Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797

Logged out bot?

I think the RfC notification bot is currently editing while logged out; see [[1]]. Is that an error, or am I misunderstanding something? If I understand the instructions on that User talk:2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8, I'm supposed to softblock it to force the bot to log in. But I don't want to mess something up by doing so, so I thought I should ask here first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anomie has softblocked 2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:0/124 which covers that individual IP. Legoktm (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology

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.

---

I am certainly learning about what is considered proper behavior here and what is not. In the future I will never be engaging in debate about other people’s views, only making suggestions for better wording. I abhor a culture where attacking others is acceptable and refuse to ever fall into becoming part of that culture again.

For offending other editors, I am truly sorry. This should be a collaborative effort not a battleground. My intention in coming to ANI was to find a way to reduce conflict, not create additional conflict.

My reading of BLP seems to be at odds with that of some other editors on Wikipedia, but some of the editors most vocal about my understanding have been roundly criticized for their explanations of their understanding of BLP: [2]. I believe strongly that in all places (not just WP) people should not have negative things written about them unless it can be very well sourced and couched in appropriate language and that all people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We also need to be very careful to accurately reflect subject's views and what they say. Misrepresenting a person's views (in an article, or those of another editor) is never a good idea. To the extent that I have not followed BLP as understood by most Wikipedians, I apologize.

For my further education, does anyone want to opinion on this edit [3]and this edit [4]. Is this how we improve articles? Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Those both appear to be the same edits, but it is never appropriate to discuss another editor on an article talk page, no matter what they might have done. That is what user talk pages are for, the article talk page is solely and only for discussing improvements to the article. Apteva (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch Apteva, thanks. I just updated my post with the correct link (1st one) in the chronological order.Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Same problem. On Commons it is absolutely forbidden to name an editor in a section heading. That entire section should be deleted, as it was, six minutes later. Apteva (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And to which I made no objection. Thought I was providing a community service. Didn't know about that rule. Now I do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

[That's a commons rule, and it is so blatantly a violation that it does not even need to be in our guidelines. Commons has next to no guidelines for anything.] Our Talk page guidelines do not say enough about the subject. They leave too much to expectation. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, user talk pages are for discussing user conduct and any content issues that are peculiar to that editor, like above. Basically there are two methods of group decision making, parliamentary and consensus. Neither allow directing comments to or about participants. Parliamentary directs all comments to the moderator/clerk/chair. Consensus directs all comments, even disciplinary comments, to the group, unless the subject is disciplining one participant, such as here. Why is it done that way? Because it works. All of us are participants and all comments are equally important to all of us. Apteva (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that parliamentary procedure does not allow comments on participants. The UK Parliament certainly does, as does the Australian one. They occasionally require a degree of circumlocution (so that I might not be allowed to call Apteva a liar but could quote Winston Churchill and say that I suspect him/her of a "terminological inexactitude") and do require remarks to be addressed to the Speaker or chair, but this didn't bar Margaret Thatcher from describing her opponents as "Frit! Frit!", nor Geoffrey Howe from bringing her down with his resignation speech, nor Julia Gillard from her blistering yet thoroughly parliamentary criticism of Tony Abbott. I'm also not sure that Wikipedia would benefit from requiring me to use phrases such as "I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that" when I could just write "Why do you think that". NebY (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2013 (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.

Request for a DUCK block of User:Jayakrishnan.ks101

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.

---

Can we get a quick DUCK block of

• Jayakrishnan.ks101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

as a sock of blocked

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

*Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk · contribs) Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• a) I'm not blocked. b) This proves that disruptive users can take even senior editors for a ride through impersonation. JK (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. And the masterblock for Gogdygody has been extended to indefinite. Jayakrishnan.ks100 seems to be the victim of an impersonation attempt, see this revert. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Requesting your attention to the accounts,
  • TheRedPenfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • TheRedPenOfDooms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Done De728631 already took care of them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for pointing that out. Blocked indef as possible sockpuppets of Gogdygody, and for misleading usernames. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • sorry i was mislead by spoof name. I will be more careful in the future. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 14 May 2013 (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.

Coordinated vandals at Eugene V Debs

Eugene V. Debs is being repeatly vandalized by three editors (history here [5]). The edits of User:Elijah morton, User:PDavis Million and User:24.117.180.113 are similar and happen close together. I can't keep up with them. Please help. Howicus (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think they've stopped now. I warned Elijah morton again, User:Hmrox warned User:24.117.180.113, and User:PDavis Million didn't edit again. Howicus (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Elijah hasn't edited since their last warning while PDavis has only edited once without warning. The IP hasn't received a note either. In case the behaviour continues, an administrator can take action. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal Threat at Talk:Susan_L._Burke

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.

---

IP made a legal threat here. Will notify IP and place notice on article talk page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked and explained on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:12, 14 May 2013 (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.

Use of RevisionDelete on The Name of the Doctor

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.

---

Plot details for an upcoming episode of Doctor Who, The Name of the Doctor have been leaked, and an anonymous user posted a plot synopsis on the episode's article. This edit was subsequently reverted, and the page semi-protected by User:Black Kite. All well and good, considering the information is unverifiable. But does this really warrant the use of RevisionDelete, again by Black Kite? Keep in mind that this is not a copyright issue, and not a WP:BLP either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipedison1891 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this really need to be discussed? Four days and the article will correctly summarize the plot. Let's just leave this with a "not to be considered a RevDel precedent" note and focus our energies elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(I've undone regentspark's close of this thread) I'd say it needs to be discussed, yeah. Tools like revdelete are used to remove serious policy violations covered by specific criteria, not because "ooh spoilers" - even if they're really popular or dramatic spoilers Or ones that if we prevent them, we'll get bonus extra clips c'mon Moffat pleeeeease. The revdelete tool removes non-admins' ability to track page history, and that's a really valuable element of the wiki software. That's why we use revdelete so sparingly and carefully in the first place, and I'm disappointed to see that going wrong and it being used casually here. I see that BK cited IAR in his deletion summary, but he also seemed to know that his action would be disputed, since he said to "trout him if we wish". IAR, as I wish more people would understand, is not for cases where one knows the action will be contentious and disagreed with - it's for cases where what "the right thing to do" is is so clear that you know that even if it's not in the rules, it's what everyone would agree is the common-sense choice. In this case, that's not true and sets a very strange precedent (even if we wag our fingers and say this isn't a precedent) wherein WP:SPOILER is suddenly routed around and we not only blank spoilers, but we send them down the memory hole. I would support the reversion of this revdelete, whether by Black Kite or by another admin. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake. I used revdelete not because what was posted was a spoiler (actually, it appears to be complete bollocks), but because there was such an internet frenzy off-wiki (involving multiple quite reliable sites posting "look at Wikipedia - it tells you everything!" and pointing to that revision) that all that would have happened was that the "spoiler" would have been re-posted over and over again, probably in even worse English than the first one. We can do without all that, which is why I (a) revdeleted the "spoiler", and (b) semi'd the article. As I said in the revdel summary, if you think I was wrong, undo it and smack me over the head with an enormous fish. But I think I was correct. (Incidentally, the same thing appears to have happened on Template:Doctor Who as well - also revdeleted by a different admin.) Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the revdel largely for the reasons Fluffernutter outlined above. Simply put, we don't revdel spoilers, unless they are sufficiently detailed to rise to the level of a copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works#Avoiding_violating_copyright), which this one was not. There is also a very good reason for retaining it in this case: editors may wish to later base a plot summary on this prior content, and it also aids in investigating the activity of the editor that added it. We never remove content solely to assuage panic by people off-wiki who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I would, frankly, question that this material was removed at all, since it could be verified using the leaked video, but that's another matter. I will also restore the revision in the template. Dcoetzee 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, as I said, we don't use revdel for that reason, but (as I also said about 5cm above) I wasn't revdel-ing it because of that, I was trying to stop disruption of the article, but whatever. Fine. Is it a slow news day today or something? Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I appreciate that your action was made in good faith, valid uses of revdel don't include "there are confused (I'm being charitable here) people elsewhere on the internet". Sorry. — Scott • talk 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The template edits were revdeleted because they were LTA trolling, not because they also happened to contain spoilers. That falls under RD3; good-faith spoiler-posting doesn't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I'll leave those ones alone. I don't support revdel'ing vandalism either, since it complicates investigation of vandal accounts, but those revdels are at least in line with policy. Dcoetzee 21:02, 14 May 2013 (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.

Problematic IP editor persistently adding incorrect information to articles

Over the last few weeks, IP user 2.219.140.198 (talk) has been persistently putting incorrect information into articles. In most cases, this has involved the annual passenger usage figures included in the infoboxes in British railway station articles. Station usage data is published by the ORR and is available on-line: [6]

As an example, the Excel data available at that link gives the official 2011/12 usage figure for Glasgow Queen Street railway station as 20,929,594 (i.e. 20.930 million), yet this IP user has added a range of different incorrect figures to this article alone, as listed below:

• 21.310 million (edit of 15:38, 7 April 2013) [7]
• 20.100 million (edit of 23:07, 7 April 2013) [8]
• 20.100 million (edit of 23:18, 10 April 2013) [9]
• 23.234 million (edit of 22:27, 6 May 2013) [10]
• 23.340 million (edit of 22:52, 13 May 2013) [11]

I have corrected the figure in the above article and have twice warned the user against adding wrong information.–Signalhead ^< T > 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (2nd nomination)

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.

---

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has run over 7 days and requires closure. thanks LibStar (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll close it now. Ironholds (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Aaand done. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2013 (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.

Death of Tia Sharp

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.

---

Per Talk:Death of Tia Sharp, please could an admin rename the article to Murder of Tia Sharp, or lift the move protection. The trial is over and Stuart Hazell was convicted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue. That is what WP:RM is for. Apteva (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, would-be Admins have to show knowledgability of the various WP Fora... but also are expected to be helpful Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 11:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

...helpful AND friendly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the proper term would be "wanna-be". Thomas.W (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2013 (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.

POV pushing Greek users trying to cover up a Greek massacre of Turks during Greco-Turkish war 1919-1922

See the page Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres and its talk page, this article is constantly edited by POV pushing users who are distorting facts, source abusing, making false accusations against the sources and their authors.

The article is about a massacre and dozens of burned villages in a area in modern day Turkey by the Greek army. The users Alexikoua and Athenean are trying to cover up the events, first Alexikoua added the POV tag, I stated that this is not the case, the sources are neutral and based on a third party, the International Allied Commission, then he tried to blame the massacres on the Circassians, to do this he cherry picked a source (different book) where Circassians are mentioned in only one sentence, while in fact the entire report does not mention Circassians at all.

Then he tried to exaggerate the role of Circassians in Greek atrocities, but according to the sources their role was always minimal. Arnold J. Toynbee says the following about Circassian involvement : "At the end of June 1921, a few weeks after that report was written, some of these Circassian mercenaries assisted the Greek chettés and regular troops at Ismid in the massacre of Turkish civilians, on the eve of the Greek evacuation of the town. But so far as I could discover, they played a subordinate part, and there is no warrant for making them the scape-goats for either this or any other Greek atrocity." He is basically trying to deny, justify and minimize Greek massacres of Turks, he shows very non neutral behavior and extreme POV pushing. He finally questioned together with user Athenean the death toll, according to the Turkish document the Inter-Allied report stated 6,000 people were killed, they now attack the author of the document and claim it is not neutral while they do not even can read Turkish, there are other snippet view sources which state 6,000 people disappeared. Still it is clear that hundreds of people were masscred but Alexikoua is now distorting a source and falsely trying to lower the number to 35 (see below for more information).

A longer explanation is written down here I hope admins will read this and stop their POV pushing edits.

Author of the Turkish document is Dr. Nebahat Oral Arslan and she is reliable and not biased at all, Turkish speakers can control the page and see it very clearly. Athenean is just trying to discredit the author without evidence, because she wrote "tyranical" about the massacres, but what he does not realize is that the Arslan source is entirely based upon an Inter-Allied Commission report of 1921, and the report of the war journalist Arnold J. Toynbee, which are online [12]. More importantly KILLING innocent people and destroying whole villages IS TYRANNICAL! So what are you trying to say Athenean? Are you saying those massacres were just? The problem is that there were massacres committed by the Greek army against local Turks in 1921, Athenean together with Alexikoua, are two POV Greek Wikipedia users who are trying to cover up the crimes by making false accusations. They falsely accuse the authors and sources (even tough I provided full English translation) [13], they distort and cherry pick sources (I have explained this in the talkpage: Alexikoua lowers the number of casualties to 35, which is based on an inquiry out of 177 people in a camp in Istanbul. I have explained this 4 times to him, but still he persists on distorting the facts by saying that this is the total number of casualties, which the source doesn't say at all [14] : It is the result of an inquiry out of 177 people. Furthermore we have sources in one individual massacre of a village already exceeds the number 35. But still Alexikoua is persisting on abusing the source and falsely claims that Toynbee puts the total number of casualties on 35 (see [15] ).

Now Athenean is attacking the Turkish author and source just because he doesn't like what is written in it (see [16] While at the same time he eagerly adds information about Greeks being massacred by Turks from an online pdf-document (see [17] which has no footnotes unlike the Turkish source, and which looks much less professional than the Turkish source (see [18] The Turkish document is actually a published study journal from the Ankara University ("TAED Cilt 10, Sayı 22 (2003): TÜRKİYAT ARAŞTIRMALARI ENSTİTÜSÜ DERGİSİ").
Why is Athenean not so skeptical about the French pdf-document? Because he likes the content? (Turks killing Greeks) see [[19]] and apparently this was also cherrypicking because the same pdf-document writes that these numbers were made up and that Gehri doesn't believe these numbers to be true since they came from Greek refugees who call their atrocities against Turks "Selon les civils grecs, l’occupation militaire «faisait le bien des Turcs» et, de toute façon le pays était à eux, car ils y étaient majoritaires, malgré les massacres. En répétant un discours «civilisationiste» qu’ils l’avaient entièrement métabolisé, ces populations tentent de se profiler aux yeux de Gehri comme un élément actif, industrieux et riche, apportant «la civilisation». Et ils ne font aucun mystère de leur objectif de chasser vers l’intérieur de l’Asie «cette race maudite qui, depuis des siècles, n’a pas fait un progrès, est incapable de progrès et qui pour le bien de la civilisation, doit être à jamais extirpée d’Europe et du littoral asiatique». Les autorités grecques ainsi que les populations civiles locales ne réclamaient pas moins que le nettoyage ethnique et l’extermination, le génocide, de la «race» turque."[[20]] (translation, the Greeks said that the massacre to exterminate the Turks were good and that their goal was to ethnically cleanse the Turks out of those lands)

Since from the beginning Alexikoua has used all means to disrupt the page (the page has a very long history, can't put all the diffs) They are doing source abuse, they are clearly pursuing a non neutral agenda to cover up/minimize crimes by the Greek army (and also to blame the Circassians). The source of Arslan states that M. Gehri stated that there were in total 6,000-6,500 people killed, there are other sources who mention that 6,000 people disappeared, still it is clear from all sources that hundreds of people were massacred and dozens of villages burned. Why else would the Inter-Allied Commission conclude that : "A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."

So I ask the admins to please stop these POV users to non neutrally edit the page, they do not say the truth, they are distorting the facts, falsely accusing people, thanks in advance.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I first point out that it is not whether the events in question were BARBAROUS or TYRANNICAL or whatever that's important in compiling Wikipedia, but whether they are verifiable and notable? It looks like you do have sources to show that that's the case; so the thing to do is to link to those sources calmly, and keep the discussion tightly focussed on the reliability and relevance of those sources, rather than on who comes from what country, and what terrible things everyone's ancestors did. Hopefully an admin will be along shortly to see whether there's anything specific they can do to help you. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexikoua still insists on falsifying the sources. see [[21]] (I gave an answer to his source abuse/falsify)

I think he should be banned from editing on that page, since his disruptive vandalism has become clear.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Based on the report filed at WP:ANEW, I've blocked both editors for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone should also formally warn DragonTiger of WP:ARBMAC sanctions. Athenean (talk) 12:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Admin reinstates unsourced, very obviously false material, protects page

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.

---

Admin reinstates unsourced, very obviously false material, protects page (from all non-admins!), does not take the time to respond to me on my Talk page, but instead issues a warning. He must be giving lessons in how not to be an admin. Also, I wonder what the warning's for if he's blocked me from editing the page, anyway?

• Chalkidiki Greek
• Chalkidiki Greek page history
• User talk:Lfdder for (brief) discussion and warning

Lfdder (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You waited a whole 15 minutes for the admin in question to respond to you before coming here. It would be for the best if you a) left a question on his talk page directing him to respond to your concerns, incase he doesn't stare at his watchlist for hours on end and b) waited some time for him to respond, in case he has something else to do IRL. Coming straight here as your first action, without trying to work out the dispute yourself with the person in question, is bad form. --Jayron32 19:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My response to him was before he protected the page. If he had time to do that, he should also have had time to respond to me. — Lfdder (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really? All I see in that page history is you trying to game the system by removing all the content of the article and nominating it for an A3 speedy deletion, so that you can avoid an AfD. Beware the boomerang; if you have an issue with an article, either submit it on its own merits at AfD or pursue dispute resolution; do not try to game the CSD system to sneak a deletion through. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That is all you see, really now? Might be time to put hyperbole aside. Like I've said on my Talk page, AfD or not, the content on that page is absolutely not worth keeping. This is just a red herring. — Lfdder (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is no hyperbole whatsoever in my statement. Editing a page that does not meet a CSD criterion until it does meet that criterion and then nominating the article with that CSD criterion, in order to have it deleted while evading the scrutiny of an AfD is about as blatant an abuse of process gets. Your edit summary of "i'm a genius" makes your intentions quite clear. If you have a problem with the article that's not covered by a CSD criterion, AfD it. If it's so clear, why wouldn't you just AfD it? After all, who would disagree with something so obvious? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My edit summary was obviously meant to be humorous. I saw no harm coming from it. If you think this is a blockable offence, or whatever, then fair enough—but let it go. I didn't speedy tag it again when I was issued a "warning" and the page was protected. I've no intention to go to AfD, if it matters. All I want is for false, uncyclopedic material to be removed from the article. — Lfdder (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• So why not actually do something novel, and follow the guidelines? You were told at the very beginning to AfD it. Instead, you nuked a whole bunch of stuff and tried to speedy it again. That's not a good-faith move. Not even close. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah ok. Bureaucracy isn't my thing. Does anybody disagree that the content should be removed? Is it not instantly obvious? Why do I have to go thru whatever convoluted alleys? — Lfdder (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

DGG does, obviously. Talk to him about it. It's all Greek to me (ha ha) so I can't tell. If you're not willing to discuss your changes, though, why are you even here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a non-admin user, I don't see a major issue here with DGG. Your comment about the version being restored being unsourced is ironic - because so is yours. You've removed a whole bunch of content without either consensus or any explanation on your side, so what did you expect? And you're very clearly gaming the system. BOOMERANG block perhaps? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like DGG is taking action as an involved editor so there isn't much here for ANI. It also makes little sense to me to block someone for reverting twice, especially when the material being removed is unsourced.--regentspark (comment) 20:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Histrionics aside, I agree; nothing here is blockable, though the blank->A3 thing would be a problem if it were a consistent pattern. A singular occurrence, not so much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing for Lfdder to do is to take this to Wikiproject languages (assuming that is active) rather than immediately to an AfD. Get some input into the validity of the material, perhaps find some sources (or not). --regentspark (comment) 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'll do you all one better: is there a good reason not to mass-rollback this editor's recent edits? On a ton of articles they removed Template:History of the Greek language without giving any reason whatsoever, they seem to not know about talk pages, many of their edits are done without edit summary, and some of the edit summaries they give are possibly deceitful: "remove clutter"--they removed content. I'm somewhat hesitant since I saw a few helpful edits, but the bad outweighs the good, in my opinion. As for this particular article, I'd rather DGG had blocked the editor for a brief period instead of protecting the article, but that's not germane to this thread. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd hate to use the "it's all Greek to me" pun twice in one section, but it comes to mind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally in the wrong for removing 1 of 3 side- and navboxes in total. Burn the witch. — Lfdder (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is burning any witches. Just take it easy with rapid and mass removal of material, leave detailed explanations as to why you're doing so, and don't edit war when your move edits are reverted. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

edit war when your move is reverted Wait, what now? — Lfdder (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed that. What I'm trying to say is "an ounce of explanation at the front end is better than a ton of aggression at the back end". --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reopening this

...in the light of this edit summary, this history, and the most recent batch of edits here. In regards to the latter, what concerns me is the removal of Template:History of the Greek language. It may well be that the templates overlap, it may even be so that one of them is redundant--but the removal of a template in all those articles should at the very least be discussed. Perhaps the other template should go. Whatever--this is disruptive. Lfdder ragging on DGG was in pretty poor form already, and the edit summary pointed at above, combined with their crappy comment on their talk page, plus the edit warring and the general contempt for other editors, well. Boomerang, incivility, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I've commented out my close because you were too nice to just revert it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait. No. As an expert editor in this domain, I can fully confirm that Lfdder's edits on Chalkidiki Greek are valid. The page is worthless. Maybe speedy deletion was not the technically most appropriate way of trying to achieve this, but the fact remains, Lfdder deserves support, not a lynch mob, for trying to clean this up. The best course of action will be to simply redirect the page to Varieties of Modern Greek. DGG, please unprotect the page so this can be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the issue was the validity of his edits, but rather his methods of gaming the system to get it to qualify as a CSD. I trust you on the content, but his behavior then, and since, is begging for sanction at this point. I even closed trying to help him not get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

IAR and all that jazz... Arkon (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for what, exactly? What is wrong with my behaviour? — Lfdder (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

DGG was forced to protect the article after you chose to all but blank it instead of taking his advice and going to AFD, that should be your first clue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with deleting almost all of the content of an article, and then nominating it for speedy deletion because it lacks content? Nothing at all. Excuse me while do the same thing to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, Gravitation, Mollusca and Weston, Clevedon and Portishead Light Railway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Except I didn't "blank" the article just so that I could get it speedy-deleted. I blanked it because it was nonsense. — Lfdder (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the same way about our List of Scientists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the subject, but i would do the same with respect to any article. If the people who do know agree that it doesn't make sense, we have ways to get consensus and deal with it properly. I request that there not be a block, unless it repeats. I warned, and that was sufficient for the situation. An expert is known here by the ability to make convincing arguments with good sources, not by taking unilateral action to defend their position, however correct it is. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've got to present sources for unref'ed material somebody else introduced to the article? I hadn't realised. — Lfdder (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While you guys compare the size of your "parts" here, would one of you admins kindly place the "subst:proposed deletion" label at the top of Chalkidiki Greek? As a linguist, this article is unencyclopedic and completely trivial in its coverage and sophomoric in its content. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

At least my parts don't dangle all over the place. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Many ECs) While you're likely right, there's no need to block yet, I do see a distinct WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:IDONTHEARTHAT problem here. Because as of their most recent comment, it sounds like they still don't understand why deleting all the content of an article and then tagging it for speedy deletion because it has no content is problematic even after it was explained by two or more people. IAR and not liking 'bureaucracy' are one thing, but it shouldn't be hard to see why people don't like something that looks dishonest and why it causes unnecessary confusion and problems when if the decision is really that clear cut, a simple AFD will do. It may be mildly acceptable to not realise this even if you were told to take it to AFD before you did it, it's more problematic when even after doing it and being told in no uncertain terms by several people it's not okay you still don't get it. Here's hoping with the most recent replies above it finally sinks in. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fut. Perf., a complete lack of communication, followed by a whollop of snark, that's the hallmark of disruption. Their work on Postalveolar nasal is clear evidence that they think they know better than anyone else, and won't stop to get their way. After this edit, and my revert, they should have taken it to the talk page. Instead, they reverted again, since that's what they do as a matter of course: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is of no importance to them it seems (same with the navboxes). Their argument was "only attested in one language"--well, they either had their head up their ass or they thought Wikipedia was a reliable source, since that's clearly not correct, as a few minutes on Google and a trip to the bookshelf proved. They may know more about Chalkidiki Greek than Socrates, but that doesn't excuse their behavior.

  And Lfdder, you can sneer at DGG all you like, but Postalveolar nasal proves that you don't like to look farther than your nose is long, as the Dutch say. We don't need any more uncommunicative edit warriors in this joint. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, your mass mechanical reversions of Lfdder's edits were at least as unexplained, at least as poorly communicated and at least as disruptive as their edits. You are way out of line here; cut it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fut. Perf, don't fucking patronize me. If you took the time to actually look you'd see that I did not revert all or even a significant part of their edits. You could, of course, point out that all of theirs were unexplained to begin with, not even with a boilerplate summary. You could also point out that maybe they should have discussed which of the supposedly redundant templates to remove. I'm still waiting for you to comment on Lfdder's lousy treatment of Postalveolar nasal and their disregard for the BRD cycle. Why do I get the feeling that you're being a bit myopic here? Drmies (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

DGG, there are now twothree topic experts here who agree the article needs to go, versus not a single editor who has raised any argument at all defending the contents of the article on its merits (other than a kneejerk reaction against a "blanking" whose reason people didn't understand). In the absence of any on-topic counterargument, there is no need to first create "consensus"; consensus already exists. Will you please now allow the necessary cleanup to go ahead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then send it to AFD. Had the editor simply taken DGG's advice to begin with, it would be there now. That doesn't make it a CSD candidate, nor does it excuse virtually blanking an article after you have have had your CSD tag reverted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then will somebody finally remove that idiotic protection so we can actually do that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, let us unprotect it and send to AfD. The atricle was around for several years, no harm is expected if it stays one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Since we've now found three experts on the subject, would it be too much to suggest that between them they might have enough expertise to at least come up with a stub? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not convinced it's even a valid potential topic to begin with, so there's not even a valid stub to be written. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've unprotected it so it can go to AFD, as going to AFD was DGGs suggestion and the threat of continued disruption of blanking has subsided. I would take issue with "idiotic" as a descriptor, as I agree that it was the right short term solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You can't PROD a protected article because the process depends on being able to remove the notice. I also question the logic in taking the article to AfD if notability is not the issue here, since the AfD process will uphold the retention of a stub if the topic itself is notable i.e. the process does not exist to debate content. Quite simply, an editor is challenging the veracity of unsourced content (and content that seems to contain a high degree of original research), and clearly under WP:BURDEN the content shouldn't be restored without sources. We have a linguist here calling it "trivial" and "sophomoric", so lets return it to stub status. Hopefully the next attempt will be more valid. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yet the original issue was a CSD tag, to delete the whole thing. So AFD is exactly the right venue to hash it out. Deletion is not the only option there. If someone else doesn't send it shortly, I will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not calling it "trivial" because it is poorly written and unsourced ("sophomoric" covers that), but because the subject matter is completely unencyclopedic, uninteresting, and unworthy of the bandwidth. It is the equivalent of having an article on "Greenville South Carolina English" written by a local 6th grade teacher so that visitors know how to say "house". There is nothing notable about this variety of Greek (it's not even a dialect, really, just a local speech variety) that distinguishes it from any other variety of Greek in the area. --Taivo (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. — Lfdder (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Folks, you're being unfair to Lfdder. Granted he was a smart ass with the "duck this and genius that" edit summaries, but the reality is that the article in question is completely unsourced and that means it is fair game for stubbing, whether or not it is being put up for deletion. What Lfdder should have done (imo) is to have removed the content and either looked for sources or tagged it as unsourced. Then, if no sources appear in a couple of weeks, a prod or afd would be reasonable. But what he actually did is hardly outré either. Talk about blocking is unwarranted. --regentspark (comment) 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Regardless of what happens in an AfD the content should still come out, since it would still be unsourced "sophomoric" original research even if the article is kept. The retention of the material is independent of the AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Regentspark, I'm not talking about that article; that's at the bottom of my list. Take a moment and look at the rest, including their attack on my competence. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, do you mean this edit summary?. I think I'm too old to understand stuff that isn't in English. It's all Chalkidiki Greek to me :) But seriously, I agree that this editor has a problem with edit summaries but let's look at the bigger picture. We have an editor trying to remove unsourced stuff (apparently the stuff is crap after all) from Wikipedia and is getting push back in the form of article protection and warnings (which, I think, DGG was not out of line in doing). Bit of a raging bull set up so, under those circumstances, forgive and forget is not a bad way to move ahead.--regentspark (comment) 00:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that this discussion at ANI is not about whether the article should be kept, or stubbed, or whatnot; that discussion is *exactly* what belongs at AfD. This discussion is about the behavior of one editor in trying to avoid that process, nothing more. Rklear (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the discussion was about an admin acting out of line. — Lfdder (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And I think DGG acted perfectly within expected norms and your actions and reactions have been, at best, poorly thought out. I have dePRODed the article and sent it to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkidiki Greek Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And that's fair enough. :-) I do not expect everyone to agree with me. — Lfdder (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Trouts all-round. I see tempers running short on all sides in this discussion. As for the main actors, both Lfdder and DGG have technically breached several policies, as follows:

• Lfdder misused the deletion processes first likely unintentionally by using {{delete}} instead of {{prod}} [22], but then most likely deliberately by stubbing and then [23] A3ing the article [24] and finally he edit warred [[25] to stub the article again (but added no more deletion tags).
• DGG edit warred to reintroduce unsourced content after it was challenged in good faith as unsourced WP:OR [26] [27] (note that Lfdder's 2nd stubbing only removed content, but did not add any more deletion tags) and finally DGG protected the page to his preferred version [28], a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

And to complete the circus we have administrators swearing at each other in this thread. 82.137.14.27 (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (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.

Talk:Lucas Horton#Requested move

There was already a consensus to move article to Lucas Roberts. However, FrickFrack re-moved the article back to Lucas Horton without noticing the prior request. Now someone else created another request similar to my request without considering the WP:RM/TR. Hopefully, someone here can revert it back to "Lucas Roberts" and then close the recent request as "procedural closure". --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just moved it over the old one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sol1

I've just blocked new account User:Sol1, and I'd be happy for my action to be checked here - and for some other eyes on the issue, as I need to head off shortly. Sol1 has been making rapid-fire changes to Wikipedia's use of the names of well-known scientists etc. I first saw changes of the use of Galileo's name to use either his full name of "Galileo Galilei" or just the surname "Galilei" - [29], [30] and more. On further checking, I saw Sol1 is rapidly changing lots of uses of famous scientists historical figures' names to use their full names - "Goethe" to "Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" - [31], Kepler, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger to full names - [32] etc. And there are lots more - see Special:Contributions/Sol1 I left a couple of messages pointing out that we use common names and that he needs to talk if he wishes to make such wide-ranging changes, but I got no response and he was continuing at a fast pace. So I've issued a block to stop him and get his attention. So, can I please request the following?

• Check my actions and see if you think they were reasonable
• Have a look over Sol1's contributions and help revert if you think they are unreasonable
• See if you think there is anything suspicious about a brand new user making such rapid-fire large-scale changes?

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Good block. User is also misusing the minor edit flag. --John (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI the minor flag is automatically added for page moves. None of these were, and I really see nothing wrong with deciding that is better to remove a redirect, and that is certainly a minor edit – reverting this edit,[33] done by above user, was absurd. Galileo has been a redirect to the scientist's full name since 12 September 2011‎. Goethe has been a redirect to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe since 9 September 2008. I would suggest unblocking, with an apology. Apteva (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note. The first diff that was reverted was I think changing Galileo to Galilei, which was correctly reverted, except that removing the second link should have been left. So some of the edits were questionable, but most of them just seem to be removing redirects. They used Galileo instead of Galilei for the pipe in the diff which I cited, but Galilei earlier. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not have to check to see if our article is at Einstein or Albert Einstein. Apteva (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are admins and are making edits like this one?[34] Apteva (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We actually have a guideline that discourages "fixing" redirects as Sol1 has been doing; WP:R#NOTBROKEN. John's reverts were perfectly valid, since they restored the status quo links. As regards the block, yes, seems fine to me - whilst discussion is obviously preferable sometimes the only way to get someone to stop is to actually stop them, and that seems to have been the case here. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that redirects do not need to be fixed, and that edits are very expensive, but that does not excuse reverting a perfectly valid fix, thus creating yet another edit that needs to be fixed yet again when something else warrants the expense of an edit. Best just to leave the edits that have been done, and only fix the ones that actually need fixing, like changing Galileo to Galilei. The editor was inconsistent with that one, sometimes using one, sometimes the other. But if someone has already removed the redirect at Einstein, there is no excuse for putting it back in without piping it instead. The article is at Albert Einstein, Sol1 changes the link from Einstein to Albert Einstein, the correction is not to put it back to Einstein, but if the article actually reads better using Einstein instead of Albert Einstein, change it to Albert Einstein|Einstein, instead of back to Einstein. A restore does not "undo" an edit, it is a new edit and is just as expensive as any other edit. Talk about biting the newcomers though, but it is pretty uncommon for a newcomer to do 500 edits the first day. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:R#NOTBROKEN does actually say "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]", so that does appear to support [[Einstein]] rather than [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] - and it gives reasons why a simple redirect is better -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That section needs to be less dogmatic. I simply can not support the concept that writing [[Einstein]] is ever preferable to writing [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]], nor can I support any edits that change one to the other in either direction without doing something else as well. The situations where a redirect is good, is if there is no article about Einstein, and it is redirected to say Relativity until an article is written, but once it is, the redirect can be corrected. We move article names all the time, leaving behind redirects. We fix the double redirects, but I see no reason for not cleaning up the rest eventually. In any event it is clear that the consensus is against a user doing nothing but fixing redirects. Apteva (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that section is already under discussion. From the talk page "Replacing piped links with links to 'simple' redirects (alternate names, for example) is pointless, or at least not the point of WP:NOTBROKEN. Clarification may be in order, yes" Apteva (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not the forum for getting policy pages changed, but as it stands at the moment, it supports John's simple reverts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding brand new user: it seems they're quite experienced at dewiki. But that makes it even more worrying that they didn't discuss first, and didn't respond to talk page messages. — HHHIPPO 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And judging by the edit history he/she makes the exact same kind of edits there, including moving articles without previous discussion and marking virtually everything as a minor edit, whether it was one or not. So it's surprising that he's only been blocked once on de-wiki, for edit-warring in 2008. Thomas.W (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, maybe that explains why they have not given any indication of having seen the user talk page message (never mind the fact that the orange bar is gone). Maybe they understand little to no English, but do know how to click on "what links here" from a redirect, and how to cut and paste the article name in and hit save. That also explains why they likely did not know that in English, Galileo is commonly known by their first name, not their last name. Germans tend to like things well ordered and it is possible that redirects are frowned on more widely at de. I do know there are vast differences between the two wiki's. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. We'll have to wait and see if they are interested in a discussion on their talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to see what happens, but I've noticed that his reluctance to reply isn't limited to English. He's been involved in five discussions on the German Wikipedia's Vandalismusmeldung (Vandalism report) page, and only commented on the most recent of them. The substance of the reports will require someone with better German than me. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a look (German is my mother tongue, but I have to admit German wikispeak is not). It's a similar picture as here, tons of edits, many useful, but also many at the edge of policy and many that should have been discussed before. In two of the six ANI cases he was only marginally involved, the others are somewhat similar to this one. I guess see what happens is the right thing to do. — HHHIPPO 22:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

...and only commented on the most recent of them. And my comment was that I commented on the talk page of the article. I had nothing to do with the further edit war which led to the temporal protection of the page de:Frei.Wild. In the other cases I was either marginally involved, or there were discussions on my talk page or the talk pages of the articles. --Sol1 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I left a couple of messages pointing out that we use common names and that he needs to talk if he wishes to make such wide-ranging changes, but I got no response and he was continuing at a fast pace. That is not quite correct. I was getting the first message at 19:06, stopped with the Galileo edits and got blocked at 19:16, probably for this edit which can hardly be considered unreasonable. So while I was willing to discuss the problem, if "Galileo" was preferable to "Galilei" or the other way, this massive reverting combined with a block immediately after a warning was to much for me, and so I left Wikipedia for one day to get calm again. If I was a newcomer then I would probably have left Wikipedia forever and I would never have read the postings to Apteva which restore my faith in this project. --Sol1 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that was intended to be "postings by" instead of "postings to". Apteva (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• 19:06: Having seen your large scale rapid-fire changes, I gave you a friendly warning (in which Galileo was just an example).
• 19:08: You replaced surnames with full names.
• 19:08: I asked you to stop making undiscussed stylistic changes to the naming of historical figures.
• 19:14: You did it again on another article.
• 19:14: I asked you again to stop what you were doing and discuss it.
• 19:15: You made another similar change to another article.
• 19:16: I blocked you, making it clear it was intended to get your attention - I was concerned at your rapid pace of changes and decided that a brief block was the least damaging action.

All you had to do then was reply and agree to discuss things rather than carrying on at such a pace, and I would have instantly unblocked you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I do not get the usual 'new talk message' template when someone replies to my talk page since echo went live. And it also takes 5~ minutes for echo to notify me in most cases, and even still its a tiny red number. Though playing cat and mouse is never a good matter, I think the notification system changed with the update and it doesn't work as it did a month ago. Maybe it applies to this case? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I think the new notification system is inadequate for getting a user's prompt attention. But in the absence of good-enough notifications and when a user has to be at least temporarily stopped from their course of action, a block is all that is left - and I thought I'd made it clear that the block was specifically to get Sol1's attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User keeps deleting sourced information

NovaSkola keeps deleting sourced information because he doesnt want to believe what it says. The article in question, Ibad Huseynov, is an Azerbaijani soldier who during the Karabakh war beheaded an Armenian soldier. Azerbaijani's, like NovaSkola, claim the individual killed was Armenian hero Monte Melkonian but evidence, that i posted from an Azerbaijani source (so its not biased towards Armenians), shows it wasnt. He keeps deleting my post and claiming the individual killed was Monte by citing from a movie about Huseynov. So i edited the page and left both sections, even though they contradict each other but he deleted my post once again calling it vandalism. I posted pictures which show the Huseynov with the head, which came from an Azerbaijani site, and a picture of Monte's funeral. He deleted it again. I believe action needs to take place as the individual keeps deleting sourced information. Also this user has done this on numerous other occasions. Regarding the article about Guba Mass Grave, i posted a sourced paragraph giving details regarding the grave and he kept deleting it claiming it was biased. If you look at the edit history for that page as well as this, he reverted my edits and classified them as vandalism just because he doesnt like what he reads.Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has many problems, and the source that is being removed, while possibly reliable is being used to state facts in wikipedias voice that should be attributed to a person. That's a no no.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article has many problems as this individual hasnt done anything except fight in the war so i dont know if that sould constitute a page. Many individuals will find this page, when searching for Huseynov, and be lied too when they see an obvious lie claiming he killed Monte Melkonian. The article I posted is citing an interview with an Azerbaijani General who fought during the war so he would know who killed who. NovaSkola keeps deleting it and adding an excerpt from a documentary about Huseynov, which is basically a propaganda film.Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed information due it contained a basic photo from some site, which includes photo of beheading and it can be seen as many people as extremist. As you see in here (last reference, clearly includes link to beheading photo, which is not confirmed by any sources as reliable or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibad_Huseynov&diff=554953491&oldid=554944195 Ninyatoyadome without any warnings removed my edits and by knowing the extremist content of that photo, reversed my edit and added biased information from some blog. Therefore he should be warned/punished due he ignored Wikipedia's guidelines about extremist material.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Before the image i had posted a nonbiased interview which you deleted for no reason. You kept deleting it and then claiming both should remain. I left both and you still deleted my post. Can you explain that? I posted an interview with an Azerbaijani general, if it was an Armenian general i would say it was biased but it was an Azerbaijani general. You posted from a propaganda movie about him. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually you removed my information prior me and you also edited the article I've created with adding some made up information from third source party. Information you got comes from random blog, which can be written by anybody. Furthermore, having checked your history, I've noticed you've been warned far many times before interms of vandalising Azerbaijani articles by adding biased information. --NovaSkola (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Contact.az is not a blog, its a news website. You posted something from a movie as evidence and criticize my source. I had posted the interview on March 4, 2013, you removed it on May 12, 2013 without warning, only stating "return to normal state and removed biased information" which is hilarious as now Azerbaijani information that contradicts Azerbaijani information is biased information. No one had a problem except for you, apparently. I have never been warned for vandalizing Azerbaijani pages, the only warnings have been for dealing with a troll who constantly vandalizes Armenian pages and me restoring them (edit warring). You did the same thing on the Guba Mass Grave article, calling my additions "vandalism". I avoid Azerbaijani articles, unless they have to do with Armenia. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use false allegations. I am not talking about contact.az, I'm talking about foto.radikal.ru that u used which contains beheading photo. I will let moders to decide who'se right or who'se wrong.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.contact.az/docs/2012/Interview/102300015729en.htm#.UZRO07WG2Sp also shows the same picture, i only posted it once. You kept revising my changes claiming them to be biased and just now you said "adding some made up information from third source party. Information you got comes from random blog, which can be written by anybody" so yes im making false allegations. Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of sites can have extremist material, that doesn't mean it is approved, especially in Wikipedia, where they have readers from all over the world, from various age range. Photo like that can traumatise child's memory.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jono2013

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.

