has created on my talkpage so that I can edit them to make them better? Calling all their edits "dismal" is uncivil and bad faith. I'm gonna advise you to drop your line on "worth" and "benefit", it is shockingly arrogant and totally unnecessary. I would rather short articles than that attitude. Colofac (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am very much surprised to see you attacking Floydian for incivility. Does this mean we are not going to see anything like this from you in the future (maybe I missed where you conceded that it was wrong and undertook not to repeat it -- it's hard to stay up to date when people keep purging their own talk pages), or are you just being hypocritical? Hans Adler 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, have your own history Hans. Things like calling people "pedants" for example. Hypocrisy can be called both ways here. Colofac (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you are just being hypocritical. Thanks for the clarification. Hans Adler 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because the way I see it, you decided to hound me first, despite your own actions. Hypocrite. Colofac (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In 2009? On Talk:Leeds by referring to a group of people you identify with as pedants? I couldn't help noticing that you were using Twinkle by your 8th edit. Anything to declare? Hans Adler 22:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I please block User:Hans Adler, User:Colofac, and User:Floydian for personal attacks on each other? --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a big leap of a judgment call, seeing as I'm not part of whatever they've got going on above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - This was archived due to 24 hours of no activity. It's restored here as this should have a definitive ending (block, warning, Floydian's behavior warrants no action, etc.).--Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No response means nobody feels any action is warranted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but there were already responses including two advocating your blocking, and while 8 days of no activity might be definitive, 24 hours isn't.--Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment tl;dr. This seems more suited to a user conduct RFC anyway. --Rschen7754 02:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 13#Birchmount Road, I stated about nominator Floydian, "Statements such as, "I very much doubt Oakshade's 'honesty' " should have led the closing admin to understanding the nomination in general as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the reliance of other editors on the statements of the nominator as misplaced."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• This case is very depressing. Despite the stringent language in Wikipedia policies WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL, it appears that in practice no administrator is willing to enforce them. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Yep, the entire state of the ANI board is very depressing. Loads of admins are little more than passive but arrogant couch potatoes themselves who fail to block even the most arrogant (ab)users like User:Floydian. I think a week-long ban is in order. I'm sorry, Floydian. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I think you'll find it's because the vast majority of admins aren't going to issue a civility block unless there's a recent, persistent pattern of serious incivility, and (except in the most egregious cases) evidence that it has continued after at least one warning. At the moment, the evidence amounts to three diffs of very minor incivility (if indeed they are even incivil) presented by an editor who is not exactly averse to producing such edits themselves. If anyone wishes to open a user RFC then that is their prerogative, but this is going nowhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:03, 2 October 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.

Post-close comment

Sorry for commenting here after the section has been closed, but I don't think it can go to the archives in its current state. The section was started by User:Colofac, a 'new' user of less than 350 edits. Here is an incomplete list of some ofthe user's activities so far:

• Edit #3 [reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apl.de.ap&diff=prev&oldid=446839542] a bad but apparently constructive edit from a school IP. Edit #4 reports the IP at AIV for blocking. This was declined.
• Edit #6 is a templated vandalism warning.
• Edit #7 is a WikiLove message to User:Mann jess.
• Edit #8 is the user's first Twinkle edit.
• Edit #11 restores presumably correct, but unsourced, information about Jews in Catalonia after a Spanish IP who doubted it has removed it. Edit #12 is Twinkle giving automatic vandalism warning to the IP. [219]
• Edit # 21 supports someone's block at ANI.
• Edit #22 advises on ANI to report someone to AIV for blocking.
• Edit #25 self-reverts via Twinkle as vandalism.
• Edit #27 is a weird test edit to the Sandbox ("blood leaking from their vagina").
• Edit #32 supports someone's block at ANI.
• Edit #51 aks for page protection at RPP.
• Good report of sock drawer / vandal Pokemonblackds at AIV and ANI.
• Edit #83 asks for a page creator's block at AfD.
• Edit #90 is an outspoken comment at ANI. [220]
• Edit #29 removes an expletive from Muslims Against Crusades, expressing sympathy with the vandal. [221]

The point where I first became aware of this user (but did not get involved) was WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Flood of usernames with "NNU" and random numbers. Colofac opened that ANI report drawing attention to a large number of similarly named accounts of students of Jiangdu middle school in China. Colofac asked if there was a way to "stop this", expressing concern that the students might "try and push their vile propaganda through the site". In this context, Colofac had nominated an article with clear and obvious claim to notability for speedy deletion [222] and removed the automatically generated (by Twinkle) welcome message on the creator's talk page with the edit summary "removing unintended welcome. I'm not here to welcome." [223] This led to the user's first and so far only block. [224]

I am not sure who this is, but based on the edits I am pretty sure it must be a returning user, most likely a blocked one. Maybe someone recognises this English nationalist from earlier interactions? I don't recognise him, although his attack on me with a 2-year-old diff suggests I have met him before under an earlier account of his. In any case this user is clearly not a net benefit. As far as I'm concerned further discussion can wait until the account has started editing again, but somehow it didn't seem right to keep the section closed after an admin has asked for insane civility blocks for everyone, apparently without any proper research.

I have not examined the diffs presented by Colofac against Floydian in any detail, for a simple reason: If we allow incivility reports against 20,000-edit users (Floydian) by severely incivil 350-edit accounts (Colofac) to be anywhere near successful, we are setting ourselves up for extreme chaos. Hans Adler 12:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Is User:Oakshade the same person as User:Colofac? The initial report above complaining of Floydian's behavior was written by Oakshade who has made about 11907 edits. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Two very different editing styles. I think Hans eyes just tricked him, but the rest of the post should be taken into consideration. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a header for this post-close discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and run the checkuser if you are so confident. It would seem Hans has a personal vendetta against me. You should know that once the checkuser has failed to make any connections, I will be opening an arbitration case against you. Colofac (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need to show that previous dispute resolution (WP:DRN, WP:RFCU) has been attempted first. An arbitration case without those steps will inevitably be rejected. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just predicting the inevitable failure of those processes. Maybe too hastily. Colofac (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's your arbitration that would fail.... But if you look before you leap and scratch a face off, you'll see that Hans didn't suggest a check user, but rather another editor did. You're hanging out the bait (that is your aggressive assertions) to get a reaction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you say so. I will begin communicating with checkusers now. Colofac (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my confusion, though I am sure I am not the only one to blame here. The initial report by Oakshade was formatted very, very badly. With two sub-headings before the user's signature it's easy to make a mistake when trying to figure out who created this report. Colofac's overreaction to this distraction didn't help either. Hans Adler 15:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As the WP:CIVIL and WP:STALK violations were so numerous and extensive, this needed to be broken up into sections for readability just like most artciels and RfCs are outlined with several sub-headings. If it was all bunched up into one paragraph, that would've been much worse. If you got suggestions that address your concerns if this needs to be brought up again (let's keep our fingers crossed it doesn't), I'm happy to read them. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ludwigs2, User:HiLo48, User:Tznkai and Talk:Pregnancy.

I have edited pregnancy in the past, and opined repeatedly on images in the article. While reviewing the talk page, I saw that there was a request for an uninvolved administrator to close an rfc, and further there was some... unproductive discussion going on. So I yelled at the two culprits that seemed obviously at fault. This turns out to have been a mistake and the conflict wandered onto my own talk page. As far as I can tell, the overall problem is:

• The pregnancy image is divisive, and has become for a proxy contest about Censorship!!!!
• RfC is a process that invites conflict
• HiLo48 has been kind of a dick to Ludwigs2
• Ludwigs2 has decided that gives Ludgwigs2 license to hat posts that are, in Ludwigs2's opinion, unhelpful, and will not be dissuaded from this.
• Their fight has managed to frustrate me to the point where I want to indef them both and melt the servers.

So, since I'm obviously incapable of handling this myself, I'd like some help, to sort out who needs blocks, trouts, or other solutions as necessary, including myself.--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to notify at the time I posted, did so here and here, adding myself to thread title.--Tznkai (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not censored vs. No gratuitous images, just like in the Rfc and completely off topic HERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just one comment: WP:NOTCENSORED. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I think Tzn's looking for something a little more... helpful. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC) {ec}But this is gratuitous nudity. The picture of the human penis passes muster because that's what the article's about. An article about pregnancy has no reason to put a photograph of a totally nude woman right at the top of the article. Yopienso (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Honest to goodness, if this thread causes a fight about Censorship!!!111 on ANI I will find a way to melt the servers down.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Be aware of the NLT rule. (No Liquidation Threats). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) The photo is beautiful, very tame by internet standards, and actually shows what a pregnant woman looks like. Educational, not gratuitous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) You mean it shows what a nude pregnant woman looks like, right? And that seems to be kind of their point. What does being naked have to do with pregnancy? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I would think that at your age you'd know how these things worked. You see, the mommy and the daddy... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I knew someone would try that joke.......even if it isn't accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Ok, this is NOT the place to re-fight the Rfc. Seriously. ANI is NOT for content disputes, so please both of you (and anyone else who is tempted) take all that stuff to the talk page of the article. Tzn has asked for admin assistance with editor behavior problems; if you can help, do so. If you cannot, then fine, but do NOT re-ignite the argument here on ANI. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I missed the point. Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that while I will happily trout myself for my behavior on large portions of that page (I despise losing my temper like that), I wouldn't do so for the {{hat}}tings and {{nono}}s. I was very careful only to obscure comments that were unnecessary and insulting (such as being called unwise, unproductive, or other such comments directed at me as a person), and did it primarily so that I wouldn't feel the need to challenge them, which would only serve to create more conflict. It seems a small enough price to pay for peace on the page, though I understand the frustration of not being able to get one's licks in. In fact, I opened a question on this over on wp:AN just before this notice was posted, because it would make my life (and everyone's lives) a lot nicer if this were an accepted practice. --Ludwigs2 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the latest personal attack and left a general warning, naming the last two offenders (the one who made the attack and the one who edit warred to restore it.) Hopefully they'll take my advice for a nice cuppa tea and come back more civil. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Ludwigs; Stick to talking about the article from here on. I'm not asking you to be the poster child for AGF but I am expecting you to follow TPG. Please post a diff here immediately if anyone else starts making remarks about other editors. Do not reply; do not engage; do not hat. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD

User:Cydevil38 is repeatedly reverting edits on the Korean particles article, and refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion by listening to the arguments of others. I have reminded the user repeatedly regarding WP:BRD, and that discussion on the talk page to gain WP:CONSENSUS is a better alternative to the slow edit warring that has been taking place (and slow edit-warring is still edit-warring).