---

Jono2013 (talk · contribs) seems to have some fairly problematic civility issues. They've written an article, Energetically modified cement, which has been AfDed twice; once it closed as nomination withdrawn, and the second AfD is ongoing. From the very first comment in the first AfD (diff: [35]), they've made inappropriate comments about people's backgrounds, false accusations of vandalism, and other very marginal remarks. A diff of the first AfD, following its withdrawal, but prior for it being blanked (probably due to Jono2013's remarks), is this [36]. It shows a lot of walls-of-text by this user, some weird formatting issues, and some absolutely insane accusations/comments, such as this gem:

• I have no idea who Cloudyjbg27512 is, and whether he/she has any conflict of interest - for example, a "competing academic", a "paid-up member" of the Portland Cement industry, or even a person involved/"fronting" the litigation mentioned above (of which I have NO knowledge). All I know is Cloudyjbg27512 joined on April 26 of this year, well-after this article was first published, disregarded wiki policy twice over, and removed my request for a justification from his/her user page. Once again, thank you to everyone who supported the keep. And to Cloudyjbg27512, if you have no COI, then thank you for "seeing common sense" (a cornerstone wiki policy) and I hope you learn from this - I trust you had a very pleasant weekend, because you surely turned mine "upside down". Jono2013 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (not a full quote, but neither have I taken it out of context)

They also responded to pretty much every commenter, regardless of their vote, with the same aggressive manner. Anyway, let's get on to the current AfD, located here. This user has proceeded to use all-caps, highly aggressive replies, disruptive removals of the AfD tag (with incorrect allegations of vandalism on one occasion; [37][38]) and yet more aggressive replies, even though most people voted keep (including myself). Following my comments in the AfD, the user then came on to my talk page, informing me of their reply at the AfD,[39] to which I made some sensible statements on their talk page (I believe),[40], to which I received this wall-of-text,[41], after which I removed his remarks from my talk as trolling. A look at an AfD on a far less notable article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin, shows identical behaviour by this user. Sadly, I'm requesting an indef under WP:NOTHERE: their editing style is promotional, which is fixable; but their methods of communication leave far too much to be desired, and leave people frustrated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that anyone caring to comment first read the extensive record I have posted on both AfDs. These were posted BEFORE the above user posted this.

There is only one principal author here: Me. Professor Ronin has no connection with the article. Yet again, the user is being rather too careful with his words. And, no, I dont have any "civility" issues at all. I just have a problem with people disregarding wiki policy and nominating for deletion without discussing first.

There have been many instances where I have thanks users for their input. My stance is for principled reasons - namely to ensure ACCURACY of the article. The extensive history to remove this article, together with the photos, together with the stub has been documented on the AfDs for both articles as a matter of record. Furthermore,

• during the first AfD process for the energetically modified cement article, I dont recall there being a discard. In fact across both AfDs, I dont recall there being a discard.

• I received a barnstar for the article, from a very experienced user.

• Ronin has received an apology from Wikipedia for the attacks made against him and against me during the prposed images deletion.

• The deletion of images was resolved with a "keep" with the following admonishment. I believe it is apposite here:

The result of the discussion was: Closing this mess / keep - a statement of permission has been received as OTRS ticket 2013051410005944. All involved are reminded to be civil and not bite inexperienced editors. We need to help those who have trouble navigating our processes, not make accusations. --B (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have made no "accusations". I have stoutly defended my work against changes made by those that do not have the requisite expertise in the subject matter. This is for the sake of accuracy of the article. I have tried to point out the "obvious" to such extents, but it makes no difference.

• I have made one statement which I sorely regret, which the user misinterpreted as my calling him names. I was tired - very tired - after having my weekend turned upside down. But I apologized profusely, on the user's talk page, which he has not removed:

"It was not my intention to call you names, and for that, if I gave that impression I apologize. I have worked on the page for a month, and I have come to the end of my tether with users making the mistake that this is an "armchair lawyers" subject. The page itself is considerably "dumbed down" - and you will see in the talk page I have done my level best to contextualize. It is WIP and a highly complex one at that - more than 20 years of results and field data traduced into a "snapshot" page to appeal to all levels of scientifically-interested readers. But there are some subjects that no matter how much one tries, there is a limit to which they can be "simplified". So I certainly did not mean offense, I am just very tired and after a month of quietly going about building the page, I have had a torrid weekend of defending it left right and center all because a certain user posted it for deletion without even discussing first, on Friday, notwithstanding I am a new user, never done this before and the page is WIP. I have found the entire experience very very unprofessional. I am a retired senior life sciences professor - and in all my 58 years, I can tell you this will be the only page I ever contribute to on Wiki. I am appalled my the "gang mentality" that quickly surfaces and how those who take extreme actions seem beyond impunity, whereas the "best intentional" writer is placed against a wall.

I apologize for any offence. I hope this meets with your favor.

Kind regards 14:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)"

Jono2013 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I fail to see where I said anything about the professor being involved. Yet again, you've replied with a wall-of-text, and one that smacks, once more, of WP:IDHT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop using jargon and stop "firing back" simply because I seek "due process" - that is, AFTER you have taken the steps you have done, without consulting first. You stated "they" several time to imply there was more than one author. You have disregarded the email from Ronin to wikipedia itself, and the response. I gave you my time to give you some very polite advice in case you were considering an academic career. I even wished you all the luck for it - from a retired senior 58 year old academic to an 18 year old. Your "hatred" of my expressing myself is almost palpable.

Jono2013 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm referring you to Wikipedia policies. I had already tried to discuss your actions with you, and got an absurd response. Most of the users in that AfD voiced concerns about your actions; at least one called for a block. The email from Ronin to Wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant, as ANI is about user conduct, not content disputes. Also, what on earth are you trying to say with that last sentence? That's yet another absurd statement for the pile, I guess. *shrugs* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From zero to Godwin in nothing flat. [42] EEng (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks to me like that the AfD is getting worse, and that Jono2013's aggressive behaviour has resulted in editors not giving him the benefit of the doubt, and actually calling for deletion of the article (so a more neutral one can be written). That talkpage message is, as usual, well out of line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Jono2013 seems to be taking things quite personally. I think Jono2013 just needs to take a break and calm down. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action would be since I wouldn't characterize Jono2013's edits as disruptive. Unless a user is being disruptive, being angry is not cause for a block per WP:COOLDOWN. Transcendence (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• They have been disruptive. They've previously removed AfD tags (which stopped after a warning), and their constant accusations of other users being employed by rival companies, having no knowledge of the subject, being abusive etc, is the definition of disruption, is it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd throw my two cents in as well. Many, if not most, of us here should be familiar with the fact that Wikipedia often doesn't treat experts in their subject very well, particularly when Randys start to appear. Mind you I'm not accusing anyone in this case of being one, but it does happen a lot here. Given Jono2013's academic background (going on AGF here) it is common for anyone who has spent any time in professional academia to vigorously, even vociferously, defend one's work when necessary. Although that has its place in WP, those familiar with the AFD process, which Jono2013 obviously isn't, will know that this can rise to badgering of opposes particularly when ABF comes in to play. In my view, Jono2013, this is where you have gotten off the wrong foot with WP. He's approached WP with the view of WP as an academic debating ground and has yet to catch the nuances of how things are done around here and that lack of familiarity, to those of us who have been round the block a while, has all the hall marks of disruption. To Jono2013, one's academic background is irrelevant on wikipedia as we are not publishing our own research here, merely reporting on it. Yes, being a subject expert helps but it also blinkers one to how an article needs to be reported here. Whereas, those of us who are not subject experts but are familiar with how the various aspects of wiki works can be helpful in how the article needs to be formed to meet the expectations laid out in wiki policies and guidelines. Rather than barrage Jono2013 with wikijargon, which usually serves little purpose to a new editor other than to disillusion them, I suggest that we all take a few steps back and not get our hackles up. Blackmane (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Blackmane. I have opened what I hope will be a useful dialogue with the expert editor on my talk page in a quiet attempt to help them understand the challenges, unique challenges, that Wikipedia presents to an expert. What we non content experts have achieved is upsetting a potentially skilled and highly competent editor. Unless we can have a dialogue in a non confrontational manner we need to back away from the train wreck. I include him in this need for backing away. Our objective, surely, is to construct an encyclopaedia, not to upset and push away valuable new editors.

The article needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Here, and elsewhere, we should be smiling towards our new editors and encouraging them in to this weird world. Not everyone 'gets' it, but those who do tend to start to enjoy the bizarre way of working that is Wikipedia. So please smile a lot more and guide our new friend. Jono2013 is an asset here, if only we can persuade him to stay. He is worth educating in our peculiar ways. But like all new editors, he is still inexperienced here. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that he's unfamiliar with the Wikipedia ways not just because he's new here, but because he's refusing to listen and learn and reacts hostilely to attempts to teach him. A prime example is his reference above to "people disregarding wiki policy and nominating for deletion without discussing first" after I had specifically told him there was no such policy and that nominating for deletion without discussing first is quite normal. (And before you ask, in this diff he makes it clear he's read my comment and yet still goes on about AfD nominations without discussing first.) Sideways713 (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not an unusual problem, nor an intractable problem We've seen it before and will see it again. The challenge for us is to handle this in a decent (in all aspects of the word) manner. Calm, persistent patience tends to prevail in cases like this, even when it seems not to be working. Everyone gets upset at some point with the alphabet soup that is Wikipedia. We have to determine if we are big enough to handle it well and sensitively, or whether we meet inexperience with uncharitable acts. Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 16 May 2013 (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.

List of Wikipedia controversies‎

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.

---

List of Wikipedia controversies‎ needs to be protected so that only established editors can edit it. User:Thekohser is breaking his indef ban here with impunity on this project.[43] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser shows that this is the case. We all know that this article is a trolling exercise from Wikipediocracy.

On a sidenote, over the last month I have approached around 20 admins advising of the permaban evasion by Thekohser (all those IPs from Mount Laurel, NJ) and EricBarbour (all those IPs from Comcast, San Francisco) trolling this community, mainly by way Jimmy's talk page, and not a single one has blocked. The general consensus I get is that people are scared of becoming targets of these clowns and their fellow trolling sidekicks. Whilst I respect the position of these admins; getting harassed, outted, being libelled and the like isn't nice, it is high time that this community grow the cojones to do something about that problem. Russavia (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP is that-a-way ---> Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Would you care to address the main issue of the post, that two globally banned users are editing with impunity? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant, but the only action I can see we can do right now, considering the complain, is at RFPP. It is already at SPI which is the proper venue for dealing with the socks, and where all the CUs are. I'm just not sure what we can do about it at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that you protect the article and block the IPS on the spot. If you are concerned that you will be targetted by them, just say so, and someone else can do it. Russavia (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, Russavia, I would let it play out at RFPP and SPI. If you don't get satisfaction there, I'd suggest bringing it back here to see if anything further can be done. Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Russavia, you aren't new, so pardon me if I don't treat you with kid gloves, but you are a big boy and know that you have already filed at SPI, and that if you want a page protected, you go to RFPP. I've looked at your SPI report, I clerk there, and one of the those "socks" has zero edits and zero deleted edits, so I can't see how I can connect those dots. The other has two edits that really can't be connected either unless you can demonstrate some linkage. And the page shows no history needing protections. The other IP one one edit that wasn't problematic, and you have explained how that one edit is tied to the sock master. Changing quotes in one edit is pretty hard to link, after all. So like I said, it is already at SPI, it should go to RFPP, because I can't see a reason to protect or block anyone based on the evidence you have provided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I ended up blocking the one for the Commons edit, but not the other, (again, this was at SPI) but the protection needs to go to RFPP. Personally, I don't see the need at this point since there isn't a log of edits going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree about the RFPP point. I'd suggest just reverting anything from those IP addresses and other obviously related ones from this point on. It seems to be a dynamic IP, unfortunately, so I doubt that Dennis's block is going to stick. Prioryman (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You also have to remember, blocking for off-enwp isn't something anyone does regularly here. You can be blocked at Commons and allowed to edit here, for instance. This is why the proper venue is needed, with clerks who are familiar with the standards for that venue. It isn't like he is pounding out hundreds of contribs. It needs attention, but isn't a crisis. Its just one more sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

True, but in this case Kohs is globally banned. He shouldn't be editing anywhere. Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We can wring our hands about it ineffectually for a little while. That's always fun. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, RFPP would decline this request, as there isn't much in the way of recent disruptive activity to justify it. I see a single edit from the questioned IP address. We don't protect articles based on one single edit from one single IP address. That's entirely unreasonable and totally against Wikipedia's protection policy. This seems like a clear WP:RBI situation if anything at all. There's really nothing else to do here, and it seems like the OP is attempting to create Everest out of a small burrow of a blind rodent... --Jayron32 01:52, 16 May 2013 (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.

Improper use of alternate account

I (and others) have been involved in a content dispute on the talk pages of and in the articles about Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz with User:Dervorguilla. It came to my attention this evening that, a couple of weeks ago, she tried, and failed, to enlist assistance by posting these edits on the Editor Assistance board, using an alternate account. I've read the policy on alternate accounts. This use of an alternate account seems to deviate significantly from the policy. After bringing this to Dervorguilla's attention and to the attention of the other editors on the Swartz talk page, posting notice about this deviation here is the only other thing I can think of to do. Can someone please intervene in whatever way might be approriate? David in DC (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of an alternate account is not in and of itself a violation of the sock puppetry policy. It is the manner in which the account is used that can run afoul of policy. In the edits you've linked to, Dervorguilla explicitly identifies herself when using her alternate account (J.K.Herms). Had Dervorguilla solicited outside support for her opinion using an alternate account and failed to identify the connection, that would certainly have been a violation of policy.

This seems to be a somewhat questionable attempt to avoid immediate scrutiny (WP:SCRUTINY, not fully disclosed) but it's not done in a manner that would lead me to block either account. I haven't looked at any other edits, but the one linked above does not strike me as horrendously problematic. I would find a warning that Dervorquilla should avoid such actions in the future to be sufficient unless there are other issues of socking. --auburnpilot's sock 03:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

On 24 April 2013 (21:19 UTC), sysop Ocaasi gave user Dervorguilla the needed schooling on WP:SCRUTINY. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. A little bot-bird hinted that I should chime in here after I had taken both articles of my watch list. I have mentioned before that Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz should not be edited by Americans nor those that knew Mr. Swartz personally or as a Wikipedian. I had never heard of either before his death. Both articles could use clean up by those with no involvement at all. He was a very smart and notable person and was charged with crimes. She was on watch when charges were laid. They both had reasons for their own actions. They may have been right or wrong but ours is not to decide that. Ours is to create articles that are worthy of a Wikipedia standard. I could go into detail on both articles as to why this isn't working in this case but I won't. I think others should just look at these articles as articles only. Not a clash of ideals, consequences, and who did/said what/when according to this source or that. The other related articles I haven't even looked at yet but I can only assume they may be in the same state.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  The comment "I have mentioned before that Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz should not be edited by Americans nor those that knew Mr. Swartz personally or as a Wikipedian." is silly. I'm not sure what actions need to be taken, but that comment should not be left intact as plausible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• For exactly what reason can you justify making the statement that Americans shouldn't edit a particular article? That must be one of the more absurd things I've seen here. (And I'm English, not a Yank...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 could have been drawing on comments by MarkBernstein and HectorMoffet:

“My employer’s house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I’d completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.” --MarkBernstein 07:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC).  “The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an ‘employee’. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article.” --Collect 08:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC).  “Swartz was quite prolific, especially in circles that often overlap with Wikimedians. You couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who has some sort of 'six degrees of separation' connection to Swartz.” --HectorMoffet 00:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• For an alternate account to start referring to its alter ego in the third person is deliberately misleading as to independence, presumably to present such an alter ego as a poor slandered innocent, especially when canvassing for editor assistance in a previously unsullied location. This is not changed if there's a policy-complying footnote tagged onto the end!

Dervorguilla's conduct at Aaron Swartz et al has already long been combative, disruptive and destructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla does not agree. Remarks concerning pronoun usage. Dervorguilla’s use of the third person singular is rationalized at her User page as signifying the sovereign (not royal) “she” speaking in her official capacity as sovereign. Additional illustrations Analogies: “Her Gracious Majesty requests that Lancaster be delivered to...” (but “I/we request that a pizza be delivered to...”); “If Your Grace is disposed to having Lancaster pardoned...” (but “If you’ve disposed of the pizza...”). It distinguishes between one’s sole-corporate (editorial) character and one’s personal (human) character.

On occasion this usage can add a certain gravitas (or a humorous note) to an overly personalized discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. Dervorguilla says on her/his user page that he/she was "MIT Crime Club (project advisor 2005–12)". In 2011, Arron Swartz was arrested by the MIT police, and we use the MIT Crime Club as one of our sources on the Arron Swartz page. That sounds like a conflict of interest to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this comment is strictly abuot the conflict of interest allegation you just raised, and not about the substantive questions of alternate account usage (raised above), nor about allegations of edit warring or edit/reversion improprieties, etc., etc.

I (unfortunately) am a little too familiar with the circumstances here, and generally would be sharply critical of all involved, but in this case the potential improprieties are more theoretical or superficial than actual. The two references to the "MIT Crime Club" on the Swartz page are (1) to an archive (they call it a "compilation") of police log information published by the MIT Police, and (2) in a URL to a PDF copy of some Massacusetts Superior Court filings. With respect to (1), the MIT Police do not publish those logs on the Internet in perpetuity, and the Dervorguilla's organization has taken steps to preserve what might otherwise not be available. While it would be better for Dervorguilla to not be referencing an archive of information created by his own entity as a secondary source, the alternative is pretty much equivalent: include the information directly in the footnote and provide a citation to the original source that is not hyperlinked because there is no Internet-accessible resource for it. Whether or not that change (or something else) should happen, the connection here does not rise to the level of a conflict of interest on the basis of this citation/footnote/source. Similarly on (2), the Mass. Courts do not make this information available electronically, so Dervorguilla's organization has gone there in person, reproduced them for a fee, scanned them, and made them available as a PDF on the Internet. In both cases he is serving as a conduit (albeit one with some reputational problems) rather than a source. If one were to argue that Dervorguilla had a conflict of interest here, I think the only basis would be to say that he is an individual who has a demonstrated habit of concern about crime at MIT and Harvard, and the Swartz article and case are about an alleged crime at MIT. Then the chips fall wher—e they may. jhawkinson (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As someone involved in MIT network security ( http://www.mit.edu/~jhawk/home.html ) you (jhawkinson) also have a COI concerning the Aaron Swartz page, which I see you have edited. Swartz was indicted for larceny of electronic data and unauthorized access to a MIT computer network.^{(it appears that I was mistaken and that there is no COI. See below.)}

— Guy Macon (12:12, 16 May 2013) — (continues after insertion below)

Plz. use another section if you want to seriously discuss this, but while I am interested in network security, I am not employed by MIT and I am not responsible for its network or security thereof.jhawkinson (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Being the MIT Crime Club project adviser is far more involvement than "having a demonstrated habit of concern about crime at MIT". http://mitcrimeclub.org/public/details976/index.html leads me to believe that we are talking about a faculty adviser.

— Guy Macon — (continues after insertion below)

Hi Guy Macon! The document you found on the MIT Crime Club site is the archived homepage of the former Harvard College Crime Club — more at CSI: Harvard.

As you mention, my special (personal) interests do include “MIT Crime Club (project advisor 2005–12)”. And yes, the involvement required was on occasion rather heavy.

My statement of financial interests is modelled after the APA Disclosure Form. Some aspects are (marginally) less permissive than the WP:COI guideline. “Dervorguilla declares that neither she nor any member of her immediate family has a significant financial interest in any … entity discussed in her edits or in any competing … entity.” In particular, I don’t hold any copyright, partnership, or other financial interest in the Club.

You can (and should!) confirm that I’m not MIT faculty by checking the MIT People Directory, which lists students and employees. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The MIT Crime club does far more than just publishing police log information -- they hire private detectives and investigate murders. Furthermore, they feature a document on their web page ( http://mitcrimeclub.org/Westlaw_Document_11_41_01.pdf ) which says things like "Ortiz's performance and fitness for the job are being questioned by a growing list of critics" and "The Swartz suicide and the sick culture of the DOJ: Some lawyers are joking when they refer to the Moakley Courthouse as 'the House of Pain.' I'm not. The ill-considered prosecution leading to the suicide of computer prodigy Aaron Swartz is the most recent in a long line of abusive prosecutions coming out of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, representing a disastrous culture shift." Anyone who is part of an MIT-based organization that puts that sort of material on its website has a clear COI when editing the Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy, there are already too many blanket views about "no Americans" and "no-one who knew Aaron personally" as editors being excluded from this article. Look at the talk archives. If it wasn't for a few people who did know of Aaron personally, in 2005, 2007 and even earlier this year, the article would already have been deleted! MIT is a big place, not everyone there has any sort of COI with this topic.

How many actual COIs are there on this article, and how many people who's editing has been downright hostile to others (there are two obvious names here, one of whom has now switched to being an anon IP, the other changes their socks before canvassing elsewhere) are affected. It's far too easy for WP (an increasing trend, and very common around SemWeb articles for some reason) for uninvolved wikilawyers to turn COI into "anyone who knows anything about the subject is unpardonably biased" and to seek to exclude them on that basis. COI is bad, but let's just focus on real COI, where there are real problems, not go crazy and topic ban randomly. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Dervorguilla's organization has gone there in person, reproduced them for a fee, scanned them, and made them available as a PDF on the Internet."

Does anyone else see that as a rather ironic action for an organisation involved in the Aaron Swartz case? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Andy Dingley that referring to yourself in the third person is often unnecessarily confusing particularly when posting under another account. While they did note the connection at the end, a simpler less confusing thing to do would have been to refer to the other account as 'my alternative account' or something similar from the get go. In addition, without commenting on whether or not the alleged scrutiny of their edits is justified, their stated reasons for using the account sound close to violating our policy on avoiding scrutiny. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would caution the Original Poster that THIS kind of nonsense, edit-warring with hidden messages in the edit window in mainspace, is entirely unacceptable. Beware of the boomerang. Settle content disputes politely on the talk page. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Smohammed2

User:Smohammed2 seems to be an almost totally non communicative editor who make sometimes strange, sometimes server edits and generally edit wars.

Reverts at Firearm via IP 92.96.193.28 diff, diff, diff, diff, (Maybe another revert via IP 2.49.245.105 diff). Also many previous edits.

Same IP 92.96.193.28 / (probably Smohammed2) 3RR at Magazine (firearms) diff, diff, diff

Blanks Gun and redirects to Firearm without comment diff

Blanks Spud gun and redirects to Potato cannon without comment diff, diff

These diffs diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff and the fact that this editor normaly does not write prose copy (only seems to do technical edits), does not leave edit summaries, and does not participate in discussions diff, diff, diff, diff looks to me like this may be a non-English speaking editor using translation software. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The immediate concern is the Gun and Firearm matter, they are not the same topic, while one includes the other the use of cannons and such are not labeled 'firearms'. Though Potato Cannon's history did redirect to Spud Gun. The editor merely copied the page in, then re-blanked it and made it a redirect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This user has a long history of disruptive edits. I don't think he's here to help. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delaware Air National Guard

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.

---

This article is being vandalized from a government IP address, 199.208.239.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) assigned to the US Department of Defense. Apteva (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The escalated warning may have stopped them too, but somebody's commanding officer might want to speak to them. Much of the vandalism was not even English. Apteva (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's English, sdrawkcab ti daer ot evah tsuj uoY. Very clever, probably a bored kid waiting in their parent's cube. Rgrds. --64.85.215.86 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe it was the commanding officer. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2013 (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:Anonymous209.6 tagging page for POV despite consensus on talk pages through RfCs

In the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, general consensus on WP:N can be found here and consensus on the other comments section can be found, here. Despite an attempt to ask User:Anonymous209.6 to discuss this on the talk page, he continues to tag portions of the article for WP:POV. II would ask for some assistance in facilitation of a discussion on the talk page and stopping his POV tagging of the article. Thanks for any assistance. Casprings (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply; No consensus on either. The RfC referred to only mentions Bartlett vis a vis the copyright on his photo. Discussion of King, if a consensus was achieved, is for removal. Casprings (in aa fairly typical tendentious behavioral problem) at the end of the King discussion claimed to be starting a RfC on King, but did not, instead starting a RfC on Bouchey, whose conclusion resulted in deletion on BLP concerns of the aforementioned section. The habit of Casprings of excessive filing of motions can be considered tendentious, and makes assessment by new editors of actual consensus difficult. Casprings has also stopped discussion of issues s/he does not wish discussed by claiming consensus where none exists; primary discussion needs to be on Talk. The discussions on the Article are a mess.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:68.50.128.91 and Talk:Robert B. Bell

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.

---

Can someone uninvolved take a look at 68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Their current unblock request is asking "Please send this further up the food chain of admins" ... so, as a show of good faith, I am requesting a review of my actions - as well as opinions on how to get the user to stop the repeated disruption. Multiple editors have attempted to help them; but they ignore anything that does not serve their goal of inserting poorly or unsourced content into the article - so I'm not certain at this point what, if anything, could be done to help get through to them.

In short, the user has a serious case of "I didn't hear that". They have latched onto some advice they received in April that an edit request could be used, and despite being told by multiple editors in the article talk page and on their user talk page to not restore it until there is consensus for the change - they persistently re-open the same edit request.

They had been blocked twice before for their disruption at Talk:Robert B. Bell (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). When they returned this week and resumed the identical same behavior that resulted in the prior two blocks, I gave a single warning, and when they continued, I blocked them again.

Prior ANI discussions can be found at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell" (discussion started 29 December 2012 under a prior IP address)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793#Trolling by 68.50.128.91 (discussion started 16 April 2013)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive796#Wrongful Blocking By Administrator (discussion started 10 May 2013)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good block The IP clearly doesn't get it. I see the same incivility and competence problems as the case in December, which leads me to believe that they are WP: NOTHERE. Unblock request declined by Bwilkins. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:38, 17 May 2013 (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.

Please remove defamatory content from a BLP currently under full protection

This edit added highly problematic content to the BLP of Amiram Goldblum. It should be considered defamatory in relating the way a group of people called Goldblum a "PLO supporter". Unless there is evidence that Goldblum is in fact a PLO supporter, we should not be repeating the accusation that he is a PLO supporter; in the Israeli context, that accusation (particularly if false) would be quite harmful to someone's reputation and should therefore be considered defamatory. (Please note that I am not Goldblum and am therefore not in a position to take any legal action even if I wanted to do so.) There is also the fact that the edit manifestly lacks consensus on the talk page, particularly in relation to the way the source is being (mis)used. Per WP:PREFER, WP:BLPREMOVE and BLP in general, the material should come out until there is consensus for adding it properly (an unlikely prospect). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that's an unpleasant talk page. While I personally don't think that there is a BLP problem per se with that edit, it easily could be a serious WP:UNDUE problem. That is, reporting reliably sourced accusations isn't generally a BLP problem but may be putting an undue emphasis on a minor event. I'll leave it to the folks who do more with BLPs to comment. I _do_ see some fairly nasty fighting going on and believe it would be a good idea for a calming and authoritative influence to pop in. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not defamatory. We are not calling him a PLO supporter, some protesters did, and those critics got coverage from a newspaper on the other side of the world for their actions. However per http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=884181&ct=11757857 there may be issues with the original story, and additional sources should be found to verify the story. However that is not a WP:BLP issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was defamatory for the the mob to call him a PLO supporter (an obvious point), then it is defamatory for us to give space to their accusation. And, if there are problems with the source, then WP:BLPREMOVE is relevant. And, again, the edit lacks consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

He clearly falls under WP:WELLKNOWN. It would be defamation to call him a PLO supporter. Saying others did so, if reliably sourced is not, particularly where he has replied to the accusations publicly and notably. However, as I stated, it appears there may be some doubt that the incident happened at all (and therefore the latimes article is repeating a rumor, rather than a fact) - We shoud get to the bottom of that and develop consensus on if it should be included or not, but this is not a WP:BLP violation to report other's opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask for an admin response, please? I'm grateful to Hobit and Gaijin for their views -- and particularly to Gaijin for raising the point that what the LA Times reported might not have happened (so that the source & the way it is being used is a problem and WP:BLPREMOVE is therefore relevant here). I appreciate that anyone can discuss at ANI, but in the end the point of posting here is to request admin action. Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The LA Times article itself does not appear to source its information from the Israel Project website and the byline mentions that the work has been submitted by a Times reporter. However, given that this is a biography of a living person and there is an amount of doubt as to whether the stated events actually transpired, I would recommend that the specific disputed content be removed by another administrator as per WP:BLPREMOVE. As an encyclopedia, we should show reasonable restraint in order to avoid undue harm to a living person. The content may be restored later depending on the outcome of the dispute resolution process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that given there is some doubt about the veracity of this info in a BLP, the material should be removed pending confirmation and consensus to restore. I am going to drop a note to User:Amatulic-who was the protecting admin. If they are active, then probably it is preferable that they remove the content. If they are not active fairly soon, and absent any admin objections, I will do it myself. Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Amatulic is not editing at present and per the consensus at this discussion here, I have removed the section for the present.Slp1 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User 98.236.201.66 disruptive editing at Workaholics

Hello all, The page for Workaholics gets a lot of good faith, but ultimately non-constructive edits, which are mostly harmless and one-time instances of people goofing around. One IP user is very particular in adding a piece of extraneous nonsense to one of the main character's brief bios. Not only is it not relevant, it is also vacuous and frequently makes the sentence he attaches it to nonsense. Or he or she adds it in as its own fragment.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=555415148
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=555142495
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=554737924
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=553574094
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=551892198
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=551386231

This particular "sometimes he can be sensible" (which really, what does that mean?) used to paired with other "undo"-worthy edits such as in

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=550729867
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=550890242

before it become his sole cause celebre. It was obvious the user was not engaging in edit summaries so might not have seen how I was first explaining why I was undoing their continuous unhelpful edits (as in here and here). It took me a while to start warning the user - in fact, I took the time to give him/her a welcome the first time I wanted to start warning the user, just to break the ice to see if they would notice their talk page or see any human element interaction with Wikipedia. Also, I noticed that the same user made similar valueless contributions to other TV shows' pages, sometimes even going out their way to break or disrupt charts as seen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Impractical_Jokers_episodes&diff=555142128&oldid=554349222

I just gave them a last warning, it's not vandalism per se, but definitely disruptive editing, no? The user has only edits on three TV shows, the majority of them for Workaholics and the majority of those just to add this bit of errata in again and again, all within just over a month, and my welcome and 4 warnings were in the past 12 days. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Notified the IP, since IPs are apparently people too. The editing pattern makes me think of contests to get perverse and often baffling phrases into print without the editors' noticing. Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Whitechristian2013 and the Turk Nazi Party

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.

---

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely for username-policy violation

Whitechristian2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

List of white nationalist organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is repeatedly adding a paragraph on something called the Turk Nazi Party to Neo-Nazism and List of white nationalist organizations‎. It's unsourced to anything other than the organisation's own website and some Wikipedia articles which don't mention it. The List of white nationalist organizations‎ is meant to be well-known, i.e. blue-linked, groups only. I've reverted them once on Neo-Nazism, twice on List of white nationalist organizations‎ (where the scope of the list specifically excludes the group since it's redlinked), left them notes on their talk page, started sections on the talk pages of both articles to discuss the material, and the user won't engage. I don't know what to do. Also they're marking all their edits as minor for some reason and don't use edit summaries. I'm not providing diffs because these are this user's only contributions, so you can see them all in the userlinks above. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected their latest additions under WP:LIST. I'm not sure what would be considered appropriate after this point. If they revert again we can give them a 3RR warning, perhaps that would get their attention.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe that will work. And maybe the orange bar of doom would have stopped all this in its tracks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What's your PROBLEM? Don't you have anything better to do with your life? I had a bit of spare time to add a Neo-Nazi White Nationalist group to Wikipedia & you keep deleting it? Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitechristian2013 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd just add that making substantial additions to articles like this while marking them as minor edits is not generally a sign of good faith behavior: see [44] -- The Anome (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, thanks for trying, and you can still add it. It's just necessary to show that it's worthy of inclusion, what we call "notable" (see WP:NOTABLE). To do this you have to find some discussion of it in books or newspapers. I can't find any but maybe it's a language issue. If you can find some I'll be happy to show you what kind of support is necessary to be able to include the material and how to use it, but without sources like that it's really not possible to add that kind of information. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2 Whitechristian2013 only has 30 edits so far so lets see if we can make this work. ok, so why don't we start this again without being upset. The reason we keep reverting your addition is because you are adding it to a list of wikipedia articles, but there isn't a wikipedia article for the party. If you read the links on the welcome template that you were given you will see what is required for an article to be accepted into wikipedia. you are welcome to write that article, but please understand that we need to use third party sources, not the parties home page. I'm happy to help you work on a full article but we need to start talking first. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Argh, now they're messing with my user pages.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think they took the deletion personally and now they are trying to figure out how to work wikipedia in a rage.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a lovely series of diffs: [45], [46], [47].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to defuse the situation a little. They have already made their third revert, but as a new user I haven't given them a 3RR template just yet because I think that may be counterproductive. I'm explaining things on their talk page, and if I can get them to start talking I think we may be able to do this without any extreme measures.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The username alone is... disconcerting. AGF and all, but this smells a bit fishy to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, I've got them talking a bit, so I think we can wait before we employ anything more drastic. I'm going to see if they would like to create an article and use that as an opportunity to get them to understand wikipedia's requirements, we may even have a new article out of the process.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I'll probably stay out of it from now so as not to exacerbate the situation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Le sigh... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the following three diffs before I noticed this thread. Those diffs are: [48], [49], and [50]. These edits were made after other editors tried to talk to this user on his talk page. It appears this editor is WP:NOTLISTENING. Singularity42 (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just reverted the addition he made to Neo-Nazism again. He's well past 3RR. — Richard BB 12:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, along with Lothar von Richthofen, I'm very concerned about this editor's username. — Richard BB 12:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've now blocked Whitechristian2013 for 48 hours due to continuous edit warring. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I think everyone gave this guy enough of a break, he had two choices and chose poorly. I agree that the username is concerning especially with this user's focus on Neo-Nazi groups, but I am unclear on how it is an actual violation. Perhaps when his block expires, he will be more inclined to talk. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And now he's deleted the block notice. I don't believe there are any policies forbidding this, but it seems a bit belligerent. Still, we'll see how he acts after his block ends. — Richard BB 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

He has also called me "anti-semetic" (sic) for warning him about edit-warring! In any case, he has now been indefinitely blocked by Daniel Case for a username violation. RolandR (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As such, I have marked this one as resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that they're still removing active block notices, which is not permitted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest revoking his talk page privileges after this comment. — Richard BB 15:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that he's still at it, that'd be a good idea. He doesn't need to be editing anywhere here anymore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Any chance we can up the indef for apostrophe abuse?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This user continues to post personal attacks and abuse on his talk page. Since he does not appear to be using this to request unblocking, can his talk page access be removed? RolandR (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access removed by The Anome. --regentspark (comment) 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. -- The Anome (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The plot thickens

Shortly following the revocation of talkpage access, a new account called User:14 Reasons shows up and adds and removes a letter jumble (looks almost like a code, but I'm not going to waste time cracking it) to WC2013's talkpage—shortly after adding and removing a similar "message" to indeffed neo-Nazi user Axmann8's talkpage.

For those of you unfamiliar with the bizarre symbology of the far right, the username is almost certainly a reference to the infamous "Fourteen Words" of American white supremacist David Lane. The username alone is thus cause alone to block, but I'm wondering if there may be sockpuppetry afoot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'jumble' posted to Axmann8's page is a simple substitution cipher - except that there are some transcription errors. The original plaintext was clearly "the word christmas is old english. it's a contraction of christ's mass. in greek, x means christ. that is where the word x-mas comes from. it is just a misconception that the word xmas was created by people who want to take christ out of". Just trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, my curiosity got the better of me and I ended up cracking that one on my own. The one on WC2013's talk apparently reads something like "Baseball Bugs is the primary instigator in this mess. If we can get Bugs blocked, or get him to stop sticking his nose in our business, things will go a hell of a lot [easier?]." Would seem to suggest some connection between the accounts, but given that 14R has been given the boot by OrangeMike, it's probably not too important. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (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.

Clarification, please

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.

---

A user that several of us tried to reason with has an issue with me. He calls me a "troll", and violates rules, but when his feelings got hurt, he reported me for behavior he himself engaged in. I will be the first to say that while I have contributed to this site (see Danny Thomas for one), I had no idea about "outting" and "sock/meat puppets". Live and learn.

Anyway, this has to do with the Ted Healy page, which Los Angeles historian Larry Harnisch has used as an example on his blog of how Wikipedia editors post false or misleading information with little or one citation. I was not the one that started the discussion, but apparently, I was the one he took issue with. At the admins suggestion (see below), I humbly request a review and education on why the poster can ask someone who they are in real life, but I cannot, why a poster can call me names, yet I can not respond. As you can see, he blanked out some of my comments in response to his. He even stated that he doesn't even know if the author of the book he is citing is alive after I posted that in fact, the writer was a self published writer in the process of writing another. Apparently, in trying to drill knowledge into his head, I am deemed "agressive". I was not the first person to ask for his identity (he claims a vast experience in news editing, yet can't find an article with a link) and yet I'm the one being taken to task.

In advance, I thank you for any feedback you can give me, and forgive me if I don't properly know how to identify the admin that helped me get here. Zabadu (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Extended content and copy/paste
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attempted outing Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis, I know you have a lot on your plate, but please tell me what to do: If you take a glance at my talk page, you'll notice that a user named Zabadu barged into a discussion I was having with another editor about the validity of an RS that was cited (by someone else) in the Ted Healy article. He/she got all bent out of shape because I had the temerity to question comments made by a blogger who was using the Healy article to criticize WP in general. For the record, that blogger and I have since had a nice chat off-wiki (the public part is here), and we have not only amicably resolved our differences, but reached a consensus on the Healy article. So the issue is resolved, but Zabadu continued mouthing off, hurling insults, and today, threatening to have be blocked for calling him/her and his/her even more obnoxious friend "trolls", and then accusing me of being E.J. Fleming, the author of the book under discussion. (I blanked the last 2 posts because they were completely inappropriate.) Attempted outing is a blockable offense, yes? Even when the personal info is incorrect? I know you're going to say I should have just ignored the harassment, but when people start accusing you of ridiculous stuff, and repeatedly demand that you reveal your identity, you feel obligated to defend yourself. I can get a little pissy sometimes, but I'm not a dick. Sorry to bother you about this. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I've revdel'ed and left them a message. If it were only the one message, it wouldn't have been so bad, but the pattern of badgering you previously, combined with the attempt is such that if he does it again, he will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I received your message. Please explain to me how DoctorJoeE can do the things you are threatening to block me over. Because I asked him about his statement that he's a 30+ year news editor? But he can question a historian? DoctorJoeE is right when he says he can get "a little pissy". I contribute sometimes to Wiki, and Harnisch is an acquaintance of mine. I tried to point the Doctor to articles, but he argued and argued with me. I'm tired of being called a "troll", and he keeps referring to "blog entries" when we have directed him to newspaper articles (check his page, I gave him links). He has name called (troll)me and Finklesomething and made personal comments about us as well. Honestly, this guy runs and reports me after the harassment he's caused to me and another poster for trying to direct him to the "evidence" he requests? So he can "defend himself", but he can call me a troll and I can't? He specifically asked another poster "are you Harnisch", which is "attempted outing". So block him! He complains about things he does himself. I also dispute that he is "not a dick" - provable here by him running to report us for disagreeing with him. Block me if you wish, but that will only show that people like DoctorJoeE can do and say whatever they want, then run to you when people challenge him. It's really pathetic. Zabadu (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC) ":So apparently you are the same person? If not sockpuppets, then certainly meatpuppets? " - DoctorJoeE's comment asking if I am Finklewhatever or sockpuppets/meatpuppets". How is this not "attempted outing"? Zabadu (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Lovely. I have no dog in this hunt, I just call them as I see them, and as for the content on that article, there is no possible way I could be more indifferent. My point still stands that you were badgering him about his identity, and made enough of a claim that I was forced to stop, review, then WP:REVDEL the edit. That was a valid reason for him to ask for administrative help. And for your information, connecting you to another Wikipedia identity isn't outing. Outing is connecting someone to a real world identity by definition. I think I was sufficiently clear the first time and it isn't a point of debate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Well then, I would like to report him for asking the other poster if they were Larry Harnisch. Thank you.Zabadu (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC) His comment is here - I am still waiting for the corroboration that you 'edited newspapers'. You brought it up to disparage a source and to make yourself sound special. Well give. Otherwise we'll know that you are just another phony and likely Fleming himself.Finkellium (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Aha, the troll returns. What I said is that I have written for newspapers for 30+ years, which is true. My identity is irrelevant, because this is not about me, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway. And no, I'm not Fleming, whom I'm not even sure is still alive. Are you Harnisch? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Zabadu (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC) You know, WP:ANI is exactly the right forum to file your complaint. Since I've already issued you a warning for outing, it probably should be heard there so uninvolved admin can view it. As it is, I've got to be up in less than 8 hours and don't have the time to read all the preceding comments to get context, but I'm sure someone would be happy to view the situation at ANI. You should tell them the discussion was started here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Holy cow, got up because I couldn't sleep and found this copy/paste job waiting for me at ANI. I'm about to go back to bed, I'm sure someone else can fix my archive into a proper quote box of some kind, and help the gentleman. My opinion is probably obvious anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 04:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, I fixed the box and left a note at User talk:DoctorJoeE. I think this user tried but didn't quite get how to do that, based on the header on this quote box. Again, off to bed.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 05:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis, for notifying me. Take a look at my talk page; I think it's obvious who was trying to maintain the discussion on the subject (the Ted Healy article), and who was trying to shift the discussion to a personal attack on me. To reiterate, I worked out the Healy issue off-wiki with Mr. Harnisch, who turned out to be a very nice guy. The public part of that discussion is on his blog, which is here [51]. The problem is solved. I'm going to continue my discussion with him, which should result in not only a better Healy article, but also in (I hope) some restoration of his faith in WP, which deteriorated when he became disillusioned as an editor some time ago, as he explained. Most of his objections to the article's content had already been rectified before the complainant's first post on my talk page. The complainant says he/she "tried to point me to [newspaper] articles" -- but as the dialog on my talk page shows, those sources were already cited in the Healy article (by me and others), and when I attempted to point that out, the discussion just kept coming back to me, personally. My error in this whole interaction was in breaking my own rule of ignoring personal attacks. I've learned from that, and I won't fall into that trap again. As you can see, I tried to walk away from the fray more than once, and it was only when the badgering about my personal identity continued that I felt compelled to seek administrative assistance. I should have tried harder to walk away; I get flamed all the time in my real job, and I've learned to shrug it off, and I need to learn to do that here as well. The complainant, of course, refuses to concede any errors at all. The exchange on my talk page speaks for itself -- but I'll be happy to answer any specific questions. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We all push the limits of civility from time to time, and throwing around the "troll" word is usually a bad idea. As for "outing", I don't see what you did as outing. I do see what he did as outing, not because of the single comment (which would be borderline by itself) but because of the series in inquiry and flat out badgering you about revealing your "true identity" followed by an claim that required revdel'ing. That is why I gave him the warning, under the good faith assumption that he didn't realize he pushed it beyond good judgment and into the area of bordering on harassing. Since I had taken action on his actions, I figured he needed to come here to allow others to review his claims, although I think fall short of a violation and it is more likely just "tit for tat". Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, "troll" was a poor word choice, but I couldn't think of a better descriptor, on the spur of the moment, for the constant needling. Many of you know me, I've been here awhile, you know I don't pick fights, and I've had a hand in resolving a few; I'm a writer, I just enjoy writing. And as Daniel Webster used to say about his paucity of Senate speeches, "I only protest when I'm kicked." Well, I was kicked. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I really have to protest here. DoctorJoeE comes in here all sweetness and light, repentant of not "walking away" and "poor choice of words". He used "troll" numerous times, not just once "on the spur of the moment".