This user is repeatedly removing the Hanja from the page that I created a few days ago, which is disruptive and irritating. Long story short, the Korean language uses two writing systems: Hangul most of the time, and Hanja (in conjunction with Hangul) in certain circumstances, such as legal documents and published academic works (for example, the Constitution of South Korea is written in Hanja). I originally included the Hanja within the article as examples of text, so that the article would be more informative. To account for two different possible ways of displaying Korean orthography, the article contains example texts written in two lots: one entirely in Hangul, the other in Hangul-Hanja mixed script, in a similar manner to how Chinese linguistic pages are glossed with Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese, Serbian pages are glossed with Cyrillic and Latin alphabet, Mongolian with Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet and Mongolian script, and so forth. This user insists on eliminating all instances of Hanja, claiming that they are "unnecessary" diff, despite that it is well known even in Korea that Hanja is an indisputable part of the Korean language (see [225], [226], [227], [228], [229]). I interpret this as a form of nationalistic WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an attempt to downplay the usage of Hanja in Korean; no other editors have shown dissatisfaction over the content of the article except for this one editor.

I have provided detailed explanations on the article talk page concerning my rationales for writing the article the way I wrote it; Cydevil38 avoids the question whenever he or she is able to, and makes the false assumption that I am trying to force Chinese language into the article (note that Hanja ≠ Chinese; one is a writing system, the other a language), which makes no sense at all (the Japanese language uses Kanji, but that does not make it any more "Chinese"). As a linguistics-related article, the purpose of the article is to inform with as much detail as possible, and inclusion of Hanja does not thwart that; rather it makes reading all the more educating. There is absolutely no reason why this dispute should exist at all; it is essentially a non-issue being inflated by one very stubborn editor. This user has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and as shown by their confusion between language and script, I don't think they have the WP:COMPETENCE to be editing a linguistics-based article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit more complex to separate the use of Chinese characters per se from both Korean and Japanese since both of those languages are in some way derived from Chinese, but that's neither here nor there. --Blackmane (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples of academic publications published in Hangul-Hanja mixed script:

• 漢文讀法에 쓰여진 韓國의 角筆符號口訣과 日本의 오코토點의 비교, 2003
• 韓國精神文化硏究院 新刊案內, 1985
• 韓國의 古代 漢詩 硏究를 통한 東아시아 춤의 理解, 2009
• 국제근로계약(國際勤勞契約)의 준거법(準據法)에 관한 한국(韓國)과 중국국제사법(中國國際私法)의 이동(異同), 2010
• 전후기 (戰後期) 한국농업문제 (韓國農業問題) 의 성격변화 (性格變化) 와 정책대응 (政策對應), 2006
• 韓國의 土活字印刷術에 관한 硏究, 2008
• 한국선시(韓國禪詩)의 발달사(發達史), 2006
• (特輯): 제 12 회 법을 통한 식민지배; 법 (法) 을 통한 일본 (日本) 의 한국식민지배 (韓國植民支配)-제 2 차 (第 2 次) 한일협약 (韓日協約) 후의 민사법 (民事法) 을 중심으로, 2007
• 한국(韓國)의 회사법(會社法) 개정내용(改正內容)에 대한 개관적 소개 -2009 한양대,간사이대 공동발표회에 부쳐, 2009
• 연구논문(硏究論文) : 한국(韓國)의 수출함수(輸出函數): 수출단가(輸出單價)와 수출물가(輸出物價)의 비교(比較) 및 효율적(效率的) 공적분추정법(共積分推定法)의 이용(利用), 1995

These are just the tip of the iceberg. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't be taking any administrative action in this since it might look like favoritism, but as for the content issue I think Cydevil38's reverts have no justification (there is no reason to remove what he is removing). It also looks to me like he has not made a genuine attempt to resolve the issue without edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hanja is not used that much in Korea anymore. Its use is commonly limited to the odd advertisement and sometimes in the newspaper if there is an ambiguous word. Compared to 50 years ago when newspapers were at times 80% or more hanja. It's an unnecessary duplication of content to give Hanja that most people would never see. I'd also question why your "new" article links to sections on wiktionary that don't exist. Every link you've added has a #japanese section attached to it. I'd question why they're there at all. wikipedia is not a link directory and we're not supposed to be linking to external links in the main article text anyway, let alone creating some kind of link farm to wiktionary. I'm also not sure what the basis of an encyclopedic article is here. It seems to be little more than content that is appropriate for wiktionary. You've included no content here that would push this into the realm of encyclopedic article, and it's not a list of things that we'd otherwise have articles on. If this is the extent of the article, I'll go ahead and redirect it because it is nothing more than a language how-to guide.--Crossmr (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The links to Wiktionary are not my fault; they're part of the template, used for uniformity between Japanese particles, Chinese particles and Okinawan language#Particles. And no, redirecting on your part would not be a helpful solution because the article demonstrates grammatical particles used in the Korean language, and is not a how-to like you claim. Other linguistic articles similarly employ the use of textual examples to bring ideas across; this is more or less a standard across many linguistics articles. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you choose to use the template? They're poorly used, and in fact even more broken on the Chinese articles as they actually go to a Japanese section. Blaming the template is hardly a good defence. If the template is broken, fix it or don't use it. It's bad enough that we try and turn some of these articles into an advertisement for wiktionary that we have to turn around and link to the wrong things on top of that. Seee WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I see no compelling argument that this isn't a how-to article. There is absolutely no encyclopedic discussion of the particles at all. This is WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTADICTIONARY.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Copula (linguistics) uses example sentences in Georgian, Spanish and various other languages, to demonstate the copula. Predicate (grammar) uses example sentences in English to demonstrate the predicate. Japanese particles uses example sentences in Japanese to demonstrate various Japanese particles. Would it be more constructive to view Predicate (grammar) as a WP:HOWTO article on how to use predicates in English, or would it be more constructive to view it as a lingustics article that explains an important aspect in the English language? Everything can be viewed in two or more ways, it's just that out individual attitudes determine which path we pick. Claiming WP:HOWTO isn't the best way to fix this situation; if you really are that uncomfortable with the article and its lack of detail outside of the list of particles that use the examples, then WP:SOFIXIT - expand the article and add a better introduction and sections of detailed prose; the article is unfinished (I never said it was complete, did I?), and prior to it being an actual article, Korean particles was one of those highly sought-after articles that didn't exist. I've started the article, using the format and structure based on the Japanese particles page; anyone can finish it, so why not let it be you? Would it be more constructive for the encyclopedia to burn the half-built house down, or to actually finish the house?

>Did you choose to use the template?
What do you mean, "did I choose to use it"? Would you rather me waste three times the man-hours fiddling with wikisyntax and end up with a page that's ten times less aesthetically appealing and ten times more messy? Do you "choose" to use the {{Infobox Korean name}} template when creating articles too? Your question is quite odd. A template is a template; it makes articles better whilst making composition easier and work less tedious.

I also think you have your policies confused: WP:NOTADICTIONARY does not apply, as this isn't a one-word article about that word; whilst the, thou and fuck are words notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles and contain encyclopedic material, many are not notable and WP:NOTADICTIONARY is supposed to address those cases. Linking to Wiktionary is not a crime, and linking to any other cross-project page is not a crime; your accusation of "advertising" is quite absurd. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, all this talk about HOWTO and whatnot does not belong here at ANI. The focus here is edit-warring; if you want to discuss HOWTO, take it to the proper place, that is the article talk page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it takes a minimum of 2 to engage in that edit war. You've tried to paint the edit war with a certain light to make your edits look fine, but frankly I don't think they are. I would note that you also engaged in edit warring over removing this edit [230] which frankly is also inappropriate. These articles have absolutely no relevance to the article in question. See also are for topics that provide further insight and are related to that topic. They are not. Those pages provide no further information on Korean particles. Your argument still seems to be one mainly of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. The current article in its current form is nothing BUT example sentences. As you haven't even expanded it beyond that by one sentence, I can't see the compelling reason for having this created in the first place.--Crossmr (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so I've painted the edit war in a certain light, and I've been a participant in this edit war. This was a bad action that I have done, and like all human beings, I do bad actions. I admit that I might have been guilty of violating WP:EW due to my harsh overreaction based on a mixed feeling of emotions, like humans do, and as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community I should not have been doing that. I did before I thought, and this is my fault. However, can you address what I have explained regarding the use of Hanja within academic texts? The examples are right there in front of you. Why is it still being insisted that Hanja is nonexistant and extinct, when there are passages and links right in front of everyone? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the decline in Hanja use, that is only for mainstream texts such as newspapers, magazines, signposts, et cetera. Reports made by lawyers and the like are still required to use the Hanja script. Even taking mainstream texts into consideration, 50 years isn't that long ago. The decline of Hanja gradually took place over the 1970s, and today your everyday text uses mostly Hangul. However, as a comparison, on mainland China Simplified Chinese surplanted Traditional Chinese since 1956, much earlier than the demise of everyday Hanja, yet Traditional Chinese is still recognised in linguistics and glossed alongside Simplified Chinese in many contexts. From the beginning of Hangul during the era of King Sejong in the 1400s to the demise of Hanja in the 1970s, Korean mixed script for vernacular writing has had a much larger timeframe than Traditional Chinese characters being used in Vernacular Chinese text on mainland China, beginning from the May Fourth Movement and ending in 1956 when the simplified script was officially enforced by the PRC government. Korean mixed script was born earlier than Traditional Vernacular, and "died" (though that's not the right way to describe it) much later as well; even though widespread usage is not the case today, it is still a) linguistically relevant to the study of the Korean language, b) undeniable that it was once (i.e. 50 years ago) the standard way to write Korean, and c) still used even today in academic and legal areas. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Korea!=China. I know China has tried to change that once or twice, but in fact these are two different scenarios. Standard Hanja usage is only to use it ambiguous words, in this case, you've chosen to use it in several non-ambiguous words. As for BRD, you've only just created this article, you were bold in inserting unnecessary hanja, and it was removed there was no consensus for its inclusion and yet you reverted it. The article was not around long enough for the status quo to be the inclusion of Hanja.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What you have said is only the case for things such as newspaper reports, when homophones are disambiguated with Hanja. Have a look at [231]; this published paper on economics uses Hanja for many nouns and verbs, irregardless of whether there are homophones or not. An example sentence from this link is "즉 輸出單價를 EG方法으로 推定한 경우에는 非彈力的인 것으로, 輸出物價를 이용한 경우에는 單位彈力性을 갖는 것으로, 그리고 效率的 推定法을 이용한 경우에는 매우 彈力的인 것으로 판명되었다."