I was not the person who first asked his identity. And yes, I kept asking him to put up or shut up because he kept bringing up his "30+ years as a news editor". As Finklewhatever pointed out, using his "30+ year" quote to "disparage a source and make yourself feel special." I guess I should have thrown in my 10 years at television news writing so I could be as special.

He wasn't "kicked". He was asked numerous times to provide a source other than the ONE book he was quoting. As for his claim that he kept "asking about news stories, here is the quote:

And here we have yet another anonymous IP signature! What is that all about? Whatever; please yourself -- I'll stick with the subject at hand. The article presently says that three guys were alleged, by an uncorroborated source, to have beaten up Healy; but since the autopsy showed that he died of acute nephritis secondary to acute and chronic alcoholism, and his injuries had no bearing on his death, the fight, and anyone allegedly involved in it, is irrelevant. You are saying, I think, that this is "just wrong". What is wrong about it, and where are the "actual news stories" which prove it wrong? Please enlighten me. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I neglected to log in when I made the last two posts. They are mine. "Actual news stories" are available with a quick search of Ted Healy on Google News Archive. Here are just a few:Ted .Healy .Death Is Attributed To Natural Causes' .Autopsy Shows ... news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19371223...‎ Autopsy Shows Bruises on Face Superficial and No Inquest Will Be Held . Los Angeles, Dec. 22 The— unexpected death of Ted Healy, film comedian, was due ... Lewiston Evening Journal ..Order Autopsy Be Performed On Ted ... news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19371222...‎ autopsy . termine whether Ted Healy, stage and screen comedian, died from effects of a fist fight which, police were climaxed a gay celebration of the birth of bis ...Police Suspend Ted Healy Probe . - Google News news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19371222...‎ Los Angeles — Police said they would drop further investigation of a mysterious fist fight involving Ted Healy an autopsy indicated today that the film comedian ...I say that continuing to post the "alternate" story is wrong as it has been disproven time and time again. For a 30+ year newsman, you certainly should know where to find this information. Zabadu (talk) 15:39, 10

DoctorJoeE knows just the right words and phrases to make himself look good and others believe that he's just a nice guy trying to do a hard job and getting no credit for it. I'm sorry if I'm blunt and see him for what he truly is.

But I would sure appreciate another admin reviewing this and letting me know why DoctorJoeE can do exactly what he's accusing others of because he's just a poor, picked on guy and I'm just a mean old biddy. He's full of it. He never let it go or "walked away"; he always had to have the last word. I respond to "last words". I've been here a while too, and while I've never aspired to the lofty positions in Wiki, I have made thoughtful contributions. If asking someone to back up their statement of experience or asking them to provide another source for their malarkey is "attacking", then the world is sorely in trouble. I only kick when I'm called names over and over. He was "kicked"? LOL. And as proof that he didn't use "troll" at the spur of the moment, here's another quote from his talk page.

Thanks for the heads-up, I already noticed. And thanks for the fine-tuning; now that the trolls are gone, we can all get back to work. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And in reference to his "continuing to work with Harnisch..." here is what Harnisch told me: that he responded to an email and that he has had no further contact, nor intends to. He wishes to stay out of this fray and remain objective. He has no intention of working with Doctor because of this.

So to say that DoctorJoeE varnishes the truth is pretty accurate, if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadu (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Since quoting writers seems to add authenticity of character here, I quote Mark Twain who said, “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Zabadu (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear as crystal- this is about Doc Joe calling persons names. This is about Doc Joe thinking he owns an article. This is about Doc Joe continuing to insert into articles that the producer of the James Bond film series is a murderer. He does this based on a completely discredited book. He said he worked for newspapers as if that made his defamatory actions better. He was asked to verify his claim and like a 30 year old child he attacked and attacked. To be clear, Doc Joe has no place on Wikipedia Finkellium (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the above statement saying "Doc Joe has no place on Wikipedia." As a new editor, he has helped me tremendously, though we did meet as a result of him accusing me of "spam" in my first fledgling attempts at editing an article. I recognized why he would think so, and educated myself better as to proper conduct. In other words, we transmuted the conflict into a higher harmony and the result will be a great benefit to the greater community. Pardon my ignorance of such things, as I am new to this Wiki world, but, wouldn't our time be better spent tackling the enormous amount of work to do here than in issuing personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, against each other? I feel like I've walked into a middle school cafeteria, not the pinnacle of academia. We all have a place here. That's kind of the point, I think. To be clear: to say that DoctorJoeE has no place here is mean and untrue. EditorAmanda (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC

So DoctorJoeE meets someone by accusing them of spam. He reports me after calling me a troll. He claims to own the article. He makes a comment on Harnisch's blog and calls it "communication with Harnisch". He whitewashes the truth to make himself look best in all situations. You may feel you've walked into a high school cafeteria, but guess what? It isn't the "pinnacle of academia" either. Not with folks like him around. He feels NO ONE has a place here but himself. And when he is challenged, he reports you. Not the kind of editor I'd think you'd want around, but hey, everyone is entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately, you gave no feedback on the actual situation I asked about. I would appreciate that.Zabadu (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And I would appreciate an editor who isn't in cahoots with DoctorJoeE to give me feedback.

Hello again, Amanda -- I've been slowly working my way through the source material, and if you have no objection, I would like to move the Beverly Ross stub from your sandbox to mine. The reason is that once we take the article "live", I want to avoid any possibility that someone might object to it on WP:COI grounds -- and believe me, there are people who like nothing better than raising such issues, particularly if it makes the DYK queue. It will also make it a bit easier for me to work on. Is that okay with you? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:09, 15 May 2013

Yes, please do so, DoctorJoeE. I appreciate your help so much. 68.52.179.200 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2013 Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll stay in touch -- I'm gonna need some help. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:28, 16 May 2013 Just tell me what to do and I'm in. EditorAmanda (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 How about an autographed photo? (Just kidding.) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:14, 16 May 2013(UTC)Zabadu (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2013

And here's DoctorJoeE boasting that you admins won't do anything about him. Yep, it appears Wiki is just one big admin club. If it's a "non-issue", then why did you report me, DoctorJoeE?

Just threw in my two cents worth over on the ANI debate involving you. I'll probably regret getting in the middle of it, but I was moved to act as a character witness on your behalf.EditorAmanda (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind thought, but it's probably best to let those two continue to hoist themselves with their own petard. It's much ado over a non-issue, and the complete lack of admin attention demonstrates how seriously it is being taken. The difference is that you reacted rationally to my initial communication, and they did not. (You're right -- I almost said, yesterday, "Are we in 5th grade?" -- but held my tongue.) You run into people like that sometimes here, and you can't take it personally. In the words of a very wise fellow editor, "The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise, you know. All else is random noise." I'll look forward to seeing those biographers' pieces, when you get them. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.8.48 (talk) Zabadu (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2013 (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.

Playerhistory.com and soccerdatabase.eu

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.

---

Following this AN/I thread, there is a bot removing all links to both playerhistory.com and soccerdatabase.eu. From the discussion, I can understand the reasoning for deleting soccerdatabase.eu, but the arguments for removing playerhistory.com was "because they are dead anyways", which is not the way to prevent WP:LINKROT. I've used playerhistory.com as citation in a lot of my articles, as it is the only statistics-site that covers Norwegian football pre 2000, but now all of those citation have been removed from the articles (without removing the supported text/stats). Is it disruptive if I revert the bot (after the task is done), or is playerhistory.com a site that we shouldn't link to at all? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful links - Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 54#Playerhistory.com and Soccerdatabase.eu and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#soccerdatabase.eu and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 22#Template:Playerhistory GiantSnowman 09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read those, as they were linked in the AN/I thread. No need to comment on the bot request after the bot has started to perform its task? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

They provide some more context to the situation. GiantSnowman 09:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My take on this matter, as the editor who submitted the bot request to remove the links. This website has been dead for at least 12 months, more like 18-24 if I remember correctly. It has been "re-launching soon!" for nearly as long. This is not a classic case of LINKROT as this does not cover newspaper articles or the like, it is a sports database which is not being updated, and therefore serves no purpose at all for active players. As for historical players, how do we know the statistics are accurate? i.e. can it be considered a reliable source? Furthermore, can the links actually be salvaged i.e. at the Wayback Machine? I cannot check as I am at work. GiantSnowman 09:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't serve any purpose for active players, but it rarely used for active players. User:Frietjes did a fantastic job replacing the citations from playerhistory.com with other sites when Template:Playerhistory disappeared, but replaced the template with <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.playerhistory.com/player/### |title="Name" profile |publisher=playerhistory.com}}{{dead link}}</ref> when he couldn't find another citation to replace it with, and that was mostly for players that were active before the internet-era. If we have the playerhistory-links with a deadlink template, it atleast shows that the information was verified in the past. Yes it is linkrot, but to quote WP:LINKROT: Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online. At first, I thought the reason all the links were removed was because someone had opened a thread at WP:RSN to discover that playerhistory.com was not a reliable source. But I was surprised that they were removed simply because they were dead. I have used soccerdatabase.eu as a "wayback machine", as it looks exatcly like playerhistory.com in late 2011, but make it look like I found the info on playerhistory.com when citing in articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Who has deleted information? I certainly have not, I have been adding {{cn}} wherever I have come across them, as ideally the bot should have done. soccerdatabase.eu should not be used as an archive as it is merely a mirror which looks to be violating copyight and will hopefully be blacklisted. Have you used the actual Wayback Machine? GiantSnowman 10:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I wish I'd kept up with the original ANI thread, didn't realise the bot was going to delete all links to playerhistory as well, including citations. WP:LINKVIO says we should be removing links to soccerdatabase.eu, assuming we accept that the site violates playerhistory.com's copyright. And there's no point keeping dead external links. But Mentoz86 is correct that where playerhistory is being used as a cited source, those citations shouldn't be removed just because the site is dead. Until and unless the site is found not to be RS, they should be left in place and tagged with {{dead link}}. WP:LINKROT#Keeping dead links is clear on this. Can anything automatic be done to fix? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely the burden should be on us to prove it is reliable, not to show it is not. I personally don't see any use in keeping two-year old dead links that (seemingly) cannot be repaired; it is much more useful to tag them with {{cn}} and replace them that way. GiantSnowman 11:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing cited sources simply because they're deadlinks is not a good idea. Not only can the site come back online, at which point all those citations would need to be re-added, but also a citation to a currently-offline source is certainly better than no reference to any source at all. Even if the site is currently down (or even permanently so), there are archival sites such as archive.org that may have old versions of the pages available. Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have asked (three times now!) for somebody to check whether or not the Wayback Machine has archived links, as I am unable to do so. GiantSnowman 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It has some pages from the site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Some but not all? Can a bot restore all PH links from the WM, or is that too complicated? GiantSnowman 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Some but nowhere near all. Any retrieval of archive links would require having the original PH URLs to start with, so presumably the first step to any sort of fix, manual or automatic, would be to restore any citations to PH that the original bot removed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What about rollbacking the bot's edits between 22:00 UTC yesterday and 04:00 (UTC) today, and then make the bot re-do the removal of soccerdatabase.eu links? We are talking about a couple of thousand articles, so it might be hard to do manually. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot operator comment: Just let me know what needs to be done and I can accommodate. The bot can rollback itself, remove just soccerdatabase.eu links, add {{cn}}s, {{dead link}}s, whatever is necessary. Cheers-- Theopolisme (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case I believe the best thing would be to revert, and only remove soccerdatabase.eu links in addition to marking playerhistory.com links with {{dead link}}, to give the football-project time to replace the playerhistory-citations with other refs. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is, if it's not too complicated:

• rollback the bot, then;
• external links to soccerdatabase.eu: remove;
• citations to soccerdatabase.eu: replace with {{cn}};
• citations to playerhistory.com: tag with {{dead link}};
• external links to playerhistory are problematic: I would say remove them, on the basis a dead ext link has no value, but many football editors, including some who should know better, tend to "reference" infobox stats by putting a templated link to their stats database of choice in the External links section. Should we be taking that into consideration, or not? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Struway's suggestion is extremely sensible; can we then run a report to see what pages still link to PH i.e. as an in-line cite? We can then, over time, work through the list, finding replacement sources. GiantSnowman 08:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'll wait another day or so for any other editors to chime in if they so desire; then the bot will revert itself and process citations per Struway2's suggestions. If *many* football editors, though, prefer keeping the link in the external links section, maybe we can just tag them with {{dead link}} and be done with it? Theopolisme (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'd say we definitely need to remove all Playerhistory external links. GiantSnowman 12:50, 16 May 2013 (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.

Copyright violations by User:Danish Expert

Roughly 7 months ago, I noticed that User:Danish Expert had been plagiarising sources. Attempting to discuss the issue with him, and at the subsequent request for a WP:CCI ([52]), I received only resistance and denial ("I never copied word-for-word text into articles" ... "only half of the sentence was accidently an identical copy" "I forgot to use some proper quotation marks for it" ..."it is a very factual line almost impossible to rephrase with other words" "impossible to formulate otherwise, due to being listed as short factual bullet points; and not being formulated as a sentence/line" "nobody can claim a copyright violation for me to add an identical topical list to wikipedia (with the topical words identical compared to what is reported by the article), because its just not possible to change the formulation of the topical list without changing the meaning of the topical words." ... "you can not claim a copyright violation to an identically formulated "common standard technical description"") which were far from convincing that the user actually understood the issue being raised and would be able to avoid repeating it in the future.

The request was ultimately closed, after DE "promise to be extra carefull", without launching a CCI by User:MER-C who observed "This request is borderline and I'm willing to let it slide if Danish Expert checks his previous contributions to eurozone debt crisis articles for close paraphrasing."

However, the plagiarism has continued (and was even occurring while the last CCI report was still open). A quick review of his contributions since then turned up numerous concerning edits, including:

Examples of plagiarism

Danish Expert Source [53] [54] "The new MTO definition is designed to set country-specific values, according to the economic and budgetary position and sustainability risks of the Member State. It will be defined on basis of the state's current debt-to-GDP ratio and potential GDP growth, while the overall objective over the medium term is still to achieve a budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus. For eurozone states or ERM II Member States, the upper limit for MTOs has been set to 1% of GDP as structural deficit if the state has a combination of low debt and high potential growth. For states with a combination of high debt and low potential growth, and for states suffering from increased age related sustainability risks in the long term, the MTO-requirement shall move up to be in "balance or in surplus". The MTOs will serve the purpose of providing a safety margin towards continuously respecting the 3% deficit limit, while ensuring fiscal sustainability in the long run. ... All Eurozone states and ERM-II member states that have not yet reached their MTO, have agreed to implement yearly improvements of its structural deficit equal to minimum 0.5% of GDP. It was also agreed to pursue active consolidation of the budget when the economic conditions are favourable (periods during which actual GDP growth is above potential growth), and to use windfall revenues, as a rule, for the reduction of government deficit and debt. ... The existing early-warning mechanism is expanded, so that the European Commission can now issue an "opinion" direct to member states, without a prior Council involvement, giving advice to encourage Member States to realise the agreed adjustment path. Accordingly, the Commission will address the Council in future not only if there is an acute risk of breaching the 3% of GDP reference value, but also in cases of unjustified deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO or the MTO itself, including in good times. ... In order to eliminate possible disincentives for structural reforms, it was agreed that, under certain conditions, certain structural reforms can justify a temporary deviation from the MTO and, for Member States that have not yet reached their MTO, temporary deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO. If the 3% deficit limit is respected and the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the four-year programme period, the Council, when assessing the MTO or the adjustment path towards it, will also accept the negative impact of major structural reforms (if they have direct long-term cost-saving effects - and can be verified to improve fiscal sustainability over the long term - i.e. pension scheme reforms)." "The new definition of the medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) is designed to better take into account the diversity of economic and budgetary positions and risks across Member States. In future, the medium-term budgetary objective of a country will be defined on the basis of its current debt ratio and potential growth, while the overall objective of achieving over the medium term a budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus remains. For Member States having adopted the euro an for those participating in the exchange rate mechanism (ERM II), the agreed range of MTOs is between – 1 % of GDP for countries with a combination of low debt and high potential growth and balance or in surplus for countries with a combination of high debt and low potential growth. The aim of the new country-specific MTO is threefold. It is designed to provide a safety margin with respect to the 3 % deficit limit, to ensure fiscal sustainability in the long run, and to improve the scope for productive public investment. ... Member States of the euro area and of ERM II that have not yet reached their MTO have agreed to achieve, as a benchmark, an annual adjustment of 0.5 % of GDP. ... Governments have agreed to pursue active consolidation of the budget when the economic conditions are favourable, i.e. in ‘good times’, and to use windfall revenues, as a rule, for the reduction of government deficit and debt. ... With a view to strengthening the preventive character of the Pact, the 2005 Ecofin report clarifies and expands the existing early-warning mechanism. The report expects the Commission to issue direct, i.e. without prior Council involvement, policy advice to encourage Member States to realise the agreed adjustment path. Accordingly, the Commission will address the Council in future not only if there is an acute risk of breaching the 3 % of GDP reference value, but also in cases of unjustified deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO or the MTO itself, including in good times." ... "With a view to eliminating possible disincentives for structural reforms, the Council agreed that, under certain conditions, certain structural reforms can justify a temporary deviation from the MTO and, for Member States that have not yet reached their MTO, temporary deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO. Provided that respect of the 3 % of GDP reference value is not jeopardised and the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the four-year programme period, the Council, when assessing the MTO or the adjustment path towards it, will take into account major structural reforms. Only major structural reforms that have direct long-term cost-saving effects and verifiably improve fiscal sustainability over the long term will be considered. This rule pertains, in particular, to systemic reforms of the pension scheme of a Member State." [55] [56] "The European Commission also recently proposed the establishment of a Convergence and Competitiveness Instrument (CCI) within the EU budget. The proposal is to create a special EU budget account with earmarked money, for supporting the timely implementation of needed structural reforms (traditionally considered to be political unpopulair to implement), on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission. If the Member State implements the identified and needed structural reforms to ensure convergence/competitiveness, then the CCI budget will so to speak pay the Member State an economic reward of behaving in a sound and responsible way. On 29 November 2012, the Economic and Monetary affairs Committee of the European Parliament voted on the framework proposal, and gave its mandate to reach an agreement with the Council, meaning that the informal trilogue can now begin.The outstanding issues for the ECOFIN council to consider at their next meeting on 4 December 2012, is to decide on the role of the national supervisors, the governance of the ECB and the voting rights within EBA. At the council meeting there was not sufficient time to agree on any final decision, so the council will be called for a second meeting within 8 days, with the aim to conclude the work ahead of the EU summit on 13-14 December. Any change of the EU legislation about EBA require (according to article 114 of the TFEU): A qualified majority at the Council in conjunction with the Parliament's approval. While any change of the EU legislation about ECB's function/role require (according to article 127(6) of the TFEU): Unanimity for adoption by the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the ECB." "convergence and competitiveness instrument" within the EU budget – but separate from the MFF - to support the timely implementation of structural reforms, on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission. On 29 November, the vote of the Economic and Monetary affairs Committee of the European Parliament gave a mandate to reach an agreement with the Council, which opens the way to starting the informal trilogue. The outstanding issues touch on the role of the national supervisors, the governance of the ECB and the voting rights within EBA. Based on article 127(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the draft ECB regulation requires unanimity for adoption by the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the ECB." [57] [58] "contracting parties to make active use whenever appropriate and necessary: 1) Of the more ambitious regulations and measures applying specifically for Eurozone member states in accordance with Article 136 of the TFEU (which relates to the already existing enhanced and more strict Stability and Growth Pact regulations applying only for Eurozone member states), and 2) Of enhanced cooperation on matters that are essential for the proper functioning of the eurozone without undermining the internal market, as provided for by existing articles in the EU treaties." "Contracting Parties stand ready to make active use, whenever appropriate and necessary, of measures specific to those Member States whose currency is the euro, as provided for in Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of enhanced cooperation, as provided for in Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and in Articles 326 to 334 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on matters that are essential for the proper functioning of the euro area, without undermining the internal market." [59] [60] "Íslandsbanki (Icelandic for: Bank of Iceland), is an Icelandic bank with roots tracing back to 1884, formerly being the domestic part of Glitnir banki hf., but on 15 October 2008 being split from the bankrupt Glitnir and reestablished into a new independent bank. The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas, and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. It is being owned 5% by the Icelandic State Treasury and 95% by "ISB Holding ehf.", which is the creditor group behind the old bankrupt Glitnir bank. "with roots tracing back to 1884 ...The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. [61] [62] "In March 2010, Germany presented a string of proposals as an answer to the present European sovereign debt crisis. They emphasized the intention at this point of time was not to establish a fiscal union, but simply to make the monetary union more resilient to crisis. They argued that the previous Stability and Growth Pact needed a reform to become more strict and efficient, and in return an European emergency bailout fund should be founded to assist states in financial difficulties, with bailout payments available under strict corrective fiscal action agreements - subject to approval by ECB and the Eurogroup. In case a non-collaborating state with an Excessive Deficit Procedure breached the called for adjustment path towards compliance, it should risk being fined or loose its payment of EU cohesion funds and/or loose its political voting rights in the Eurogroup. A call was also made to enforce the coordination of economic policies between eurozone members, so that all states take an active part in each other’s policymaking" "making monetary union more resilient to a crisis ... Co-ordination between euro members must be more far-reaching; they must take an active part in each other’s policymaking."

Again, the response I've received is denials and justifications ("it was not possible to reformulate the words of certain phrases compared to how they were formulated by the treaty, because in that case we would risk making the grave mistake to enforce our own interpretation of the words, which could very well be a complete misleading of the readers, so it was far better to use part of the same "phrases" as the treaty did." "specific content points could not be formulated with other words due to the source using either vague/specifically formulated references (so leaving it with 100% of my own words would simply be an even worse solution, as it would then be either inaccurately reported for the specific facts, or constitute an incorrect enforcement of my own interpretation of the meaning of the vague parts of the provision)") that don't suggest that he grasps the problem.

DE is a quite prolific editor who has made a tremendous amount of valuable contributions to the project. Unfortunately, in my experience, in addition to the above plagiarism concerns, he lacks adequate understand of many of wikipedia's core policies, in particular what wikipedia is and what it is WP:NOT. A significant fraction of what he adds is unsourced original analysis, non-notable minor details, WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of stats, etc. See for instance a recent example at Latvia and the euro: [63] Talk:Latvia_and_the_euro#Latvia_and_the_Maastricht_criteria, [64], [65], [66].

The user means well, and I genuinely believe that he could be an excellent asset to the project if he could just better focus his immense talents on encyclopedic things. I think at the very least a CCI needs to be launched, due to the continuing plagiarism, but the page's instructions recommend seeking community input in cases where the filer has had disputes with the subject. Perhaps the best route forward would be a WP:RFC/U, to help demonstrate to DE why his edits are problematic. I really don't think that sanctions are the solution here, but believe the user would benefit from WP:ADOPTion to help guide him through all these issues. Unfortunately the user has long WP:ABF of me, so my arguments and advice on these issues is usually dismissed, but I suspect that he might be more receptive to a fresh voice. To date, the user has rejected this option, claiming they already understand all the policies. TDL (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Although, I am mostly not part of this conflict, I was invited by TDL to leave a comment here, if I wanted. TDL and Danish Expert keep having arguments over a number of articles, with TDL sticking too much to wikipedia policies, guidelines, or even essays and Danish Expert usually adopting a very liberal interpretation of the core rules of wikipedia, until everyone else disagrees with him and he lets it go. In this background, TDL has threatened Danish Expert with administrative action and has at least once summoned an administrator to mediate in one of their various disagreements and also most recently reported Danish Expert for alleged copyright violations. In the case where an administrator was involved, the administrator even suggested TDL should plot to get Danish Expert blocked.

I am frankly tired of all the arguments, which usually - but not always - concern quite technical details in the edits of Danish Expert. Usually, TDL is right in these arguments, and often Danish Expert's edits may have some flaws, such as not top quality language, missing references, contain points which are\may be true, but cannot be verified by a source, but over all, Danish Expert is adding valuable content that no other user seems to provide.

Danish Expert usually acts quite defensively to suggestions he may be wrong and, he may try to prove everyone else wrong or insist he understands everything even if he doesn't for some time - some days or 1-2 weeks - until he aligns himself to the general consensus. The problem is that he adds too much content too fast, and no one can really keep an eye on his edits all the time, to fix those secondary flaws, especially since he has rejected the idea of having a mentor.

On the other hand, since Danish Expert has faced consisted opposition and has even been reported or had to face a not-too-friendly administrator, I cannot blame him for acting so defensively. However, both sides, TDL and Danish Expert have acted quite stubbornly at times. I also acknowledge that I may not have acted properly in some of those arguments.

So, in my opinion, the main concern is how to keep Danish Expert as active, but also avoid his shortcomings, without placing him under something that would make him feel humiliated like supervision (by a mentor).

The particular incident reported by TDL here, i.e. alleged copyright infringement is in my opinion quite minor and arguable. In the previous report of TDL against Danish Expert, an administrator has replied to him in quite the same sense. Danish Expert does not willingly and blatantly just copy copyrighted text. Even from the new examples TDL has found, it can be seen that an attempt has been made to rephrase the text or attribute it to its rightful source and that some cases are just ridiculous to argue. For example, this excerpt:

"with roots tracing back to 1884, formerly being the domestic part of [[Glitnir (bank)|Glitnir banki hf.]], but on 15 October 2008 being split from the bankrupt Glitnir and reestablished into a new independent bank. The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas, and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. It is being owned 5% by the Icelandic State Treasury and 95% by "ISB Holding ehf.", which is the creditor group behind the old bankrupt Glitnir bank.<ref name="Islandsbanki financial result 2012"/>"

seems properly sourced to me, or perhaps the source could also be repeated a bit above from where it was added, and it would totally be something I would myself add on wikipedia. Writing that the bank has roots back to 1884 and holds 20-40% of the market is rather a general "fact" or allegation, rather than something that is under immediate copyright. Since the source was properly added, I really fail to see the issue here. In the previous report of TDL, there was an example about Kasidiaris, a Greek politician, attacking some other politicians, which happened on national TV. Arguing the words stating exactly what happened, i.e. this source text:

"An arrest warrant has been issued for Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris after he attacked two female parliamentary candidates on a live talk show on ANT-1 TV. Kasidiaris threw water at SYRIZA’s Rena Dourou and then repeatedly slapped Communist Party hopeful Liana Kanelli during a political debate."

are copyrighted is quite ridiculous in my sense. To explain this, let's assume we are to report that JFK got shot when he was. Obviously, the wording cannot really differ from what some journalist or author has already written on the subject:

"On Friday November 22, 1963, US president John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas."

Even though this can be rephrased somehow, its basic "facts" cannot change and I don't think copyright can be ascertained over this sentence, as it just common knowledge, much like what happened with Kasidiaris in Greece. As long as this is properly sourced, I do not see why it should be considered a major copyright violation.

The latest argument between the two editors concerned the inclusion or not of a specific sentence, appearing in some referenced source and can be found here. This in my opinion clearly indicates that the "problem" is the general actions of both editors, rather than the suggested plagiarism of Danish Expert. Both editors are quite good and add valuable content, usually complementing each other's actions, so I am really against any sanctions placed on either. However, there are general disagreements over style, and more importantly, content added, which should be somehow addressed.

The current disputes, however, are in my opinion, quite ridiculous.

I would advise any administrator that gets involved to carefully examine the edits of both users and their responses in the relevant articles' talk pages and on their user pages, before coming to any conclusions. To sum up, Danish Expert adds valuable content which may often have some issues and TDL has repeatedly tried to address those issues. However, no one can always keep an eye on Danish Expert's edits for potential issues, while also, sometimes TDL overreacts about alleged issues with Danish Expert's edits, failing to use common sense and sticking way too much to "the rules". Heracletus (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, for Heracletus has appointed himself resident psychologist for me and DE. He regularly involves himself in our disputes (even on articles which he has never edited before), thought his "mediation" is usually much more antagonistic than helpful, and usually limited to making personal critiques of our behaviour, rather than addressing the content dispute. (DE has expressed similar frustration with his habit complaining about us.)

"the administrator even suggested TDL should plot to get Danish Expert blocked." I presume that the grand conspiracy to get DE blocked which Heracletus is referring to is this comment made by User:Drmies: "You could gang up with your two fellow editors (while Heracletus isn't watching) and start a revert war to get him blocked. That's terrible manners, of course..." The comment was obviously made tounge-in-cheek, but this seems to have been lost on Heracletus.

Heracletus, you really need to read WP:Close paraphrasing as well, in particular Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Example. You can't just change a few words in a sentence and claim it for your own. If you want to use the words of others, you need to use quotation marks, it's really that simple. Facts can't be copyrighted, but expressions of facts can. And while I agree that many of the issues are relatively minor, the main problem is that this is ongoing, even after being warned about it, and DE (or you) don't seem to understand WHY its problematic, which makes it likely that it will continue. As I said above, I don't think sanctions on DE are the solution. But clearly someone needs to get through to him that these types of edits aren't OK. TDL (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I was notified by TDL about this discussion, presumably because of my involvement in discussion about Latvia and euro. I don't remember noticing anything that would suggest Danish Expert is violating copyrights. Seeing where this is going, though, I offer this - I got impression that Danish Expert is knowledgeable about the topic and probably gets carried away with his own ideas, TDL apparently noticed this and has been stalking him ever since, sincerely hoping to educate him about Wikipedia's rules although he might be pushing too hard; not sure what Heracletus' agenda is, but it seems to me this is not as much about copyrights as these three having longstanding issues with each other, which they can't figure out how to solve ~~Xil (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think it's fair to claim that I'm stalking DE. The articles which we have been in conflict on are restricted to a handful (all eurozone-related) which have all been on my watchlist since before DE began editing in this topic area: [67] [68]. Looking at DE's recently contributions, there are many articles within this topic area of which he is the primary editor and which I've never touched since his first edit: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. As far as I can recall, I've never followed him to an article which wasn't already on my watchlist. If I'm stalking him, I'm certainly not doing a very good job of it as I missed all of the diffs listed above when they were originally made. It was only after I noticed an issue on European Fiscal Compact that I looked further into it and found the pattern repeating in other diffs. Yes, I scrutinize edits he makes to articles on my watchlist, just like when anyone else edits these pages and just like he does likewise for my edits. But that's called the normal collaborative editing process, not stalking. TDL (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to revisit my decline, but I'll let the user conduct issues play out first. MER-C 05:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't questioning your decline. In fact, I supported it at the time. TDL (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@TDL (about the past: November 2012): You highly exaggerate the problem. Please stop deliberately to paint a wrong picture of my past behavior, just for the sake of stalking me. The CCI case you referred to from 7 months ago, was closed by User:MER-C, and the plagiarism you claim that I continued to do while being under CCI is NOT TRUE. In addition to your 5 reported examples back then, MER-C was able to find 1 extra backdated example which needed to be fixed. Back then I immediately engaged and solved the problem with missing quotation marks in the 6 examples being reported back then. Admittedly I briefly made one mistake in my fixing process, by accidently opting to use "italic text" as quotation marks (instead of actual quotation marks), but immediately within few hours also corrected that mistake after being noticed by User:Stfg. Back then I engaged sincerely with an open mind, corrected all past issue, and learned from my mistakes and today make far better use of quotation marks whenever needed. As this and this is an example of.

@TDL (about the Latvian case: March 2013): You highly exaggerate the problem. Last time the two of us had a clash (March 2013), was about some content I had added for the Latvia and the euro. It was solved peacefully back then. I agreed with you - and other editors in the talkpage - that certain shortcomings of the content needed to be addressed before upload, and fully accepted not to add it before reaching consensus for it at the talkpage, and until then started my ongoing work to improve the material in my sandbox. As I had a lot of things on my agenda, I have not afterwards found time to conclude it yet. I will refer readers of this point also to read my response about the discussion of my so-called "imperfect upload practice", that we had in the turm oil of the Latvian case at my user talkpage. The conclusion from this case was, that our internal discussion had made me realize in addition to a careful re-read of the wikipedia policies, that I needed in the future to start add a CN tag behind the parts of my uploads where the provided source did not fully proof a part of it followed by a "reason= line" explaining to other editors why this part had been written and no source added for the moment (in situations where the fact was not disputed, but a proper additional source had just been hard to find immediately when uploading the content).

@TDL (about the current case: May 2013): You highly exaggerate the problem. Moreover your "cited" report of my reaction to your notification is highly misleading, and so is your failed suggestion that it seems like I could not "grasps the problem". I invite all who is reading this thread to consult my full reply to TDL in this present discussion, here at my user talkpage, which proof I did grasp and actually fully agreed how this current issue should be solved (by adding direct cited quotes for the source-sensitive material), and even helped fix this issue myself! In essence the present situation was a single case, with 3 content points being clarified by me around the same time in the Content chapter of the Fiscal Compact article, where you (TDL) first corrected the 2 content points, and later discovered the third and got angry. However you entirely miss, that I immediately accepted your "edit summary" argument and correction for the first 2 content points, where you wrote it was better to make an exact quote of the source in situations where the specific line's degree of "own words" at the highest could be 20% compared to 80% identical phrases. When you discovered that both of us had not yet fixed the 3rd content point according to how the other 2 content points had been fixed, and notified me about that, I immediately engaged and fixed the issue according to your raised flag. Your cry that I do not listen, and deliberately ignore Wikipedia policies is utterly false. For unknown reasons you have now suddenly decided to intensify your hunt against me, by launching another broad attack against my account. As I pointed out in my latest reply at my user talkpage, I really genuinely think you exaggerate and hunt the wrong guy here. I acknowledge to have made a few minor policy mistakes in the past, they were never grave mistakes, and I always subsequently engaged to fix the issues you found and learned from my mistakes. If you conduct a more narrow look into my upload past, you will find that I indeed have a track-record of continuously improving my knowledge and adherence to the Wikipedia policies.

@TDL (about the newest 5 example report you launched yesterday in this thread): As a response to your newest report here at this page, where you have reported 5 new examples with a possible WP:PLAG policy breach, I will now briefly respond to you about these issues in the list below:

1. The first case you mentioned does not count as a violation! It was some intermediate text written by me, where I had just forgot to include the <!-- --> to leave it as a hidden note. In fact I returned yesterday to reformulate it into a new version with correct add of quotation marks whenever needed, 45 minutes before your launched this report about it, here at this page. So for this case I have fixed all issues before you reported it as a problem. So this does not count as any grave error. It was only reflecting a minor mistake during my bussy working-process, that I forgot leaving the <!-- --> signs. And yesterday I fixed this issue entirely on my own, before you (or anyone else) alerted me this was even an issue, which by the way also is a proof that your claim for me not to comprehend and act according to the Wikipedia policies is utterly false.
2. The second case contain less than 50% identical words, and in my point of view it does not constitute a copyright-violation. This is because "name of institutions" and "name of policy instruments" can not be replaced by our own invented words for the occasion. If inventing our own words for it, then readers would not know what the section was actually referring to (i.e. "Convergence and Competitiveness Instrument (CCI) within the EU budget", is such a policy instrument name that can not be changed). In addition to this observation, I however agree with you that 2 out of my written 50 lines in the section should be reformulated, as my formulation for those two lines indeed came too close to the formulation by the source. Thus I have now fixed this issue, by reformulating those two lines. All the rest of my written material in that section, do not constitute any copyright violation case.
3. The third case you mentioned was the earlier debated 3rd content point in the Content chapter of the Fiscal Compact article. This again show how ridicules this is. Because within a few hours after you had alerted me that you and I had forgot to fix this point, I entered and fixed the problem in a perfect way. So this problem has also been solved before you opted to open up this thread against me, here at this page.
4. The fourth case is minor. I agree with Heracletus, it is not a copyright violation. Although I acknowledge it is appropriate to reformulate the second bolded line phrase, which I just did to avoid any potential problems. Please note I still left two identical bolded phrases though, namely with roots tracing back to 1884 and a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas, which however only constitute a part of a much broader line, and thus do not constitute any copyright-violation problem as far as I am aware.
5. The fifth case is minor. On the same lines as with case 4 above, I did not copy any text at all, but actually just happened to formulate the line in a similar way with the source by coincidence (without being aware it was so close). In my point of view it is not a copyright-violation to use by accident a small percentage of identical phrases from a certain line in a source, in cases where it is hard really to formulate the Wikipedia line in a very different way. Both case 4+5 are examples on a situation, where it is impossible to write the line completely differently, and where a google-search would reveal multiple sources sharing the same formulation as also reflected by how it is reported at the Wikipedia page and in the attached source. Nobody can claim a copyright for such identical "phrases of a line".

Summarizing my answer above: Case 1+3 was solved by myself before TDL reported it to be an issue (and should thus not have been reported by him at all). Case 2 was a minor case (with only 2 out of 50 lines admittedly by accident coming too close to the formulated line by the source), which I have solved today. Case 4+5 is not recognized be me and Heracletus to constitue a copyright-violation. If someone else than TDL, think that case 4+5 should be reformulated and/or be reported by an explicit citation (supported by the use of quotation marks), I however stand ready to do so.