Alright then, let's play along with what you've said. Even if that were so, your claim "you've chosen to use it in several non-ambiguous words" does not entirely hold true. For "저것이 漢江이야" used within the page, I could argue that it is homophonous with "저것이 韓江이야". Same goes for the personal name 正男; what separates his name from other names such as 正南, 正嵐 or 正藍? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the meaning of the word "several". I said "several" as in "many" not "all". The first three I checked are not ambiguous. That is several. If you're genuinely using any words which are ambiguous you can distinguish them with an in-line hanja as the newspaper does. Its completely unnecessary to repeat the sentence just to change a couple jamo to hanja. As for the template, if you want to give the page a certain look either use/build a correct template, but trying to shoe-horn in an incorrect template, as has been done on Chinese particles does not benefit the article. Despite all that, I find your edits to this article to be just as disruptive as Cydevil38s. Now further add that to the dancing we've seen here in this thread, and the attempt to mischaracterize his edits to win a dispute and I'm beginning to see a genuine problem. I've noted in the past you've had issues when you get into disputes with people on pages, you've had a couple of wikiquette discussions over your behaviour, one only a few months ago, and I know on another article you were repeatedly warned about your behaviour towards other people whose edits you didn't like. BRD could just as easily apply to you as you were bold in turning this redirect into an article and you had work reverted so you should have discussed it rather than engaged in further reverts.I should also note that you first revert contained this text For native Japanese and Chinese speakers learning Korean, which sounds exactly like a how-to and not an encyclopedic article at all. I would also note that Cydevil fully explained the rationale behind his first two removals before you degenerated to a generic dismissive revert with rev 2 edits: WP:BRD, take it to the talk page. so far everything appears as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So you're right. We need to focus on the edit warring that went on here.--Crossmr (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin trying to make sense of this, could I ask that either of the main protagonists in this thread please make a specific request for admin action? Or failing that could you take this discussion to a different forum? You seem to have moved away from the original complaint about a third editor into a debate which few admins here will be qualified to comment upon. I don't think this is the right place to resolve your disagreement, though I would advise both of you to try and see if you could move some way towards seeing the other's point of view rather than continuing to move away from one another as you are doing. Try and find what you have in common, rather than what separates you! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply put Benlisquare came here looking for a block of Cydevil38, as its the only admin action he could be seeking in this incident. He tried to label Cydevil's edits as disruptive, I've simply pointed out that his edits are just as disruptive, if not more so. An admin should review the behaviour of the two editors and how they've handled the dispute and see if any blocks or other actions are warranted. I'm also suggesting that past behaviour be examined as I'm noticing a bit of a recurring trend with Benlisquare. In the past it's been noted that he's been uncivil and edited inappropriately in these kinds of disputes, and after my examining this, it looks like he's done so again in a round-about way by trying to mischaracterize Cydevil's behaviour. Specifically this edit [232] has a WP:BATTLEGROUND feel to it as he seems to have simply been reverting both edits simply because Cydevil did them. They're two separate issues and he provided nothing in his edit summary to support both actions. He went on to further that with this [233]. There may be WP:OWN issues here as well from the tone he's creating with those edit summaries and the way he made his request here.--Crossmr (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

>it as he seems to have simply been reverting both edits simply because Cydevil did them.
Not at all. Rather, don't you think it's frustrating when someone keeps removing content from an article that you created, and refuses to engage in meaningful talk? There are these strange things called human emotions, and patience is one of them; mine is limited. You seem to sugarcoat Cydeil38's actions, despite that none of his arguments made on the talk page nor in edit summaries make sense at all. I can similarly argue likewise: I've earlier been reluctant to call this out, since I'd definitely been ostracised to hell and back for WP:NPA, but my initial suspicion was that Cydevil38 was the one reverting simply because I was responsible for the article, given our sour history between each other.

>Simply put Benlisquare came here looking for a block of Cydevil38
So I guess they don't give out warnings at ANIs like they used to in the old days, right? Great for you to assume horrible faith. All I am after is that this nonsense ends ASAP, and any form of third-party action is better than nothing at all. This is "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" after all, and we have an incident regarding this article.

>it looks like he's done so again in a round-about way by trying to mischaracterize Cydevil's behaviour
Are you aware of how a discussion works? Party A gives their account of the story, Party B gives their account of the story, and a third party makes something out of the two stories. You shouldn't be expecting either party to give a story that is Fair and Balanced(TM), and if that was the case, I wouldn't recommend a career as a lawyer. Cydevil38 has been notified of this discussion; I find it strange that he has the time to revert after being notified, and doesn't bother to state his part of the story, leaving you to act as his liason officer.

>you've had a couple of wikiquette discussions over your behaviour
It would be great if you'd focus on the now and not the then. Digging up what might have happened between myself and others a few full moons ago isn't helpful towards solving this dispute. Putting most of the blame on me for this dispute is uncalled for as well, and anything that has happened in the past in politically-contentious articles such as those relating to the Chinese democracy movement or the Manchus in China are on a different string to this dispute, which is not even remotely related to politics and the like. Alright then, let's say I have quite a history; that doesn't make Cydevil38 any more angelic either, as both pots and kettles are a dark shade of black. I too can play the "he has a nasty history" ad hominem card; ignoring disputes on Wikipedia (there's quite a number to list), even doing a google search for "cydevil38 -wikipedia" will get you:

• cydevil38 says: (2011/07/01 at 4:30 pm) Chinese will cheat every way they can. This is just more proof. Chinese = cheaters Blacks = rapists Mexicans = theives
• cydevil38 says: (2011/06/29 at 5:52 pm) Chinese are so perverted and gross. They should be so ashamed of themselves. If I were Chinese, I would probably kill myself. Those Chinese gorilla’s just can’t keep their paws off Asian and White women.
• cydevil38 says: (2011/06/29 at 6:01 pm) I agree! Chinese should have a bloody revolution... I think anarchy, poverty, and starvation are better than not having freedom and democracy... I think Colonialism from the West would truly help the Chinese.

In other words, I'm quite appalled at how you're trying to make Cydevil the angel with white wings who is the victim of this current situation, and I am also appalled at how you choose to use the "digging up" card to address this issue. Going for an editor's history does no good towards any discussion, and it distracts from the main problems, as (I hope) I have demonstrated. I do not claim that I am a saint; I am a late-adolescent male who likes to pick drunken fights at a night bar just for the kicks of it (though I'd have no idea why I'd ever want to pick fights on Wikipedia), and I am definitely not a good person by 99% of people's definitions. Neither is Cydevil38 by my definition. I get emotional sometimes on Wikipedia during disputes, sometimes even making rash outbursts, as evident by my past. So does Cydevil38. If he didn't, I wouldn't think that would be what a normal human would be like. Given that I have striven to keep out of any form of trouble on Wikipedia for the past few months (hell, I've even declined an invitation to participate in the Senkaku Islands dispute discussion, as I know I get emotional over politics), I have the intention of the whole "fresh start" shebang, which is one of the things discussed in Wikipedia's core policies. Having you go back to them is somewhat like rubbing salt into an old wound. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm appalled at what Benlisquare wrote of me. I've never written what he claimed I have written. I've never posted on that site. As with the topic at hand, I still see all those Chinese characters as extraneous and not helping out with the readers in getting a better understanding of the subject. Cydevil38 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A name used is quite a significant thing, and by no coincidence they are identical. Put yourself in someone else's shoes, and wouldn't it be your first assumption you'd make upon seeing something like that? Sure, I could always be wrong, but I have a justified suspicion, do I not? And as things currently stand, until proven otherwise I will continue to stand by my suspicions. Though the point of listing the above wasn't to make a "who is good, who is bad" statement; rather it's to demonstrate how digging up one's past to argue in an unrelated dispute is unnecessary. It's also a ponter that neither side can use the "but he's a biased editor" clause, as no side can claim neutrality in this situation, me or you.

And it happened off-wiki and is irrelevant here. Even if it was him. What you've done looks like a borderline attempt at WP:OUTING. I was referring to your on-wiki activites as are clearly documented, and April wasn't that long ago. It shows an on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in disputes. As such, I'm going to be making a request for specific admin action.--Crossmr (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that because a few bad things have happened in the past, that I should never be permitted to make a statement at ANI? That is the impression that I am getting from you. This ANI report isn't as "bad" (I don't even see why it is "bad") as the one above and the one below. It's a legitimate request for third-party action be done in a content dispute. I don't follow your reasoning at all. Are you saying that everything is my fault? WP:OUTING? No personal information was "outed", it does not apply under that context. Calling out an editor's potential attitudes via off-wiki examples is not "outing". It's not like I've leaked addresses, real names and phone numbers, which is what WP:OUTING is supposed to address. Don't mean to make such a harsh assumption, but it appears to me that you'd go for even the slightest detail as an opportunity to strike an attack, using anything as an excuse. What would be anything constructive that might come out of this, might I ask? Disciplinary action for having an opinion? For making a one-sided report on ANI, when according to you I should have made a United Nations Observer's Report on the situation? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have zero evidence that they're the same person. Anyone can copy a username. What I am saying is that in the past you've edited uncivilly and inappropriate in disputes with other editors, you are doing so again and I don't think you should be allowed to continue with that pattern of behaviour. Nowhere did I say that you can't make a statement, what I did say is that intentionally trying to color the debate is also uncivil. You could have posted a neutral request for administrative action but you did not.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"You could have posted a neutral request for administrative action but you did not.-" - alright then, I've made a mistake. Per WP:REDACT, I should be permitted to redact my original talk. Now, if you are willing to move forward and drop all this useless controversy, I can rephrase my original post, and seek for neutral administrative action. I don't see why you should be worked up so much; I don't understand the reason for your frustation at all, and since I would expect you to not be perfect in all your words and actions, I'd likewise like you to have the same attitude. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can redact/retract it if you wish, but that shows a furtherance of the on-going behaviour. In the past two wikiquette examples you did the same thing, offer an apology/retraction, but continue the behaviour in other places. The problem extends well beyond this example.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep claiming that I redact and then continue to a cycle of disruption: Each incident has quite a significant time between each, and since I edit a lot of articles I am destined to come across a lot of disagreements with others - it's inevitable. If humans were hiveminded like ants are, we wouldn't have things such as the Second World War. Each editor ends up with pickles every now and then, and there's no editor that has never had a beef with another editor before. I'm sure even many of our administrators have had really nasty pickles in their time, eventually grew to be more flexible and became better role models for others, and ended up as perfectly normal sysops. Is there a limit to the number of times one can make mistakes? Is there a limit to the number of times one can make apologies? Do I start off with three credits, and once I've used them all up, I have to purchase them from the apology store? This is not the case, on Wikipedia, nor in life. Not just myself, but every one of us. We all have made our mothers upset, have turned up to class late, have ended up in traffic accidents; we have all also apologised to our mothers and lecturers, and to the other parties in traffic accidents. Being a horrible person every day of the week is a terrible thing, and on Wikipedia such behaviour does warrant administrative action. Ending up in a pickle once every few months - the same rate many married couples have arguments over financial issues, the same rate many employers yell at their employees - is not the same. We edit when we feel happy, we edit when we feel frustrated. We aren't all the same all the time. Sometimes we'd never have to see an argument for four months in a row, and sometimes they come one day after the other. If you really see real life as such a perfect utopia, then I am worried about what's going to happen in the future. Many of us are going to find a stable job, get married, get a house, and for those people, they definitely will have couple arguments. But, if a couple starts arguing, do they say "right, that's the seventh time we've argued since our marriage two years ago over finances, I'm going to take you to ANI and get you blocked for a week"? Or does an apology occur, followed by an understanding between the two, and they love each other for the rest of their lives, regardless of how many times this has occurred before? TL;DR, I'm saying that we are all bound to have disputes, on Wikipedia and in real life. It is illogical to expect perfection from every single person. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding >I still see all those Chinese characters as extraneous and not helping out with the readers in getting a better understanding of the subject, then why is Hanja used on Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905, Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910, Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Kim Il-sung, Lee Myung-bak, Sunshine Policy, Grand National Party, Joseon Dynasty, South Korea, Sejong the Great, and List of monarchs of Korea? In those cases, are they "extraneous"? Why does the Korean Wikipedia use Hanja to gloss a lot of terms? In those cases, are they "extraneous"? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you start a content RFC on the article talk page. Get more uninvolved opinions (like crossmrs) and see what consensus suggests. Then, if someone is editing against consensus action can be taken. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for specific adminstrative action