My own overall conclusion: At the present there is no grave policy misunderstanding issues being present between me or TDL. All past issues have been solved, including those raised by TDL in this thread. They have all been minor and not major. I always read all "edit summaries" each time TDL perform a change of my edits, and pay attention to everything he say/does towards me or my added content. Whenever I disagree with TDL (or other editors) about some of the corrections to my edits, I then engage to discuss it peacefully with an open mind at the article's talkpage to find a solution, where I carefully listen and argue why I think the content should be kept and/or do not violate a certain Wikipedia policy, and then by argument attempt seeking consensus for my perception of the situation (you can find plenty examples of this in my present edit past). For sure I am not always winning the consensus arguments, but my rate of winning consensus arguments is at/above 50% (meaning that I am fully capable to understand and adhere to Wikipedia policies, and should not be considered to be a blindfolded loose-going missile). So I consider it to be waste of each others time, if I at this point of time should engage with a WP:MENTOR. I admit occasionally also to make minor mistakes, where I did something I should not have done. We are all humans. Whenever someone pointed out I made a mistake, this is however something I fully accept, and I always help then afterwards to fix that mistake. Based on all this fuss launched yesterday by TDL against me, I will now of course be even more careful in the future to avoid making such mistakes. On the other hand, I will however also hope that TDL in the future stop to over-react against me in the way he just did. It is not productive for any of us to blow-up a small wind to a storm, and then use countless amount of hours to navigate through that storm. Wikipedia would benefit much more, if mentor ressources instead are used to address the true damaging storms (fixing ill-behavior by those editors who truly have grave problems respecting or acting according to the Wikipedia policies). Danish Expert (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As I do a lot of copyright work, I was asked at my talk page to look into this. Danish Expert:

• I'm not sure if I am understanding your notes about point 1, but it sounds like you're saying that it's not a violation of copyright policy to include verbatim text outside of quotations if you put it into a hidden note. If so, this is not the case - every time you hit "save page" you are consenting to our Terms of Use, whether the text is visible or hidden. If you need intermediate stages of articles before their completion, I'm afraid you'll have to do it elsewhere. By the time you publish it here, it must comply with policy.
• With regards to point 2, you are completely correct that names are not copyrightable. However, if you look at what you've written in the example provided, there are far more than names involved. Text like "support the timely implementation of structural reforms, on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission" is copyrightable. What you need to watch out for is creating an abridgment of your sources. Abridgments are derivative works and do constitute a paraphrase issue. When you can do what was done in that example and see that there are only a few words of your original text, there is risk you've crossed that line. There is no safe percentage of words you can copy. Copyright law in the US does not work that way.
• With regards to point 3, solving a problem before it is brought as evidence of an issue doesn't mean that it's not an issue. :) It's great that it's repaired, of course, but it can be helpful in documenting a pattern of behavior so that we can suggest corrections.
• With Point 4, let's be clear that we're not talking about a copied phrase but an entire sentence.
• With Point 5, some of the bolded content does not seem to have been copied from the source. I would agree that this is a minor issue, although if it were aggregated with other similar close taking it could become a close paraphrasing issue. It's also a really good idea to use WP:INTEXT attribution when closely paraphrasing your source, to avoid plagiarism.

You need to avoid placing intermediate steps on Wikipedia where you are copying too much of your source, even if you intend to put it in a hidden note. You should also be aware that such intermediate steps done anywhere may lead you to inadvertent issues - creating an abridgment or too close of a summary. (Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some suggestions for avoiding that.) With your final results, please keep in mind that our policies are not engineered to aiming for a percentage of acceptable copying (which, again, doesn't exist) but rather to following the deliberately narrow strictures of WP:NFC. When you can write information you get from a copyrighted source in your own words, you frequently should; when you cannot or it is undesirable to do so (because, for example, you are attributing a point of view), you should generally quote it or (if it is a small amount) clearly indicate that you are paraphrasing your source with intext attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply.

• In regards of point 1: I stand corrected on that, and can promise you never to do such a thing again (leaving copied verbatim text temporarily as a hidden note). This was by the way a one-time incident from my side, where my ongoing work got abrupted, and my intention was to leave it as a hidden note (comprising copied cherry picked key lines from a 100 page long report) -until returning to perfect it (writing it with my complete own words). As mentioned above, the reported issue was fixed 45 minutes ahead of TDL opening up this report about it. So I actually fixed it, before anyone alerted me it was an issue. And all along I acted in good faith, of not having done anything wrong. After your reply, I realize and accept this working practice was wrong, and will avoid repeating it ever again.
• In regards of point 2: Yes, but this line of concern was also something that I have fixed today. I will kindly ask for your opinion about if the fixed formulation I have uploaded today is a sufficient fix ?
• In regards of point 4: Yes, but this line of concern was also something that I have fixed today. I will kindly ask for your opinion about if the fixed formulation I have uploaded today is a sufficient fix ?

Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As no one else has responded to your query, I'll give you my input. While it's certainly an improvement, I'm not sure that revisions such as this go far enough. There are still stretches of text which are nearly identical to the source, there is a significant amount of quoted text (especially in bullet point #1) which might go beyond what is permissible and would be better written in your own words, and some of the things you've put in quotes don't actually seem to match what the source says. Plus, as SPhilbrick says below, the structure remains quite similar to the source. I think it would be better to follow Sphilbrick's advice and rewrite the section from scratch as opposed to trying to paraphrase it. TDL (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw this last night, and was unable to respond then, which turned out well for me as our resident expert has weighed in. I don't want this to be viewed as piling on—I see that MRG has identified several issues and DE seems to be taking the advice appropriately. However, when I viewed the examples (in the collapsed box) I was struck by the similarity of construction. I believe it was SandyGeorgia who pointed out an aspect of copyright that I hadn't appreciated until she explained it—that copyright infringement is not solely the use of identical or closely paraphrased words, it can include the structure as well. That is one danger inherent in starting with text, and continually paraphrasing it until you think it is no longer a violation, you may well have preserved the structure. This is one of the reasons for my usual advice to editors—read several sources, absorb the key message, then lay them aside and write it out in your own words. This is no guarantee, but it will reduce the likelihood that you have copied the same structure.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record: what Heracletus cites is of course incomplete (and in the context of proper citation that's kind of ironic): my advice was to maybe start an RfC/U since, in my opinion, Danish Expert was editing against consensus. Anyone who had read the material and history for Latvian euro coins would have felt the need for a stiff drink or two and since my religion doesn't allow for alcohol consumption I expressed my weariness in another way. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: No offence taken, although your cited answer to TDL: "You could gang up with your two fellow editors (while Heracletus isn't watching) and start a revert war to get him blocked", by most editors would be considered to be an inappropriate response. We should however not make the grave mistake to mix up the old "Latvian dispute" with the "current dispute", as they are completely different in nature, and because I intend to return during the summer with a more in depth response in that case, when first having finished developing my proposed content for the Latvia and the euro article in my sandbox. So I am not ready to discuss this case with any of you at this point of time, but can just briefly say that TDL back then knowingly opted to act towards me according to double standards, accepting that we upload the same table data in the Template:Euro convergence criteria, while refusing to accept that I on the same grounds decided to upload the exact same data in the Latvia and the euro article. I mentioned this to you already back in March 2013 (and to all other engaged debaters at the articles talkpage), but nobody took notice about this concern. I will return later and address this problem by pure WP arguments later in the summer. Simply put, I am just right now drowning in work, and this issue is no longer standing high on my to-do list, in particular not because my proposed disputed content is no longer displayed by the Latvia and the euro article but only visible as an unfinished draft at my sandbox. Danish Expert (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as I've told you in the past, I disagree with the inclusion of your personal analysis on Template_talk:Euro_convergence_criteria as well, so there is no double standard. (And in fact I did notice your comment in March and reiterated this to you, though evidently you didn't read my response.) Just because I haven't had the energy to open up another argument with you about it, doesn't mean that I agree with it. I don't. TDL (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I consider Danish Expert's above opinion to have addressed what I wrote before about Drmies, though, I did not name her myself, therefore, whoever was interested enough about what had happened would unavoidably read all context present. Defending myself on intervening on talk pages of articles that my account had not edited before, I found this edit of mine, which should clearly prove that I was interested in the relation of Latvia to the euro long before the disagreement described above started on the relevant article's talk page. My last advice, to Danish Expert, would be to not promise to never do any mistakes again, just to keep improving, because I'm bored of endless disputes and he will unavoidably make mistakes again, like we all do. Heracletus (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner circumventing deletion of Amanda Filipacchi attack page

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.

---

Howdy! Kauffner has recently used his userpage to highlight the recent media attention that wikipedia has received regarding Amanda Filipacchi. The page has been blanked three times by both Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Delicious Carbuncle citing CSD G10 attack page (which Kauffner was tagged for), BLP, and BLP a second time. Twice they were restored by people other than Kauffner, (William M. Connolley, and Launchballer) [74] [75]. Kauffner has since moved the content into a sup page and linked the subpage to his userspace. Kauffner has already discussed the matter with Delicious Carbuncle on their talkpage, where Delicious Carbuncle reitterates that this is a biography of a living person issue and that Kauffner shouldn't use his userspace as a WP:SOAPBOX. Kauffner argued that a procedure for removing the content from wikipedia hasn't been followed, and that the page was intended to be both a discussion of current wikipedia events, and that it was intended to be funny. This was brought to the BLP noticeboard, and after very little discussion the sup page was speedy deleted by Alison as a attack page. Alison chose not to participate at the BLPN, but her edit summary was "You don't get to write content disparaging a living person - even under the guise of 'satire' - especially with unfounded statements. Not cool at all."

Kauffner has chosen to circumvent Alison's decision by replacing the initial link on his page, to a link to a past difference of his home page which effectively recreates the attack page. Four editors have now told him that they believe this page violates BLP standards, and two have deleted the page under G10. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All editors named above have been notified of this discussion.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Seriously, why is anyone even bothering with this Filipacchi stuff anymore? Pretty sure most people have gotten over it and I am close to getting over reminding people of that. I can not think of anywhere else that such silly trivialities would be regarded with so much intensity. The little pun page is no longer live so it isn't gonna pop up in search results and it is hardly the kind of thing that would normally warrant deletion. We link people to edits that are actually bad in discussions all the time and those don't get deleted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I bother with it because an editor or two acted like spitefully angry and immature adolescents in their response to the media attention, and other editors bent over backwards to defend and explain their hissy fits. Most unseemly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is about the content of that page, or the events which led to that content, or anyone personal opinion of those events. An editor has effectively circumvented the speedy deletion of an attack page on a living person. Personally I don't think it matters if it was this page or a page on Hitlers living clone, it falls under WP:BLP and should be treated as such. This is one of those rare incidents where a page which was fully deleted under G10 was created in a separate location, and those differences weren't deleted. An experienced editor found this loophole and rather than respect the G10 decision made by an experienced admin, decided to circumvent the process. That is the issue as I see it.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems there are people on both sides who haven't had enough time to cry it out. However, threads such as this are just wasting time for no good reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that the BLP issue was Alison's call. The discussion at WP:BLPN is still open, and several editors have expressed support for the essay in the course of this dispute. Is it being suggested that we can't link to material that uses satire at the expense of a living person? Kauffner (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually yes, I think that linking to material that "uses satire at the expense of a living person" is exactly the definition of a WP:BLP violation.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Say what? What guideline says that? Kauffner (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Right here "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" (emphasis mine). Also "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The style of satire you are using is contentious and intended to spread titillating claims at the expense of a living person.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a titillating claim about Filipacchi's life?? Here I thought it was an essay about Wiki categories and other distinctly nontitillating subject matter. I'll have to read it again, that's for sure. Kauffner (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that these policies require that you claim to understand my point.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here twice; once via mention, once via talk page. Again, please don't bother notifying me of these on my talk page if you are mentioning me. You're wasting your time and mine because I would get a notification of being mentioned anyway and frankly had I wanted to respond I'd've done so by now.
I genuinely cannot see anything wrong with that content. To all intents and purposes, it is a number of paragraphs detailing the controversy of sexism on Wikipedia, with a number of sources. This is not a BLP violation and I think that the stick should be dropped.--Launchballer 06:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way linking to a diff of it is just a silly, trivial matter not worthy of a second thought.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would an admin please rev delete pages like this. That is a revision of User:Kauffner from 21:37, 13 May 2013 which (to use Alison's words) is "content disparaging a living person ... under the guise of 'satire'". That revision is featured in the link in the heading of the current User:Kauffner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to offer one's thoughts on people. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Given that Kauffner has been in hot water for his userpage before (for an admittedly different reason), you'd have thought they'd be more careful... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I even looking at the same page here? All I see is a critique of the current categorisation scheme and the media's response to it. Where is the slander?--Launchballer 07:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the mention of Filipacchi at the beginning of the essay is what people are reacting to. But there I am just using her as a example to explain how the category system works. Kauffner (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You are being disingenuous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree. That page existed to make a WP:POINT, little more. I wouldn't classify the content as a true attack page myself, but it certainly is not an "example to explain how the category system works." Resolute 13:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • That policy says, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". You think I wrote the essay to disrupt Wikipedia? My user page gets maybe five or ten readers a day. Kauffner (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the people who warned Kauffner that their user page was in violation of WP:BLP. After I blanked it, they created a page in their userspace with the same content. I asked them to voluntary delete the page or I would bring the issue here. That page was deleted by Alison as a WP:BLP violation. I warned Kauffner to be more careful, but rather than taking my advice, they have again used their user page as a soapbox. Linking to the content in the page history is not a way around WP:BLP. Can someone revdelete that content and give Kauffner a time-out so they can contemplate our policies? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're here to tell how justified your repeated vandalism was. You have a lot of nerve to show up here. I'm not only who thinks it was vandalism either.[76] Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough. The BLP violation is evident. RevDel the content out of public sight and warn Kauffner that any further attempts to exhume the deleted content will result in suspension of editing privileges.

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi

6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".

In that case, ArbCom also approved the use of administrative tools to suppress inappropriate content which was being made accessible via things to older revisions, as is the case here. ArbCom also ruled that editors who remove such content in good faith are not editing abusively, so Kauffner's claims of vandalism are plainly invalid and should be retracted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I wrote an essay about a current event relevant to Wikipedia as I am authorized to do by WP:FORUM: "Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace." Don't make excuses for vandalism. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Its basically an opinion piece meant to keep controversy on BLP matters, our category system is one of the most complex and esoteric editing areas. It is only done by a handful of editors and requires great care for working in that area, it is one of the few area on Wikipedia that making errors or swapping and renaming tags can cause a lot of harm. I do not see why it is needed given Arb Com's stance and the history of the user over talk page matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the link on this user's page to an old page version of the BLP-violating material in question. It is not a personal essay or an innocent diatribe, it is a snarky, mean-spirited personal attack on a living person couched in essay form . That should not be allowed to stand and should be rev-deleted promptly to avoid linking. Also, I find Amatulic's advice to keep it on a sub-page remarkably ill-advised, especially coming from an admin. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have revdeleted the revisions. The content had been restored by, for instance, William M. Connolley, but they did so without giving a reason for it; the BLP arguments brought up here (by Wolfowitz and Tarc) are not sufficiently countered by "satire" or "who cares". This is a BLP matter and we need to tread carefully. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't a valid RD2 case Drmies. It is used for "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy." Anyone who thinks the few incredibly tame comments about Filipacchi made amidst that otherwise indisputably kosher commentary meets those criteria needs to get a reality check. We don't rev-del stuff like this.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, since you chose the patronizing mode, I'll choose "smug": yes we do. I just did, and I did so with what appears to be a pretty strong consensus from some seasoned editors (that's a reality check, free of charge). In other words, I don't know where you got your "we" from. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• A handful of editors with an opposing POV regarding the underlying dispute (i.e. the categorization controversy) are not a consensus by my measure. Pretty sure those opposed here are sufficiently numerous and obviously other editors objected if they restored the blanked content. Neither policy nor consensus supports the RD2 argument.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So my user page is deleted a second time in the space of six weeks. What can I say? I am a standing affront to the censorship system. Perhaps this page should be protected to prevent me from editing it. A "user page topic ban" may be appropriate under the circumstances. Kauffner (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If there is a censorship "system" you wouldn't be an affront but rather, in this case, a raison d'etre. You could just accept that a bunch of editors and admins disagree with what you were doing and move on. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Woohoo! That will be easy now that it has been resolved that I'm a raison d'etre, the epitome of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The text written by Kauffner should be restored unless there are the sort of attacks on BLPs mentioned by The Devil's Advocate. If some editors still argue that the text is inappropriate, we can then at least see for ourselves what it says and see if there is consensus that it should be deleted. But given what I can read in this discussion, this doesn't look like the sort of emergency BLP attack that has to be immediately dealt with which then doesn't allow the community to look at the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Plenty of editors have looked at it, prompted by this thread and the BLPN thread. May I remind you that this is the Administrators' Noticeboard, not the court of public opinion, and that two admins have now seen fit to delete the material. I refer you to the first instance, by Alison: [User:Kauffner/Restoring human dignity here], in her G10 rationale: "You don't get to write content disparaging a living person - even under the guise of 'satire' - especially with unfounded statements. Not cool at all." Drmies (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would say there is a difference between deleting a page that only existed to contain such content and deleting revisions on a page that has contained plenty of other content. Also, I wouldn't say Alison is completely objective on this either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then put her up for recall, and throw me in there as well. (That's a pretty serious accusation, by the way: put up or shut up.) At some point you'll have to accept that Alison and I were voted into office (at considerable expense to us, I might add--I had to bribe over 200 people) to make these kinds of decisions. I am not aware that I did irreparable damage to the user page by revdeleting a couple of edits. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think a problem here is that we're using the same standard for BLP violations on someone's userpage as we would do for article content. While this seems to be official policy, this is asking for problems. E.g. newspapers don't do this, they are liable for publishing false statements about people in regular articles, but in comments or columns the standards are lot lower. Count Iblis (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to "t we're using the same standard for BLP violations on someone's userpage as we would do for article content" I'd say, well, no shit? That's kinda been standard practice here for awhile now; BLP applies everywhere. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem here is that while obviously the BLP policy should apply to all of Wikipedia, that in itself doesn't mean that what is not acceptable in an article cannot be acceptable for a personal opinion piece. E.g. if I'm of the opinion that Blair lied about WMD, there is no good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to write that up in my userpage. It is then clear that this is only my opinion. If I where to edit this in the article on Tony Blair, then this is a BLP violation because Blair has not been found guilty of lying about WMD. For a text on my userpage to violate BLP on this matter, it must contain outright gratuitous insults that have little to do with simply discussing the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, there'd be two good reasons why you wouldn't be allowed to write that up on (not "in") your userpage: one, it has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia or with collaborating with other editors; and two, it's a violation of the BLP policy, which applies everywhere. It should, and does, apply everywhere on Wikipedia, which does indeed mean that what is not acceptable in an article cannot be acceptable in a personal opinion piece in userspace. BLP is BLP. Full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• But if I were to actually write something like that on my userpage (b.t.w., thank you for the free of charge English lesson), it would likely happen in some discussion relevant to the editing of a Wiki-article. If people understand my perspective on the issue, that can only be helpful. In case of the CRU hacking incident which purported to show that certain climate scientists had forged data, people where free to make such claims on the talk page, but the article itself could not make such claims because there is no evidence for this claim. Obviously, it would have been an outright BLP violation to state that a certain scientist forged the data. However, the bad editing climate which led to the CC ArbCom case would have been cleared up at that time if all the involved editors actually explained their positions better. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• No need for that. I am not suggesting Alison's deletion was a problem, but her remark about it was excessive and you shouldn't use that remark as a basis for invoking RD2 where it really doesn't apply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion in line with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion This really isn't the time or place for this kind of content, regardless of what namespace it was in. If you really want to post this kind of materiel, go to Uncyclopedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, bury the horse, burn the stick, and get on with actually...gasp...building an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (and Drmies's RevDels) and suggest that if Kauffner continues to misuse his userspace he be banned from using it for anything other than drafting articles. (I should note that I planned on suggesting the latter point before I noticed Kauffner had himself mentioned the idea in a somewhat less pleasant tone.) As Drmies rightly notes, the fact that this is the second time in six weeks that the community has censured Kauffner for his userspace content is indicative of problems in his behaviour, not in everyone else's. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Its not censorship when you knowingly engage in violating talk page guidelines and do so willingly after a recent warning. Even if it was more soapboxing, a userpage is not meant for that fashion and the image in question should not have been allowed either per guidelines, and lastly, trying to use that soapbox to provoke and sustain controversy is a concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say that it is not clear to me what warning or guideline is being referred to above. My story about how I was wikistalked was simply deleted with no suggestion that I couldn't write other things. I wonder what basis people are voting on now that the material in question can no longer be viewed. Kauffner (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I saw the page before it was deleted, and am confident in saying that it was a BLP vilation. The Bushranger and Nick, of course, can see the page whenever they want. As I said, maybe you should focus less on deflecting everything said against you, and more on remedying the issues other users are pointing out. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and any future recreation of this material. Not only does it violate BLP but it represents the worst aspects of Wikipedia. I will suggest that a future recreation should be followed by an immediate block for protection of the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• But without clear evidence, isn't the assertion that Kauffner is guilty of high treason against Wikipedia itself not a BLP violation? Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - and I strongly suggest that Kauffner gets a sanction for creating yet another dodgy userpage, and for their continued WP:IDHT responses to pretty much everything. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• No trace of BLP violation to be seen in Kauffner's opnion piece'. I'm reverting NE's close of this discussion, because this discussion is not based on an evaluation of the primary facts. Few people have read the actual opinion piece written by Kauffner. Kauffner emailed it to me, and having read it I see no problems whatsoever with it as an opinion piece. Therefore I will ask that an impartial jury of 10 volunteers will read the text and if more than 6 of them say that this is unacceptable as an opinion piece in someones's userpage, it should be declared as such. Count Iblis (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I read it and your opinion is clearly not the consensus. Satire is a wonderful thing but satire about living people does WP:NOT belong here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • But even if we don't want such satirical opnion pieces, it should not be framed as a BLP violation, in the real world the media doesn't do this either. So, even if a newspaper would not publish a satirical column, it would have rejected it on its own merits, not because it failed the standards for a regular article. So, the big problem I have here is that we don't distinguish between opnion pieces and articles. It is hard to see that we would really be consistent about using this standard, because this would hamper discussions if e.g. the inquiry about WMD in Britain would return with some ambiguous verdict on whether or not Blair lied about WMD. Can such a matter then be discussed freely on the talk pages, or would the editors who defend the position that Blair did not lie, shut down talk page discussions on this matter? Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      • In general User's opinions are irrelevant per NOT:Forum. They should be discussing what reliable sources say, and how to represent those, if at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2013 (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.

Canoe1967 and the spamming of his own pictures in cosplay (possibly other articles too)

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.

---

One swordsman defends against five others in a display at Calgary Expo 2013

I've attempted to explain to him how this is not even cosplay and it's not a proper way and how any more illustrations are not needed at all here, what he should do instead (and which is what I do, myself).

He responded to doing this and... this.

The picture attached is what he thinks is essential to be pushed into the article about cosplay (yes, a random photo that is not even showing cosplay), so much he's going to edit war about it (perfectly knowing he's edit-warring), just to have his own photos shown on Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Not because of any claimed COI, but just because it's irrelevant. I've long had doubts about Canoe1967's judgement across a range of edits. This sort of behaviour doesn't improve my opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you consider my pictures as spam. I take good photos an only upload the best. This is my category at commons. I have 1000s more pictures that I could upload but I don't because they are crap in my opinion. I also have 1000s more that I haven't had time to upload yet. If you are really nice I may upload as public domain. It seems a shame that only me and a few just hoard it on our desktops. The cosplay article is a huge mess of few sources and mucho text of fan input. Editors should should focus on the quality and truth of the text and not the few images it has to fill it out.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of the word "irrelevant"? Given your para above, it would seem not.

I didn't remove this photo because it was "spam" or because it was "crap", I removed it because it's not cosplay. Cosplay is something else, other than this type of re-enactment. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that you're still edit-warring and re-inserting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's "a huge mess" currently, go and see the original version just 1 year ago. But you're actually right about the text (or actually, a need for more references), because the article is already perfectly well illustrated, and indeed no more pictures are needed there at all (which is what I tried to explain to you, ironically enough). --Niemti (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that since I rewrote the article last year (the article used to be a complete mess), I've kept the valuable pictures that the other people added (after uploading them). The ones with Superman and Batman, with Amidala, and with Link, and even of this panel too, because they're actually well illustrating the relevant sections, and also they're not bad - I just edited the captions, including removing the names of cosplayers/photographers from the display in the article so it wouldn't be so blatantly promotional (they're still in the descriptions of the files, just not in the article). But obviosuly it's not the case with Canoe1967's spam. --Niemti (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This sounds like a content dispute, thus I recommend WP:DRN instead. Even if you find the behavior problematic, I think you need to establish the issue with content and offer an opportunity to stop doing this based on the input of fellow editors before coming here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know they had sweatpants in medieval times. Unless we have articles on bad cosplay, these images appear rather useless. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They needed sweatpants for their turkey legs. Duh. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

At least Niemti is trying to bring this matter up for discussion and not engage in edit warring himself. And yes, this is a content dispute perfect for WP:DRN. Which according to the content discussion here will likely be a formality, but I suggest having it done anyways. While this is not the preferred venue, to remove himself from edit warring and bring it somewhere is an improvement and shows that Niemti is willing to bring problems to other editors. That's a good improvement in my book. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. There were still 4 reverts, just not within 24 hours... Minimal discussion on talk page or edit summaries either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think Canoe1967 harass Niemti by placing 3RR notice to his talk page [77], whereas Niemti made only one revert in this article during last week or so. And that is a behavior problem on the part of Canoe1967. Saying that, I think Niemti should simply take a wikibreak and relax. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Its a poor choice, given that its over a week late, and in poor taste, considering Canoe was equally guilty, as he reverted it 3 times as well, but I don't know if its really "harrassment". More like poorly timed and hypocritical. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am sure that posting unjustified messages like that by a person who is actually involved in edit war represents Wikipedia:Harassment, plain and clear. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Really? Then why didn't you revert the same warning that Niemti gave Canoe1967? Seems to me, both editors are edit warring. No matter who is "right". Looking through the sequence of events that lead up to this ANI thread, it seems that bot users are at fault, but Niemti is exhibiting the same type of behavior that has had the editor blocked before. Canoe1967 added an image(one that seems to actually fit the article) with the edit summary of "Expanding article". Niemti undid the edit without comment. Canoe1967 readded the image with the edit summary of "Please explain on talk page or edit summary and seek consensus before further removal". To which Niemti promptly reverted with the edit summary of "Not needed(and ugly)". Which evolved into the edit war above, with both editors reverting each other. So this is at least both editors fault, and if Niemti would stop editing in the abrasive manner, perhaps he/she wouldn't find themselves constantly at ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Both users kept on reverting each other with minimal discussion or edit summaries, and both left warnings the same warnings about edit warring in bad taste, so I can't classify any of this as "harrassment". Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Re. I did not remove 3RR notice from talk page of Canoe1967 for two reasons. First, he indeed made two (or possibly three) reverts in the same article over a few hours, unlike Niemti who made only one revert during a few last days. Second, it was Canoe1967 who placed this message first, which obviously provoked the response. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 userpage encouraging vandalism

Am I the only one concerned that Canoe1967 has a request on his userpage for others to vandalise the userpages of "deletionists"? — Richard BB 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. I would think that he's free to have his image about deletionists, but not free to tell people to use it for vandalism purposes... Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely. Any request for people to vandalise any area of Wikipedia is unacceptable (and it seems that he's trying to make a point in retaliation for something he added being deleted). — Richard BB 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask him to remove this unless anyone opposes? Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It was removed, he re-added. I have re-removed, and unfortunately full-protected his userpage for now - until he recognizes that consensus has always been that encouraging vandalism of any form is verboten - the consensus above merely solidifies existing consensus. Any similar re-addition anywhere on this project should be considered disruptive and handled accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unquestionably, that kind of posting is a WP:DE issue and isn't even a point worth debating. I think protecting was the best of the two options as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is incredibly silly. YOU ARE CENSORING HIM FROM HAVING THAT GENTLE JOKE ON HIS OWN PAGE!?!? There is no actual vandalism threat and the fellow has had that thing on his page for ages with no problem of people vandalizing with it. And Bwilkens has a long history of having a hard on for over-regulating others. But I'm going to counsel Canoe, to just ignore you little chipmunks while thinking to himself how silly the type of people who frequent this notice board are.TCO (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC applies, and while the ideal method would be to notify the matter first, this call to vandalize a group of editors, namely 'deletionists' is an example of one thing that is not favorable. The anti-admin banner on your page is probably no different. Censorship does not apply when you knowingly and purposely seek to create a divisive or launch attacks at other users, user pages are no exception. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TCO, you might want to mind WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem isn't his viewpoints, he's free to hate deletionists or admin or whatever as long as their not personal attacks, which this example is not. The problem is that he's very literally encouraging people to do vandalize other's user pages. Vandalism = bad faith edits. It'd be one thing to encourage others to use the same tag, but if he's saying vandalize, it seems like that's putting that tag up on people's user page against their will. How can you possibly justify someone coming into a group with established rules, and saying "Hey, let's break a very basic and clear cut rule." You complain about censorship, but promote the forcing of viewpoints on to people's user pages? Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's now come to my attention that Canoe is deleting GiantSnowman's comments from his talk page with a misleading edit summary (and has apparently been doing so for some time), by declaring that GiantSnowman is "banned" from his talk page. Not the most friendly attitude. — Richard BB 14:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty more diffs in the talk page history of exactly that kind of behaviour, simply search for my name, you will find Canoe almost immediately reverting me with "copyedit (minor)" or similar as the summary. I eventually gave up trying to have reasoned discussion with him and moved onto other things; it appears he has failed to do so seeing as he 'notified' me to the fresh discussion on his userpage, despite me being completely uninvolved with any of it, and despite us not interacting at all for God knows how long. GiantSnowman 15:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That checks out. [78] Removing ANI templates with the same edit summary. [79] And even refactoring blocking comments of other users. [80] A long history of removing comments and warnings with this tag is apparent. [81] At this point, I think it is a chronic problem that needs to be dealt with. Altering blocking comments being a major concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If everyone would just calm down a bit, I've had pretty much worked things out him. Through calm discussion, he said he now understands why the bit about the vandalism is wrong, and seems to agree not to add it back in to his userpage. As far as declaring people "banned from his user/talk page", no, you can't formally ban people from it, but people are free to remove other people's comments from user/talk pages. Its generally considered bad form, but his is free to do so. If people would just tone it down a bit and stop nitpicking, we can work this out. (Yes, altering warnings is not okay, and he should be instructed as such, but he's not currently blocked or anything, so it's not really the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous This is just a ridiculous pile on -- having been brought to ANI, a search for more bad "stuff" about a currently unpopular editor is executed. The "offending" text was inserted 24 April 2012. Lacking any diffs of a rash of vandalism on so called "deletionists," there's no evidence that the content was causing disruption -- the disruption here is 1. nitpicking about it on ANI, 2. an editor editing another editor's user page, and 3. fully protecting the page. It's obviously a lame joke and best ignored. (Attempts at) humor are not prohibited on Wikipedia; if they were we should be sanctioning User:Drmies for bribing their way to admin per their recent "confession". (I'm offended, of course, not on principle but because I wasn't one of the 200 beneficiaries.) NE Ent 13:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ent, I still don't know what happened: did I PayPal the $100 to the wrong email address? I'm sorry. Or was it not enough? Also, yeah, "calling" on editors to vandalize this or that is probably in poor taste, but one would have to be kind of a moron already to follow that kind of "advice". I don't find this actionable and I think we have bigger fish to fry here and elsewhere. I just read that of all wiki edits 95% take place on the English wiki--no doubt that number would go down considerably if we stopped fussing over every little thing here. Thanks Ent, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

Alright then, through discussing with the user, he now understanding the issues brought up here, and has stated he will stop, and check with others first before adding potentially controversial things to user/talk page. As such, I'll be removing his page protection now, as its no longer necessary. Let me know if anyone opposes this, as I have no intentions on wheel warring, though I really feel that this has all been closed up just fine now. Lets all move on to other issues/projects. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Close thread User has agreed not to post any more inflammatory content on their user pages. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Close thread - Well, that's all folks! Now, go edit somewhere else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Close per above. As someone whom has requested action on userpages in the past, I had noted this one long ago, and, although I found it a bit out of order and stupid, decided to ignore it. As most people clearly had as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• User page has been unblocked. Everything's taken care of. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 19 May 2013 (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.

Legal threats, User:74.218.250.83

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.

---

Anon user 74.218.250.83 was blocked for the persistent false addition of material to various Ohio State related pages, namely, that one Giovanni Strassini or Giova Stroh had played football and baseball for the school and had won various honors. Those names appear nowhere in any reliable source and the claims are demonstrably false. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#.22Giovanni_Strassini.22 for more on that. Once the IP was blocked, the user continued editing from other IPs, which were also blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/74.218.250.83/Archive for some but not all of these. The subject IP retained the ability to post to his Talk page, and has done so. It was fine (if unenlightening and a bit of a waste of time) until recently when he began removing from others' comments the names he'd previously been trying to insert into the articles, and then posting legal threats when other editors restored their own comments. E.g. of perhaps two or three instances. I ask that the IP's access to his Talk page be removed, and that the IP be blocked for whatever length of time is deemed suitable. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Said IP was the one to introduce the names in question ("Giovanni Strassini" and "Giova Stroh") to various Wikipedia articles (e.g.,[82], [83], [84]). Only now he began to refer to those names as his name [85] and started to delete them from other users' discussion entries because of claimed violation of privacy laws. This is by no means a violation of anyone's privacy laws, because said IP deliberately invalidated them for himself. --bender235 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• TPA revoked. If someone feels the block should be lengthened, go for it--I think this is run-of-the-mill vandalism of the stupid kind and it will blow over. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But - um, two minutes later he's still posting to the page? JohnInDC (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm now that he still has Talk page access and is making the same edits and threats. JohnInDC (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a slip of the button on Drmies's part. Changed the block to correspond to his comments.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly understand slipped buttons. (There should be a preference for iPads to require two clicks on a rollback button!) Thanks for cleaning that up. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! My apologies. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Can someone please block this obvious sock, Special:Contributions/Stroh013, and semi-protect the IP Talk page? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Kww. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I got this message from 168.215.131.150 (talk · contribs) which is an obvious sock. Left a message on my talk page, here. Directed to OTRS, but the clear evidence of a massive campaign for this hoax is disturbing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me to be one of two things. The first possibility is that a wholly innocent Giovanni Strassini of Charlotte, NC, has been the unwitting victim of a 4+ year scheme to portray him as an OSU football and baseball star, which scheme has extended to impersonated appearances in Charlotte bars with an OSU alumni group, extensive interlinked Wikipedia entries (all by Charlotte IPs), bio postings to IMDB, two Facebook pages and a Twitter account, all of which became known to Strassini only during a recent 48 hour period when Wikipedia editors began to strip the articles of the unsourced (& false) information; whereupon Strassini raised his concerns editing from, and on the Talk page of, an IP address that only about 12 hours earlier had used by the conspiracy to add his name to the encyclopedia. That's one. The other possibility is that Strassini was a participant and, now that "proof" of his athletic career has been removed from Wikipedia, he now seeks to remove discussion of the circumstances of its removal. Maybe there's a third possibility that somehow logically weaves in the claims about ID theft, but I can't think of what it might be. I guess it's up to OTRS to sort it all out. JohnInDC (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

When dealing with issues like this, the simplest explanation is often the correct one. And editing from the same computer within 48 hours from the issue, seems a bit much. So is the confirmed proxy (public IP) used on my page. The level of forgery to make a fake ring and sign a bowling pin and place it on display seems to me that this might be an elaborate and perhaps deliberate hoax put into Wikipedia as some social experiment. Professors have put their students up to this before as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It could be a lot of things I guess. Googling this name turns up, in addition to a bundle of user-supplied references to an illustrious (albeit wholly fictional) OSU career, an Ohio court decision about a former North Carolina and Ohio resident bearing that same name, which decision does not cast the person in a favorable light at all. Wikipedia may be the point of the hoax or just collateral damage, hard to say. In any case the OSU information is false, it's gone now, and editors know to look for it if it returns. So I suppose no matter what else happens we're better off now. JohnInDC (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2013 (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.

Possible violation of WP:NLT at Talk:Kermit Gosnell#Legally dangerous wording

Specifically referring to the comments of User:Yug User talk:Yug in that section of the talk page. It is in the gray area and so probably deserves a look by an administrator. Safiel (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to be a threat against the editor or Wikipedia but more a concern of a future legal matter because of the wording. Yes it is borderline, but the matter of copyright and libel comes up regularly with contested issues and editors holding those concerns do not get warnings or blocking for NLT. "Remove this or I'll sue" is a legal threat" And after the NLT matter came up the response included "... This is a political POV issue, and doesn't stem from any concern about Wikipedia's perceived legal risk. Federales (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)" Because we have WP:BLP I believe it is fair to say that an experienced editor like Yug did not intend a legal threat in any shape or form, but was corned about BLP matters and specifically cited the reason why. Poor wording when seen out of context, but not a legal threat and not deserving of action. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no plausible legal threat made by User:Yug in the discussion. They are simply pointing to the possibility of a lawsuit by a third party over which they have no control or influence and the resultant hurt that may be caused to the Foundation as a consequence. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons says: "Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles [...]." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am agreeable with the sentiments expressed by both above editors. I decided it would be prudent to bring it here, as some editors had expressed a concern, but yes, it looks more like a bad choice of words, rather than a violation. Safiel (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yug: To keep it short, my concern was indeed following WP:BLP recommandations, best expressed in "From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles [...]." The former "babies/infants [...] hundred [...] spining" means hundred cold blood born babies killing and is extremly shocking. A good wiki POV push to be taken by "muckrakers" journalists to create an artificial controversy. Yug (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's quicker to read the talk page than it is what's written here. There's absolutely no legal threat here, this has no business at ANI. Quoting a grand jury report in the U.S. in the way it's done here isn't even in the same ballpark as libel. The real dispute is over whether to use the term "infant" or "fetus", presumably because one assumes personhood and one does not. I have no interest in getting involved in that debate, but none of that has anything to do with ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation

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.

---

Hello,

I was about to create a new article under the form of a translation which would have been issued from a text which was originally published in French, but I have found this warning message → [86].

I do not know what the subject of this aforesaid deleted writing was. Nevertheless, the new text that I was about to integrate is specifically linked to a well known Swiss healer who has been the main subject of one of the weekly TV show entitled Passe-moi les jumelles which was broadcast on the Radio télévision suisse : → [87]

Question:

• Am I allowed to create this new article, in spite of the fact that a former text (which, I presume, was probably not connected to the original content) has already been deleted?

Thank you for your help and advices!

Kindest regards!

euphonie ^breviary
00:23, 03:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• You can create it without a problem. That just means that someone else had created the article before and an admin deleted it because the person that created it was a WP:sockpuppet. When someone abuses multiple accounts, we delete the articles created by those socks as long as no one else has contributed anything important to them. It isn't a warning, it is just a notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! Kind regards! — euphonie ^breviary 03:27, 17 May 2013 (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.

Special:Contributions/50.73.253.49

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.

---

50.73.253.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (notified) is an uncollaborative and disruptive unregistered person residing in Southern United States. Apart of his/her two-months-long disruption in articles, formerly as 99.102.158.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), s/he tried two times to alter the posting of an IP user from Russia, the second time in spite of an explicit warning that it constitutes a serious offence. I request a block to this IP for a reasonable term, not just 24 hours. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked them now for a month; if they continue after the block expires a longer block will be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2013 (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.

Emergency protection needed on Rob Ford

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.

---

Gawker Media has released a "news story" in which they allege that the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, has been caught on video smoking crack, according to an unnamed source. They say in the article they cannot prove it until they can purchase the video from the source. This is bordering defamation, but that's Gawker problem and I assume they are pretty much lawyered up. The issue is that now people are adding these "facts" (again, unproven) into Wikipedia's Rob Ford article. These very serious allegations have yet to be proven and carry a massive libel potential. This article needs to be protected ASAP. UpstreamPaddler (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This especially true considering the subject is a WP:BLP. UpstreamPaddler (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd point out that this is not only Gawker Media. Still, what you say is basically right, and I have therefore semi-protected the article. See here for my (I hope innocuous) comments. (As I've said there, if full protection seems to be called for, go ahead without consulting me.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's probably good enough for now. I have no problem with the inclusion of the allegations if/when they are proven or if Ford resigns or whatever, but until then, it's a shaky story, relying on a whole lot of "my guy says so," "appears to be", and "according to"s. Given that Wikipedia is dead serious about BLPs (and rightly so), it seemed a wise move to protect. Gawker and the Toronto Star have the means to disregard ethics and/or fight libel lawsuits, the WMF much less so. UpstreamPaddler (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2013 (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:Lfdder and accusations in lie

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.

---

The user got upset that the Chalkidiki Greek was taken to AfD instead of speedy deletion (which it is not amenable to), and accused a user in being "dishonest". I asked them to assume good faith and stop accusations. Then they accused another user in "lying". I had to go to their talk page and warn them that next time they would be taken to ANI, and also asked them again to be civil. They obviously read the warning since they reverted it calling it "rubbish". Now, the "next time" came in a couple of hours, when they insisted on the accusations in lying and additionally accused me in being "a bunch of muppets". (They also implied I am a friend of User:Dennis Brown, which I am not - I have no firends on Wikipedia, but I can survive this accusation). I am afraid time for blocks has come. Enough is enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have to support a block. I can't claim to have been 100% level-headed in this dispute, but Lfdder is bang out of order yet again; instead of apologizing for being deliberately disruptive earlier, and promising not to do it again, they're attacking anyone who wants to follow due process and who disagrees with them. Also, someone needs to speak to User:Taivo about WP:NPA, whom has made some inappropriate comments about Dennis Brown (and admins in general), simply because Dennis chose to follow guidelines to the letter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I trust Taivo shall be whipped in the most righteous manner. — Lfdder (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• I unprotected the article for the sole purpose of it being sent to AFD and stated as much, with the comment that I would send to AFD is no one else did. As with any article where there is controversy with its deletion for any reason and CSD doesn't apply, AFD is the venue of choice, something every experienced editor and admin should know. As for the personal attacks and snide comments made by a few, I'm not affected as they say more about the persons making them than it does about me. The overall unprofessional behavior and drama mongering is a larger concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It should really not be necessary to re-hash the procedural disagreement here, but since you reopened it, I have to say I am disappointed with the dismissive tone with which you are now presenting your choice as the only procedurally correct one ("something every experienced editor and admin should know", no less!), seemingly oblivious to the well-founded procedural objections to it. The disagreement is this: AfD as opposed to Prod is the only method of choice not simply whenever "theres controversy with its deletion for any reason", but only when there are actual objections to the outcome of a deletion proposal. In this case, there had been (regrettable) brouhaha over the deletion process, but, as several people have been reminding you, not about the merits of the case itself. I continue to hold that de-prodding and opening a pro forma AfD instead in this situation was a poor choice and by no means proper process, and it played an unfortunate role in permeating the drama. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It wasn't the only choice, but it was the forum of choice as it guarantees an outcome within a week and the time to thoughtfully discuss it. And one I clearly indicated I would pursue as a condition of unprotecting. As for permeating the drama, you could have chosen to simply comment only on the merits at the AFD just as I have, but sadly, you did not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • • I commented on your choice of process at the AfD because I felt your choice of process was worthy of criticism. You got a problem with that? – Oh, and your argument now ("I set it as a condition for unprotecting"), with which you have again failed to address the substantive objection I raised and which amounts to little else beyond "because I said so", will do little to allay other editors concern that this whole thing looks like evidence of an admin on a power trip. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)Yes. Commenting on the motivations or methods of the nominator is inappropriate at AFD for any editor to do. It was drama mongering, just as your tone here is. I expect it from new users, but not from admin. You could have taken it to my talk page, or at the ongoing ANI discussion (or better yet, just !voted and left off the commentary), but you chose to be the first to comment and the first to drag the drama into that process. And since I was essentially reverting another admin without consulting them first, setting that condition was reasonable considering deletion was your objective anyway. You could have taken it to RFPP or asked DGG to self-revert. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
          • You might note that the article has now been deleted via SNOW, faster and more sure than a PROD, and now it can be deleted via CSD#G4 if it shows up again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
            • You just don't get it, do you? FutPerf didn't set the spark off; you did. Stop trying to put the blame on him 'cos all you'll achieve is to drag your credibility even further down. — Lfdder (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • A condition? Who are you to set conditions? Should've just left it there till it expired then. Would've saved us all the trouble. — Lfdder (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, the moral high ground. Very easy to climb when you're the decider. You moved the process to AfD for no good reason, Drmsomething throws a tantrum, DGG protects a page out of nowhere, but that's all overlooked. I point out you lied (which you did), feelings hurt all around, block this imbecile who dare question admins authority and integrity. — Lfdder (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• The user got upset that the Chalkidiki Greek was taken to AfD instead of speedy deletion I did not get upset that it wasn't speedy-deleted. Need to get your facts straight. — Lfdder (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  Not really a good excuse for grossly incivil and clownish behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, did you just call me a clown? Off to ANI. Oh wait.... — Lfdder (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2013 (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.

Suspicious editing by IP

I have a high level of suspicion regarding the editing from the following IP addresses I believe them to be one and the same. 94.2.4.145 94.9.98.107, 2.120.46.143 and 130.88.52.43 are all one and the same editor. I originally had a dispute with IP 94.2.4.145/94.9.98.107 who then became 2.120.46.143 which is not suspicious in and of itself. That dispute went away and now today all of a sudden a brand new IP 130.88.52.43 appears and begins to rubbish me as an editor and back up the positions of 94.2.4.145/94.9.98.107 as if they were a separate user. They have also made identical edits of 94.2.4.145 and used identical language such as to maintain "consistency" and only editing County Council articles. If specific diffs are required just ask and they shall be provided. Sport and politics (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably move this to ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that I am not the same person as 94.9.98.107. However I do feel that it is important that I am open and honest in saying that I am editing from a public Library and that this therefore not my own IP address. I have however picked up where 94.9.98.107 has left off. I waited a few days for the page to go cold before doing so. Given Sport and politics' recent edits and reporting to this page, I sincerely hope that they are not taken seriously. many Thanks 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I quite simply do not believe a single word that there is somehow a brand new unrelated IP who has coincidentally just happened to be editing all of the same pages as the previous IP as their first edits since 2008. The probabilities are just way to small the suspicions are way too high. The activity is classic tag teaming .Sport and politics (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The ones the OP linked are all on the same ISP, except for one, which is at a University, but it's also a very common ISP in the UK. I don't know anything beyond that. Shadowjams (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe what you like, it is not your word we will be going with here, given your warning! Are you going to accuse User:Pilchard of the same thing? they have been making multiple edits to these articles to 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am editing from a Library. I have done nothing wrong. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please run a search on the ISP I am accused of being and that should hopefully solve this. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the continuation of the same edit warring beheaviour here by 130.88.52.43 that was a direct continuation from the same beheaviour of 94.9.98.107 here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats it then they are the same person they have simply moved from their domestic IP to a Library IP. Simple case conclusion the editor has simply moved from where ever they are living to the library and hey presto new IP address with identical editing.Sport and politics (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hangon a minute, lets wait until we find out where this other IP is. The odds are that that IP isn't even in the same city as me, seriously what are the odds? I am not the same person and you are beginning to really get on my nerves, a complaint with a fully documented record of your behaviour will be provided if you do not stop this childish behaviour. You are digging yourself a whole here. I suggest you stop before an administrator provides the evidence to say that the other IP is nowhere near I am, which no doubt they will. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A new IP editor shows up editing using the same language such as accusing me of being a vandal, and then stating that the editing is for consistency. Edit warring to restore the older IPs preferred version of pages and using nigh on the same language in the edit summaries. The IP backs up the other IP to the hilt on talk pages and the only pages edited are exactly the same as the other IP. this is very reasonable grounds for this referral and the suspicion is more than justified. This is a very obvious case of tag teaming by moving IP address. Sport and politics (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I say, when locations are checked your assumption will be proved false. However, I will address your points:

1. "Vandalism" is a clearly defined Wikipedia term. Removing "sourced material" is considered to be "vandalism". the language I am using is in fact Wikipedia's language.

2. I came across the pages after the event and could not for the life of me understand why an info box was so objectionable to you and why that also meant you had the right to remove other "sourced material". When there are multiple articles around the same thing, it is Wikipedia policy that we at least try and be consistent. I have read your heated exchange with the IP and they were right to point out that there are election boxes on every other kind of elections page. Your excuse was that they had local politicians and would violate Wikipedia policy by giving prominence to minor politicians. Since politician's names do not appear in these info boxes, your point can be disregarded. It is clear the edits were made to suit your personal preference, as your edits added nothing to the article. I can't see any other reason why having all these articles following the same template as other similar articles is so offensive to you as it is fully compliant with wikipedia policy.

3. As for your accusation of "tag teaming" via multiple IPs, this accusation will unravel when the location of the IPs announced.130.88.52.43 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We will see i am sure of it i still do not believe a single word that this is all happen-chance and coincidence . The editing beheaviour is far far far too similar and the pages edited are very limited and exactly the same, Asofor a "new" IP to suddenly appear and do this adds to the lack of coincidence. Sport and politics (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC),

I do not accept that. This is not a new IP in the sense that you imply, I have edited wikipedia from time to time from this library if you look through the range of IPs you will see this. many other students do as well. You clearly do not understand how it works. Its not my logon that has an IP, it is the computer I have logged into. I have logged into maybe a hundred computers in this library over the years. This is the first time I have sat at this particular PC, so my other edits will be registered to other similar IPs. If you understood how it worked you would probably be a little less paranoid, you might need to see someone about that by the way. Don't take that as an "act of bad faith", its more of an act of concern for you :-) 130.88.52.43 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Sport and politics is making reference to Wikipedia:The duck test. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I realise that but we have a much more conclusive test: checking the location of the IPs. [User:Sport and politics|Sport and politics]] can quack all he/she likes but if the "duck" is in the Arctic it probably isn't a duck ;-) 130.88.52.43 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably re-read WP:VANDAL. Also note that in Wikipedia's language, vandal and related words use an 'a' whereas both 130.88.52.43 and 94.2.4.145 seem to prefer an 'e'. Probably just another coincidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• 94.2.4.145 - Sky Broadband, London (the Large ISP mentioned above)
• 94.9.98.107 - Sky Broadband, London
• 2.120.46.143 - Sky Broadband, London
• 130.88.52.43 - University of Manchester, Manchester (oddly enough)

The fourth doesn't seem to be the same individual, the first three may be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly 94.9.98.107 is 94.2.4.145 and 2.120.46.143. I don't trust geolocation tools too much, but I would say they put these IPs about an hour or two east of Manchester, which is where 130.88.52.43 is editing from. On the surface the IP seems to be full of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case. can we end this nonsense? Better still can action be taken against [User:Sport and politics|Sport and politics]], this is after all the 2nd time that they have wasted admin time in the space of a weak by making accusations. Bearing in mind they have already been warned, please see bottom of this link, the user seems to have removed it from their page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sport_and_politics&oldid=554762900 I recommend a 1 month block. There is nothing to say that [User:Sport and politics|Sport and politics]] is going to stop misbehaving. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

An hour or 2 East of Manchester, that is ages away. That could be in anywhere on the East Coast, or even in Wales for heaven sake, I can hardly be going that far to edit Wikipedia for heaven sake!130.88.52.43 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction, I get East and West muddled :-s That could be anywhere from Newcastle to Peterborough and anywhere in between. My geography isn't quite that bad lol 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.52.43 (talk)

In terms of geolocation accuracy, you are practically sitting next to each other. What is it, an hour's commute to the Uni? Have you considered dispute resolution? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Say what you like you and the other IPs from a beheaviour analysis are identical. Sport and politics (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on the looking at the beheaviour pattern of these edits it is plainly obvious that all are the same. Simply stopping editing and upping sticks back to uni from London is not uncommon and not unusual. This I{ is getting away with wild and unfounded accusations and bizarre demands of blocks for beheaviour. They also seem not to understand that users can remove what they like and keep what they like on their user talk page. Can an admin just do a simple beheaviour analysis, then the clear cut nature of this multiplicity and tag teaming will be stupidly clear. Sport and politics (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I would wager on somewhere near Huddersfield, and that the train to Uni takes a little over half an hour. Let's assume this is the same user (I would suggest you do the same in the future), and that they have been economical with the actualité on this particular noticeboard. Remind us, where exactly is the problem? This seems to me, and I would guess not just me, like another content dispute where both users are trying to get the other side banned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see below some diffs to illustrate why the new Ip address is suspicious. [88] The new ip jumps in to talk page discussion backing up the other ip in the talk page.
[89] where the edits the same articles as the previous IP when the edits are the first edits by the IP address in over 5 years. The other IPs edit history can be seen here
referring to me as a vandal and claiming consistency 94 IP, 94 ip and 103 iP.
identacle reverts as other ip othere edit seen here This shows the beheaviours is the same and not a new supporting IP editor who just happens to have shown up now.
If you would like more evidence just let me know. Sport and politics (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, these seem to me to be part of a general content dispute, with reverts and everything. Things tend to look different once you know that it's the same user. Unregistered editors often change IP addresses, depending on where in the library they sit, or the nature of their ISP, or whether they commute (or all three). I will concede that the use of the word vandal is incorrect. I would suggest getting wider input into the centralised discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How much clearer can i spell this out The user is beheaving exactly the same way as another editor who they claim not to be. And therefor trying to claim that there are two editors instead of one. they are doing what if effectively IP sock puppetry. I have provided clear evidence that they are the sam person in terms of their identical beheaviour. This user will continue to act with disdain if this is not taken seriously. As if a registered user did this with two accounts they would be banned for sock puppetry. That is waht is happening here and the IP editor is getting away with it it is not acceptable sock-puppetry where ever it occurs and it is happening here by moving IP addresses. Sport and politics (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This sounds very much like Sheffno1gunner. The editing interests check out, as do the IP ranges, and the habit of using different IPs to try and seem like multiple people. I've increased the rangeblock on the University of Manchester IPs and semi-protected a bunch of the articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner for the details. Further evidence is probably best submitted there rather than here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:SzostakJack and User:MDPub13

Followed some problematic contribs from a user elsewhere (inclusive of "needing" Twinkle access after a week, and ended up finding a crossover of activity at Abiogenesis. While going through diffs, I find a reference to a "Dr. Jack Szostak" who does research in abiogenesis. Finding this an odd coincidence, I go to SzostakJack's userpage, where he denies being or being related to the doctor of the almost same name (apparently reversing it means he's a totally different guy), and he's dumped the Abiogenesis article onto his userpage, which we do not allow. I also noted some interesting stuff on his talk page, not limited to: a weak request for name change, and what looks like off-wiki canvassing. Someone with the power to enforce the rules here needs to explain to this user what our rules are.

As for MDPub13, he is involved in the same pages, seems to be willing to actively edit-war to get what he wants, and seems to be pretty familiar with SzostakJack already. MSJapan (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What does "needing" twinkle access after a week have to do with anything. What is twinkle why are you citing it as evidence and what make you think that this "needing" is going to be twinkled. You should know that my organization will stop at nothing to accurately represent scientific findings. We are establishing an international collaborative, a web, if you will and it can exist without me. However, I would prefer to stay. Thank you kindly. SzostakJack (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of this incident very well, but something is very fishy about SzostakJack. The user page isn't about him, it's about some science stuff. This seems to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, but no criterion in WP:CSD seems to match it, so I don't want to tag it when I should not be. Help, anyone? WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 00:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also an ongoing sockpuppet investigation here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think they are the same person, but CheckUser has the answer to that. I haven't gotten to thoroughly look at the SPI closely, let me see what the dealio is. Both of the accounts tried to call each other meatpuppets, but that basically gave away that they are meatpuppets, as MDPub13 even said, " These accounts do what I tell them to do. That is a dead giveaway. Best regards. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHILDPROTECT needs more eyes

user:Jehochman has at least twice edited this policy to include his currently proposed addition to the policy. He has done this at the same time as proposing the addition on talk, and despite early comments clearly showing no consensus about them (two users commenting, 1 supporting and 1 (me) opposing). Even after being explicitly told to gain consensus before editing the policy he did so again. I have reverted twice and will not do so again (I do not want to edit war), but the page needs more eyes watching it and the discussion on the talk page needs more input before there can be consensus for or against the addition. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have full-protected the policy page in question (for 3 hours). Thryduulf, despite your protestation, you already DID edit war on the policy page, and that is not vaguely OK. The others involved also edit warred, rather than continuing discussion on the talk page and firming up the consensus there.

This type of behavior on policies is not vaguely OK. All sides are cautioned not to repeat it.

I believe Thryduulf is also misreading an evolving talk page consensus but, in the interests of separating resolving the behavioral question (edit war on policy) from content question (what the policy should say, consensus on the talk page there) I leave that to others to review and determine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that I edit warred, but I am not going to argue about that. Four reverts from Jeochman is not at all appropriate though. There has been additional input into the discussionon the talk page since I reverted, but what I see is emerging consensus for the principle but not for the specific words. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to repeat that 3RR is not an entitlement and EW is not exactly 4+RR; policy pages are particularly much more sensitive, and a high rate of change back and forth on one crosses the line much faster.

I agree that the change happened in advance of a fully solidified consensus, but BRD should have been followed. BRD is not BRRD or BRRRRRRD ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In practice, the editing of these sorts of policy pages proceeds by someone editing in texts that give Admins new rights to ban/block people and limit the possibilities of review and overturning of such bans or blocks. It will then be claimed that such a text does have consensus and reflect current practice, therefore a big consensus is needed to revert back to the old version. Count Iblis (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Failure of all sides to respect BRD and use talk pages - trying to fight it out on the policy itself rather than gain consensus - is neither particularly unusual nor acceptable. Nothing here raised to the level of being worth sanctioning or threatening sanctions, but it isn't the right thing to do. A short little !vote on the proposed change establishes a consensus or NoConsensus within a reasonable time period. It's not wrong to try a bold proposal in advance of such consensus building, but it is wrong to insist on it in the face of objections and prior to consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've popped over there to support the change. I do hope something can be done now rather than procrastinated. Long overdue and massively needed. Thanks again. Begoon ^talk 23:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So, an idea for these sorts of things (brought on by the confluence of minor copyediting to an article at the same time as reading a hitherto-unread policy): why not require citations (internal citations) on policy pages?

Bear with me here. Definition of specific infractions and resulting actions come about in three ways:

1. Informal community approval (WP:SILENCE, basically)
2. Formal endorsement (Precedent set by discussion on, in order of perceived authority: user talks, article talks, RFCs or other 'officially organized' discussion formats, top-level noticeboards such as AN/AN/I, Arbcom)
3. WMF directive

If policy pages (and rewrites thereof) required citations to the canonical discussions/directives on a given point, addition or subtraction of a given set of material is easily handled. Yes, granted, we might invite meta-arguments on 'is this the current truth or not?' but I think the benefits would outweigh this. One can always link to diffs of closing summaries and such, which would be a good thing. Plus, the people who tend to be involved in policy page edits are the same people who have been around a while, and thus have become used to seeing and evaluating citations, as well as adding them, so no real behavioural change would be needed. (Citing WMF directive should also be as simple as linking a diff, or to a relevant press release or WMF posting; RS issues aren't applicable).

Maybe this should be an RfC or something, I dunno, but the thought occurred and it might help out a lot in clarifying what can be at times a distinct difference between policy-as-stated and policy-as-enforced.  The Potato Hose ↘ 00:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Silence is never to be used as consent with policy drafting or be taken as informal approval as the essay points out and so does WP:SMN, neither are policy and informal community approval means absolutely nothing at this point because it doesn't exist and ideally, anything surrounding policies and guidelines should go through a talk page. Any challenge to it can come at any time and that is a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have completely misunderstood me. Not everything on every policy page has been discussed to death; some stuff has been added, not contested, and thus stood. I.e., WP:SILENCE/lack of opposition has encoded things into policy. Nor am I suggesting that policy shouldn't be challenged, not by a long shot! What I'm suggesting is that had Jehochman's original addition to the page (and I am commenting specifically on mechanics here, I am agnostic on the addition in question) looked more like:

Users uploading or including sexually explicit images or videos in Wikipedia must present evidence that the subjects are adults. "Sexually explicit" means any depiction or simulation of sexual activity or lasciviousness involving one or more persons. Mere nudity, such as artistic photography, or photos of medical conditions or anatomy, are not considered to be sexually explicit for the purpose of this policy. Because Wikipedia is not censored, sexually explicit material may be included where relevant, subject to age verification.

...then there would have been a nice easy way for people to agree (WP:SILENCE), as they could easily check exactly where the assertions came from. It would also streamline the disagreement process, as people could point to a given statement/source and say "Well that was seven years ago, and isn't applicable now because of the more recent decision by Arbcom here (link)."

(Please also note that I am aware there are other procedural issues swirling around this, which again, I am deliberately not commenting on as I DGAF in this context.)

Extrapolating this idea out to all policy pages would mean discussions could proceed in a more orderly and streamlined fashion, and indeed could spur discussion/updating when people notice that a given policy is linked to a given AN/I decision from eight years ago (hypothetical example).  The Potato Hose ↘ 05:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:86.129.86.242

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.

---

Keeps editing Lee Westwick into the List_of_British_actors_and_actresses and List_of_The_Bill_cast_members. Suspect user is actually Westwick and he has already had one article he wrote about himself deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lee_Westwick Aleczandah (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

First, you should have notified the IP of this discussion; I've done so for you. Second, this post is a bit much, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you meant this post... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Still getting my head around Wikipedia edits, sorry! Still vandalism though Aleczandah (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for a week by Shirt 58. In related news, I've gone through the edit history of Lee Westwick and found it contains three SPAs with a potential for socking/meatpuppetry. It might be a bit late for a checkuser but we should watch out for similar edits by new accounts. Also, when Aleczandah nominated that page for deletion he did not notify the author LadyBeewest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). So, for the record, the next time you nominate a page for deletion by speedy, prod or Afd, please use at least the templated messages provided in the instructions to notify the author. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2013 (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:Qworty

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

---

As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia editors following his participation in the Filipacchi fiasco, the editor's real-life identity has been revealed in the media and acknowledged on-wiki.[90]. Related discussion on and off wiki is going on with some fervor; a highly credible case involving abuse of multiple accounts has been presented. Qworty's repeated use of Wikipedia discussions as platforms for rather venomous personal attacks on article subjects has been noted for at least five years [91], yet he somehow escaped any serious sanctions. In January of this year, Qworty accused a BLP subject of "stalking" and expressly alleging criminal behavior. Jimbo Wales himself intervened, telling Qworty "Do not do this again or I will see to it that you are swiftly and permanently banned from editing Wikipedia.[92] Nevertheless, Qworty repeated this behavior during the Filipacchi dispute, alleging that the author (and Wikipedia critic) "had sent thugs after certain Wikipedia editors" [93] and repeatedly alleging death threats against themself and their child, distressing both Qworty and their "husband". [94] [95]. Qworty has now been identified as male, without, it seems, a spouse (of any gender) or children. The threats and other allegations of criminal conduct, to say nothing of any association with Filipacchi, remain entirely unsubstantiated and, given the extensive misbehavior associated with the individual editing as Qworty (and other named and IP accounts), may safely be inferred to be false, and made without good faith. It is time to avoid further drama and impose the penalty recommended by Jimbo Wales for continuing this gross misconduct, which reflects so badly on the project and its legitimate editors: an indefinite block and site ban. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was looking for on-wiki reasons to ban Qworty, but you beat me to it. I was considering putting together an SPI case to identify all the past Qworty socks on one page, which I thought might be a step in the proper direction, but I like your swifter thrust to the heart of the matter. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Qworty's outbursts a few weeks ago were unacceptable, and his entire history as described in the Salon piece is outlandish. This must end now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification please. You say that As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia editors could you indicate who these were? John lilburne (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban. This is severe abuse, and not for the first time. Massive breaches of trust. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Hey, I saw that feller on the news last night. He's nearly famous. Basket _Feudalist 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on the grounds that the user has self-declared that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I have indefinitely blocked the editor in question; admins with an issue with this can freely revert it. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Good block/ support site ban for apparently many longterm abuses. LadyofShalott 17:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Good block/support site ban - we also need to review all 13k edits to purge the maligning effect this editor has wrought upon our project. I am willing to help if someone coordinates such an effort. My76Strat (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• support site ban, blocks are too little for a editor able to repeatedly and shamelessly game the system. Cavarrone (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This once again shows the bizarreness of Wikipedia's "outing" policy. If Qworty hadn't "come clean" about his real identity on-wiki, then merely linking to the Salon article naming names would be a blockable offense (User:Cla68 remains blocked for similar activity), which would squelch all discussion of the conflicts of interest involved. It's only after he outed himself that anybody could mention the subject here, and this resulted in him soon getting indef-blocked, showing that coming clean about your real identity is a losing move; if you maintain even paper-thin secrecy about it, you can stay scot-free on-wiki while anybody who goes against you gets banned instead. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. For those of you who don't read Wikipediocracy for whatever reason, I'll quote my own words from there: "This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information..." Carrite (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of digressing, Cla68 did a lot more than "merely linking". He posted an outing link in a website that is famous for doing outings, of an editor he was involved with, out of the blue, and he posted the link again in his unblock request, with even more information. Then he refused to give assurance that he wouldn't "out" anyone else (see the request made to him by NewYorkBrad[96]). --Enric Naval (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment "As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia Wikipediocracy editors" FTFY. The source specifically says so, you see.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we should require people to formally identify themselves to the Foundation before being allowed to edit. And perhaps the Foundation could request their professional credentials, if any, so editors could be prevented from editing subjects they have no expertise in. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Credentials are not necessary here, and there is no need for editors to identify themselves on most articles. But anyone adding content to a BLP should certainly be firmly identified as a real person. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block and site-ban This is purely a punitive measure as Brad already left a comment saying Qworty would be on an indefinite BLP restriction if he continues editing, and Qworty has indicated that he would not.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Good block/Support site ban User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and their blatant intent to continue their disruption and abuse tells me that they are not planning to change their ways anytime soon, if ever. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• No sense dragging this out. Would an admin please place the site ban notice on User_talk:Qworty per WP:CBAN? No sense in waiting the usual 24 for many additional editors to vote. (Blanking and tagging the user and talk pages optional per closer's discretion, personally I think it unnecessary and unseemly.) NE Ent 18:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Clarify - Please make it perfectly clear that it is Robert Clark Young that is banned, and any other account discovered to be Young should be immediately blocked as well. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  Er. Why? It is the occupier of the account 'Qworty' who is blocked. That's the only important thing here. Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good block/Support site-ban Qworty has already proven that he is not here to collaborate. Contrary to what TDA says above, a site-ban will prevent Qworty from pulling this kind of shit ever again. Ishdarian 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is punitive because the BLP restriction Brad imposed is already preventative.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I really have to disagree. The severe breach of trust with the community doesn't lead me to believe he has the integrity to abide by the BLP restriction. You may see it as a draconian measure, but it's for the protection of the 'pedia. Ishdarian 18:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are you saying you refuse to believe that he will adhere to the BLP restriction yet believe he will somehow adhere to a site-ban despite a history of using multiple accounts?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I'm saying. It's the difference between wasting everyone's time reporting an abusive user and reverting them on sight. Thank you, but I'm done responding here. I've voiced my opinion. Ishdarian 19:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good block and Support Site Ban- Support an ArbCom case which will bring scrutiny to the entire editing history of Qworty. There is undoubtedly damage that needs to be fixed and the scrutiny associated with an ArbCom case would help this effort. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not their job. This is not an issue the community is unable to resolve; suggest posting a request on WP:AN and / or WP:BLP to solicit editors to review Qworty's edits for possible BLP violations. NE Ent 19:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, adding my support of site ban above, which would be the predictable result of an ArbCom case. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban. Enough is enough, we cannot have this abuse any longer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Ironholds block of Qworty. There does need to be a look at what edits Qworty has made, identification of any sockpuppets, meatpuppetry and indeed any tag teaming that has gone on too, before everything is tagged and fades from the memories of all concerned. Nick (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree the Salon article appears to be RS and describes extensive WP:Battle behavior, so block/ban appears warranted -- to the extent there needs to be further investigation/appeal, then something to the arbitration committee maybe warranted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't a ban discussion like this be at AN? Shadowjams (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:CBAN: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

AN might have been a preferable venue, but I don't see much value to moving the discussion now. However, someone might post a cross-reference on AN to the discussion here, to cover the unlikely event that there are people who watchlist AN but not ANI.Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not trying to be a stickler for procedure; I'm feeling self-conscious since I've done this twice this week already... anyway, carry on. Shadowjams (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite ban. I've had positive interactions with Qworty but this is a bit too much. It only takes one trusted editor gone bad to make us all look like vindictive morons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban. These are serious allegations, and Qworty's admitted that they're true, but why can't he edit other things instead? I'd say the best course of action is a ban from BLP editing with a guaranteed indef block for the first ban violation, but we should unblock him at the same time as we impose the BLP ban and the indef guarantee. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have also had positive interactions with Qworty but this abuse moves from basic COI to a much more severe charge of using wikipedia for individual blatant professional gain. I disagree that a BLP ban is sufficient. This is a case of long term abuse from an editor who obviously knew what they were doing. I would suggest that an indef is excessive though. I believe in the principle that anyone can become a good editor in spite of past history, and many of Qworty's edits did support the project. So perhaps giving them another chance after... an extensive block followed by BLP sanctions until they can convince AN that they should be lifted. I also agree that we should probably request a checkuser to look for socks. my 2 cents. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support complete ban. Conduct this egregious demands a complete ban. Wikipedia should have no place for this editor on any page. Kablammo (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Should have been done a long time ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

*Comment Isn't there a ready-made 'banned' template that can be applied to User:Qworty? I'd say that's a violation of WP:UPNO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• What's the point? Even now, Robert Clark Young is largely the work of the soon-to-be-banned editor, with a big ol' tag at the top acknowledging that fact. What's the point in getting rid of the COI editor if we're going to keep the COI edits? Multiple people, myself included, have tried to restart the article from scratch with a short, neutral stub, but the folks that own the article have decided they'd rather have the COI version, or perhaps a slightly watered down variation of it. Which matters more to the readers of this site: that a certain misbehaving editor can edit, or that a certain article is neutral, accurate and free of bias? It doesn't matter one whit whether Qworty is banned if we're all willing to let the COI edits he made stand. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that his article is ridiculously puffed up, I'm concerned that you seem to think that the main problem here is that he edited his own article. It isn't. That matters very very little compared to the attacks he made on other people. Those attacks and trying to limit them are and should be "the point". 87.254.72.244 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Qworty the sockpuppet... For the record, I started a list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty. I wonder why Qworty was not blocked earlier, after being ID'ed by checkuser as a sockpuppet? Very strange. By the way, I think the block is a good one, and that the person behind Qworty should be site-banned. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and site ban - We have no need of editors who use their edits to promote themselves and slag off their opponents. Such a person cannot be trusted even to edit unrelated articles - what happens when they get pissed-off at their bank, or cell phone provider, or the supermarket chain they shop at? With their track record, how are we to believe that they won't take out their ire with revenge edits? We can't, nor can we know what Young will take a disliking to, or where his biased editing will take him. A site ban is the only reasonable solution to protect the project from a proven danger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I was going to oppose per TDA, but in light if the sockpuppettry highlighted by Bink, this is too much.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support site-ban - he isn't here for to better the encyclopedia, he has been pushing his own agenda through sockpuppets for years which has proven to be detrimental.LM2000 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Frankly, we have no alternative than to block & site-ban for such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - After a thorough review of his actions, I believe a block and ban is warranted. 173.58.54.157 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that the above is the first and only edit that has been made from this IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please read User:PinkAmpersand/IPs can't be "new users". Oh, huh, I still haven't written that? Well, you've been here long enough that you can probably imagine what it should say. Could be a troll, could be a long-term contributor with a dynamic address who happens to prefer to not log in. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Doesn't really matter, in either of those two cases the !vote should be ignored as illegitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • . Is there a policy that says that? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Tentatively oppose as punitive. I really don't wanna see someone wiki-lynched out of mere spite, no matter how well-placed that spite may be. I don't know much about Qworty's editing history here (I've seen his name tons of times, but never formed anything of an opinion), so if someone can present evidence of abuse in areas other than biographies, I'd consider supporting. But the existing BLPBAN, perhaps along with a formal one-account limitation, enforced by periodic CheckUsers, seems sufficient at the moment. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. That's more deception than I can stomach. I even defended the editor in the Filipacchi discussion since the edits to that article I looked at were congruent with policy. That there was another layer to it, and a motivation displayed abundantly by some of the socks fished up in the SPI, I did not see or did not want to see. The butchering of Barry Hannah is the icing on the cake; I wish I had seen that earlier. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Indefinite ban for sockpuppettry Mlpearc (powwow) 03:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block and community ban; my thanks to those who have brought this character to justice. Long overdue removal of a stain on the encyclopedia. Clearly a protective move and not merely punitive. Also thank Drmies, as it takes a big person to admit a big error. Jusdafax 04:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know about big--overweight certainly. I'm not sure about "error" either (in, like, some technical or legal sense), but I feel pretty bad about not having looked at Qworty's rants and forming my judgment, at least on the first day or two, only on their edits to that and related articles. Keep in mind also that there was apparent socking going on one the other side, of the apparently promotional kind; Qworty's tone on the talk pages of the affected articles struck me as just irritated with that. Still, I think I was wrong, yes, in supporting Qworty as long as I did, and it's making me sleep very badly. I haven't felt this shitty about a wiki thing since, say, the Pastor Theo affair, and I'm going to make sure that I look around more next time. I don't think that such deceptions can be prevented, really, but in this case I could have figured something out earlier. Again, I wish I had seen earlier what he did to Barry Hannah. And again, sjeesh, what childishness. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Given the last warning from Jimbo and the latest stunt, plenty to warrant on the most recent drama. Though I do not like the sockpuppetry, it is old, the current edits are also problematic. This diff is a little extreme, going so far as to remove persondata and data that is okay per WP:ABOUTSELF. [97] Misleading edit summaries to axe large amounts of content. [98] Axing without real reason, [99] Basically axing entire pages for 'unsourced' content, including summaries and characters and categories. [100] [101] [102] A common thread? Works of writers and writers themselves. Enough is enough on many accounts, the damage to Wikipedia and its credibility and image has been massive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ban (Personal attack removed) EEng (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to engage in Two Minutes Hate... Please think about redacting the excesses... Carrite (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it appears EEng has no intent to do this, I've removed it myself as a fairly clear NPA violation, not to mention a BLP one since it's talking not just about Qworty the Wikipedian, but Bob Young the notable living person. I should note that I consider this wholly separate from my tentative !vote in opposition: I won't lose any sleep if Qworty gets banned for this; I will, however, if comments like this are allowed to stand. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban. A very devious individual who has jeopardized the reputation of Wikipedia in the eyes of the public. Totally unacceptable. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment -- Several people have written that Robert Clark Young "understood what he was doing". Hmm. I don't know about that. I read the Salon article before I read this thread. It notes that Young/Qworty asserted that all his edits complied with wikipedia policy. It notes the years of hypocrisy, where Young/Qworty claimed he was fighting conflicts of interest, while actually serving as the poster-child of a conflicted editor. This suggests to me he may not have understood what he was doing was wrong. We block vandals who know what they are doing, and we sometimes have to block individuals over issues of competence. I suspect that Young/Qworty, while obviously intelligent, is not competent to edit the wikipedia -- demonstrated by the claim that they don't believe they have done anything wrong. Geo Swan (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin closure needed. I've just reverted a good faith NAC -- while consensus is overwhelming here WP:CBAN requires an admin close. Per the "any reasonable admin" gestalt of involved I think it'd be fine if someone who's already commented completed the task. NE Ent 11:39, 19 May 2013 (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.

• Comment - This needs to be reopened, debate continued, and closed properly (i.e. overwhelming consensus for site ban). Otherwise, this is headed for ArbCom. I have never seen a contradictory, "edit conflicted" second close before, and I do not believe that the "edit conflicted" close reflects the consensus here. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Qworty is sitebanned User_talk:Qworty#Site_ban, [103]. NE Ent 17:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because of the possibility that journalists may reference this conversation, let me expand on the above. Qworty was site banned by the Wikipedia community. No administrator or group of administrators decided to ban him. An administrator has to do the nuts and bolts work of actually implementing the ban, but he or she has to do what the community decided (except in weird theoretical cases where the community decides to violate one of our core principles). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Vinson wese

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.

---

Vinson wese has repeatedly added material to Emmelie de Forest that violates both WP:undue and WP:BLP. he has been warned repeatedly by myself and other users, inluding bishonen and babbaq. also has posted a lvl-4im for section blanking on my user page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:BabbaQ and co. have been involved in a section blanking effort to remove (very well) sourced content on the Danish Wikipedia and here. Their edits have been reverted by numerous editors over at the Danish Wikipedia as well, most recently today. The story of royal ancestry has received significant media attention in major media like DR, and we don't remove it because one editor doesnt like it. Also note that they are edit warring against a version here at the English Wikipedia that was mostly written by User:DrKiernan and has been stable for weeks or months. Vinson wese (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User has been warned several times now. I will not respond any further to this user as he has no interest in having a discussion and has never had. Emmelies article should not be trashing her and her dead fathers reputation with tabloid gossip, edits looked like a small article in The Sun newspaper. Winson has been told several times to stop. Latest one today by admin Bishonen who Winson labelled "rv troll" in his edit summary.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is re disruptive editing on a BLP, which is currently also an unfolding event. I warned VW strongly today on their page (removed, like a previous warning in April) and have now blocked them for one week. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

Matter solved. Good decision Bishonen.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum: this user has shown themselves aggressively impervious to advice since I first encountered them in early April. Checking out the history of his talkpage now, I note the edit summary reasons he gives for wiping my warnings and BabbaQ's ANI alert ("rv troll" "rm/trolling/vandalism"); just another illustration of his indomitable WP:BATTLE demeanour. I'm rather tempted to up the block to indef per WP:NOTHERE, but I'm probably a little too annoyed to be the right admin for it. In case somebody else wants to, I've no objection. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 18 May 2013 (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.

Clearing one's own talk page

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.

---

I am writing to receive confirmation that users, with few exceptions, are fully permitted to remove content from their own talk pages, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED ("Removal of comments, notices, and warnings"). The two pages are very clear. They say, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages...The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users" and "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages...The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so."

The reason I am bringing this issue here is because an admin, Bwilkins, is claiming that that I am wrong. Because he's an admin, I feel it's vitally important that he accept this right that editors have and not give them the wrong information, especially when sanctions may be involved.

This matter started when I noticed that an admin, Ymblanter, told a blocked user, 68.50.128.9, that he was not allowed to remove warnings he received prior to getting blocked.[104]. When I saw that, I posted a comment to Ymblanter in this thread on the blocked user's talk page that he was incorrect; that a user is allowed to remove warnings received prior to a block. I included the links to WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED and pointed out the primary exceptions were declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, any other notice regarding an active sanction, Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) and Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help). As you'll see in the thread, Ymblanter wrote back quickly and acknowledged that I was right.

It was after that when I noticed that Bwilkins also told the blocked editor about not being allowed to remove comments from his talk page. As you'll see in Bwilkins' decline, he said, "I see that you improperly removed comments by the blocki0gn admin from this page, thus attempting to hide evidence and valid commentary required by patrolling admins."[105] When I wrote to Bwilkins on his talk page to let him know IP 68 was allowed to remove that, he response was, "It's been held by the community that an editor may not remove comments related to the block - the blocking admin has a responsibility to be accountable, and explain their block as well. As such, the IP cannot remove the comments related to the block." I asked him to please provide evidence that "It's been held by the community" (I'm not even sure what "held by the community" means) that editors' can't remove items (other than those on the exceptions list) but he never replied. He had posted something on IP 68's talk page also and I replied there too asking for evidence, but he didn't reply to that either. And 90% of what he had posted on IP 68's talk page had nothing to do with the issue of editors being able to clear their own talk pages.[106] I also included a comment on IP 68's talk page that another admin, Orangemike had said what I'm saying.[107]. I've also seen many other editors, including admins, make comments about how editors may clear their own talk pages, except for the items referenced in WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. I've even seen admins warn editors who reverted other editors who cleared their own talk page content. Most of the time, the other editors apologize and say they just weren't aware that editors could clear their own talk pages, but I've never seen anyone deny that WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED are valid.

IP 68 is currently blocked, but he is still allowed to remove everything on his talk page except the declined block requests for the current block. If there was a block notice for the current block, he couldn't remove that either. But I don't see one. He is allowed to remove all the old declined block requests; the ones for the previous/expired block.

I'll close by saying I have idea who IP 68 is and have never crossed paths with him. I just happened to end up on his talk page after seeing something on the talk page of an admin I had been communicating with. From the looks of IP 68's talk page, he has a pretty ugly history for being on such a short time lol, so my interest is certainly not in defending him, but rather to defend this important right for all editors in general. I would appreciate feedback, and if there is consensus for my position, I would ask that Bwilkins please acknowledge that he will not tell any more editors that they are not allowed to clear items on their own talk pages unless it's on the exceptions list. And I hope that if he sees any other editors giving the wrong information, he will correct them. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed information should be available in the page history, and no admin should unblock without first attempting to confer with the blocking admin directly. Those two facts mean there's no reason why keeping stuff on a blocked user's user page is worth spending time fighting over. Let it be removed, because it doesn't help anyone do their job any better, but it does waste time and make lots of people unnecessarily upset. --Jayron32 04:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course you can remove stuff from your own page. That said, this doesn't appear to be the case. If this is an IP editor (as it appears to be), then it isn't really their page. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's a dynamic IP address, and the user has changed, there's no reason to keep messages intended for someone else. If it is the same user using the same IP address for a long period of time, there's no reason to keep messages around that have already been read. No user page "belongs" to anyone other than Wikipedia, and that includes users with usernames and users without. There's no inherent reason why they should be treated differently. --Jayron32 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Niteshift, that's incorrect. Per WP:REMOVED, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Per WP:OWNTALK, "This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users." IP editors are not second-class citizens in this regard. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I am a bit concerned by this comment. It looks to me (unless I am getting the policy wrong, which is always a possibility) like an administrator who is using a blocking criteria that is a direct contradiction to WP:BLANKING. I say "it looks to me" because what I think I am seeing is actually fairly unlikely. What am I missing here? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I hesitate to speak for BWilkins who is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I imagine he is interpeting the language in policy broadly so that "notice" doesn't just mean the initial block notice but any notice (or comment) from an admin about the block or about the reason for declining the block. With that said, I'm going to close this discussion as I believe we are into diminishing returns here.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2013 (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.