I'm requesting an administrator block Benlisquare for on-going and longterm disruption in disputes he's involved in. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive73#User:Mjroots_and_Railway_electrification_system, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive104#Racist_personal_attack_by_User:Benlisquare as well as being told several times here to tone it down Talk:PlayStation_Portable_homebrew while editing with users he didn't agree with. Add this to the mischaracterization above, which he excuses simply because "he's one side of the dispute" and what I view as a borderline attempt at WP:OUTING by trying to link Cydevil to some racist off-wiki comments that Cydevil is denying he wrote. Benlisquare has no proof they're the same person he's tried to use them in a dispute here. This is extremely disruptive and inappropriate. These incidents all stretch back over 2 years and show a disturbing trend, one that isn't likely to stop at the drop of a hat.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that you are going to get Benlisquare blocked over two impolite comments he made and apologized for—two years ago? Distracting administrators from User:Cydevil38's slow-motion edit-warring, refusal to engage in discussion, and racist comments is not a much more modest task. Benlisquare brought the wrong kind of evidence to ANI—that which answers a content dispute and not a conduct dispute—but Cydevil38's disruption is plain to see in Korean particles' article history and talk page. It is more an issue of Cydevil38's conduct than of content, because Cydevil38 is tendentiously using two falsehoods to edit-war even after acknowledgement and rejection.

1. Cydevil38 refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of Hanja's use in the modern Korean language.

   (The flimsy content rationale for his reverts)

2. Cydevil38 claims that Benlisquare was making a "bold change" in adding Hanja, when Benlisquare actually wrote the article and Cydevil38 made the bold and controversial change by removing the Hanja.

   (The flimsy procedural rationale for his reverts)

It would seem that Cydevil38 is more interested in reverting to his preferred content version than in improving the article, because his behavior (repeated reverting) and arguments (discredited arguments repeated) do not change in response to the intervention of other users. His behavior is not collaborative, and if Cydevil38 continues his reversion without fresh discussion or acknowledgement of plain truths (such as that he was the one making the bold change, not Benlisquare), then he should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Quigley (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think you're going to do much to defend him by trying to misrepresent the evidence? Anyone can clearly see the second wikiquette alert is from only 6 months ago. April 2011. The first one is from 2009. In 2010 he had to told several times on a single article's talk page to tone it down (I haven't looked at any other edits to see if the problem extended further) and then in 2011 he lobs a racially charged term at another user, and now we have him here trying to misrepresent another users edits, and then running off wiki to find unverified links trying to claim the user is a racist. Yes, I do think that deserves a block. As for the content issue, Benlisquare stopped providing helpful edit summaries before Cydevil38 did. One could also say Benlisquare was bold in turning a redirect into an article. Cydevil reverted part of that, and Benlisquare moved into behaviour that appears to be an on-going issue for him. Even if it turns out Benlisquare is right, it doesn't give him a pass on his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As for more recent behaviour, here he is only a few days ago trying to misuse WP:BRD to end another dispute [234]. At this point it seems the map was under dispute and had been changed at least a couple times already.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And as further evidence of the way he inappropriately addresses other editors [235] because to me it is incoherent faggotry that makes no sense at all, doesn't make my top 10 of civil ways to address other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

and here is another fine display [236]. Now that you've prompted me to actually go and have a look, I think I should renew my request with additional vigor.--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Statement by Benlisquare: When was the last time I've even touched Talk:PlayStation Portable homebrew? One year is a very long time: It took one year for the Romans to lose a large chunk of Gaul, and I'm sure one sixth of the lifespan of my WP account and one third of the majority of my active years on WP is quite a significant quantity of time for personal development and change. (check the history; I've only begun to seriously contribute to Wikipedia since 2008; when I first created my account in 2005, it was barely used, sometimes even used for 13-year-old vandalism like all kids do). As for the two Wikiquette discussions, the first was made in 2009, when I was an underage kid. Even scientists have established that the Limbic system of the brain, responsible for emotional impulses, is underdeveloped in teenagers. I don't see why my conduct as a teenage has anything to do with who I am now, as an adult and a full member of society, let alone as a Wikipedia editor. As for the second one, it was a cultural misunderstanding; one thing that is alright with my peers is not alright on WP, and I've learned my lesson - editing Wikipedia is also a learning experience, for all of us. Getting upset and digging up buried incidents is somewhat (but not quite) WP:DEADHORSE - I don't know how to put it, but it's not what I believe is relevant to the current issue. It is a distraction. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when you last touched Playstation Portable Homebrew. The point was it is evidence of on-going behaviour. You've had repeated incidents over the last 2 years where you become uncivil and edit inappropriately in regards to other editors when they make edits you don't like to articles you're editing. The fact that you want to start getting in to the "limbic system" shows me that you're trying to dodge responsibility for your behaviour which gives me even less hope we won't see a repeat of this. Above it was the template's fault that links were broken or that they even existed in the first place, then it wasn't your fault for lobbing a racially charged term at an editor, it's a cultural misunderstanding, now its your limbic system causing you to make mistakes.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, assuming that you are an adult, do you recall doing anything stupid and unnecessary during your teenage years? And don't tell me something like "no, I was a completely perfect and rational individual all my life". In my country, a 17 year old who date rapes a girl gets 6 months community service and a good behavior bond, but an 18 year old who does the same gets 10 years prison and his name on a list. You have no reason to dig up things from a long time ago and use incidents from 2009 them like they are fresh pieces of evidence.

Let me ask you this: Is this really a disciplinary action you are seeking, or is it just revenge for past events? I don't see how it could be the former. Upon being blocked, will I really be thinking "oh dear, I really shouldn't have posted those nasty comments two years ago when I was a teenager, that was terrible of me, and I really need to reflect on what I am doing"? Or is this a kind of wrongdoing that is already acknowledged for a long time? Is there anything constructive that comes from what you are proposing? Does it benefit anything outside of you "feeling a bit better because you got an old bad guy out for a few days"?

In addition, I am still wondering why the liaison officer (de facto, of course) of Cydevil38 is so keen and interested in this particular case, and why Cydevil38 has little to nothing to add. I have great suspicions on this whole issue being a distraction to protect a dear friend, or that this is directed against me because I've done things in the past that has wronged the motherland. Keep in mind that these are only suspicions, not actual accusations that I am pursuing, so you don't have to get trigger-happy and accuse me of WP:ATTACK for that matter.

As for the limbic system, I'm being quite serious here, but you give a tone that makes me feel like you are mocking me. I've done extensive reading on the human nervous system as a part of ny neurology subject at University, and I am being serious that there is a difference in adolescent and adult brains, and I can provide you the dois of published papers if you like. But like the Hanja publications above, I doubt you'll actually read them.

Finally, am I being casted for This is your life or something? Everything from my past is being reported and scrutinized; do I get a down payment from a television station beforehand? Crossmr, humans are dynamic creatures, they change as they naturally develop. Haven't you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Saying "no, you're definitely a crook here on Wikipedia and everything you're saying is an excuse" is bad faith on your behalf. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do have plenty of reason when the complaint being made is about on-going long-term disruptive behaviour. You can't show that without giving diffs from the past. Whether we make mistakes in our youth is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you've had a history of poor interaction with users you disagree with at least as far back as 2 years ago, there is evidence that it continued during the last 2 years, and there are several examples from this year, even as fresh as this incident, and only a couple months ago at that. That is not some isolated incident in the past to be ignored. It is one thing for a user to have an isolated incident years ago, and have years of spotless editing after that. That's distant past not worth bringing up in a fresh dispute. On the other, I've pointed to at least 3 incidents in the last 6 months in addition to the ones going back to 2009, and that's not without taking a hard look at those. What's your excuse for those? Did you limbic system suddenly kick in a month ago? Where was it when you were trying to paint a user as a racist above by linking to unverified off-wiki activity? No, your excuses really aren't holding any water here and it looks like you're trying to pass the buck while continuing your behaviour. And as for revenge, what evidence do you have to support that? About the only place I really recall encountering you that much is on the playstation article and we agreed as much as we disagreed there. That looks like a rather obvious assumption of bad faith on your part.I made the complaint based on the behaviour I observed in this and several other incidents you've engaged in and since I've made the complain I've found even further evidence of your inappropriate and uncivil behaviour towards other users.--Crossmr (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep referring to the racism incident; I've explained myself there, and do not need to repeat myself here. What one word is used everyday where I am from is looked down upon elsewhere. What another word that seems to have a meaning innocent enough ("boy") is actually an ethnic slur in America. As I have said, contributing to Wikipedia is a learning experience. You learn things you do not originally know. This incident is resolved. "Did you limbic system suddenly kick in a month ago?" - are you trying to be funny or demeaning? I'm starting to take offense, this is definitely a mocking tone.

You are quite vocal in your frustration; it isn't that well hidden. I recommend, no, I insist you to have some WP:TEA. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about far more than the racist diff, please see all the diffs above, like this one: [237] and this one [238] were these cultural misunderstandings as well?--Crossmr (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[239] this also seems to be a violation of WP:NPA.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

and this Talk:Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea/Archive_1#My_challenge_to_User:KoreanSentry_to_end_this_nonsense_once_and_for_all is all kinds of inappropriate on several levels, and reeks of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:OWN issues.--Crossmr (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In one and two, I got trolled. It's not an appropriate response, but it is an expected response. I'm sure you'd do something similar, given the right circumstances, though maybe in a different style. Regarding three, it appears you haven't delved further into the situation; that user was genuinely being stubborn. Do I really have to cover it in icing and cherries? I mean seriously, my reply was to his comment that "Australia is a socialist country" - what would you have done? Given him a flowerbed of primroses and chrysanthemums? It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, like hearing "South Korea is a Middle Eastern kingdom" or something. Plus, Arilang1234 has been indef blocked for various reasons including the incident on Boxer Rebellion. Regarding KoreanSentry, when someone claims to be an expert in something, proving otherwise is incivil? As with the earlier one, you have not delved into the situation deep enough, and you are merely making assumptions based on initial outer appearances. That is quite inappropriate in my opinion.