Arthur Rubin

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.

---

Can someone tell User:Arthur Rubin to stop rolling back all of my edits without discussion. I have tried to post messages to the talk pages of the articles in question, and to his/her talk page, with no response. I don't plan to edit any more number articles until this is resolved, to avoid edit warring. Thank you! 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You changed the format, contrary to the specified format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Number. I suggested you post there before making other changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what? That page doesn't exist and what does that have to do with Linden, New South Wales? 174.56.57.138 (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, which makes no mention of the infobox, so what is your point? And again, why are you reverting my edits on Linden, New South Wales? Seems like an abuse of rollback, which should be revoked for your account until your knee stops jerking. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur is an administrator so his rights can't be removed lightly. IP, please stop calling Arthur a vandal. This does not explain his queer behavior on Linden, New South Wales or his apparently counterproductive edits removing information from number articles. Shii (tock) 05:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I changed "Number" to "Numbers"; it must have gotten lost as part of an edit conflict.
2. Before your edits, "prime = nth" was never in any of the infoboxes. "prime = yes" was. You should have verified consensus at the appropriate project page, at least once I removed your edits.
3. You have given no reason to remove the template from Linden. I assumed it was a change to your preferred format or data, again without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, your approach to the rollback tool is unacceptable. Do you not see the words "{{#coordinates:}}: cannot have more than one primary tag per page" at the bottom of the Linden page? Shii (tock) 07:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• @174.56.57.138: As you know how to fix Linden, New South Wales, and you know how to file a report at ANI, you should know that an edit summary of "revert vandal" is not helpful when undoing a revert. Instead, repeat your first edit summary, with a bit more detail to explain that you are not making arbitrary changes to articles. If that doesn't work, post a polite message at the user's talk—you can add a bit of snark if you like, but templated "I undid ... because it did not appear constructive" has no chance of being helpful. Yes, Arthur Rubin should have noticed the red text, and should have taken ten minutes to work out what was going on, but the reality is that a lot of nonsense edits are made, and perfection in reverting them is unattainable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've "fixed" it by removing the template. Perhaps now we can move on?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea. I was about to investigate the article but got called away. Having now had a quick look, my guess is that the problem was put on the article a long time ago, and the recent change of {{coord}} to use Module:Coordinates resulted in the message being displayed. It also put the article in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags which had one other article, which I just fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Before we get too distracted; while this situation doesn't particularly cover anyone in glory, I think you should both learn and move on from this. IP: in future, try explaining what you were attempting to do if you run into problems like this. Arthur; attempt to exercise a wee bit more good faith. Changing date formats, even if that was what they were attempting to do, does not necessitate the use of the rollback tool. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, what the IP was doing on the number articles was changing "prime = " and "divisors = " in the numbers infobox for most prime numbers, claiming he was standardizing formats. He may have been standardizing formats, but changing a majority of the prime numbers is a change of format, not consolidating formats. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't doing that at Linden, New South Wales, which should have been obvious from the first edit, and its associated edit summary,[108] as well as the fact that when you reverted a red error message appeared. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is 3rr 1, 2, and 3 restoring a version of the article that resulted in a big red error message. This is inappropriate conduct for any editor. NE Ent 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Both editors reverted 3x; neither breached WP:3RR. As for the red error message, I understand what the IP was doing. I still don't understand what Arthur was doing or thought he was doing (I can't follow his explanation just above).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2013 (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.

Nangparbat

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.

---

Would someone be so kind as to block this IP [109] as he is Nangparbat and chatting to himself via his mobile on this talk page. And making a great many personal attacks at the same time. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of quick action here please? Or do I have to just spend my day reverting this crap? he goes after them like a nazi after a jewish childs blood Darkness Shines (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion will be, don't revert more! You have already reverted 4 times in Talk:Sarabjit Singh. Wait for sometime until someone handles it here. --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Er. Why? The three revert rule does not apply to vandalism. I've blocked the IP in question. Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, however he is still using the mobile IP to restore the personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings, those are not "definitely" vandalism. Undoubtedly those are serious personal attack with rough tone, might be very serious... But, "Harassment and personal attacks" are primarily WP:NOTVAND. In addition, Talk:Sarabjit Singh edits are definitely not vandalism.

They might be sock of someone (which also provides WP:NOT3RR benefits, but, I was trying to understand their arguments! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

They have no arguments, they are sockpuppets. Socks get reverted on sight. Nangparbat has stalked and insulted my now for over a year, I know him when I see him. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2013 (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:Raulseixas

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.

---

Blocked user Raulseixas still evades the block using his IP sock 201.3.220.69 and continues to remove a content without giving any arguments like there[110] and there[111]. As you can see he is edit warring in these articless since late April, using also his second IP sock 187.63.215.95--Oleola (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked, but please file at WP:SPI next time. That IP has recently been blocked for the same thing, so I blocked them longer this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:09, 19 May 2013 (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.

Copyright concerns regarding User:USchick

Now that the shouting has died down, USchick has promised to fix the copyright issues, and both sides finally understand each other, let's move on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

---

I think we may have a problem regarding User:USchick, who appears to be copy-pasting material (with occasional minimal rewording) into articles: see for instance this edit [112], and compare to the source [113]. Another example can be seen here [114] which again contains material copied from the source, and here [115] (in this example I'm not sure that USchick was solely responsible. I raised the issue at User talk:USchick#Copyright violation, but the response has been dismissive, with accusations of "stalking harassment on [my] part". [116] Since I clearly don't wish to be accused of harassment, and consider the issue of possible copyright violations of real significance (as our policy makes clear), I would ask that uninvolved contributors look into the matter further, to see if there is a deeper copyright problem with USchicks editing, and would also ask that an uninvolved person makes it perfectly clear to USchick that copy-pasting material into articles is unacceptable, and if USchick is unwilling to abide by policy, there are likely to be consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

According to policy - "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed." Instead, AndyTheGrump has been stalking my edits and reverting them. I have posted the copy in question on the talk pages of both articles for comment. In addition, I would like to point out that if you look at revision history for AndyTheGrump, [117] his edits consist mostly of acting belligerent toward other editors. I request for him to be reprimanded. Thanks. USchick (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting suspected copyright violations is entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to behave like this? Quoted from your talk page: "even if it involves breaking a rule or two, and telling the less clued-up 'contributors' to go boil their heads. This will of course put me at risk of getting blocked, but I think the results are worth the risks" USchick (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be dealt with at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems noticeboard. Count Iblis (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If this was a single incident, I'd agree: but there seems to be evidence that this is an ongoing problem: compare this diff from February [118] with the cited source: [119]. Almost the entire section added by USchick is copy-pasted, with minimal changes. Compare the source "These weapons included an infertility toxin to secretly sterilize the black population; skin-absorbing poisons that could be applied to the clothing of targets; and poison concealed in products such as chocolates and cigarettes" with USchick's edit "These weapons included an infertility toxin to secretly sterilize the black population, skin-absorbing poisons, and poison concealed in products such as chocolate and cigarettes". If USchick has been doing the same thing in multiple articles, it clearly needs wider attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note. I removed the material referred to in the above post, as a clear copyright violation - USChick has just reinstated it: [120]. Given this clear refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy on copyright, can I suggest that at minimum USchick be formally warned that further violations are liable to result in a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm quoting Andy from my talk page "Copyright violations are exempt from edit-warring policy." Please make up your mind, are they exempt or not? I don't appreciate being threatened. USchick (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Deleting copyright-violating material is exempt from the edit-warring policy. And asking that you be obliged to abide by policy isn't a threat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please check your belligerent attitude per Wiki policy. USchick (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Final warning given, including a link to the relevant section of the US Code. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked her to clarify whether this is a habit or a lapse. If she doesn't know, that's bad. --John (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time ever that this issue has been brought up with me. It has not yet been determined how many of my edits (if any) are actual copyright violations. USchick (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're at four right now. Are there more? --John (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have strong suspicions that the problem is extensive, then this should be taken to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where should I complain about being stalked and harassed by AndyTheGrump??? ;-) USchick (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The stalking section of our harassment policy notes that it's appropriate to follow someone else's editing for the purpose of fixing "violations of Wikipedia policy"; when you're infringing copyright and claim not to be aware that you're doing it, your edits definitely need to be followed. If you're not able to determine whether you're infringing copyright, I strongly suggest that you refrain from adding substantial content to any articles without first discussing your additions on a talk page (article or user) or a Wikipedia: namespace page (e.g. WP:HD), since it's lots easier and much less disruptive to remove infringing bits from a talk page or WP: namespace page than from mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, when he started stalking me it was because he didn't think anyone should be editing an article that he wants to delete. [121] First he reverted my edits by claiming that they didn't reflect what the sources said. Then when my edits used the same words as what the sources said, he accused me of copyright violations, except this time he also claimed that he wasn't edit warring because copyright violations are exempt. How convenient. So that's why we're here now. I don't expect you to do anything about it, I'm just saying on record that AndyTheGrump is a bully. USchick (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple question, USchick. Do you accept that the material I have linked violated Wikipedia policy on copyright? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing here [122] and you reverted, claiming that's not what the source said. When in reality, that's exactly what the source said. As a result, I started quoting sources more closely, and that's when you accused me of copyvio and then you hid behind an excuse of being exempt from edit warring. Then you escalated, by stalking my other articles. That's as simple as I can answer. USchick (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

USchick edits articles on recent breaking news events a lot; editing these articles makes one vulnerable to this problem. When I was last editing such a page (about the London Riots, I think I saw USchick editing there too) I found it quite hard to avoid copying texts from sources. But then these sorts of articles are edited by quite a few editors at the same time, so I think the editors should collaborate with each other better (perhaps in some WikiProject) and discuss these sorts of problems. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a problem here at all, because most sources allow copying of their texts as long as the source is cited. You then do need to make it clear that you are quoting directly from the source, e.g. you can write that source [X] reports: "......". Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

USchick did not indicate that the material had been copied directly from the source - which constitutes plagiarism even if it isn't a copyright infringement. As for what may be legitimately done when clearly marked as a quotation, that is another issue, of no relevance to this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You reverted this edit, a direct quotation. [123] Now that we're here, why don't we let others determine what they think is relevant. USchick (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There was more to the edit than the quote, as anyone can see - 'Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro said the criminal justice system can't be "complacent" as it has only 60 days to accept the charges against the suspects' isn't marked as a quote, is it? Now, I ask you again, do you accept that the material I have linked violated Wikipedia policy on copyright? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered your original question above. Now about the rest of that edit, can you please explain what you see as the problem? "New Orleans residents expressed outrage over the violence and questioned American apathy toward inner city crime and gang violence." And why were you not willing to discuss this on the talk page of the article in question? USchick (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:My76Strat asked me to look at this section. While these issues may have been created in good faith, there seems to be substantial content requiring at least repair. I did a quick spot-check and have found multiple problems with copy-pasting from other articles. I did not in my spot-check find copying from external sites, but I did find copying from other Wikipedia articles in almost every edit I looked at. In this edit content is at least copied without attribution from Divine Adoratrice of Amun, while this edit includes at least content from Yab-Yum and Maithuna. I have not checked to see if content is copied from any other pages or what remains. In another article, this edit at least includes content from this article, possibly others, without attribution. I haven't checked outside sources having found some copying. This article was created with content from at least this article ("the highlands are characterized....") without attribution. In this one, we see content from this article without attribution and [124]. There could be other sources. This content was copied at least in part from at least this article. I have not found in my spot-check copying from external sources, but evidently others have, and I have found obviously in a short period of time substantial copyright issues. I have no reason to doubt they were made in good faith, but they need repair in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If attribution is supplied, it's quite all right to copy from one Wikipedia article to another, but our material is copyrighted. This attribution is an essential part of complying with the license under which we publish. It seems likely that we need a WP:CCI to make sure that any unaddressed copy-pasting - from within or without Wikipedia - is repaired. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Block Proposal

I think that it is evident that USchick is refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem here - and accordingly, I again suggest that this contributor be blocked from editing until they agree to comply with policy. Wikipedia has to take copyright violations seriously, to avoid possible legal repercussions, and failing to deal with a contributor who seems to think that compliance with copyright policy is optional doesn't exactly reflect well on us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't read that into USChick's replies here. Avoiding copyright problems isn't always easy, it becomes a lot more difficult if the editors are fighting tactical battles instead of editing collaboratively. Editing like playing chess with a potential copyright problem as a check situation on the board and claiming checkmate on AN/I if the opponent doesn't concede, isn't a good example of collaborative editing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Block With the hope that USchicks failure/refusal to understand the copyright violations she adds will not escalate further. I'd hate to see another topic ban, but at this point that doesn't look very far away. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block. There are some copyright problems here that do need to be dealt with, but you shouldn't do that the way AndyTheGrump is intervening in the editing there, as that's basically a guarantee that the editor he is dealing with is not going to listen to him. It seems that we're not learning anything from all those long term disputes we've had on Wikipedia. What's needed is better collaboration, so I would suggest that we advice USchick to read a lot of articles she likes to edit, to see how you avoid copyright problems and to find some other editors who also edit a lot of recent news articles and collaborate work with them. I note that AndyTheGrump's position is that Wikipedia should not have any articles based on recent news articles. While we can all respect his position, his interjection in the editing of these articles led to this copyright issue escalating to AN/I, instead of being dealt with at the talk page level. Count Iblis (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So your position is that if a contributor violates copyright policy, and refuses to acknowledge that s/he has done so, no further action need be taken to ensure that policy is complied with? Somehow, I think that the WMF may take a different view, as might the copyright owners of future material misused in this way. As for 'collaborating' on articles, I see no reason why I should be obliged to assist people who don't understand policy in creating articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place (as the AfD seems to be making perfectly clear) - and please note that I've already found an example of blatant copyright violation in an article which was in no way news: [125][126]. If contributors can't be trusted to comply with a policy that has potential legal implications for Wikipedia, they shouldn't be editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we should certainly help USchick with complying with our copyright policies. But that does involve assisting the editor with editing the articles, pointing out where she went wrong and how she can improve her writing skills. Blocking should be the last resort for truly disruptive editors. The problem is that if you storm in, don't show much interest in actually editing the article for content, her replies to you will be rather unhelpful, she won't show much interested in your problem either, even though the copyright problem is actually an important one to deal with.

Of course, you don't have to assist her yourself, but we can ask other editors who do freqently edit the news articles to assist her. If later it turns out that she can't collaborate well with these other editors who do passionately edit the news articles, that she still is making mistakes w.r.t. copyright, then that is a sign that she can't function well in this sector of Wikipedia and then we could think about topic bans or blocks. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds are you assuming that USchick's problems are confined to 'this sector of Wikipedia'? I've already found one non-news-related violation, and see no reason given USchick's responses at User Talk:USchick to assume that there aren't more - several contributors have asked for clarification, with no meaningful response. I'm reluctant to do more searching of USchick's edits myself, having been accused of stalking, but nobody else seems to be dealing with the possibility that there may well be other undetected violations. This needs addressing properly, and cosy talk of 'collaboration' isn't going to get us anywhere as long as USchick fails to admit that policy has been violated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of a vast numbers of edits a few where found to be problematic, she's clearly not a copy and paste bot that has to be shut down. Then those few copyright violations do point to a problem she needs to address, for that we need her to see the problem and learn what she can do about it. The approach you took with her made it a lot less likely that she would seriously consider the copyright problem. Admitting that there is a copyright problem was complicated by that becoming a sort of recognition of the unequal situation between you and her, because you are not there editing with her collaboratively. If you had just put your own preferred version aside and explained to her how she could actually edit the text she wanted to edit without violating the copyright, that would have gone a long way of solving the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Out of a vast numbers of edits a few where found to be problematic"? Really? As far as I'm aware, there has been no systematic investigation into USchick's edits at all. If you are saying that there has been one, can you provided a link please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you have been advised about how to go about doing that. Have you done that? You like to escalate things, don't you? USchick (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to de-escalate things by giving a straight answer to the questions that administrator John asked on your talk page two days ago: "Are [all your edits] copyright violations or only some of them? It would make it easier for those of us who have to check if you could help us", "Are you saying you don't know what is and isn't a copyvio?" AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer is yes, I know what it is. Now I'd like to ask you a question. If this is an issue for you, why are you unwilling to address it on the talk page of the article? USchick (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you know what a copyright violation is, why did you violate copyright? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered your question, and your refusal to answer mine is further evidence of your unwillingness to collaborate. I request a block of AndyTheGrump for whatever numerous policies his actions violate. WP:TEAMWORK His constant reversal of other people's edits without any discussion is disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus. I feel like the only reason he brought me here is to make a point. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. USchick (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I like to (try to) deescalate things. Yes, Andy is eponymously grumpy; while not "ideal" his behavior falls inside the big vague gray box known as the "Wikipedia (lack of) civility policy." What I'd like to see is a simple affirmative that USchick will refrain from edits that could be construed as copyright violations; then we close the thread and move on to other things. NE Ent 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would consider doing that if Andy was reprimanded for his underhanded editing tactics and his attempt to "exempt" himself from edit warring. Looking over his edit history, his contributions seem to be of limited value, since he spends a lot of time bullying other people. His knowledge of various policies could be put to better use if he was willing to collaborate with other editors. USchick (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He brought you here for violating copyright, and reverting copyright violations is an exemption from 3RR. And you have the cheek to ask for him to be blocked for bringing this to the community's attention? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning. I accept it. Now I expect someone to deal with Andy the Grump for his violation of policy as outlined above. The appropriate thing for him to do was address it on the talk page, which he refuses to do even now. USchick (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the appropriate thing to do was bring it to your talk page, which he did and you brushed him off from what I can see. Then he brought it here, which is also the correct course of action. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm interpreting USchick's comments as a request that AtG "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users."; personally I don't consider statements such as "Are you being deliberately obtuse" as meeting that goal. Unfortunately, this community has never been able to converge to consensus on what is and what isn't okay. NE Ent 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He reverted edits that had nothing to do with copyright violation, he claimed the edits did not reflect the sources. I submitted new edits that more closely reflected the sources, and that's when he claimed copyright violation repeatedly. I was coerced into creating a copyright violation and then he claimed to be exempt from edit warring. This is VERY unbecoming of an experienced editor and needs to be stopped. USchick (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the ArbCom climate change case a big deal was actually made about even less problematic editor behavior. In the article about the CRU-hacking incident, climate sceptical editors wanted to edit in favor of unsupported allegations that scientists had falsified data. This was reverted per the usual wikipedia policies, but the way that happened created a bad climate on that page, some experienced editors where actually topic banned for a while. But what happened was is still far from playing hardball, you could e.g. imagine invoking BLP to revert more than 3 times, or to even shut down talk page discussions about whether some scientist had falsified data because that is in itself a BLP violation. None of that happened, so I'm not sure we've really learnt anything from what went wrong on the CC pages. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to look past Andy's bad attitude. What I think needs to be addressed is his underhanded tactic of coercing someone to create a violation, bringing them to ANI and then claiming that he is "exempt" from creating the problem. USchick (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the lead up to the climate change ArbCom case a system was put in place by Admins here to try to resolve the problems by strictly enforcing rules but that backfired because the editors where constantly at each other's throats by playing games with the rules. What this shows is that the whole attitude that rules are rules won't work in the abstract away from the context of actually editing the articles constructively. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The person who brought me here was unwilling to cooperate on the talk page and he is still unwilling to cooperate. So nothing has changed. USchick (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

While I haven't looked at the edits in question, I reject the notion that it is impossible to use your own words to make a point that accurately reflects the source, while not being a copyright violation. You have argued that this is the case, and I don't believe it is plausible. You were not coerced into violating copyright. While Andy does, on occasion, stray from the ideal in terms of editor interaction, I haven't seen anything in this thread by AtG that is actionable. We take copyright seriously, and that is a far bigger issue than the possibility that Andy could use more sugar than vinegar.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have received a warning about the copyright violation and I accept the warning. USchick (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you copy from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you copy from two, it’s research. :) .Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This actually contains useful advice for editing news articles. Suppose you have two sources reporting about the same event, you can then simply combine what you read from the two sources to avoid literally copying from either source. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If only it were so simple. I did that and was accused of WP:SYN. USchick (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If what you wrote is supported by both sources, Synth doesn't apply and if the editor keeps on complaining about that you just invoke WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Personal attack by User:Alansohn

On the Red Bank, New Jersey article, I removed this material for reasons that I spelled out in the edit summary. A comment about Red Bank increasingly becoming a high-end shopping mecca was not found in the cited source, nor was the statement about "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". The cited source, which supported only the opening of a Tiffany's, was a press release by Tiffany themselves. This left only a mention of a brewery, supported by a book archived at Google Books, and a what appeared to be a personal fan site. I didn't challenge the reliability of the book, but this raised the question of whether one business merited its own section, and more importantly, whether mentioning individual businesses is even relevant or salient, particularly when there is nothing unique about that business (like whether it's the flagship store or the company's headquarters).

Alansohn reverted the edit, saying in his edit summary "rv removal of sourced content, with some editing". This despite the fact that the source did not mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters", something Alansohn did nothing to address. For this reason, I again reverted the unsourced material, saying, "Revert. A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS, and it doesn't mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". That leaves one brewery, which doesn't merit a section."

Alansohn found a source for some of the material, and restored it, leaving out the unsourced information, but did so with the edit summary "rv malicious removal of sourced content, all material that was easily sourced; press release from a top firm meets all requirements of WP:RS, though feel free to replace it".

First of all, whether something is "easily sourced" is irrelevant. The material was not sourced, and it is not my responsibility to source material added by other editors. That I already do so at times ([127],[128]), despite my already heavy edit workload, is a courtesy, not a requirement, and I'm tired the obnoxious edit summaries in which Alansohn implies otherwise, a practice in which he has been engaging in for some time now.

Second, my edits were based on sincere, good-faith readings of Wikipedia policy on my part. They were not motivated in any way by "malice", nor has Alansohn even bothered trying to illustrate how he knows my state of mind. Material that was not sourced was removed, in accordance with WP policy, and he himself omitted quite a bit of it in his most recent restoration of some of it, presumably because he saw that it was not found in the source cited in the article, or even in the new one he found (despite it being so "easily" sourced). If that's the case, then how could removing it have been "malicious"? His comment is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and is unacceptable. Someone needs to politely inform him of this. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Alansohn was well out of line here, but I'd be interested to hear their side of the story as well, to see why they acted like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is rather clear: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step..... If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I believe that all editors have an obligation under policy to preserve content and I will take all reasonable actions to preserve it as required (see this edit for a recent example) by seeking out possible sources; Nightscream follows a We had to destroy the village to save it approach in which he usually fails to make any attempt to find sources, blindly removes the content and then WP:BITEs newbies with claims of WP:V / WP:NOR that are unjustified in most occasions. In this case, removal of sourced content was even less justified. No one ever challenged the material in the Red Bank, New Jersey article. The material was reliably sourced (note that per WP:SELFPUB, a press release is a reliable source) in addition to other sources in the section. Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification. The material was then reinserted with additional sources intended to address any possible objection that Nightscream might ever have. Over and done, one would think. Nightscream seems to be upset that sources were added, as has happened many times before in articles we both edit, where Nightscream removes unsourced content and I reinsert it with sources found with trivial ease. See this edit, where Nightscream removed material regarding a proposed Formula One race that was on the front page of every newspaper in the New York City metro area calling it a "WP:V/WP:NOR" violation, while I reinserted the material with appropriate sources (here) minutes later. This process has happened often and it seems to bother Nightscream deeply. Besides, claims of NPA issues coming from someone who as standard procedure berates, belittles and maliciously attacks other editors on a rather personal basis for rather trivial violations of his expectations ("Really? You can't even capitalize a proper noun? Or format the movie in the same way that all the other films above it and below it are?? Or spell it properly? Seriously?", "No one gives a shit about which studio animated it.", just from the past two days and I could provide hundreds more), I would hope that Nightscream would be better able to recognize legitimate criticism of improper removal of sourced content. And I'm not the only person with these concerns with Nightscream and his editing practices. Take a look at User_talk:Nightscream#Dan Brown, where one of many editors complains on his talk page about unjustifiable removal of what he defines as "Original Research", and see User_talk:Nightscream#Your behavior at Talk:A Scause for Applause, SPI for strong criticism of his attacks on other editors. Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oyi, this fight again (not you two, but lots of others have gone down this same road). In my experience it is a good idea to remove only material you can't easily confirm. If we deleted every unsourced sentence on Wikipedia, we'd have about 10% of the content we have right now. The "challenged or likely to be challenged" part is the key. And you did yourself no favor by referring to a reliable source as not being reliable and deleting material on that basis. That said, if you do feel the material has an issue, you are 100% correct to remove it. And Alan needs to AGF on that. But did you seriously have doubts about material in the press release? If not, why did you remove it? I can see why Alan would get frustrated, but I also understand why you are. If you showed a bit more care and Alan had a bit more patience, things would go a lot smoother... Hobit (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Hobit's points are well taken and I do want to apologize to Nightscream for my snarky remark; Frustration may have been an acceptable rationalization at the time but it isn't an appropriate justification. Nightscream and I are inevitably going to overlap on editing a significant number of articles and I hope that we can find a more effective way to work together towards the goal of building an encyclopedia rather than trying to score points. I do appreciate that Nightscream will lean far more towards removal of unsourced content added to these and other articles, but I am more than willing to work in a partnership in which Nightscream tags (rather than removes) and discusses legitimately questionable unsourced / poorly sourced content, while I will be happy to reference sourceable content and to remove content that is irredeemably unsourceable based on my attempts to find decent references. I thought that we had been heading in a more productive direction in recent months since our earlier confrontations and I hope that this "incident" can lead to mutual agreement on a path to work together in reasonably harmonious fashion rather than to escalate a needless conflict. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you have a beer some time, or if that's not practical have a chat offline. It is well worth investing time in getting to know and like people you will meet often, especially if you are likely to disagree much of the time. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

4 Socks

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.

---

Koertefa (talk · contribs) Borsoka (talk · contribs) Fakirbakir (talk · contribs) Norden1990 (talk · contribs)

Disruptive similar patterns on Eastern European articles. Hortobagy (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not Socks I've had enough expierence with these editors to know that they aren't socks. It should be noted that Hortobagy started editing only a couple days ago, with little editing outside of Hungary-related articles, and has already been accused of sockpuppetry by one of the editors in question. I believe a Wp: Boomerang is just around the corner. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please file suspected socks at WP:SPI and not at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've full protected one page you were edit warring on. I think I counted 7 reverts in 24 hours. If I see edit warring elsewhere, regardless if it breaks 3RR or not, you can expect to be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I am not even surprised that user Hortobagy has "forgotten" to notify the editors in question (for example, me). (S)He is indeed quite suspicious, as one of her/his main activities seems to provoke edit wars. (S)He has violated the 3RR today at two articles here: [129][130][131][132][133][134][135] (7 reverts) and here [136][137][138][139][140] (5 reverts), despite warnings [141]. If you take a look at the Talk pages of those articles (and may be this one, which looks like a hoax), you can see that (s)he mostly gives non-constructive, evading answers and does not intend to discuss the issues seriously (for example, by citing reliable sources which would support her/his point of view). I myself find her/his behavior quite disturbing, but I may be too sensitive. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And what about your reverts? You and your socks or puppets made an edit-war! Hortobagy (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Ignoring the fact that Hortobagy is in the wrong place for this, they've provided absolutely no evidence that any of these users is related. Now, does anyone know of any sockmaster Hortobagy may be related to? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 20 May 2013 (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.

Abuse at Don Gerard AfD

I'm not sure if this is the right place, since there are elements of sockpuppetry, vandalism and conflict of interest here. In the last hour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard has twice been closed [142] (by Dgerard65 (talk · contribs) whose username matches the subject of the article) [143] (by 174.253.17.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The user alleges that the nomination was made in bad faith (which may well be true) but also claims there's a strong consensus for keeping the article, which is not at all true. In both cases, the attempted closure is the user's only edit of Wikipedia; but vandalism of the Don Gerard article including some from the same IP range [144] has led to that page being semi-protected. (Note, though, that the diff I just linked added content to the article that was negative in tone towards Gerard so the closing of the AfD, even though done in Gerard's name, may be an attempt by somebody else to discredit him.) I have additional concerns about the COI editing of DonGerard65 (talk · contribs) and DonGerard (talk · contribs) who have both edited Don Gerard and nothing or little else. Semi-protection of the AfD page would seem to be reasonable. Dricherby (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note Previous related discussion--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two further disruptive closes by IP editors overnight, which resulted in the AfD page being semi-protected. I'm disappointed that the disruption was able to continue after I raised the issue here but, since the immediate issue has now been dealt with, I think this thread can be closed and I'll take up the sock-puppetry at SPI. Dricherby (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Davidcole1992, the return of Whitechristian2013?

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.

---

Davidcole1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Ani#Whitechristian2013_and_the_Turk_Nazi_Party for background.

This new user's first contribution was a repeat of blocked user Whitechristian2013's addition of the putative "Turk nazi party" to the List of white nationalist organizations. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Likely Sock Pretty much the same information. A CU would be helpful, but I think we can assume this is probably Whitechristian. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is very possible, but it is better to file this at WP:SPI and let us watch it a day or two, as with any case you think someone is a sockpuppet. It is hard to tell from just one edit, at least with the certainty required to indef block someone or to convince a CU that this warrants running a checkuser process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Although I seriously doubt this is actually him, David Cole is a rather infamous Holocaust denier, just google "David Cole Nazi" and see what pops up just in the first page. Considering the one edit and that username, surely this user qualifies for a username block at least? Heiro 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  Nah, David Cole doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article. Since there are approximately 2,605 David Coles in the US, let's AGF and assume they're a David Cole that was born in 1992. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  You beat me to it, and said exactly what I was going to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Try googling "David Cole 1992" and see what pops up, a series of videos at Auschwitz featuring his Holocaust denial. Heiro 22:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's wait a bit. What's it going to hurt? Either the user will be productive and we'll be glad that we didn't block him, or he'll clearly show himself to be a sock and we'll have no problem hitting the block button, or he'll cause problems somehow else and this discussion will be irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2013 (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.

The harmful speech of Norden1990

I want to inform the admins about the uncivil speech and dubious agressive POVs of User:Norden1990 according to WP Conduct policy WP:NPA. What is considered to be a personal attack? 1) Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. He recently called me in edit summary a "chauvinist user" [145], called my behaviour as "hysteria"[146] and named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist [147][148]. When I complained about this behavior on another thread [149], Norden1900 was not sorry at all, but on the contrary: he replied that "I reserve the indicatives about you" [150] + he wrote "I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's." which is in fact similar to banned User:Stubes99 edits[151]. He also called the insertion of referenced text "vandalism"[152]. User:Norden1990 also used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor on my Talk page [153]. This looks like a some form of ongoing harassment. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia) from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) [154]. User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. Some unconstructive discussion with this user[155][156]. User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [157][158] he wrote: "Slovaks had not yet existed." which is obviously an attack + also deleted info, Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár[159] (Note: see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[160][161][162][163][164], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[165][166]) or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [167][168][169][170]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[171] and here deleted name Oradea [172] or [173][174]. Indeed quality of the article first. Or his contradictory edits [175]>[176]. In the past he also had this kind of unfriendly speech:

• "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak."[177] .
• "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration" [178]
• "It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself" [179]
• "typical product of Romanian chauvinism" [180]
• "So you can go to hell together with your threatening." [181]

.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not civil behavior, but I don't think there is much that can be done at this time other then DRN. The edit of Rightful ruler which placed a false banner on the page and was possibly the worst offense here. It would have to go to WP:SPI, but Norden's edit warring has resulted in locking of a page before and this problem has existed for months. While not terribly disruptive, these are minor personal attacks and a warning about personal attacks should have been issued first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Norden1990 needs a NPA warning, and probably a block. There are some absolutely inappropriate statements there, regardless of whatever the OP has said in the discussions. I'm not inclined to look deeper into it, and would leave that to an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can see the most recent act of Omen's crusade against me. Dear Omen, do you think, the article of Upper Hungary is also a racist and pejorative anti-Slovak article, because it contains the word "Felvidék"? Felvidék is a Hungarian word, which means "Upper Hungary". This phrase marks the area, hich is today's Slovakia and which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 9th century to 1920. "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century" - historical fact, They were nobles (natio Hungarica) and serfs, the modern national consciousness evolved in the early 19th century.

The other issues that you brought up again has already been discussed. I would like to ask the honorable court-martial that compare the edits of Omen and me. I hope you will see the difference. Since Omen is editing, there is only problem with him. Edit wars, POV edits, unsourced and malicious edits, there is need only look at his discussion page. I can only repeat myself about Omen's attitude and behaviour. Bye --Norden1990 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen's conduct doesn't excuse your own. Nationalist debates require cool heads to resolve, and calling other editors names is not conducive to that. If you keep a lid on your own behaviour it makes it that much easier to report the misdeeds of others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You used again provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor (me) on my Talk page [182] or in this discussion [183]. It was not in the article Talk page about "Upper Hungary". Nevertheless, also in the main article is: Any use of the word Felvidék to denote all of modern Slovakia is considered offensive by Slovaks.

I also dont understand your dubious POVs, you wrote [184][185]: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit" and then here you edited article with this term + deleted Austrian Empire[186]. It looks like some form of poor provocation.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My conscience is clear. I always strived for NPOV in my edits, and it is not my fault that Wikipedia is unable to filtering out nationalist editors, who call into question academic publications and historiographical works. I already created almost 900 articles (true, some of them are stubs), contributed in development of much, I do not think that I'd be in such a troubled editor. In contrast Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources, get involved in edit wars, and probably is not a coincidence that he was banned already at few times. I do not see a fault with my behavior. I think (and obviously I only proclaim my own opinion) Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult. It looks like that is enough to accuse someone and the person in question is banned forever. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've searched the archives and I noticed that is not the first time when Norden1990's name appears on this noticeboard. Four months ago the administrator User:Sandstein raised the possibility of a topic ban / other sanction for Norden1990: [187] 181.48.15.98 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi (note: a sockpuppet), first login and after that we can discuss, and if you see this incident, I was found not guilty. Omen reported me several times, but that does not mean that they should be taken as a precedent for continue this witch-hunt. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always strived for NPOV in my edits... > this is only based on your personal thoughts, but your edits say something quite different.

I already created almost 900 articles... > And what is point? Some users created 10.000 articles..., but absolutely this does not excuse your behavior.

User:Norden1990 post is another absurd false dubious personal views/attacks with no evidence (Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources...).

I do not see a fault with my behavior. > Norden1990 continue with personal attacks even on this noticeboard, in the front of the admins: "Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult". Accusing the proxy ip 181.48.15.98 of being Iasi is also a personal attack, because your allegation was not officially confirmed, it is only your supposition which must be kept for yourself in the lack of a SPI investigation.

He also bringing here false information (that I was "banned already at few times").

He also involved in edit wars, and not only with me (so in fact Norden1990's another false information...) [188] - here his opponnent was the user Inhakito. The result is that the User:Norden1990 is highly unreliable and only his dubious POVs are acceptable (for him naturally)...--Omen1229 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not instruct me on right behaviour. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen, you were "topic-banned from all edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history for a period of 6 months, due to a persistent history of ethnic battleground editing" [189]. You were also sanctioned for "nationalist editing" [190]. It seems that the six months was not enough for you. For the case of Cabello: there were conflicting news after the death of Hugo Chávez. You can see the talk page, a cooperation evolved between the editors and I also took part in the discussion.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote here at first false information that I was "banned already at few times". In fact Fut.Perf. banned Samofi and me after few minutes of investigation but in last 17 months he had not find a time to look on "opponents" as he promised. And here is topic-banned the reporting editor'. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that misconduct related to Eastern Europe is subject to discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision WP:ARBEE. Without examining this in detail, it appears there is sufficient evidence for recent problematic editing by Norden1990 (notably, personal attacks by commenting about contributors rather than content, and mislabeling content disagreements as vandalism) to warrant a warning about discretionary sanctions, which I am now issuing. If this problematic editing continues, it can be reported to WP:AE for sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want. I suggest you first should look at Omen's activity here. If the style that he uses is permitted, then there's nothing more to talk about. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Norden1990's comment. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Said User:Fakirbakir who for example declared this statement: "the modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state"[191]--Omen1229 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When he wrote that the neo-fascist anti-Hungarian and anti-Roma Slovak National Party (SNS) was member party of the Slovak coalition government. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'm taking a quick look. Now, Norden1990 has clearly acted in an inappropriate manner all too often, but Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes not. Both users edit-war across a whole range of articles, over some of the most ridiculous things (categories seem to crop up fairly often) - Omen removing a category with a frankly inexplicable reason, based on the article here: [192], and [193] is part of a particularly pointless edit war from both sides being examples of both users reverting each other, pretty much based on the fact that their opponent (so to speak) made the edit. This can either be fixed by an indefinite interaction ban (which is almost certain to fail as both edit in the same area), or a 6 month/year long topic ban on editing any WP:ARBEE-applicable articles, broadly construed for both parties, for frequent, careless and pointless edit warring in those areas, based on nationalistic motives. The latter is by far the more likely to work, and I suggest that's what is applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990 > here are some my last edits and please look at who started:[194][195][196][197][198][199] and here is additional Norden1990's provocation [200] > he declared: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit"[201][202].

edit 105 > the article is about Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár, also User:FactStraight reverted Norden1990's similar edits[203][204]. As I wrote above about this Slovak nobleman: [205] > see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[206][207][208][209][210], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[211][212]. Natio Hungarica does not mean Hungarian nobility, but it is Nobility in the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit[213]? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in the Kingdom of Hungary[214] etc... Being a citizen of the multilingual, multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary is not the same with being an ethnic Hungarian.

edit 106 > I don't understand what is "inexplicable" about my reason ("no source for this info")[215]. The edit summary is clear and it reflects the reality: the information is unreferenced. The same idea is supported by another user (Koertefa) on the article talk page: "I do not see the relevance whether "Mercurius"/"Merkúr" is an original Hungarian name. Even if it was, it would not prove for sure that he was ethnic Hungarian [216]--Omen1229 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not evaluating whether the reversions are valid or not, but I can see multiple instances of you turning up at articles that you've never edited before, just to undo his changes. And Norden1990 has done the same, but less frequently. You're both edit warring in ARBEE areas, which is justification for a topic ban and/or a block, regardless of if your edit is right or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that his edit is not right. Omen. Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit. That's right, what is your problem? There were separate administrative units, like Transyvania, Croatia or Fiume, but not Upper Hungary (or Felvidék, which lit. means "Upland"). Slovak nobility never existed, as was only one nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary (Natio Hungarica, as you wrote correctly). You are trying to force modern national consciousness into old situation. Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary is might be misleading, as there are also Hungarian nobles today. But they were born when the kingdom was already abolished. By the way, there is standardization: I couldn't find Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Poland or Kingdom of Portugal etc. etc. [217]. Aaron Samuel ben Moses Shalom of Kremnitz was a Jew and lived in today's Slovakia (then Hungary) in the 17th century. Mere speculation and anachronism to inserted him into the category of "Slovak Jews". Slovakia established in 1993, centuries later. You usually use POV edits and personal attacks ([218]) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated", however article already contained Hungarian names (correctly, as apperanace only today's name version is illogical and misleading, according to my knowledge, Slovak language was never used in public administration). "however this is only a biography article of Štúr" [219] - illogical and poor argument, according to your perception, we should write that "Ho Chi Minh City was capital of South Vietnam in 1945". Absurd. These towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts. The term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography, which denies all connection and contiunity between the historical and modern Hungary. Then, Omen, now you just have to tell, who were the "Uhors"? Maybe Hungarians? I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. [220] 100,000 results? Yeah... Jesenský is a common Slav name, but this family was a Hungarian noble house of Slav origin, as you can see the sources that I proved. "poor nationalistic dubious POV", typical behaviour of Omen. Like this POV pushing [221]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [222]. when you run out of nationalist arguments, you always try to bring the matter to personal attack, as you did here [223], [224], [225], [226], [227]. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You usually use POV edits and personal attacks (131) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated" > Well, so let's tell you more details about the etymology. Slovak person Ľudovít Štúr 28 October 1815 - 12 January 1856, Uhrovec - the version "Zayugróc" was fabricated in the 19th century (1863) in the period of Magyarization. You also wrote that "these towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts." I will stay only in the etymology of the town "Modor". You probably think the Slovak city Modra. So according to Štúr biography 1815 - 1856, the official names valid and used in 1808 - 1863: Modra, Modorinum, Modern, Modor. In the 1863 in the period of Magyarization until 1913 was valid only one name - Modor, other variants have been banned. So according to these etymological facts, your edits here edits look like bad faith.

the term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography > please write me more details with some source, because I do not understand you, I used here only term Kingdom of Hungary, if you want I can use latin term Regnum Hungariae or Kaisertum Osterreiach for Austrian Empire. In fact only you used in this discussion the term Felvidek and other dubious POVs...