Now, back to the original issue. I still don't understand what I did wrong in my original post for this Hanja incident. What normally happens at ANI is that I'm supposed to go "User A is doing X, Y and Z bad things on article N, and this is seen through U, V and W. This is bad because M." Then, user A is supposed to reply "I'd like to interject. User:Benlisquare is wrong in his statement that I done X; more realistically, I had done G, reason being that H. In addition, my Y is justified in that User:Benlisquare has unnecessarily J and K, which is in violation with WP:ABCDE." Then further discussion occurs involving myself, User A, third parties and an admin.Because Cydevil38 hasn't made the effort to give his account of the story, I'm the bad guy here? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also what do you mean "no"? You are taking a scientific fact and turning into a satire. I've explained that there are biological differences between adolescent and adult brains, and that it isn't justifiable to base what I've done a few years in the past as who I am, and that people are dynamic, not static. You, on the other hand, have turned this into a gag. "Oh no, User:Benlisquare is getting angsty again, it must be his limbic system kicking in! LOL xD!" That is quite insensitive of you, Crossmr. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

From the top of User:Crossmr: "I believe that discussion is necessary for growth of wikipedia. Discussion isn't leaving an opinion and walking away. It requires putting forth that opinion and discussing its place in the greater scheme of things. That means people may not agree with you, and you may not agree with them. The key is to stick to the matter at hand and discuss that." We might not agree on the whole Hanja business, but why cannot we complete the discussion regarding the article at hand first, and have an outcome for that? Why are we being distracted by things I've said maybe 2 years ago, 1.5 years ago, 1 year ago, or in April? Say this talk about me finishes. Are we going to go back to the Hanja business, or are you going to simply leave it hanging? Are you have it closed by default, since all these wrongs things about me have occurred, and hence my ANI does not qualify for discussion?

Blocks are not punitive, as per WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goals. The way you list everything makes it seem to me as if you want me to be punished, because I've done a few things in the past, and I haven't been formally punished for them yet. It's like me stealing candy in third grade, and then in fifth grade another kid makes the statement "Miss, he stole candy in third grade and hasn't been punished yet, I think you should give him a detention". These things are long over, yet you're dwelving on every single one, keyword searching every single one of the posts I've made, nitpicking and cherrypicking for things, for what sake? For the benefit of the project? Because nothing has officially been done, you seek to wrong that right. You don't seem concerned with the wellbeing or improvement of the project, you just want immediate results. That's what I've interpreted. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) No, it's not an expected response. It's expected from you only because you've got a demonstrated history of responding like that to people who oppose you on articles. Your behaviour has been as recent as 3 months ago. If you're going to try and say you aren't responsible for your behaviour then you should be blocked until such a time that you can demonstrate that you are responsible for your behaviour. Your getting "Trolled" or whatever the excuse du jour is is again irrelevant. you are responsible for your behaviour. What I meant by "no" was that I was not just referring to the racism incident as an example of recent behaviour. There are in fact multiple examples of this type of behaviour, hence the reason for labelling it long-term and on-going and hence why your excuses aren't holding water. You've got all kinds of excuses about why you made these various edits, but they're just excuses. No one made you make them. You did them of your own free will. Did you not? As for what's wrong with your initial report, as I said, you misrepresented his edits, as yours were just as disruptive if not more, and frankly with comments like this being written by you [240], I really don't know why you're not blocked already. Meaningful discussion does not mean that users bend to your will. You did just as little listening to his point as you claim he did to yours.

As for blocks being preventative, let's talk about just 2 days ago, can we do that? That last comment you wrote was 2 days ago. The past shows that this is a long-term on-going issue. The comment written 2 days ago shows that it's continuing even now and you need to be blocked to prevent further disruption at this point. The point of the past is to show that this is a well entrenched issue and that this is not just a fresh new issue that has recently come up because of a "bad day" or some other excuse like that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you need to give BRD another read. BRD refers to a previous existing consensus. You are not a consensus you just created that article and as far as indicated none of the content was created through discussion. Had the article sat for months or a year before he edited it, we might consider a consensus existing based on no one opposing it, but it was immediately opposed within a day or so by him. As I noted above, you've tried to misuse BRD in the past to end disputes in your favor.--Crossmr (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am responsible for my behaviour. However you give the impression that nothing is ever forgivable in this world. Regarding [241], how is this blockworthy? He clearly has shown that he does not have WP:COMPETENCE, this is not a personal attack, this is reality. I have repeatedly referred to Hanja, meaning usage in Korean only, but he repeatedly speaks about "Chinese language" and things that are not relevant. What happened two days ago and all the things you are digging up are unrelated, i.e. apples and oranges. You on the other hand are twisting the narrative in a way so that the two are somehow related. You might be even using "disruption prevention" as a facade for a simple, ordinary punishment, and attempting to do so by linking recent events with past events. I think you might be viewing the situation with bias goggles - since I'm such a bad guy, and Cydevil38 is a dear comrade in need, you're selectively seeing what you want to see, and ignoring what you don't want to see. You are arguing that my past behaviour is evidence of a history of disruptiveness that warrants a block? Well might I direct to you Special:Contributions/Cydevil38 and Special:Contributions/KoreanSentry, the two that were involved in my last dispute. What sets these two apart from myself, so that these two are not blockworthy? They clearly are just as incivil and belligerent as I am. Perhaps it's your bias goggles working again. After all, everything is definitely my fault. I'm not going to go as far as to say you're "actively defending your countrymen", but I believe that your bias against me is working in favour of other editors, and that is not fair. Also, consensus being the redirect is your interpretation; my interpretation was that a completely new article was created, irrespective of whether or not a redirect existed earlier or not. Alright, so I might have misinterpreted BRD - is that a blockable offense as well? And before you make the accusation "What do you mean misinterpret? You were clearly abusing it, etc etc", I'd like to affirm that my view of BRD was exactly my view, and not an intentional twisting of it for my own purposes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(od) In addition, the problem is you're selectively replying and answering my questions. You're avoiding my questions that look bad on your proposal, and only replying to the ones that you find fault with. You avoid my points that make sense (you still haven't addressed those academic publications yet), and pile negative upon negative against me to discredit me. Until you specifically address all of my points, don't continue on. It's not honest. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Because a lot of your questions are relevant to the actual discussion. The academic publications are irrelevant to the question of edit warring, uncivil behaviour and generally inappropriate editing in user disputes. That's a content issue relevant for the talk page or an RfC. But again you're back to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This section is a specific request for a block over your on-going long-term behaviour issues. Koreansentry and cydevil38's on-going behaviour issues might be a great topic for another section, but they're irrelevant to your behaviour. Things are forgivable. If you stop doing them. For the last 2 years, you have not stopped doing them hence their relevance and weight on my request. Your actions do not exist in a bubble of "right now" if there is evidence that they're repeated behaviour issues. Yours definitely are. As the discussion continues I can see you assuming more and more bad faith and casting aspersions. You provide no evidence to support your claim that I was seeking revenge, you're now trying to claim that Cydevil is a "comrade in arms". This is a pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND statement, and given how you've acted to opposition to your edits in the past, that may also be an issue for you. As far as I know I've never encountered Cydevil before in my editing. What bias do you think I have against you? Again another unfounded claim. Regarding the comment the entire illustrated "My point/your head" thing was entirely unnecessary and a direct personal attack at Cydevil. do not blindly revert just for the sake of it is an assumption of bad faith, especially considering you did just that when you reverted 2 changes at once. Be aware that WP:COMPETENCE covers a lot of things, including maturity and frankly I'm seeing a distinct lack of it in your behaviour here.--Crossmr (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

>Regarding the comment the entire illustrated "My point/your head" thing was entirely unnecessary and a direct personal attack at Cydevil.
Because Wikipedia is serious business, no fun is allowed? It's not my fault you don't share my sense of humour. "My point going over your head" is a common lighthearted stock phrase which means "you've completely ignored what I've said". I don't see how you can interpret this as a PA.
>do not blindly revert just for the sake of it is an assumption of bad faith
He could have chosen not to revert, and to engage in talk. Following the conclusion talk, he could have edited the page as required. This isn't the first time this user has done this, as this has occurred before in many China/Japan/Korea articles, and I have all the right reason to make such an assumption.
>Koreansentry and cydevil38's on-going behaviour issues might be a great topic for another section, but they're irrelevant to your behaviour.
Great. So when I'm blocked, I guess it's party time, right? No one's going to be there to bother them, since I'll be out of the project! If you truly are a neutral party working hard for the sake of the project, you wouldn't turn a blind eye to other parties, and you would address the problems of all parties. Hence, this furthers my assumption of the bias that you claim does not exist. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Making these kinds of statements with editors you're engaged in a dispute with is not the place to be making them and having fun. You should have learned that by now with your earlier inappropriate comments. It is a sometimes lighthearted phrase, but it is also an insulting phrase which is exactly how you used it when combined with your inappropriate reference to WP:COMPETENCE and other dismissive comments you made in that statement. And you could have chosen not to revert as well. Given your repeated lapses in judgment on how to interact with other users, no I don't think you have all the right reasons to make such an assumption. And did I request an indefinite block? no I didn't. did I say anywhere that because you should be blocked that no one should ever look at their behaviour as well? no I didn't. These are just more bad faith assumptions on your part.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, sorry for making those bad faith assumptions. I thought that you were calling for my immediate removal from the project, and honestly something like that would feel like a shipwreck. As for my behaviour, I'm not saying that users should be overlooking the incivil things that I do; all I'm saying is that I'd like to be able to have the room to say "I screwed up", and then move on. Yes, I do engage in bad behaviour sometimes, but don't we all feel emotionally frustrated every now and then? I'd just like a bit of empathy, and nothing too complicated. I feel as if I'm not being understood by anyone. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have had that room in the past, and it hasn't seem to have made much difference if the last 6 months are much evidence. Hence the reason for this request. You need to find a way to deal with your frustration without lashing out at other users. You can start by taking genuine responsibility for your actions rather than trying to come up with a dozen excuses as to why this one "wasn't your fault". But given how long this has been going on, and the more I look, the more examples I find, I'd like to see some kind of rather strong sign that there is going to be a genuine change here, and I'd like to see you come up with that on your own.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Outside view by Lawrencekhoo: I've just read through this section and reviewed the edits in question, and I would like to propose that:

1. Crossmr stay out of this issue, as he displays emotional involvement and is not helping matters, and
2. Admins who are neither Korean not Chinese, please have a look at Cydevil38's behavior and issue the appropriate warnings, etc, as there is problematic behavior occurring. LK (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you're basing that on what? What evidence do you have that I was ever involved with this issue? To my knowledge i've not edited the article before, and I've used hanja in Korean articles in the past where appropriate. Are you suggesting any editor who has ever used hanja on the wiki should refrain from giving an opinion on the matter?--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its just me, but from reading the tone of your posts, you seem a but frustrated. But then again, reading emotion from text over the internet is definitely unreliable and inaccurate. May I however suggest that we all take 3 days of WP:TEA before coming back? It'll do us more benefit to have WP:COOLer heads, and I don't think any of us are WP:COOL at the moment. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Too long, didn't read summary of points/arguments by User:Benlisquare: The points that Crossmr has brought up all occurred a significant amount of time beforehand, and reporting here is not constructive, but punitive. Yes, many of these points are examples of terrible behaviour on my behalf, however all humans make mistakes, and I should be able to have apologies done in the past, and have them not doubted by editors in the present day. In addition, the events that occured two days ago are not in correlation with past events at all, and the linking between the two by Crossmr is unfair and not honest. In the past, I have made many WP:INCIVIL comments such as "I have fucking had enough, etc etc", however within these recent events (two days ago), I genuinely believe that Cydevil38 does not have WP:COMPETENCE to deal with linguistics issues, and I believe that calling this out does not warrant WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. In recent events, I have violated EW policy, and I admit that. I however do not believe that this should be the main spotlight of this event, and believe that people should look further than that one thing. I have misinterpreted WP:BRD, but this does not except other parties from wrongdoing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  And that's your spin on it and yet another blatant mischaracterization. The latest was only 2 days ago and provided several examples from the last 6 months. That's sufficiently fresh especially when combined with the older examples to show that this is in fact an on-going unchanging behaviour issue on your part. Your allowance to make mistakes does not give you free reign to insult other editors, say sorry, then do it again and again and again.--Crossmr (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have explained some cases. You are projecting the image that I'm the scum of the earth, and that is unfair. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm presenting the case that you've got an on-going behaviour problem that you seem to be refusing to take responsibility for and correct. I've not once said that you are the scum of the earth, nor implied that. That's purely your interpretation and spin. And regarding competence and civility you do read the policies and guidelines you link right? Wikipedia:COMPETENCE#This_essay... While it can be raised on an AN/I thread as an issue with an editor that needs addressing, tossing it around at people is seen as uncivil--Crossmr (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to put it then? I'm curious to know. Is there a standard accepted procedure that's CIVIL and does the job? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If you have a genuine competence issue with a user, you bring it to AN/I and start a general thread for discussion. You don't, in the middle of a dispute, start hurling the essay at him like it's some kind of weapon.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, this makes sense, and I acknowledge that this would have been a better alternative for me to do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Going to need many eyes on the Steve Jobs page. Getting word via Twitter, but nothing I can confirm of course, that he has passed away. Semi-protection might be needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can say that Steve Jobs lost his last job. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That was tacky, Rainbow Dash. LadyofShalott 13:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC news website has it as their breaking news ticker; no linked news item yet. Bencherlite^Talk 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by ABC. Is this enough for a semi-protection? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And confirmed on MarketWatch. I looked at the article, it shows under Semi as of September 15. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I should have noticed that. Thanks Alan :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify (for anyone who hasn't looked yet), Airplaneman reinstated indefinite Semi when the Pending Changes test ended, according to the protection comment. That said, the WP:RS announcements are pouring in thick and fast on the usual channels, so I don't think there'll be any question about sourcing, except how many to attach to the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's up on www.apple.com and on CNN, San Francisco Chronicle and the other SF Bay Area media, etc... 208.185.244.250 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, just when it was first reported, it was just Twitter reports (hence my post), then it was CNN, then TMZ (I guess they are reliable now) and then the others. Finally, Apple posted a short, simple statement on their homepage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Could someone with more image expertise than myself deal with File:AppleScreenshotJobsDied.jpg. It's a non-free image without a fair use rationale and I personally don't think a valid fair use rationale could be written for it. Thanks in advance, Jenks24 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Not only was it not being used, it is also a duplicate of File:Applecom homepage after death of Steve Jobs.png, which is currently in use in the article. –MuZemike 00:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian wikipedia shuts down

See previous discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FYI, see here. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC) See also #Pressing Need: The it.wiki's freedom is under threat!!!, above. lifebaka++ 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Perhaps this is better in other areas, but I read this at the first link: Hence, anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia would have the right for a statement ("correction") to be shown, unaltered, on the page, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents, regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources. This is strictly against a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia overall, that all content must be independently verifiable. If a person who is the subject of an article is given the right - not ability, but right - to have his or her own version published on the site, without a link to a single verifiable source, it can do nothing but ruin Wikipedia. If information published in a biography is verified, it's completely allowed in the article, and no subject should have the right to change it to whatever they want. I'm sure Jimbo will have a comment on this matter as it proceeds through the Italian governmental channels, and if this bill passes, it might be RIP for the Italian Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Check his wikipage User_talk:Jimbo Wales. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Tishrei 5772 05:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It is indeed shut down :( In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I asked the same question here 1. It is documented at this article 2. Adrian (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Yikes. Does this mean the interwiki links to the Italian language version will have to be removed? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:MyMoloboaccount

On History of Wrocław user MyMoloboaccount used Davies' "Microcosm" as the primary source for his edits. I bought the book now and it looks like the majority of his edits aren't supported by the book. I listed them here [242]. Some of Davies' statements are twisted and exaggerated to support MyMoloboaccounts agenda, some facts he doesn't like aren't mentioned, and sometimes the edits of MyMoloboaccount aren't supported by the book at all. Karasek (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience user:MyMoloboaccount (aka user:Molobo) has been pushing his extreme Polish nationalist and anti-German ideology for far too long. My own limited experience of him is that he will use any source he can to denigrate Germans and inflate the importance of Poles. He is an overall liability to the project because of his systematic distortions of facts and sources to pursue his agenda. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That user apparently retired two weeks ago. Go ahead and make any changes you see fit so that the history conforms to the book. I'll add the page to my watchlist and back you up just in case any nationalists (of any variety) crawl out of the woodwork. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stalking ?

Hello, I have a strange problem. I had the "luck" to become new obsession for User:Stubes99. It is about this edit [243], he even went to the trouble of making 2 youtube accounts and a video. Is there anything there can be done against this kind of attacks? Adrian (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's.....disturbing to say the least. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. :) Adrian (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed he sent this to others as well. [244]. Adrian (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting vid. Could anybody check its content? Because Somebody deleted it immediately from my talkpage. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don`t want to be rude, but are you serious? Adrian (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also , can you please stop advertising this "video" and youtube account? Adrian (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, You know the banned User:Iaaasi (alias Samiraj, Keeeeper, Bizovne etc..) is a very clever user.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don`t know what are you trying to do, but looks like Stubes99 managed to fulfill at least a part of his task. NP, If necessary, I will submit to check user to remove your doubts about me... I don`t know about your knowledge about e-mail addresses, but anyone could have wrote that e-mail, and even if the real Iassii wrote it how does that concern me? For an example I could write an email to Iasii saying you are my puppet and make a youtube video. Does that mean anything? Even if that is the reall Iasii e-mail, how can I be responsable what does somebody else write about me? Or next time if an gmail account appear with my username should we take that as real too? Adrian (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Why did you delete my text here? You do not have to worry about this vid if you are 'innocence'.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted youtube video because it is stalking and personal attack on me. It looks like you are block shopping therefore I don`t want to add anymore significance by pursuing this conversation further. Please stop with personal attacks (implying that all this is for real, and that I am a sock/meat puppet) and if you have any doubt about me please submit an SPI case or an ANI report. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here but a basically incomprehensible message just appeared at WP:COIN regarding this situation. See here. OlYeller^Talktome 19:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Stubes99 is bored... Let him have his fun :). Adrian (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing is sure, User:Iaaasi's email address is correct on the vid. [245] and the message was from User:Iaaasi to Stubes99. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Assuming that the claim of the email address was legitimately from the Iaaasi on en (I don't know enough about the history to know the details) - there are three possibilities: (a) The email account is controlled by Iadrian yu, and legitimately makes a sock/meat connection (b) The email account is controlled by Stubes99 (a known sockpuppeteer), and was sent to a secondary email account of theirs so as to allow them to make false claims against someone with whom they have a dispute (c) The email account is not controlled by either person in that dispute - and is Iaaasi trying to cause disruption by making false claims. The video itself does not prove conclusively one way or another towards any of those three options.

Unless a connection can be made via WP:SPI or at the very least WP:The duck test, there's nothing that can be done here - as we don't know at this point which party actually controls the email account. Besides which, YouTube isn't a WP:RS for most article content, and certainly not for blocking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If he'd spent as much time sayyyyy...getting a university degree...just think what good could happen. Instead, immature videos and attacks. What a waste. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The connection between user:Iaaasi and user:Samofi

Can someone verify the contents of this link? This link was posted in an ANI thread, a bit higher up the page with the comment that it contains the correct email address of Iaaasi. It seems that since then someone at the SK wiki tried to destroy the evidence of the connection between the banned user:Iaaasi and user:Samofi, who was already once indefinitely blocked and only unblocked after user:Iaaasi intervened on his behalf. Because now we can only see that an account named "Iaaasi" posted something to an account named "Samofi" at the SK wiki this link, but the contents of these posts are now removed. Because of global accounts we can possibly verify the identities of these SK wiki accounts but the contents are more problematic now. I assume from the higher up ANI thread that this was removed just recently and therefore many people might have seen it, can anyone help and verify it that it was the email address of the banned user:Iaaasi, being posted to Samofi on August 2nd? Is this correct? Hobartimus (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Or at least verify that it was an email address at this link, before being removed, with some accompanying message? Hobartimus (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Improper category inclusion