I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. > ? Where do you see these names in this discussion?

Like this POV pushing [134]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [135] > Sources about what? Please first read the full discussion [228]. Where do you see "Upper Hungary"? You also declared that Upper Hungary has never had a separate territorial unit[229][230]. So according to these evidence, your edits here edits look again like bad faith.

edit Giglovce [231] > User:Norden1990 wrote: "Yes, but formerly known as Giglóc (until 1920)." In fact in the 1863 until 1913 was valid only one name - Giglóc, other variants have been banned. User:Norden1990 used in the article only one variant from this period - Magyarization. There are no members of Magyar ethnicity in the village - 0,00%. According to the 2011 census, the municipality had 153 inhabitants. 148 of inhabitants were Slovaks and 5 others and unspecified. There are also other names, for example: Giglowce, Gyglowce, Gyglowcze etc., but unfortunately this user used only one... User:Norden1990 also declared: "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[232] and here deleted name Oradea [233] or [234][235].

Note: I will continue in this edit, but now I'm bored of this unconstructive discussion with highly unreliable editor who have strong dubious POVs.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the above "I'm right, it's the other guy who is POV-pushing" type responses sum up exactly why I believe an ARBEE topic ban is in order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for who? I do not get it. Please compare Norden1990's contributions to Omen1229's editing. Their contributions are as different as chalk and cheese. Norden1990 is an excellent wiki editor. He deserves praise instead of scorn.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors. Regardless of whether their edits are correct or not, both have violated ARBEE by frequently edit-warring over the nationality of a hell of a lot of articles, and that is a simply unacceptable fact. There have been some very solid edits by both editors, but the fact of the matter is that good edits don't justify editors staging all-out war on other editors. Both are constantly accusing each other of being POV-pushers and both abuse each other quite frequently in other ways, which complicates matters. People should never be praised for constant edit-warring (unless that edit-warring is to removal obviously hateful content and keep it out, which this doesn't classify as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the editing on nationality is just offensive [236]. IMO, the disruptive edits outweigh the solid ones because they are inappropriate and drive other editors away. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

Per Lukeno, I propose a topic ban for both users from Hungary-related ARBEE-related articles, broadly construed, for violating ARBEE. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, a topic ban from Hungary-related articles would be equivalent to a total ban from anything, while this method is only partially affected to the Slovak ethnic Omen's edits. It is not fair. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not proposing a Hungary-related ban. I was proposing an ARBEE-related ban. Technically, since one user insists these are Slovak articles, then the ban wouldn't actually work anyway. Obviously, I strongly support an ARBEE-related topic ban, but a Hungary-related one is definitely too narrow in scope. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that edit warring is not acceptable, it should be noted that user Norden1990 made several excellent contributions to WP, mostly to articles which fall into the category of WP:ARBEE. Therefore, by enforcing such a topic ban we would lose an exceptional editor. I think that warning both involved editors should be enough and, if they continue the war, a 1RR like restriction could be applied, to enforce appropriate communication. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that the editors haven't made good contributions, because they clearly have. However, any flagrant violations of ARBEE, like this, cannot go unpunished, no matter how good the editors may be. Also, 1RR won't work, as they're edit warring with each other over multiple articles, but not necessarily making more than 1 revert per article. It is always a shame to lose productive editors, but if they won't abide by the guidelines in such highly charged areas, then there's no choice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then call this prohibition, which is actually that: ban from everything. Might as well you can also close my user account. Furthermore, Hungary is in Central Europe, so I don't understant this Eastern Europe ban here... --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support As nom. Changed to include all ARBEE-related articles. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can not give appropriate reasons. So, could I not continue to create biographies of Hungarian politicians in the modern era? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasons have already been stated above. To prevent further edit warring and disruption. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• No topic-ban - There is no demonstrated need for a topic ban after just being placed on notice as a result of this thread. Editor has been notified and that is enough, anything further will likely drive the editor away and serves as a procedural block/ban. I cannot agree with the warning to topic ban for this single instance, there has not been an issue since the warning and no expectation or evidence of bad-faith to warrant topic banning at this time. And to answer Norden1990's statement above; United Nations Statistics Division and the European Union considers Hungary to be in Eastern Europe, see page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of where Hungary is considered to be, ARBEE covered Hungarian articles anyway, did it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Might it not be simpler to use a standard discretionary sanctions model here? They've now both been warned/notified (Norden recently, Omen a long time ago and receiving a now expired 6 month ban later) and this has been reaffirmed here. If their poor behaviour continues, they can be taken to WP:AE which would likely be simpler than a ANI discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Opposing topic ban. I agree with the above comment of Nil Einne: for the time being, a warning is the proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I think that editing outside Hungary-related articles would be a very good thing for Norden1990, and help them learn a little more about neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources in subjects about which they are dispassionate. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding Norden, Omen or anyone else, having to deal with nationalist editors is hugely disruptive and a gigantic time sink. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If Norden has really created as many as or more than 500 articles, that's really impressive. I just wish they would cool down on the nationalism question. Perhaps I'm wrong in my support for a ban here. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very dissapointed concerning your vote, as, I think, we could discuss the problem about the Szaniszló article. Yes, we did not agree each other, but you could see, finally a consensus solution evolved between User:Koertefa, you and me. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, note that user Darouet is clearly not neutral in this question, since (s)he had/has many content disputes with user Norden1990. Topic banning user Norden1990 is in her/his own personal interest, since then (s)he would not have to discuss the issues in detail with someone having a different opinion. By the way: these discussions are indeed time consuming, but they are the right way to reach consensuses and, ultimately, to achieve more neutral articles. And that's our common interest. Therefore, user Darouet's vote should not be taken into account, even if (s)he was an administrator, per WP:INVOLVED (that's why I did not vote either). All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs? 75.171.41.8 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We have been in a dispute here: Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Der Darouet, I would like to emphasize that it's not just about my topic banning, as User: Der Kommisar proposed this punishment for both of us (Omen and me). The last posts are beginning to shed such light on the matter that as if I were the only editor, who can count to retaliation. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Omen was also the subject of this, but don't know anything about them, and leave that judgement to others. It is true that Norden, Koertefa, and Fakirbakir are all in a dispute with me on the Ferenc Szaniszlo page. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I entirely agree with Nil Einne's opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors have demonstrated battleground mentality. I'm no expert in ARBEE matters, and certainly you could call me broadly involved because I've had a few run-ins with the Slovak/Hungarian crowd (I remember Samofi pestering me to get unblocked, and Borsoka and Fakirbakir promoting some excessively nationalist view of history templates), but with ARBMAC this kind of a violation of standards of behavior would definitely result in a reprimand. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

user:203.62.175.4

203.62.175.4 (talk · contribs) is vandalising pages by inserting/replacing/adding different names. [237] Delljvc (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Report is stale, i.e. the IP hasn't edited for 6.5 hours and has received multiple warnings on the user talk. No need to take action here. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

... and, for future reference, if it had been current the place to report it would have been WP:AIV. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:SarB752

The user User:SarB752 is engaged in vandalism / edit war on Lashkar-e-Balochistan despite several warnings .. The user is removing sourced content and then adding unsourced things and calling it Revised information ..

Besides, I tried to contact the user but no reply is given ; the user continues these edits ..

I gave several warnings to the user on his / her talk page .. Admins may consider taking action against this user according to Wikipedia rules ...

Thanks ..--Maxx786 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The harmful speech of Norden1990

I want to inform the admins about the uncivil speech and dubious agressive POVs of User:Norden1990 according to WP Conduct policy WP:NPA. What is considered to be a personal attack? 1) Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. He recently called me in edit summary a "chauvinist user" [238], called my behaviour as "hysteria"[239] and named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist [240][241]. When I complained about this behavior on another thread [242], Norden1900 was not sorry at all, but on the contrary: he replied that "I reserve the indicatives about you" [243] + he wrote "I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's." which is in fact similar to banned User:Stubes99 edits[244]. He also called the insertion of referenced text "vandalism"[245]. User:Norden1990 also used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor on my Talk page [246]. This looks like a some form of ongoing harassment. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia) from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) [247]. User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. Some unconstructive discussion with this user[248][249]. User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [250][251] he wrote: "Slovaks had not yet existed." which is obviously an attack + also deleted info, Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár[252] (Note: see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[253][254][255][256][257], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[258][259]) or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [260][261][262][263]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[264] and here deleted name Oradea [265] or [266][267]. Indeed quality of the article first. Or his contradictory edits [268]>[269]. In the past he also had this kind of unfriendly speech:

• "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak."[270] .
• "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration" [271]
• "It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself" [272]
• "typical product of Romanian chauvinism" [273]
• "So you can go to hell together with your threatening." [274]

.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not civil behavior, but I don't think there is much that can be done at this time other then DRN. The edit of Rightful ruler which placed a false banner on the page and was possibly the worst offense here. It would have to go to WP:SPI, but Norden's edit warring has resulted in locking of a page before and this problem has existed for months. While not terribly disruptive, these are minor personal attacks and a warning about personal attacks should have been issued first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Norden1990 needs a NPA warning, and probably a block. There are some absolutely inappropriate statements there, regardless of whatever the OP has said in the discussions. I'm not inclined to look deeper into it, and would leave that to an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can see the most recent act of Omen's crusade against me. Dear Omen, do you think, the article of Upper Hungary is also a racist and pejorative anti-Slovak article, because it contains the word "Felvidék"? Felvidék is a Hungarian word, which means "Upper Hungary". This phrase marks the area, hich is today's Slovakia and which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 9th century to 1920. "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century" - historical fact, They were nobles (natio Hungarica) and serfs, the modern national consciousness evolved in the early 19th century.

The other issues that you brought up again has already been discussed. I would like to ask the honorable court-martial that compare the edits of Omen and me. I hope you will see the difference. Since Omen is editing, there is only problem with him. Edit wars, POV edits, unsourced and malicious edits, there is need only look at his discussion page. I can only repeat myself about Omen's attitude and behaviour. Bye --Norden1990 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen's conduct doesn't excuse your own. Nationalist debates require cool heads to resolve, and calling other editors names is not conducive to that. If you keep a lid on your own behaviour it makes it that much easier to report the misdeeds of others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You used again provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor (me) on my Talk page [275] or in this discussion [276]. It was not in the article Talk page about "Upper Hungary". Nevertheless, also in the main article is: Any use of the word Felvidék to denote all of modern Slovakia is considered offensive by Slovaks.

I also dont understand your dubious POVs, you wrote [277][278]: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit" and then here you edited article with this term + deleted Austrian Empire[279]. It looks like some form of poor provocation.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My conscience is clear. I always strived for NPOV in my edits, and it is not my fault that Wikipedia is unable to filtering out nationalist editors, who call into question academic publications and historiographical works. I already created almost 900 articles (true, some of them are stubs), contributed in development of much, I do not think that I'd be in such a troubled editor. In contrast Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources, get involved in edit wars, and probably is not a coincidence that he was banned already at few times. I do not see a fault with my behavior. I think (and obviously I only proclaim my own opinion) Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult. It looks like that is enough to accuse someone and the person in question is banned forever. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've searched the archives and I noticed that is not the first time when Norden1990's name appears on this noticeboard. Four months ago the administrator User:Sandstein raised the possibility of a topic ban / other sanction for Norden1990: [280] 181.48.15.98 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi (note: a sockpuppet), first login and after that we can discuss, and if you see this incident, I was found not guilty. Omen reported me several times, but that does not mean that they should be taken as a precedent for continue this witch-hunt. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always strived for NPOV in my edits... > this is only based on your personal thoughts, but your edits say something quite different.

I already created almost 900 articles... > And what is point? Some users created 10.000 articles..., but absolutely this does not excuse your behavior.

User:Norden1990 post is another absurd false dubious personal views/attacks with no evidence (Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources...).

I do not see a fault with my behavior. > Norden1990 continue with personal attacks even on this noticeboard, in the front of the admins: "Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult". Accusing the proxy ip 181.48.15.98 of being Iasi is also a personal attack, because your allegation was not officially confirmed, it is only your supposition which must be kept for yourself in the lack of a SPI investigation.

He also bringing here false information (that I was "banned already at few times").

He also involved in edit wars, and not only with me (so in fact Norden1990's another false information...) [281] - here his opponnent was the user Inhakito. The result is that the User:Norden1990 is highly unreliable and only his dubious POVs are acceptable (for him naturally)...--Omen1229 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not instruct me on right behaviour. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen, you were "topic-banned from all edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history for a period of 6 months, due to a persistent history of ethnic battleground editing" [282]. You were also sanctioned for "nationalist editing" [283]. It seems that the six months was not enough for you. For the case of Cabello: there were conflicting news after the death of Hugo Chávez. You can see the talk page, a cooperation evolved between the editors and I also took part in the discussion.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote here at first false information that I was "banned already at few times". In fact Fut.Perf. banned Samofi and me after few minutes of investigation but in last 17 months he had not find a time to look on "opponents" as he promised. And here is topic-banned the reporting editor'. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that misconduct related to Eastern Europe is subject to discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision WP:ARBEE. Without examining this in detail, it appears there is sufficient evidence for recent problematic editing by Norden1990 (notably, personal attacks by commenting about contributors rather than content, and mislabeling content disagreements as vandalism) to warrant a warning about discretionary sanctions, which I am now issuing. If this problematic editing continues, it can be reported to WP:AE for sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want. I suggest you first should look at Omen's activity here. If the style that he uses is permitted, then there's nothing more to talk about. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Norden1990's comment. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Said User:Fakirbakir who for example declared this statement: "the modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state"[284]--Omen1229 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When he wrote that the neo-fascist anti-Hungarian and anti-Roma Slovak National Party (SNS) was member party of the Slovak coalition government. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'm taking a quick look. Now, Norden1990 has clearly acted in an inappropriate manner all too often, but Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes not. Both users edit-war across a whole range of articles, over some of the most ridiculous things (categories seem to crop up fairly often) - Omen removing a category with a frankly inexplicable reason, based on the article here: [285], and [286] is part of a particularly pointless edit war from both sides being examples of both users reverting each other, pretty much based on the fact that their opponent (so to speak) made the edit. This can either be fixed by an indefinite interaction ban (which is almost certain to fail as both edit in the same area), or a 6 month/year long topic ban on editing any WP:ARBEE-applicable articles, broadly construed for both parties, for frequent, careless and pointless edit warring in those areas, based on nationalistic motives. The latter is by far the more likely to work, and I suggest that's what is applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990 > here are some my last edits and please look at who started:[287][288][289][290][291][292] and here is additional Norden1990's provocation [293] > he declared: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit"[294][295].

edit 105 > the article is about Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár, also User:FactStraight reverted Norden1990's similar edits[296][297]. As I wrote above about this Slovak nobleman: [298] > see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[299][300][301][302][303], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[304][305]. Natio Hungarica does not mean Hungarian nobility, but it is Nobility in the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit[306]? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in the Kingdom of Hungary[307] etc... Being a citizen of the multilingual, multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary is not the same with being an ethnic Hungarian.

edit 106 > I don't understand what is "inexplicable" about my reason ("no source for this info")[308]. The edit summary is clear and it reflects the reality: the information is unreferenced. The same idea is supported by another user (Koertefa) on the article talk page: "I do not see the relevance whether "Mercurius"/"Merkúr" is an original Hungarian name. Even if it was, it would not prove for sure that he was ethnic Hungarian [309]--Omen1229 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not evaluating whether the reversions are valid or not, but I can see multiple instances of you turning up at articles that you've never edited before, just to undo his changes. And Norden1990 has done the same, but less frequently. You're both edit warring in ARBEE areas, which is justification for a topic ban and/or a block, regardless of if your edit is right or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that his edit is not right. Omen. Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit. That's right, what is your problem? There were separate administrative units, like Transyvania, Croatia or Fiume, but not Upper Hungary (or Felvidék, which lit. means "Upland"). Slovak nobility never existed, as was only one nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary (Natio Hungarica, as you wrote correctly). You are trying to force modern national consciousness into old situation. Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary is might be misleading, as there are also Hungarian nobles today. But they were born when the kingdom was already abolished. By the way, there is standardization: I couldn't find Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Poland or Kingdom of Portugal etc. etc. [310]. Aaron Samuel ben Moses Shalom of Kremnitz was a Jew and lived in today's Slovakia (then Hungary) in the 17th century. Mere speculation and anachronism to inserted him into the category of "Slovak Jews". Slovakia established in 1993, centuries later. You usually use POV edits and personal attacks ([311]) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated", however article already contained Hungarian names (correctly, as apperanace only today's name version is illogical and misleading, according to my knowledge, Slovak language was never used in public administration). "however this is only a biography article of Štúr" [312] - illogical and poor argument, according to your perception, we should write that "Ho Chi Minh City was capital of South Vietnam in 1945". Absurd. These towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts. The term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography, which denies all connection and contiunity between the historical and modern Hungary. Then, Omen, now you just have to tell, who were the "Uhors"? Maybe Hungarians? I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. [313] 100,000 results? Yeah... Jesenský is a common Slav name, but this family was a Hungarian noble house of Slav origin, as you can see the sources that I proved. "poor nationalistic dubious POV", typical behaviour of Omen. Like this POV pushing [314]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [315]. when you run out of nationalist arguments, you always try to bring the matter to personal attack, as you did here [316], [317], [318], [319], [320]. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You usually use POV edits and personal attacks (131) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated" > Well, so let's tell you more details about the etymology. Slovak person Ľudovít Štúr 28 October 1815 - 12 January 1856, Uhrovec - the version "Zayugróc" was fabricated in the 19th century (1863) in the period of Magyarization. You also wrote that "these towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts." I will stay only in the etymology of the town "Modor". You probably think the Slovak city Modra. So according to Štúr biography 1815 - 1856, the official names valid and used in 1808 - 1863: Modra, Modorinum, Modern, Modor. In the 1863 in the period of Magyarization until 1913 was valid only one name - Modor, other variants have been banned. So according to these etymological facts, your edits here edits look like bad faith.

the term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography > please write me more details with some source, because I do not understand you, I used here only term Kingdom of Hungary, if you want I can use latin term Regnum Hungariae or Kaisertum Osterreiach for Austrian Empire. In fact only you used in this discussion the term Felvidek and other dubious POVs...

I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. > ? Where do you see these names in this discussion?

Like this POV pushing [134]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [135] > Sources about what? Please first read the full discussion [321]. Where do you see "Upper Hungary"? You also declared that Upper Hungary has never had a separate territorial unit[322][323]. So according to these evidence, your edits here edits look again like bad faith.

edit Giglovce [324] > User:Norden1990 wrote: "Yes, but formerly known as Giglóc (until 1920)." In fact in the 1863 until 1913 was valid only one name - Giglóc, other variants have been banned. User:Norden1990 used in the article only one variant from this period - Magyarization. There are no members of Magyar ethnicity in the village - 0,00%. According to the 2011 census, the municipality had 153 inhabitants. 148 of inhabitants were Slovaks and 5 others and unspecified. There are also other names, for example: Giglowce, Gyglowce, Gyglowcze etc., but unfortunately this user used only one... User:Norden1990 also declared: "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[325] and here deleted name Oradea [326] or [327][328].

Note: I will continue in this edit, but now I'm bored of this unconstructive discussion with highly unreliable editor who have strong dubious POVs.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the above "I'm right, it's the other guy who is POV-pushing" type responses sum up exactly why I believe an ARBEE topic ban is in order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for who? I do not get it. Please compare Norden1990's contributions to Omen1229's editing. Their contributions are as different as chalk and cheese. Norden1990 is an excellent wiki editor. He deserves praise instead of scorn.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors. Regardless of whether their edits are correct or not, both have violated ARBEE by frequently edit-warring over the nationality of a hell of a lot of articles, and that is a simply unacceptable fact. There have been some very solid edits by both editors, but the fact of the matter is that good edits don't justify editors staging all-out war on other editors. Both are constantly accusing each other of being POV-pushers and both abuse each other quite frequently in other ways, which complicates matters. People should never be praised for constant edit-warring (unless that edit-warring is to removal obviously hateful content and keep it out, which this doesn't classify as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the editing on nationality is just offensive [329]. IMO, the disruptive edits outweigh the solid ones because they are inappropriate and drive other editors away. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

Per Lukeno, I propose a topic ban for both users from Hungary-related ARBEE-related articles, broadly construed, for violating ARBEE. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, a topic ban from Hungary-related articles would be equivalent to a total ban from anything, while this method is only partially affected to the Slovak ethnic Omen's edits. It is not fair. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not proposing a Hungary-related ban. I was proposing an ARBEE-related ban. Technically, since one user insists these are Slovak articles, then the ban wouldn't actually work anyway. Obviously, I strongly support an ARBEE-related topic ban, but a Hungary-related one is definitely too narrow in scope. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that edit warring is not acceptable, it should be noted that user Norden1990 made several excellent contributions to WP, mostly to articles which fall into the category of WP:ARBEE. Therefore, by enforcing such a topic ban we would lose an exceptional editor. I think that warning both involved editors should be enough and, if they continue the war, a 1RR like restriction could be applied, to enforce appropriate communication. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that the editors haven't made good contributions, because they clearly have. However, any flagrant violations of ARBEE, like this, cannot go unpunished, no matter how good the editors may be. Also, 1RR won't work, as they're edit warring with each other over multiple articles, but not necessarily making more than 1 revert per article. It is always a shame to lose productive editors, but if they won't abide by the guidelines in such highly charged areas, then there's no choice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then call this prohibition, which is actually that: ban from everything. Might as well you can also close my user account. Furthermore, Hungary is in Central Europe, so I don't understant this Eastern Europe ban here... --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support As nom. Changed to include all ARBEE-related articles. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can not give appropriate reasons. So, could I not continue to create biographies of Hungarian politicians in the modern era? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasons have already been stated above. To prevent further edit warring and disruption. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• No topic-ban - There is no demonstrated need for a topic ban after just being placed on notice as a result of this thread. Editor has been notified and that is enough, anything further will likely drive the editor away and serves as a procedural block/ban. I cannot agree with the warning to topic ban for this single instance, there has not been an issue since the warning and no expectation or evidence of bad-faith to warrant topic banning at this time. And to answer Norden1990's statement above; United Nations Statistics Division and the European Union considers Hungary to be in Eastern Europe, see page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of where Hungary is considered to be, ARBEE covered Hungarian articles anyway, did it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Might it not be simpler to use a standard discretionary sanctions model here? They've now both been warned/notified (Norden recently, Omen a long time ago and receiving a now expired 6 month ban later) and this has been reaffirmed here. If their poor behaviour continues, they can be taken to WP:AE which would likely be simpler than a ANI discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Opposing topic ban. I agree with the above comment of Nil Einne: for the time being, a warning is the proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I think that editing outside Hungary-related articles would be a very good thing for Norden1990, and help them learn a little more about neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources in subjects about which they are dispassionate. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding Norden, Omen or anyone else, having to deal with nationalist editors is hugely disruptive and a gigantic time sink. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If Norden has really created as many as or more than 500 articles, that's really impressive. I just wish they would cool down on the nationalism question. Perhaps I'm wrong in my support for a ban here. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very dissapointed concerning your vote, as, I think, we could discuss the problem about the Szaniszló article. Yes, we did not agree each other, but you could see, finally a consensus solution evolved between User:Koertefa, you and me. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, note that user Darouet is clearly not neutral in this question, since (s)he had/has many content disputes with user Norden1990. Topic banning user Norden1990 is in her/his own personal interest, since then (s)he would not have to discuss the issues in detail with someone having a different opinion. By the way: these discussions are indeed time consuming, but they are the right way to reach consensuses and, ultimately, to achieve more neutral articles. And that's our common interest. Therefore, user Darouet's vote should not be taken into account, even if (s)he was an administrator, per WP:INVOLVED (that's why I did not vote either). All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs? 75.171.41.8 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We have been in a dispute here: Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Der Darouet, I would like to emphasize that it's not just about my topic banning, as User: Der Kommisar proposed this punishment for both of us (Omen and me). The last posts are beginning to shed such light on the matter that as if I were the only editor, who can count to retaliation. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Omen was also the subject of this, but don't know anything about them, and leave that judgement to others. It is true that Norden, Koertefa, and Fakirbakir are all in a dispute with me on the Ferenc Szaniszlo page. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I entirely agree with Nil Einne's opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors have demonstrated battleground mentality. I'm no expert in ARBEE matters, and certainly you could call me broadly involved because I've had a few run-ins with the Slovak/Hungarian crowd (I remember Samofi pestering me to get unblocked, and Borsoka and Fakirbakir promoting some excessively nationalist view of history templates), but with ARBMAC this kind of a violation of standards of behavior would definitely result in a reprimand. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

user:203.62.175.4

203.62.175.4 (talk · contribs) is vandalising pages by inserting/replacing/adding different names. [330] Delljvc (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Report is stale, i.e. the IP hasn't edited for 6.5 hours and has received multiple warnings on the user talk. No need to take action here. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

... and, for future reference, if it had been current the place to report it would have been WP:AIV. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:SarB752

The user User:SarB752 is engaged in vandalism / edit war on Lashkar-e-Balochistan despite several warnings .. The user is removing sourced content and then adding unsourced things and calling it Revised information ..

Besides, I tried to contact the user but no reply is given ; the user continues these edits ..

I gave several warnings to the user on his / her talk page .. Admins may consider taking action against this user according to Wikipedia rules ...

Thanks ..--Maxx786 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edokter at Doctor Who

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.

---

• Edokter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doctor Who (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edokter has made edits through full protection at Doctor who[331], claiming that they are "fair game". He was already aware that this edit was controversial from his comment at WT:PROTECT here [332] He has been asked to revert on his talk page and has refused [333] [334] Edokter is using his admin tools to make controversial edits through full protection, without getting consensus on the talk page first, and is involved in the article.Martin451 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaining once more: I made one edit, removing one word ("twelfth") that was unsourced. Removing unsourced information in itself cannot be controversial. The edit had no relation to any content dispute that triggered the page protection. I was asked to revert, but without any arguments partaining to its content, but merely on the fact it alledgedly violated WP:FULL. In its current wording (there is an ungoing discussion going over that), uncontroversial edits are allowed on protected pages. I am more then willing to revert, once the content of my edit has been disputed. — Edokter (talk) — 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is precisely the behaviour being discussed at WT:PROTECT. Another admin made an edit, then reverted when asked to. You then undid that revert, and undoing that revert was a controversial edit using your tools to bypass protection. You were already aware that editing the article had been discussed, and the particular edit raised, but went ahead and changed the it anyway. That was controversial. We are not a newspaper and the edit should have been discussed first, or waited until protection had expired. You were asked to revert on your talk page and refused, and are now acting as a superuser.Martin451 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That all still does not address the content of the edit, which was not what the page was protected for. The only issue here is procedure. However, procedure means nothing if the actualy content of the edit is not under discussion. Until you have a dispute with the content of the edit, this discussion is WP:BIKESHED. — Edokter (talk) — 19:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got a problem with that edit. The original sentence was complete unsourced speculation, the amended sentence is fact (or, at least, sourced to the primary source). That's a perfectly good edit, and even if it doesn't completely fulfil WP:FULL, WP:IAR applies in terms of improving the article.See below. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What Black Kite says. Storm in a teacup. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, having now read the talkpage, the consensus is that any speculation should be removed, so in fact the edit does conform with WP:FULL. I think this can be closed. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination)

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.

---

Can an admin close this please, one way or the other? It's been a farce from start to finish, and it's getting worse and worse. It's been open for eight days, and if it closes as delete, keep, or no consensus, I don't care - just please, get it done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (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:Wajidafridi1

Wajidafridi1 (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose sole purpose at Wikipedia is the promotion of Pakistani politician Haji Baz Gul Afridi. He has a history of writing clearly promotional prose without sources (the "Since 1999, He has not being directly involved in politics" claim was later proven false), of edit-warring to keep his preferred picture of Gul (which showed him with the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan, now deleted as a likely copyright violation) on the article [335][336] [337][338], and as a masterpiece claimed on IRC that his life was in danger if the article mentioned smuggling despite the New York Times reporting on Gul's arms shop in that context, a claim that got parts of the article revdeleted until the Office decided to take no action and to leave the article's content to the discretion of the community. I had hoped that now that the election is over Wajid would vanish again and that we wouldn't have to take action. Not so: Today he removed sourced content on Gul's 2008 election defeat (see "not being directly involved in politics" above) and simultaneously inserted an apparently fake claim of a re-election in Gul's 2013 district (not mentioned by today's Daily Times article, for example; he has now presented a "source" which doesn't mention Gul's district). He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and this disruption needs to stop. Huon (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconding what Huon is saying. My experience with him is that he's a liar par excellence, having never spoken a word of truth in #wikipedia-en-help to anyone trying to help him, and when called out leaving quickly or trying to change the subject. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is WajidAfridi1. I would like to say that this whole thing against me is motivated due to personal differences between me and some people. There have been numerous times that they have ignored Wikipedia rules and taken it personal. When I uploaded an original picture, a user [Demiurge1000] took it off, not because it violated any rules or anything, but he told me that he will continuously dispute me until I stop editing Wikipedia.

Please check the following exchange of messages in IRC
<redacted>
My Question is that why the 12th of May? Surely this has nothing to do with any date.. but the whole 12 may thing by him was because that is when the elections are over! Why is he seeing this as personal. Later on, he made some statements which was targeted at me, Implying that I am some sort of a terrorist due to my background.. and I was offended by them.
<redacted IRC comment> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajidafridi1 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Three observations:

1. It's claimed above that Wajidafridi1 (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose sole purpose at Wikipedia is the promotion of Pakistani politician Haji Baz Gul Afridi. Yes, even a quick look makes it very clear that Wajidafridi1's sole interest is Baz Gul Afridi. (At this point I'll refrain from commenting on the claim that promotion is the purpose.)
2. There is an extraordinary resemblance between the names "Wajidafridi1" and "Baz Gul Afridi". Simply, there are two possibilities here. Either (A) the former is (or is employed by) the latter, or (B) he is not. If (A), then we have a conflict of interest. If (B), we have a potentially deceptive username.
3. In this edit, Wajidafridi1 alters the article in such a way as to claim that the ordering of a re-election by the Election Commission of Pakistan is itself backed by this source. That assertion is not backed by that source. Wajidafridi1 thus added an untruth to the article. There are two obvious possibilities here: (A) mere incompetence and (B) an intent to deceive.

So I have two questions for Wajidafridi1. First, are you (or are you working for) Baz Gul Afridi? Secondly, how do you account for your attributing to a web page an assertion that the web page does not make? -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that copy pasting IRC chat logs here without consent is a pretty big no no, but I'll leave that to be dealt with at the admin corps' discretion. I've notified Demiurge1000 seeing as their name was raised here and sought their comment. Blackmane (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wajidafridi1, it is not permitted to record material from the help channel and then publish it somewhere else. Please don't do it again, or your access to the help channel will have to be removed.

For context, my reference in the above-quoted conversation to the world's most popular firearm, was because the article which we were discussing was about an arms dealer (as is reliably sourced in the article itself).

The "me with my friend the former Prime Minister" photo was deleted on Commons after I raised the possibility that it may be a copyright violation. The photo currently used in the article is far more appropriate in any case.

It does not necessarily follow from the username that Wajidafridi1 is the subject of the article or is employed by them. (They could be a close relative, a distant relative, or just someone who shares one of the same names).

Wajidafridi1 should seek consensus on the talk page of the article before making any further removals of content, or potentially contentious additions.

Wajidafridi1 and others should refrain from using the help channel to discuss disagreements about what should be in the article, disagreements about Wajidafridi1's identity, location, or motives, disagreements about whether he has misled anyone about any of these things, disagreements about what that would say about him as a person, or disagreements about whether one or more people are personally biased against him.

I don't currently see an immediate need for administrator action. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoary I just want to point out that the surname Afridi is a common surname, and hence its no extraordinary resemblance. However, I do say the (A) possiblity is correct because of all the facts I know in this case due to my heavy involvement.

Second, adding untruths to the article is not unheard of from Wajid. In the original article that I modified and then approved from AfC (A move I retroactively regret), we see the line "Since 1999, he has not being directly involved in politics but remained a key figure in the region". This line was uncited, but it appeared non-controversial and there was no need for me to suspect that, so I did not remove it.

However, the current version of the article states "Baz Gul was a candidate for National Assembly seat NA-47 in the 2008 General Election. He was third, with 20% of the vote". This fact is now sourced. When I asked him about it, Wajid claimed he did not know about it, but I find it implausible and highly suspicious, given the amount of detail he did infact know about the article subject [See the old revision for that].

Its therefore very clear that he is lying on this issue.

More comments on the rest of the statements shall follow in a short while. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Or maybe in a slightly longer while. Waj has repeatedly lied to all of us about everything here, including lying about alleged threats to his life from the article subject to prevent changing that article (to me as well as other editors). I have logs which I am willing to share with any admins to show his lying, and I am willing to try to find further proof of the same too. In my opinion, he deserves nothing short of a topic ban, and possibly as big as a possible block because of his disruptive nature and willingness and attempt to decieve all of us. [Did I tell you about the one time he came to the IRC pretending to be Jimbo, and "ordered" us to not attack that article?] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The majority of people who come to the help channel are single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest. A substantial proportion of them are deliberately misleading in some manner while there (e.g. pretending they don't have a conflict of interest). What makes this one special? (Why would anyone be attacking the article - your word - anyway?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I dont remember where I've used the word "attacking". It would be good if you could remind me please.

To answer your question, first I think i should point out that just because a large number of editors are deliberately misleading doesn't make their actions less worse. Being deliberately misleading

And as for the second thing, the reason this issue is the way it is, is because of his lying, the article was forcefully set to a deliberately incorrect version for a substantial period of time. I dont think trying to manhandle the encyclopedia into his favoured way is something we should ever allow to pass. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit.

As for "the article was forcefully set to a deliberately incorrect version for a substantial period of time", the solution to that is to thoughtfully edit based on reliable sources and BLP, rather than allowing anyone's ramblings on IRC to "force" anything.

The guy hasn't edited the article for the last four days. If he edits it problematically again, sanctions might indeed be needed.Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious edits in the Balkan region

I'm not sure what all of the edits by Atillat7 (talk · contribs) are all about, but at least one of them (to Istanbul, here) is very suspicious. Their other edits involve apparent spelling changes, some of which very unhelpful. This is not my area of expertise, and besides, I'm about to make like a tree and leaf. It is entirely possible that they are trying something in good faith, of course. In addition, I wonder if some of you can have a look at the recent history of Istanbul, since there's been a lot of traffic, not all of it helpful. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You should undo any bad edits and warn them of the relevant policies using user talk. Unless you suspect a sockpuppet, a modicum of WP:BITE still applies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on "Greece will receive Constantinople in 2014 and Russia will help them", from the diff above? Or on these spelling changes? I have no idea what the user is trying to do, and reverting saying "test edits" isn't very useful as an explanation, but that's what I'll do with this one. I was hoping for something with more explanatory power. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty unambiguous case of POV-motivated vandalism, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the POV, Fut. Perf.? Someone's spelling is being given preference here--where does it come from? (Joy, that's what I wanted the expert opinion for.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume the POV is a "Greece will receive Constantinople in 2014 and Russia will help them" which appears to be making a political statement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FPS. That "Greece will receive Constantinople" statement is obvious considering the Greek/Turkish border dispute. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Sigh) I'm asking about the Khagan spelling issue. "Greece will receive" is not a POV, it's a (silly) claim. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

:OT. Sorry, but I do like this rather pot-boiler section title Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is unclear to me too, but it looks rather like a good-faith attempt of finding a specific title, or some testing of which page names might exist on WP. De728631 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the naming of parts is a hotbed-issue in that area. Which language to use for geographical entities, for people, for titles? The language of the ruler? of the present time? of whoever claims to have gotten there first? The person who can say "Oh, that's the name as is used by party X in conflict Y", that's the expert I was hoping could weigh in here. Alan, I do what I can on a budget. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:74.62.246.170

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.

---

This IP had been blocked 10 days ago and continues to vandalize pages, the one I caught was of The Powerpuff Girls today, I was going to leave a notice about it but saw all the ones already in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked one week for persistent edit warring. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2013 (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.

Thanatkorn International

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.

---

Do do doggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created Thanatkorn International and recreated Thanatkorn International (TNKI) with unambiguous advertising content copied directly from http://www.tnki.biz/index.php for his dad's company (per his user page). This behavior has continued despite multiple warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2013 (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.

And now Thanatkorn International co,.Ltd has been created, and of course deleted, as well. The user doesn't seem to be listening. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Natus Vincere

Can I request someone to take a look at this article please? I don't know the subject matter, it looks like it is riddled with vandalism and I can't find a clean point to revert it to. It may need a semi-protection too. It has had several new contributors and multiple IPs changing it with about 50 revisions in the last week. However, going further back through the last couple of months of revisions I can't find any point where I can clearly see the article as being a good copy. Apologies if this is posted in the wrong place. Thanks in advance QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the vandalism bit - though I see how it might look that way. This is just in a more....informal style than is appropriate. It is odd indeed to talk about notable events with chaps like Kuroky and Hireling, though. Adding to the fun is that many of the sources are going to be Ukrainian or Russian, which limits what I can do there. I didn't see anything particularly obvious as far as vandalism goes, could you point it out? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Qworty's talk page protection

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.