عمرو بن كلثوم persistently adds category Racism to Meir Kahane article: [246], [247], [248], [249]. I've pointed out to him or her that the inclusion is improper and that the category page itself warns, in bold, "This category is for issues relating to racism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly racist", but my appeal was disregarded. Please take measures. --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• P.S. This user has been warned regarding edit-warring involving the same article a year ago: User talk:عمرو بن كلثوم#October 2010. --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a slow-burn edit war to me. Starting on 27 September, one reversion a day (skipping a day here and there), always restoring the deleted category. It may not bust WP:3RR, but I don't think there's any question as to the intent. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Warned. One more revert would be blockable, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, get a load of that user page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus has already seen it, and all He can do is to shake His head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi there, it seems you are having a discussion here about my edits here, when you can see the edits of User:Vicky Ng at the same article going against consensus at many occasions (see discussion page). This dispute has been judged before as a content dispute see here, and User:Vicky Ng was blocked for one day based on her continuous reverts. I am not here only to keep an eye on this page (which seems the case of Vicky), but I have asked the user in my edit summary to discuss her point of view in the discussion page, which she didn't do, and she ignored such consensus in the past on the inclusion of Kahane in Category:Terrorism. My political contributions are minimal, because of this kind of behavior and edit wars. By the way, you may or may not agree with the facts and quotes on MY user page (mostly facts) based on your political/ethnic origin. Yes, I know talking about Israeli atrocities would unsettle many people in this forum. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this user has been reverting other users referenced contributions based on her political beliefs, not facts. See here, here and here only in this article. She did get a warning a year ago and was bloacked, and I think she deserves a new warning this time too. Do I need to report it in a new section? Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss Palestinian atrocities on your page also. I noticed that you've just passed your 1 year anniversary on Monday. Given your approach, I wouldn't bet the family jewels on your making it to 2. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, things like saying they went mad because their land was stolen, and they have been negotiating with Israel since 1991, to have in return the number of Israeli ARMED (to the teeth) settlers tripling their numbers on Palestinian land and so forth, with no hope for a Palestinian state promised in the same UN resolution that created Israel in 1947. Anyway, this is not the best place to discuss these things now. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If by "this" you mean wikipedia, you're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the correct approach here then would have been for عمرو بن كلثوم to add the racism category or a relevant subcategory to the Kahanism article. It looks like an IP added Category:Neo-Nazism to it back in September which is clearly wrong and hasn't been picked up. Given the nature of Kahanism as an ideology according to RS (including the Israeli state itself) it doesn't seem controversial at all to categorize it under racism or a subcat along with the other -isms and such like in there. The problem I suppose is that although Kahanism is an -ism that could reasonably be categorized under racism according to RS, the Kahanism category currently contains the subcategory Category:Kahanists‎ taking us back to square one, Meir Kahane and others. Perhaps the editors can try to work together to sort that mess out rather than edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at that userpage... also, I also think that the edits constitute a block, he's disrupting the equilibrium of the article. Rory ^{Come for talkies} 07:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything ? I don't care about people's user pages. If a bunch of diehard Kahanists or Hamas supporters want to edit the Meir Kahane article and related articles it's fine as long as they stick to policy. Apparently this user isn't familiar with this aspect of policy so people should help them to become familiar. This isn't about Vicky is good, عمرو بن كلثوم is bad. Vicky's track record on Kahanism related articles isn't exactly ideal either in my view. We could do without this kind of edit for example. I would rather see the users have to figure it out on the relevant talk pages according to policy because everyone has to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take another look at that edit. It reverted vandalism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was but you restored the terrorist label. You could have removed it. Perhaps you didn't see it. It wasn't the first time. These 4 consecutive edits by PersianPBF at Meir Kahane weren't great but they weren't vandalism. One of them simply removed the terrorist label which is consistent with policy but you reverted all 4 changing "shot to death by El Sayyid Nosair" back to "shot to death by the terrorist El Sayyid Nosair". The article is covered by discretionary sanctions so in my view these are less than ideal edits in this topic area. To be fair, in this edit to the lead, you didn't label the gunman as a terrorist, you changed "Kahane was assassinated in a Manhattan hotel..." to "Kahane was assassinated in a Manhattan hotel by an Arab gunman...". It isn't a classification used by either of the sources cited to describe the Egyptian-born American gunman but it is true and has survived in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably just wanted to keep edits separate from what I consider reverting vandalism. I agree that the word terrorist should not have been used in that context. --Vicky Ng (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, since when are Palestinians a "race"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe in 1985 when Israel banned Kahanism for being racist or perhaps in 2001 when the UN described as Kahanist site as racist together with Stormfront and Jew Watch. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The notion of "race" in modern times is getting stretched pretty far. Maybe "racism" carries more emotional impact than "xenophobia" or "ethnocentrism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, reverted and added to watch list. --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Category Racism to Kahanism. Still, didn't see any action against user vicky who just reverts others' contributions explained earlier. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, aka Amr ibn Kulthum, your desired category cannot stand in a biography. Stop putting it there. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Kahanism is an ideology. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add of course that the Meir Kahane article is covered by WP:1RR so عمرو بن كلثوم repeatedly making the same edit, albeit staying outside the 24hr zone, obviously isn't very helpful. عمرو بن كلثوم, please read WP:BRD and the headers at the top of the Meir Kahane article talk page explaining the revert restrictions and the discretionary sanctions if you plan to continue editing these articles. The Kahanism article's talk page doesn't have the headers but the restrictions apply there too. I shall be adding the headers. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Litch, again

Resolved

 – Referred to WP:RFC/U causa sui (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The first ANI report on this user was in July of 2006. I've brought this issue here before and the end result was an only-warning being issued to the user by a non-admin. I didn't think the outcome was adequate given the user's history of blocks for incivility but wasn't willing to push the issue. They have edited my archives, edited ANI archives (a string of 5 edits there), and continue to attempt to insert highly contentious information into TOMS Shoes with unreliable sources. While that's more of a content dispute, every time they add a link, they mark it as an "Undo" of my revision. I've attempted to talk with this editor but it usually results in me being called a coward or being accused of being an employee of TOMS. All I want is to make WP as encyclopedic and reliable as I can as can be seen by my years of service and 10k+ edits and this user, with a background of blocks and incivility, is making that difficult for me. Please help. OlYeller^Talktome 13:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you're trying to show a long-term pattern of disruptive - or at least annoying - editing, is that not what WP:RFC/U is for? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know. I've never had to do much convincing that an editor is violation policy when I have an issue with them. Are you suggesting I take this there? It seems like an easy situation to assess to me but if you need more information, I can certainly write a report like these for you. OlYeller^Talktome 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

...and can I ask why you did not advise the editor of this ANI filing, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm confused, quite frankly. The user has been blocked twice for incivility and has told me to bite him and has called me a coward (I still don't understand why I get that one) on multiple occasions in the links I provided above. That's just towards me. In the same edit he calls most Wikipedians sucks ups and tells another editor to remove the warning from his talk page and to "keep your fish fetishes to yourself" (I have no idea what he's referring to). Is this not a clear case? If there's something I'm missing, please help me to understand. A block seems obvious to me but if you think the editor needs banned, as I mentioned, I'll start the report but I'm not sure if that's necessary. OlYeller^Talktome 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot. I'll notify him now. I'm feeling sort of attacked for reporting incivility. Have I done something seriously wrong here? OlYeller^Talktome 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Notified. OlYeller^Talktome 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Thank you for bringing this up to broader attention. I think Bwilkins only meant to suggest that a request for comment on user conduct might be in order, not that you are in the wrong. causa sui (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong. There are certain policies regarding posting at AN/I (such as notification) and when those aren't completed people tend to get reminded or questioned. I don't think Bwilkins meant to come off as confrontational, it was just kinda quick and to the point. But I know what you're saying, to a newcomer to this board it can seem a little aggressive, it's just part of the AN/I subculture. N^oformation ^Talk 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the ANI archives. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• There is indeed a long-term pattern of abuse and incivility here, with wild accusations strewn about. A final (and only) warning was issued last month, and I think any next abuse (in edit summaries or on talk pages) should be acted upon with an immediate block. In my opinion, there is not enough right now to block, and they seemed to have toned it down some since that warning--and this is not the place to discuss the content of their recent edits, such as this one. Litch would do well, though, to stay away from TOMS Shoes and from OlYeller--but past interactions suggest they don't take advice well. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Drmies probably has this right, but an RFC/U is still a good idea for concerns about such a long-term pattern. causa sui (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Much thanks, folks. I'll start a report. OlYeller^Talktome 20:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging the history of a sub-page in user space into a pre-existing article

If a person wishes to make significant changes to an article one option is to draft a new version in a sandbox in their own user space and then edit the article and copy the new text from their sandbox into the article (the sandbox may or may not be called sandbox but it is a sub-page of the user's user space). When this is done the history of the article records the significant change to the article as one edit.

Nev1 decided that the text of the article White Tower (Tower of London) was inadequate. So much so that Nev1 removed the main link to the "White Tower" from the Tower of London article and then a day and a half later redirected the article "White Tower (Tower of London)" to the "Tower of London" article:

• "Tower of London" Revision as of 13:07, 29 September 2011
• "White Tower (Tower of London)" Revision as of 22:45, 30 September 2011

Nev1 drafted a new article in User:Nev1/White Tower so far so good. This is what any editor can do. However on completion of the new draft, instead of copying the new text into the article, Nev1 choose to merge the two articles together creating a unified history. This has in my opinion had two detrimental effects. The first is that it has interlaced the histories of the earlier part of the user's sub-page edits into the later history of the article page. This has for example resulted in changing the edit history of the article to appear different from what it was. For example a revert of an edit that changed the article into a redirect now looks like the revert of something else. The second problem with this approach is that it looks as if Nev1 was editing and developing the article in article space with no objections. This I think gives a false impression that the edit trail was built up with consent (silence equals consent). In general this type of merge seems like a very dangerous thing to do because we all rely here in ANI and other Wikiepdia forum that the history of an article (with occasional small discrepancies to fix cut and past moves) are an accurate record of changes made to an article.

Over a day ago, I asked Nev1 on Nev1's talk page to revert the merge (Revision as of 11:10, 4 October 2011) Nev1 posted a comment to the talk page after my comment (Revision Revision as of 11:27, 4 October 2011)--so Nev1 has seen the request--but no revert of the merge has taken place.

1. I would like to know what the consensus is at ANI. May editors use administrative functions to merge the histories of their own user space article into the history of an article that already exist, or should they restrict themselves to the tools available to an ordinary user?
2. If the agreement is that administrative tools should not be used to perform this action, then should Nev1 or another uninvolved administrator in this specific case de-merge the histories?

NB just so it is clear I am concerned about the method used to introduce new text, I am not discussing the content of the text (because question one is a general one and applies to any new text moved from a users sandbox into an existing article--We will get sidetracked if we do start to discuss the article's content as content is something for the article talk page not an ANI). As I have already explained on Nev1's talk page, if the article and the sandbox are de-merged Nev1 can instead copy across the text from the sandbox to the article as would be done by a user who did not have access to administrative tools. Once that is done then editing of the article and discussing its content on the article's talk page can resume as normal without the current false history created by interleaving a user's sandbox and an article's history. -- PBS (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am but a lowly non-admin, so I'm not sure how much my opinion's worth, but I'll give my two bob anyway. First, it may be a good idea for someone to ping Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) and Graham87 (talk · contribs) – they are our histmerge experts. To answer your first question, "May editors use administrative functions to merge the histories of their own user space article into the history of an article that already exist", the answer is without a doubt yes. This happens quite often and users who are non-admins are free to ask any admin to do this for them (watch someone like Anthony Appleyard's talk page and you will see it happen fairly regularly). The only proviso is that the draft article and the one that was sitting in article space must not have parallel histories. In this case, there are only two overlapping edits (one by Nev and one by PBS) that make the history look odd. My understanding is that only two overlapping edits would generally be considered acceptable (and if they were irritating someone they could be hidden by revdelete, or deleting the article and then selectively undeleting), because by incorporating Nev's draft a more accurate depiction of how the article was built is given. To answer your second question, a de-merge is a complicated and tedious thing to do (I have seen one take over an hour, but I don't think this case would be as complicated) and I think that in this situation, the positives of keeping the history as is outweigh the negatives when you consider you consider that the current history is a more accurate depiction of how the article was built, only two revisions look odd in the history and de-merges are time consuming. But again, I should probably stress I am a non-admin and I have never performed a histmerge or de-merge. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

From PBS's description, it doesn't sound like there was anything improper about that history merge. It's perfectly fine to merge the histories (and, if more than one person worked on the sandbox version, it is actually required). That's not to say that you can't still challenge (perferably on the talkpage, if they are major) things about the new version with which you disagree. LadyofShalott 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Lady of Shalott, but in the interests of avoiding drama, I went ahead and purged two of the revisions and placed them here. I think we're done here? NW (Talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The point I was raising was a general one that this type of merge is a bad idea as it places a false edit history in to the article and we all rely on accurate histories as an audit trail to make decisions on what did and did not happen in an article. This type of alteration means that we can not trust the history of an article, doubly so if an editor who wishes to look at the history of an article does not have access to administrative tools. Does no one else have an opinion on merging the history of a user sandbox into an existing article? -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In this example case I have presented, I think the edits by you (NuclearWarfare) has now complicated matters because you have moved edits that were part of the article history out of the article and left in other edits. This make the history of the article even further from its original history than it was before. Rather than moving the edits which were in the article history why not move the edits which have never been part of the article's history out and just leave in place the most recent addition from user space? If that were done then if someone wishes to view the additional history they can, but it will not be mixed up in the history of the article, which is the audit trail of the article's development in article space. -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who's "rewritten from scratch" more than a few articles, I would never history-merge an article from userspace - unless it had been worked on by multiple people in the userspace (i.e. to provide proper attribution). If one person worked in the article in their userspace, it should be cut-and-pasted as a single edit into the mainspace article, even if it's been worked on for months and replaces every character in the article. To do otherwise leads to confusion and discussions like the one above. (Now, in the case of multiple people working on a userspace draft, I'm not quite sure about that, but I don't believe that's at issue here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@PBS: I would rather that the edit summaries that explains why Nev chose to make the edits he did be preserved; I think the rationale for each of his edits is far more important to have than a tiny revert war between the two of you. On the off chance that you need it to cite as evidence in an RFC or something, you know where to look. Also...actually, never mind, just forget it. This thread is entirely unnecessary, and I shouldn't waste any more of my time on it. Feel free to revert or modify my actions as you see fit. NW (Talk) 02:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Blusts and Glücksgas Stadium

Resolved

 – Blocked by Bwilkins (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -- NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated re-insertins of unreadable text such as [[250]], and [251] and [252]. User has been asked a few times to explain the purpose of the insertions. This account was blocked in July for the same issue. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it back. They should definitely be blocked, since they're way past 3RR, in spirit if not in fact. Especially since they don't seem willing to discuss the matter. The large amount of non-free images they've uploaded that have been summarily deleted don't help either. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

...and they're blocked: not the first time they have been blocked for edit-warring on this very same article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Yworo

Resolved

 – OP not asking for any admin action Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yworo (talk · contribs) has been editing for over two years, so he's a regular. He certainly should be aware that personal attacks are both unnecessary and destructive to Wikipedia. In a recent discussion on my talk page in which he and I were expressing our opinions about what is considered an acceptable source, he twice (and completely unprovoked) referred to my opinions as "stupid arguments"; see [253]. Now, should he make the argument that he referred to the "argument" (rather than the editor) as stupid, that certainly is splitting hairs. In looking through Yworo's edit history, I don't believe this is the first time he has had an abrasive style in dealing with editors who disagree with him, especially inexperienced editors, the very ones he should avoid even giving the appearance of a personal attack. I hope an admin or someone will have a word with him about this hostile style of discussing issues. I have notified Yworo that I started this thread. Thanks. Irolnire (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If he said you were stupid, that would be a personal attack. Calling an argument stupid isn't saying you are stupid anymore than saying an argument is invalid is calling you invalid. N^oformation ^Talk 18:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is, however, uncivil to call an agrument stupid. 134.241.58.153 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

i agree, pull up your big girl panties and move on, on a separate note, yrowo has been around for awhile, once he tried to ban me and he is a stupid dummie. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...and actually doing a violation of WP:NPA in a discussion about someone else's WP:NPA was not the wisest move ever (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins blocked Darkstar for that remark. Am I the only one who thinks Darkstar was just trying to be funny? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As Steven J. Anderson noted, Darkstar1st was obviously "just trying to be funny". Time to step away from the keyboard, Bwilkins. Deterence ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Deterence, you'll need to do your research before even contemplating posting on this board. Indeed, a quick glance at this history between Darkstar and Yworo shows that Darkstar a) has a history with the user and therefore b) was clearly not trying to be funny (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No issue :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Except this time Darkstar was weighing in on Yworo's side. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? He told one editor to "pull up their panties" and called the other a "stupid dummie [sic]" ... pretty uncivil on both cases, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on all of that. Just that history with Yworo is not interpretive for the comment because Darkstar was weighing in on Yworo's side on this issue. I'm slowly building my Darkstar decoder ring, and I think that the "stupid dummie" was tongue-in-cheek. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

well said North, i was trying to express my exasperation at the word stupid being considered uncivil, in that case my entire childhood was actually uncivil, i heard that word 15 times a day. i thought...by weighing in on the side of of someone i had words in the past, i help the complainant realize yrowo isnt a bad guy and meant nothing by a harmless remark. B, if you have ever blocked someone for less, we would all love to hear, otherwise this will go down as the best block in entire wp history. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it was appropriate for making a sexist remark on one editor's emotional stability, and calling another stupid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Noformaition, and I suspect I'm not alone. Let me extend your line of reasoning to illustrate my point. If you expressed an opinion on a talk page, and my response was "Noformation, that comment you just wrote is the lamest, most moronic, drivel I have ever read", most people would interpret that as a personal attack. Twice telling someone to "stop making stupid arguments and just follow the rules" is exactly the same thing, just not stated quite as boldly. Imagine if every new editor were to be flooded with comments such as "Stop making stupid arguments" or "Stop making such idiotic statements", how would most newcomers take that? Suppose my response to Yworo had been, "Stop expressing yourself like a whiny two-year-old with such insipid nonsense"; would you encourage me to make such response? How long do you think I would continue those sort of comments on multiple talk pages before I got blocked? As I said above, hiding behind the defense that "I said the argument is stupid" is a very thinly veiled legalistic way to attack someone mercilessly and endlessly and then pretend that you're being perfectly civil. Note that I'm not saying that Yworo made a threat, or that he violated any policies other than those pertaining to civility and personal attacks. And I'm not saying that there should be any consequences for his personal attacks beyond someone reminding him that we have policies about civility. You are wikilawyering to an extreme, and if everyone approached civil discussion that way, Wikipedia would quickly descend into a chaotic mess in which WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are nothing more than empty platitudes that in reality have no substance. I don't think that lowest level of interpretation of civility is what has been intended in these policies. Irolnire (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• If I describe this notification as the petty nonsense it so clearly is, am I also guilty of making "personal attacks"? Deterence ^Talk 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Noformation and I know I'm not alone. On the other hand, Irolnire, if you're right about not being alone, that will be established when someone posts here saying they agree with you.

In other news, I notice, Irolnire, that your first two edits were trivial edits to bluelink your talk and user pages, your third was to comment at a deletion discussion, and you found your way to this drama board in less than 20 edits. Now, please, please, please don't take this as a personal attack (please?), but I'm just sort of wondering if you perhaps have gained some experience editing Wikipedia as an IP or even (heaven forfend) using another account that, oh, I don't know, you hadn't used in a while and had, um, forgotten the password to. And maybe it just didn't occur to you to mention this. But I'm not accusing you of anything remotely dishonest or deceptive. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all; I don't take any of your comments as personal attacks or accusations, and you ask reasonable questions. Like many people, I read Wikipedia for a couple of years before attempting an edit. I edited anonymously for a few months, mostly minor cleanup. And I recently registered (as I was strongly encouraged to do so). I've never tried to hide this. But to a large extent, how I got here to this board is beside the point. If I had registered 10 years ago or yesterday, the issues would be the same: civility and personal attacks. And by the way, a comment or two in this section may not have used the phrase "I agree with Irolnire", but I think some senitment about comments such as Yworo's being uncivil has been expressed. In any event, you're right. I think we should see if other opinions are expressed. My only goal was to get this out in the open and let Yworo know about it so that he can know what others think. Irolnire (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I can add my experiences with Yworo. I had a content dispute with him. In all fairness, both Yworo and I were guilty of letting the dispute get out of control. The problem with Yworo is that he personalizes such disputes and can't let go of the personal animosity. He seems to especially harass IP editors. He places warnings and threats on IP talk pages, and then has his talk page semiprotected so the IP can't respond. With me he eventually vowed that he would bring my career as an IP editor to an end. Regardless of whether or not Yworo violates policies, I think he needs to seriously rethink the way he interacts with new or anonymous editors; his tone is very unwelcoming. 174.99.127.49 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no personal attack in the link made by the OP. I myself would not describe anyone's arguments as stupid in either talk page text or edit summaries; I just think it makes for an easier life. But it's not the same as calling an editor stupid. In general my experience of Yworo is of an effective and positive contributor. The example from the IP editor above, when read in full, is an entirely appropriate (if rather vigorous) attempt to handle editing from suspected multiple accounts. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's possible for Yworo to be an "effective and positive contributor" and still make more effort to tone down his abrasive style of communication. I just noticed another message (now removed) to me on his talk page, sarcastically asking me "Assuming you have nothing better to do with your time?". And when he removed my notice about this ANI discussion, he couldn't resist the edit summary "remove pointless drama-queen posts". That kind of personalization of legitimate discussion is entirely uncalled for, even if he is an "effective" contributor. Irolnire (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you Irolnire that less abrasion and more lubrication is always good. It would serve Yworo's own arguments better if they were couched in less friction-inducing language. But I've seen nothing so far that seems to me to need admin action. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I agree that admin action is not necessary, nor is that why I began this discussion. But I do hope that Yworo will take all of these comments seriously, and that if he continues this abrasive style that other editors (not just admins) will try to reason with him. Thanks for your comments. Irolnire (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll mark this as closed then. Please do note the rubric at the top of this page re: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators; in future if you have similar problems they might be better taken somewhere like WP:WQA which is more designed for this sort of thing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)