---

User:SB Johnny took it upon himself to protect Qworty's talk page thereby shutting down ongoing discussions about what to do with the user's page following his banning. There was no vandalism. There were no attempts by Qworty to edit his talk page. SB Johnny's comments upon protecting the page were "Giving this page a few days off. Move on, the encyclopedia isn't being written here." I requested SB Johnny undo his page protection, but he declined citing IAR and "possible BLP violations" (really? where?). So - here we are. I'd like to see the edit protection removed from the talk page and for SB Johnny (or me) to get a better understanding of the community's norms and expectations. At present, our standards read thusly: [339]Rklawton (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Other people discussing whether Qworty deserves a special place in WikiHell not even typically reserved for far worse abusers of this site is not so terribly important.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hard to parse. Do you mean "It's not so terribly important to permit discussions by other people about whether Qworty...abusers of this site"? If I understand you rightly, I agree. Talk pages of blocked users are to enable them to request unblocks, and for other people to communicate with them and vice versa; discussions about the user are only appropriate elsewhere. None of this can happen with someone who's gotten himself a block without talk page access, and protection is appropriate when misuse is definitely happening. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't have access to his talk (see block log). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood; that's why I said "None of this can happen with someone who's gotten himself a block without talk page access". Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be what I am saying.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(after e/c)I protected in the interest of drama-stomping, and discouraging the "grave-dancing" (horrible expression). No big deal for me if it's undone, but honestly the wider discussion about Qworty (and his userpage) should be elsewhere. See y'all in the AM. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I for one am pleased to see the "manifesto" ("Qworty is a shtick") blanked from the user page, with cutesy picture and all. Editors banned for what Qworty did don't get to use their old user page for such self-congratulatory fake-postmodern BS, for a bunch of words that are but a lousy excuse. As far as I'm concerned, his talk page gets blanked for the same reason, and protected from editing. It's not all a game. Nyttend is quite right, and the gravedancing argument holds water as well; note that his talk page is completely useless since an unblock request will have to be initiated via email to ArbCom. The discussion that RKlawton seeks can be held elsewhere--and we're here already, so we could: I support blanking of the talk page per WP:SOAPBOX and indefinite protection given the likely possibility of gravedancing and the uselessness of said talk page for the editor himself. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just as the talk page is pointless, so is any attempt to wipe out its contents. Let his comments remain and the few comments others made, we don't blank them for banned editors who have and still do, through sockpuppets, far worse things. We can just full-protect both user pages indefinitely.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why his comments should remain. They're no explanation anyway--they're just a smokescreen and, for Qworty, a badge of honor. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of those situations where the right thing to do is blindingly obvious. Blank the user page and talk page with appropriate notices and fully protect both, but do not revdel unless absolutely needed so journalists doing research can follow what happened by looking at the history. When revdel is required, make sure the edit comment explains why with a minimum of wikijargon. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend and Drmies and I think SB Johnny did the right thing. User talk pages are for talking with an editor, not about them. If a discussion about the ultimate fate of Qworty's userpage needs to happen, there are better venues for it (e.g. here, AN, MFD...) 28bytes (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • What 28bytes said. (ie: what Nyttend and Drmies said) Unusual circumstances call for unusual actions and this seems to be the lesser of all available evils. No need to allow his talk page to become a dartboard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Now that I have read up a bit more (really, I completely avoided the previous discussion...wow) I think Drmies may be is completely right that blanking is appropriate, and I would support indef protection as well. No need for the talk page to be either a trophy or a dance floor. This can always be undone if he is allowed back, although I won't hold my breath. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• From my perspective that sort of blanking is effectively like trying to nullify an editor's existence to punish them, or sweep it under the rug whatever the case may be.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• And under normal circumstances, I would agree and we wouldn't have needed to even take away talk page access. Then there are exceptional cases with some community banned users, like this, which I feel warrant it. A rare exception, but reasonable. It is as much to prevent others from dumping on them as it is to disallow them to continue using their talk page as a soapbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Indef protection is fine to resolve those concerns. The idea that his missives are so horrible that we can't allow people to see them unless they search for them is really quite silly to me. What does it actually prevent? Seems people who support this mainly support it out of spite, which is not how we are supposed to do things.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• What did I say that made you think it was out of spite? And your opposition is because you don't trust the motives of those here? I didn't even know who he was until today so I'm pretty sure my motives are not "spite". I'm still inclined to blank. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 04:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe not you, but it seems to be the primary motivation. There is no real purpose to blanking his talk page except to bury everything else about him in a revision history and leave only the tag of shame.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Their existence and edit history can't be nullified (well, unless they're vanished--is that a transitive verb yet?), and that's not what blanking a talk page does. Dennis's phrasing (neither trophy nor dance floor) is pretty apt. And seriously, "It’s time to get over the Internet. It’s time to get over ourselves." So it was all our fault, for believing that the articles we wrote were actually textual? That's the kind of thing we shouldn't be propagating. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Blanking of user and user talk pages and indefinite full protection per Drmies, Dennis and others above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Drmies is simply taking the easiest path to preventing martyrdom or disruption of Qworty's page. The subject is still under BLP and given the dispute; and not even the public nature of ANI prevented a rather venomous personal attack. The media is probably watching this still and reading our responses to see how we handle this. It may be drastic, but the actions serve to protect both Qworty and Wikipedia's image by not allowing editors a highly visible place to vent their frustrations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support blanking and enforcement thereof. The community does not need to discuss stuff indefinitely—some may want to do that, but please do it elsewhere because it is distracting when on-wiki (distracting because such endless discussion/bickering makes people forget that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia). The page is being blanked to avoid misuse of Wikipedia for gravedancing or grandstanding—if someone outside Wikipedia thinks it is for spite they are mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• OK, if now is too hasty, perhaps tomorrow someone can blank the talk page, leaving some appropriate "courtesy blanking" notice or whatever. Maybe Chris is right and I opted for the easiest path--it'd be a first. I don't object to the latest edit by User:BullRangifer on the user page and I will go ahead and protect that right now (AN is probably the best venue to discuss issues pertaining to the user page). The talk page could maybe use something similar, some kind of explanation with perhaps some links (though the box on the user page covers it, methinks); I'll leave that for others to decide. And then we move on. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose blanking of the page and support reverting it to this version. Partly per TDA, with whom I agree when he says "There is no real purpose to blanking his talk page except to bury everything else about him in a revision history and leave only the tag of shame." and partly per ChrisGualtieri (I know he supports blanking), with whom I agree when he says "The media is probably watching this still and reading our responses to see how we handle this." Blanking this page is the wrong move from a PR perspective (the coverup is worse than the crime). If the media is watching then the chance that they'll know how to look through the page history is small. It just looks like a coverup. Also, the original version of the page as left by Qworty has been quoted in two articles already, with doubtless more to come. For an institution that makes a talisman of the phrase "the sum of human knowledge" to even seem to be covering up what is now a primary source for a notable episode in its history not only looks bad, it is bad. Obviously there are no BLP concerns. The guy put the stuff on his own user page. Presumably the most respectful thing to do is to leave it alone. To call it "courtesy blanking" is especially bad. It's not a courtesy if the editor hasn't requested it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Courtesy blanking" doesn't mean "courtesy to the editor"--the term applies also to attack pages, copyright violations, etc. A permanent link to this discussion, with an explanation perhaps, undoes the cover-up bit. BTW, there are BLP concerns, since Qworty now has a real name as well; on the other side, the soapbox side, there's the "shtick" section, which in my opinion is inappropriate. Alf, I often agree with you, but not here. And now I will drop this particular stick--sorry for being so verbose in this thread. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Chris and John both cite stopping discussions on the user talk page as a cause for blanking, but this purpose would be served just as well by indefinitely full-protecting the page in its current state. No need for blanking at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• On a further note I see Rangifer has once more restored the completely absurd and redundant tagging of Qworty as blocked and banned together with the list of links, while Drmies went in and full-protected the page in said state. The reinsertion of the links was undoing an action by the original blocking admin Ironholds that he explained well enough. You two and any who support you should start heeding his words, not because of any special authority he is perceived to have, but because he is right and it is right. This whole debate and any action that endorses the current state or compounds upon it by blanking his talk page as well, serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. His punishment has been meted out in spades: harassed, outed, his misdeeds exposed to the press, banned, tagged, and the community turned against him. Why is that not enough to sate your blood lust?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen Ironholds' comments on the talk page when I restored the links. I left out the sentence/phrase that offended someone. I hope everyone noticed that. It's not a complete restoration. What's left is totally neutral and useful information. Leaving it there will help to avoid misunderstandings. Readers and journalists who are not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia will not know how to find this information and may write inaccurate things that will do no justice to Wikipedia or Young. If anyone has objections to the neutrality of the links, then let's discuss it, but just deleting without policy-based reasons is not a good option. This is an exceptional case and therefore we're doing something a little different this time and it does no harm at all. On the contrary. Try to AGF. There is no attack or harassment in this action at all. Otherwise, blanking of the page and leaving tags happens to be totally normal practice here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Only the banned tag is normal practice, not all the tags added after that. Not even sure why we have the block tag and we certainly don't need it when there is already a ban tag. As far as "does no harm", I imagine you would have a different perspective were you on the receiving end and are right now being clouded by your malice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The page now states that "Sockpuppet investigation revealing the many sockpuppets used by Qworty/Robert Clark Young." The problem is that the list of possible socks was stale, and no sleepers were found. [340] Without a CU there are many accounts there that may well be socks, and did seem to act like them, but there are also some which feel less certain. I'm not sure that we should be linking to that with the description that that it revealed the socks, when a CU wasn't run. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Link should just be titled "Sockpuppet investigation (2013)" Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, but it's a moot point, now that the page has been completely blanked. Unfortunately the lack of information will contribute to confusion in the public and journalists, who will likely make mistakes due to lack of information. This lack of helpfulness will not improve the reputation of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support blanking both userpage and talkpage, per my statement here. Ironholds (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a fan of censorship at the best of times, & doing this when greater offenses haven't produced this result is an overreaction & unjustified punishment. It makes me wonder why. If an uninvolved editor, like myself, can come to the discussion & suspect (rightly or wrongly) the decision makers had a bias, then the process is flawed & the decision rendered certainly is. That outcome is not good for WP. Neither do I think that was the intended outcome. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• lock it down I'm looking at User:Essjay, which is fully protected in a more egregious state, and it seems to me that leaving this locked, without all the "helpful" links, is as good a state as any, and would give people an opportunity to find something useful to do. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Whatever the outcome, it is best given BLP, that people stop discussing that person there. People may discuss reliable sources and encyclopedic phrasing on the talk page of that subject's BLP article, if it remains on the Pedia. Or choose other forums off the Pedia for their general opinions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To reply to the matter of full protection, the user page is typically wiped clean as in the case of Bambifan101 and other LTA accounts, but the talk page often remains. Full Protecting the talk page I guess works out, though it leaves that little 'essay' and gives easy access to links which attack him. The matter of it being done off-wiki and that the user cannot remove them is of slight concern to me. Also, the page on the subject has been essentially trashed and links back to the user page. If full protection is what the community decides then I am fine with that. Qworty's stance and essay are one thing, but given the subject's page is referenced back from the article and the content is negative (even if true), it does not seem that this current drama is worth expanding to non-editors. The subject is under BLP all the same, and a permanent page full of dirt on this matter will be seen by many people who have to work with the editor as part of their career. Most sockpuppets don't have this off-wiki drama attached to their block, Qworty does, the fact the article was axed and throws the 'Wikipedia' controversy back seems to be Wikipedia's own way of preserving the conflict. And I'm not saying sweep it under the rug, I just see no need for it to remain given the nature of this dispute having a major off-wiki presence which will impact the subject's real-life and career. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I've boldly added the {{subst:courtesy blanked}} template to both the user and talk page, and extended the full protection to indefinite. No tag of shame, no one gets the last word. The editor is community banned, meaning they are no longer a member of the community. Terms like "censoring" have no meaning in this context as non-community persons don't share the same rights to opine that community members do, per WP:BAN. Of course, this doesn't mean we can justify anyone dancing on their graves either. None of the history has been deleted and anyone needing access to the previous information can with a single click. Assuming he doesn't start sockpuppeting, no tag on his user page is likely needed as any admin that sees that tag knows to check the history before unblocking. This addresses the concerns expressed above about it being used for shame and being used for a soapbox in the most neutral way. I have no opinion on the validity of the ban itself, and I didn't participate in that discussion. I understand some may disagree, but at the end of the day someone has to do something and this seems to be the best compromise that fits the consensus while addressing the real concerns expressed herein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse protection/Support blanking If you look at the talk pages of other banned users, you will see massive amounts of grave dancing and martyrdom. If the page is protected and blanked now, we can prevent this kind of negative energy for arising in the first place. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 14:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support the move by Dennis as a suitable compromise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine with me as well. DA, in regard to your comment above, I don't wish to break a lance for any template/box. I had no problem with it being there, I have no problem with it being removed. Now that the SPI has (just) closed with the note that no obvious sleepers were found, certainly that link does not deserve a prominent place anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy today. I fully approve of the resolution here... apologies if I caused drama while I was trying to stifle drama ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 18:14, 21 May 2013 (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.

WP:OWN on 2013_Moore_tornado by United States Man (talk · contribs)

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.

---

A major edit war (something that would go at WP:AN3RR), but it involves an ownership of articles. I count 22 reverts in the past 36 hours on a number of articles, hence implying an ownership. I also suspect some borderline personal attacks. I could link to the all, but his contribs page says it all. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you select some of the worst problems, provide diffs, and a brief contextual explanation as to their problems? I see a LOT of editing by that editor on the Tornado article, but that's not unusual. The fact that someone is making a lot of edits is not itself a sign of ownership, nor is reverts, per se; a fluid article on a recent news story attracts a lot of editing, and not all of it is good. I have seen nothing in scanning his recent contribs list that stands out as problematic, at least as self-evidently as you seem to imply it is. If there are problems, it would help if you gave actual diffs of the worst of the worst and explained what is wrong. --Jayron32 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is what happens when people forget that this isn't a newspaper and think that being first somehow makes it good. We should have a rule forcing a 24 hour wait on current events. Since we're WP:NOTNEWS, it really wouldn't hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

YE always seems to revert any changes I make to articles like this. Why he does that I will never know. Anyway, I would love to know how WP:OWN applies. YE started an edit war with me because I took something off the talk page that was WP:FORUM. The rest was reverting rating and death toll changes to the tornado. I don't think I did anything wrong - other than the mess with YE. United States Man (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally gave the editor a 3RR warning for a rather pointless sequence of reverts where he removed improvements to the article's infobox, with the excuse that it was "taking up space": [341][342][343][344]. He proceeded to blank the warning, and engage in a low-grade revert war on his talk page about removing the warning, then followed by a straight revert of a good-faith wording change by an anonymous user, which caused another round of reverts.[345][346] Add to that incivility in the article's talk page, and it seems to me that the editor needs a break from the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the biggest sign of ownership is this, wanting to get two articles he edited extensively protected so nobody could revert his changes. I think this edit summary was not the best as it come close to WP:CIVL IMO. Ditto this as per Wikipedia:Freedom of speech. While I am gald he is trying to resolve that matter to some extent, this was not the best talk page message ever. I am aware that this is technically allowed, but I don't think this is exactly encouraged. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

(ec)I will admit that those reverts were my fault. I repeatedly asked what was being changed by those edits. When the user finally explained I realized that I was wrong and backed off. The thing with the talk page was that I did not know that I didn't have the right to take those off of my talk page. I see others do it all the time. I did end up archiving the thread and all is well there. Whenever I get mad and start something, I usually try to fix it. United States Man (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The only edit that I see that was wrong with the list Yellow Evan gave was this, which was sort of harsh. The application for protection was because people kept putting in wrong ratings and death tolls (sometimes just plain vandalism). WP:OWN does not apply there last time I checked. This was not being hateful, but rather being in a hurry. This was nowhere close to WP:CIVL, just asking what difference it made, which I would have known if I had looked hard enough (again my fault). These are just examples of me being a little aggravated, that's all. United States Man (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the talk page, you don't "the right" since editing is a privilege not a right. You are technically allowed to remove warnings off your talk page, but it is not encouraged. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

I am not aware of any encouragement to keep such notices on one's talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct in one - removing a talk page notice is tacit acknowledgement that you have read the notice. You can't say you missed it later when we have a diff of you removing it, after all. But that goes both ways - you really can't get off with ignoring it either. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• US Man, those two editors that reverted your edits to your talk page have been told that they had no right to do that. See WP:OWNTALK: you have the right to do with your talk page as you please, pretty much, and don't let them tell you otherwise. [OK, that's obviously not Bradspeak since there's a ton of things you can't do (see WP:TALKNO), but none of these things were happening here.] Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked over all the actual diffs that were posted.... I'm not sure how much further one's expected to dig into the edit history on something that's barely 12 hours old... I don't think removing a large criticism from your talk page is good form, but it's allowed, nor do I think the other edits are particularly bad, nor do I think their removals are explained (at all). This is stupid btw... this is a pending natural disaster, there are hundreds of people hurt, and you guys are bitching over absolutely nothing of substance. Grow up and do some good with the article. Whatever "not news" therefore we shouldn't talk about anything current (let's make it a year, for fun) talk is above, that's not how we work, and people look to wikipedia for useful information. I don't see anything admin worthy here [yet], but you two need a strong slap on the wrist. None of this should have ever been brought here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Shadowjams here. I was hopping for more on the [[[WP:3RR]] side of this, but I had no idea there was some encouragement against recent events. However, since we are clearly getting nowhere, I withdraw this request. I am not here to fight people 24/7 I am here to wrtie articles and build an encyclopedia after all :) YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:21, 21 May 2013 (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.

Wikihounding: Threat and follow-through

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.

---

User:Steelbeard1 openly threatened to commit Wikihounding against me back in April. He was warned by an admin at that time that his behaviour "is indeed considered wikihounding". Eventually I stopped hearing from him and I thought it was over. On May 21 he started confronting me again and promptly admitted that he has been following my edits with the intent of giving his input in any "editing disputes" I am involved with.

• [347]
• [348]
• [349]

It is abundantly clear that he is once again wikistalking me, and is not only vowing to Wikihound me but is clearly following through on that vow. He is also threatening retaliation if I report his behaviour:

• [350]

ChakaKong^talk 13:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I follow any editor who makes obviously false edits if you recall from his glaringly false edit in the MGM Music article. Because he got involved in an editing dispute which I hoped I settled in the Black Sabbath (album) article, I had to settle things there. If you read the top of his talk page, the statement he made regarding his involvement in editing disputes is very hostile and he refuses to apologize regarding his hostile reply to my polite pointing out the faulty edit he made. I think the problem with with Kong, not me. See [351] Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While I have not yet looked into the underlying edits, I will say this: Steelbeard, it's not your job to police another editor's edits. If Kong repeatedly posts false information, we have places to report that sort of thing. But vowing to "keep doing it until you apologize" is the very definition of wikihounding. Who gives a shit if they apologize or not? Clearly they will not discuss the matter with you, so let it go, report it, and move on. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Kong - I don't know that Steelbeard is wrong about the MGM Music thing, though - what was the deal there? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@ UltraExactZZ: Here is the edit he's referring to. An anonymous IP added unsourced content and all I did was revert that edit per guidelines. That's all I did. Steelbeard1 is somehow interpreting that as something terrible. I didn't actually add anything to the article. If there was incorrect info there, it was added previously by someone else, not me.

*[352]

ChakaKong^talk 13:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What Kong should have done is insert a tag to request a citation. When I reverted his faulty edit, I added the citation. My issue with Kong, again, is his hostility regarding faulty edits when they are pointed out to him. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly describing edits as "faulty" also comes across as rather hostile. Dricherby (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What other word should be used to describe an obviously false edit, Dricherby? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Obviously false" is even more hostile and suggests that the editor was lying (perhaps you're not a native speaker and didn't intend that meaning). In the case of the edit [353] linked above, removal of unsourced material seems to be a valid option and is certainly not "false". It was just an edit you disagreed with. Dricherby (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with the edit, it that the edit was just plain wrong, false, incorrect, untruthful, etc. Those already familiar with the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks know that Time Warner sold Warner Music Group in 2004 and Warner Music's license to issue the material has expired. Here is the edit which is at the core of the problem which is at [354] in which ChakaKong reverted an uncited, but true passage which created an obviously false passage repeating what User:Superastig, who is notorious for making false edits, made at [355]. I follow Superastig as well because of his questionable edits. If you look at his talk page's history, he deletes comments about his faulty edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing a message from one's talk page is clear and documentable evidence that the editor has seen the message, and may be presumed to have read it. There is no rule that prevents editors from removing messages from their talk pages, unless it is a block notice or reviewed unblock request and they are currently blocked - and that caveat does not apply here. Did ChakaKong continue to revert on MGM Music after you added a citation? You mention questionable edits, plural - what other questionable edits do you refer to? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I made no aditional edits to MGM Music after Steelbeard got upset. If he has ever had an issue with any other edit of mine, he hasn't stated it yet. ChakaKong^talk 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My issue with Kong is his hostile reply to my pointing out the problem with his edit as well as his posting on the top of his talk page to all who have issues with his edits which I consider to be hostile. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that (the talk page thing) is not really that unreasonable a concern - and you may consider ChakaKong to have been made aware of it. You cite no diff for the other thing. Now, I'm going to ask you to voluntarily ban yourself from any sort of interaction with ChakaKong or any discussion in which he is already involved. You have been wikihounding him for no clear purpose, and that needs to stop right now. If you are unwilling to voluntarily stop and walk away from this, it is likely that you will be subjected to an involuntary ban - one with far stricter constraints on your editing. You may even be blocked from editing. Please end this. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here user Steelbeard1 clearly admits that the "faulty edit" which has driven him to wikihound me was actually done by another editor and not by me. ChakaKong^talk 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, clearly in reverting an unsourced change you reintroduced incorrect information to the article - and I find your lack of perfection in your editing appalling enough to recommend an indefinite block. How DARE you make a mistake? What nerve. See how dumb that sounds? In all seriousness, reverting to the status quo was a reasonable edit, and what errors were introduced were not introduced by you AND were rapidly fixed by Steelbeard when he posted the correct info with a source. That's the way these things work, and I for one have no problem with that edit. You're good. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this previously came up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#User_talk:ChakaKong, about three weeks ago. It was closed without action. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of whether the reversion of the IP was sound or not, there is clear evidence of Wikistalking by Steelbeard. Ergo, I propose that a final warning be given to Steelbeard. If they continue their stalking after said final warning, then further preventative measures shall be in order. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to see Steelbeard's response to my question, above, but yeah - I'm leaning that way as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Give him some time, I'm sure he's very busy combing through every edit I've made in the past six months in an attempt to find an example of imperfection. ChakaKong^talk 15:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I've seen enough - and have asked him to voluntarily enter into an interaction ban with you and pages on which you are involved, as per WP:IBAN. If he does so - or if we have to impose such a ban - would you do me a favor and keep your distance from him as well? No need to poke at it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I will very happily keep my distance from him. ChakaKong^talk 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it was just that one edit and the more recent edit dispute I ran across. My issue with Kong is his downright hostility when I pointed out that first faulty edit to him. Let me ask this question to the administrators reading this thread. What would you do if you found a faulty edit, politely let the editor know he made the faulty edit only to receive an angry and hostile response which greatly offended you. I had stated that I would let the matter slide if Kong apologized, but he refused to. So now it led to this moment where I may be punished over Kong's open hostility to me. Let's make a deal. If Kong apologizes to me, I will unwatch him. There may be a remote case where he makes a disputed edit in an article I am already following, but I can't help that. I hope this satisfies everyone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to see a diff of this hostile response from ChakaKong. As to your question, though - if someone made a faulty edit and I called them on it, and they left me an angry note about it? I'd probably reply with something along the lines of "OK, dude, whatever." And then I'd let it go. If they attacked me personally, I'd leave them an NPA warning. But I would not waste my time following them around. Our policy on Wikihounding does not include the language "Wikihounding is prohibited unless the other editor said a mean thing to you." Now, ChakaKong may have been out of line in saying whatever it is they said, or they may not have been. But your conduct has been unquestionably out of bounds - and reaffirming your intent to continue that wikihounding in a statement on ANI is singularly unwise. You may wish to reconsider that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@UltraExactZZ: Here is the diff of my "angry and hostile response" Steelbeaerd has been so offended by. I simply told him that my reverting an unsourced edit was a very poor reason for him to leave a warning on my talk page. The entire exchange can be read here. ChakaKong^talk 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I had noted Kong's goof at [356]. When I asked administrator Gfoley4 at [357] what the proper procedure to let an editor know that an edit was glaringly incorrect should be, he replied that what I did was fine and proper. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Steelbeard, to be honest, you demanding an apology for some vague slight against you that you haven't bothered to illustrate does not reflect well on you. My good faith advice to you is just to get over whatever it was and go about your business, and leave ChakaKong alone. Dayewalker (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, administrator Gfoley4 informed Steelbeard that "your behavior is indeed considered wikihounding. This is disruptive, and you need to stop. If you don't, further consequences may be considered". Funny how that got left out. ChakaKong^talk 16:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If was Gfoley4's posting on the original complaint page that inspired me to ask the question on his talk page as to what the proper procedure to let an editor know an incorrect edit was made. I also asked him on his talk page to add his input here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(OD) Steelbeard, you're trying to justify your actions by quoting an admin who told you a month ago [358] that you were hounding ChakaKong, and to leave him alone. Let it go, man. Dayewalker (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That is why I asked that admin what the proper procedure to let an editor he/she made a faulty edit should be and I did do that. But Kong's reply was far from receptive. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, multiple editors have pointed out to you that you're clearly and unashamedly stalking another editor, and you should stop. Your actions here aren't helping anyone, most of all you. At the most, this was a minor miscommunication. Dayewalker (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this, with some notes.

  Final warning to Steelbeard: your response was way over the top. I see no "hostility" in this response--it's perfectly valid and plenty neutral. Continue to follow ChakaKong and you will be blocked. And really, if that note was hostile to you, good luck in the real world; I'm surprised, frankly, that ChakaKong followed up in a relatively calm manner to your passive-aggressive comments and actions. Chill out. In general, and especially in this case.

  ChakaKong, I suggest that you remove that rather childish "warning" from the top of your talk page. We're not in middle school anymore; this was bad enough and this just made it worse. Talk pages are made for whining and bitching: get used to it. A notification like that serves only purpose: to piss people off before they even get started. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2013 (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:Bidgee

I would like to inform the admins of what I believe to be continued uncivil behaviour and unfounded complaints, of which I am at the receiving end at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#AUshielding_conversions.

The entire thread should be read through in its entirety, but there are quite a few diffs supplied below with some specific edits:

• [359] - pure adhom.
• [360] - topic discussed has nothing to do with US Roads anyway.
• [361] - attempt to move the discussion to more suitable place thwarted with claims of "forum hopping".
• [362] - threats to stop contributing content if I dont fall into line, dismissal of official noticeboard for WP:OR.
• [363] - conspiracy claims, continuing about images supplied
• [364] - issues with unrelated topics
• [365] - more, continued conspiracy, likely unfounded claims of COI in a recent ACR i took part in

I have already removed myself from an RfC due to claims that I personally am trying to force a specific change, which is probably the basis of the conspiracy mentioned above. I probably did make a few nieve mistakes at that RfC, but these shouldnt follow me to other discussions, and they certainly should derail them to the extent they have so far.

I will comply with any and all requests for my own behaviour to be modified aswell. -- Nbound (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassing editor making false accusations

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.

---

User:SudoGhost is behaving aggressively at Talk:Iron Man 3, including by making a false accusation about edit-warring. Rather than discuss the issue of his behavior, he wrote, "[I]f you think I am 'harassing' and 'bullying', you are more than welcome to take it to WP:ANI," so even though I'd prefer to discuss, this is his demand.

Rather than go into a long description here, I'll simply point here to his accusation of edit-warring after I had made precisely one (1) edit here at Iron Man 3. I informed him [366] that I found it harassing that he'd post a long edit-warring note and accusation on my talk page after one edit.

He removed my comments from his talk page [367]; I subsequently removed his from mine. [368]. He then falsely accused me a second time of editing-warring, after I had made a third-party comment, as is not improper, at a 3RR he brought up against another editor. The string, with difs, here cover that.

As I said, I'd have preferred discussion; it was at User:SudoGhost's insistence only that I bring it up here. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If "I don't like that comment" turns into "they are bullying and harassing me" then most of Wikipedia would be blocked from editing. If at worst I was just incorrect and editors haven't been blocked for edit warring for making a single revert (they have) then I'm wrong, but being wrong is not bullying or harassment. The editor saw that there was an ongoing discussion, but decided to comment and then remove the content, which is odd because they then reverted an edit I made on the basis that "there's active discussion on the talk page" even though they had just removed content despite active discussion on the talk page. Is this a double-standard, or was it a "well I'll revert you back" edit or meant to be done in a WP:POINTy manner? Since we're being dragged to AN/I since Tanbrae won't stop making these accusations on any page he can, I would love an explanation as to this. It's also odd that a single edit continuing an edit war is not edit warring, but a single notification (which is required to report an editor, which he requested I do), is harassment.

The editor then said that "If you believe I am edit-warring, then report me here. Otherwise, we do not make such unsupportable allegations" which is almost right (as one must be warned before they are reported), but otherwise a fair point. However, that point falls flat then since then they then use talk pages to throw around accusations of harassment, even following me to AN3 to accuse me of harassment there but stopping short of "reporting" anywhere appropriate, only accusing in every other location, yet they would like the courtesy they are not willing to do themselves?

After contuining to accuse me of less-than-honest behavior they then went to canvassing the only other editor that agreed with him (he didn't provide a "neutral notice" to the editor that disagreed with him). I'm fine with plenty of things, but this double-standard behavior doesn't really make me feel terribly compelled to sympathize.

Tenbrae knew there was an ongoing discussion, made a comment, and continued the back-and-forth by reverting to his preferred version despite that. If that is not edit warring, fine. However, by continuing to revert they lost that excuse, and they have far surpassed that single "false accusation" with wild accusations of WP:OWN, WP:Harassment, failure to WP:AGF, and the editor's canvassing. - SudoGhost 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Another false accusation. I'm losing count. Going to one editor and writing neutrally, "As a past participant, you're invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iron Man 3" is not in any way canvassing.

I reiterate: Jumping onto someone's talk page after one edit and posting a warning symbol and a long claim about edit-warring is deliberate, bullying, harassing behavior intended to intimidate another editor from making editos SudoGhost happens to disagree with.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Going to one editor and writing a neutrally worded comment is not canvassing. However, only posting a "neutrally worded" invitation only on the talk page of the editor who agreed with you is. It doesn't matter how the message was worded, it's who the message was sent to (and not sent to) that makes it canvassing. According to WP:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior", yet to my knowledge I have never interacted with you before, and that talk page message was the first thing I've said to you. You then accused me of harassment after that single message. With that in mind, do you still assert that it's harassment? - SudoGhost 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassment "can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." It logically follows the same can be true of the next step, where direct communication has taken place. Harassment also includes "[p]lacing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page." I'll leave it up to an admin to decide if it's perfectly reasonable and perfectly permitted to place any false or questionable warnings on a user talk page. Also, canvassing, by definition, involves contacting than one person. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassment is a pattern, not a single instance, and following my edits to continue to attack me is itself more harassing than anything I have done. If you're going to quote WP:Harassment out of context, you should probably at least provide diffs to show how I have been hounding you without actually interacting with you, which is what that is saying. If a single edit continuing an edit war is itself not edit warring, then at worst I am just plain wrong. However, when you flew off the handle and accused me of harassment, bullying, and being "WP:OWNy" while engaging in the same behavior you felt I was wrong for, you lost any merit you would have had in complaining. I've gotten templates and messages I disagreed with. Those people were not "harassing" me. What you're saying is that any unwanted comment is harassment, and not only is that wrong, that perception does not give you license to engage in WP:POINTy behavior and WP:Canvassing, which says nothing about "more than one person". You left a talk page message on a specific editor's message to influence the discussion to your benefit, and avoided leaving one on the talk page of the other participant, who disagrees with your position. That is canvassing. - SudoGhost 23:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your false allegation of edit-warring was the first thing you said to me, so I'm not sure it's fair or reasonable to say I "flew off the handle" when you initiated contact by accusing me of something I did not do. And an "unwanted comment" is one thing — a warning symbol and a false allegation are something far beyond an "unwanted comment." "Accusation" and "comment" are words with two different definitions. As for the canvassing claim, let's let an admin decide if contacting one person neutrally is "canvassing." See the dictionary definition of "canvassing." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, continuously accusing someone of harassment at every opportunity for a single comment is flying off the handle, given that for that single edit you threw that accusation on your talk page, in an edit summary removing that discussion, on my talk page twice, and following me to an AN3 discussion to accuse me of such there, on an article's talk page, and here, despite the fact that leaving you a template on your talk page is nowhere near harassment. By continuing to edit war by reverting the content, you were edit warring. You came nowhere close to 3RR, but editors have been blocked for a single revert before, so it's hardly a "false allegation". I probably shouldn't have put the template on your talk page, but your reaction and subsequent behavior have been disproportionately hostile, given the number of times you have repeatedly accused me of harassment today (which by my count is close to a dozen separate times). I did not "harass" you, certainly not be Wikipedia's definition. I want you to please stop making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.

As for splitting hairs about the dictionary definition of words, that is irrelevant. Wikipedia uses Wikipedia's definition of canvassing, not whatever dictionary definition suits you at the time, and under that definition there is definitely the appearance of canvassing, since you only notified the editor who agreed with you, and failed to notify the editor that did not. Wikipedia also uses Wikipedia's definition of harassment, and you have yet to show how you were harassed in any way under that definition, yet you continue to attack me under that pretense. Please stop. - SudoGhost 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my answers. Please remember, it was your idea to bring this here. And I'm sorry you disagree with someone using words precisely: I'm a journalist, and I believe being accurate in one's wording is extremely important. In any case, as I said, let's let an admin decide. I'm signing off from this for the night — you can have the last word. Try to make it reasonable and I'll try not to respond till tomorrow. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It was my idea to bring it here because you continue to attack me despite no evidence to back your claim of being harassed. You being a journalist or not is irrelevant since this is not Wiktionary but Wikipedia, and we use the consensus-determined meanings on Wikipedia, not "dictionary definitions". As you said, being accurate in one's wording is extremely important, yet on Wikipedia you continue to do otherwise. You were not harassed, but your subsequent behavior in response has been entirely inappropriate. Do you have any evidence that you were harassed in any way that would meet WP:Harassment? - SudoGhost 01:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, being on Wikipedia doesn't mean creating our own language and words no longer having dictionary definitions — this isn't Through the Looking Glass. And I have to ask: What word would you use to describe an inaccurate and unprovoked accusation intended to intimidate and create a chilling effect? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So...what you're saying is that no, you were not harassed in any way that falls under WP:Harassment, but you believe that any unwanted comment on your talk page can be labelled as harassment based solely on your interpretation of some vague undefined dictionary definition? That's not how Wikipedia works. Harassment on Wikipedia is defined at WP:Harassment in the very first sentence, and since what you're saying does not come anywhere close to that definition, that pretty much confirms that your comments are personal attacks as they lack evidence of any kind that anything of the sort took place. If you have a problem with the definition of harassment on that page, discuss it on that talk page, but unless consensus changes what that page says, your comments about dictionary definitions do not have any merit in regards to what harassment is on Wikipedia. You have not shown that the comment was inaccurate, and it was not unprovoked. It also was not "intended to intimidate and create a chilling effect" by any means (I'm at a loss as to where you came up with that); it was intended to get you to comment on the talk page instead of pushing contentious changes that had been reverted by several editors. Despite multiple requests to do so, you have not shown in any way that you were harassed in the slightest, for the obvious reason that you were not harassed. So stop throwing personal attacks at me; either back up your claims or stop making them. - SudoGhost 02:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an old debating tactic, taking what someone says and then rephrasing it in a way that says what you want it to say rather than what's being said. Admins see that all the time and aren't fooled by it. Bottom line: Wikipedia doesn't let anyone go around making false allegations against another editor. As well, I don't have to prove a negative, that I didn't edit war — the burden of proof is on you to prove I did edit war. And since one edit is not an edit war, yes I have "shown that [SudoGhost's] comment was inaccurate."

We can keep going round in circles or we can let an admin read this increasingly long and repetitive argument and decide for him- or herself if your initial attack on my page — your false allegation of edit-warring, designed to chill debate — was harassing or not. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you believe that the template, which was written by a consensus of editors and directly asks you to discuss the content, was intended to stop you from discussing? No. It was intended to do the opposite. You got offended when you were notified of edit warring, and started throwing around personal attacks. You were not harassed. Show that you were, or stop saying it. For someone so concerned about "false allegations", you'd think that wouldn't be a difficult request. That way there doesn't need to be "an old debating tactic", you can actually address your claims. Were you harassed under WP:Harassment and if so, how? If you're so concerned about being harassed it would help to show it instead of just attacking others, because that's a poor tactic for those with nothing better to say. Please, show that you're not doing that and back up your claims or stop making them. - SudoGhost 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You're saying it's perfectly OK to go to another editor's page and flat-out lie that they were edit-warring, even going so far as to post a warning symbol? Wow! I'd love to see an admin's reaction to that assertion! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you two want to argue with each other, pick one of your talkpages. If you want input here, it might help if you'd both shut up and wait for someone else to comment. I've lost interest myself, but perhaps it's not too late for someone else. --Onorem (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

IP genre warring

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.

---

I am an idiot. Sorry. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This IP's contribs could probably use some admin attention. I suspect a tie to this mess of days gone by, given the articles involved. This address may be abandoned shortly, but please leave this thread open in case others pop up, which is this individual's MO. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Septa14 (talk · contribs) looks to be involved as well, as the IP above undid a revert of that account's edits at Led Zeppelin. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 81.138.2.36 (talk · contribs), I'm 81.138.2.36, sorry if I caused some trouble. I thought due to the 46.189 user I could help but sorry if I caused a bad amount of mess. I won't do it again, I was trying to help you and SabreD, sorry for the inconvenience. 81.138.2.36 (talk · contribs) Just to note, I'm not the 46.159.112.165 guy.

Gonna try not to flub it this time. The actual culprits look to be Septa14 (talk · contribs), METALMAN2488088 (talk · contribs), and a host of IPs. 81.138.2.36 (talk · contribs) is here to help. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now notified those two registered accounts. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I meant to do the same but was busy trying to track down a source for something else. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Septa14 is a new editor who had never been warned over their contested edits, so I'm asking them here to use reliable sources for the changing or adding of musical genres instead of editing without any summaries or references. METALMAN2488088 has had ample requests and warnings at his talk page and received a final warning notice on 7 May without any effect. I have therefore blocked him for one week. METALMAN2488088, please note that the mentioning of musical genres in Wikipedia articles is not to be attributed to our own research as you stated in this edit summary, but it should only reflect what has been written elsewhere in reliable sources. Our own opinion is irrelevant for writing any article content.

Evan, as to the hosts of IPs, is there any special article you've noticed a recent surge of IP activities or was that just a general observation? De728631 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm misjudging a lot of things today! :) In IP 81's contribs I noticed he reverted 108.208.170.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and a few others. You can check his edit summaries where he reverts the ones I suspected were related (historically the genre warrior in question -- see archived thread I linked to -- has lingered primarily around articles related to Led Zeppelin and Uriah Heep). It's primarily the range of interest of those IPs that made me suspicious, but it could just as easily be coincidence. Not enough for an SPI or CU or anything, I'd guess. Thanks for your help! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:40, 21 May 2013 (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.

ProudIrishAspie

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.

---

ProudIrishAspie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added flags to approximately 2600 infoboxes in the last month, despite four warnings from two editors flagging up the WP:INFOBOXFLAG policy. He has not responded to the messages and continues to add flags. Final warning has been given. Span (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Have they added one since that final warning? I mean, that's eminently blockable, but if they haven't added any then your warning was heeded. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• There seem to have been a couple more since the final warning, but ProudIrishAspie seems to have moved on to other editing. So, it's not a crisis, but... I think better communication is needed here. bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, you're right--didn't see those. Tell you what, I'll say it out loud on their talk page one more time, and next time they get a 31-hr block. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• More and more flags after warnings ... Benea (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I have implemented a 31hr block for disruptive editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Lectonar. It had to happen, didn't it. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I have kept about half an eye on him since the thing with his userpage, so yes, I agree, it had to happen....but see my talk-page now. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (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:Murrallli and WP:BLP policy.

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.

---

User:Murrallli appears to have been repeatedly adding 'Category:Indian fraudsters' to articles in circumstances where the individual concerned has not been convicted of such an offence, in clear contravention of WP:BLP policy. See for example [369],[370],[371]. After the matter was first raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#troublesome mass addition of cats, User:Murrallli has also chosen to issue what might possibly be interpreted as a (somewhat farcical) legal threat on my talk page: [372]. Can I ask that this matter be looked into, and appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it - but right away I see that English may be an issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I cannot see a legal threat but that could be just my eyes (long day and it ain't even half over yet!), can you provide a specific diff please? Never mind, found it - diff of comment being removed. GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fierce as I am in defending my fellow editors, I have to agree that the remarks don't constitute actual legal threats. I think, Andy, that the editor (whose English is sub-par) is threatening to report you to your supervisor or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After taking a gander at that lovely message left on Andy's talkpage, this looks more like Wp: CIR and WP: NPA problems, IMHO. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

user grumpy is wasting administrators time and my time, with trivial personal grudge on me, I am not even editing those articles now, he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true??? time waste Murrallli (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot to be concerned about in your edits - this removed comment, for example, would have gotten you blocked outright had you not retracted it. Of greater concern, to me at least, is that you responded to questions about what you were doing and why by flipping out and saying a lot of really angry things. That's a problem. Do you understand that this is now how things are accomplished here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has to be concerned over my edits, I dont understand, my english is better than u, that user's interpretations are sub par, user grumpy is wasting administrators time and my time, with trivial personal grudge on me (about categories), I am not even editing those articles now, he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true??? time waste Murrallli (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the incoherent statement above, I think we can assume that this editor is either trolling or just doesn't get it. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 15:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Yet here we are. If you can calm down and discuss Andy's concerns about your edits, maybe you might find that there are better ways to accomplish what you want to accomplish. Everything here is decided by consensus and discussion - getting angry when questioned about an edit is not going to get you anywhere. He questioned your edits to categories, you responded by threatening to go to his house. That's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please stop repeating yourself, comments like "he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true???" do not make any sense in English. You need to listen to the good advice you are being given, or you might end up being blocked GiantSnowman 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin? Competence block? Looks a slam dunk to me.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it not a disparagement to refer to User:AndyTheGrump as "grumpy"? Please do not use such derogations against fellow editors. DrPhen (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not when Andy self-identifies as a grump through his username. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've no objection to being described as grumpy - but can we try and stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

On topic, they seem to have stopped editing for the moment, and their contribs in mainspace (other than the category thing, which they said they stopped) seem to be okay, so I'm not sure a competence block is indicated quite yet. If they come back posting the same thing yet again, then probably. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a contributor who shows no understanding whatsoever of basic Wikipedia policy, resorts to threats and claims of a conspiracy when challenged, and spams pages with self-evidently-false claims regarding skills in the English language [373] doesn't look 'competent' to me. As of yet we have had no acknowledgement whatsoever from the contributor that their edits were improper, and nothing to indicate that a similar problem won't arise in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And the instant that editor posts another aggressive or attacking comment, I'll betcha you have half a dozen admins who will indef - myself included. But that editor does have a history, over the past few months, of good editing - so I don't think the situation is beyond salvage, as yet. One calm "Maybe I overreacted, won't happen again, etc etc" comment here coupled with an agreement to stay out of the whole category issue, and this goes away. A return to form, and we get to click "Block user". Not entirely sure which it will be. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As Ultraexact said. Given that they've stopped, at least for now, we can afford to pull our punches a bit. If they continue being disruptive, then yes, blocks will be issued. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 21 May 2013 (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.

Indef for a vandal at Obama Sr's page

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.

---

• Bananaboyzz (talk · contribs)

Obviously not here to contribute, has a fixation on Barack Obama, Sr., changing the name of the president to "Dictator Barack Hussein Osama-Hitler-Stalin Un]" and racist overtones as well, altering Sr's cause of death to "too much KFC". Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. AIV may have been just as quick, but this works too. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:58, 21 May 2013 (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:Himesh84

This is user has now removed referenced content three times (1, 2, 3) from Jaffna kingdom which is a Good Article. I have tried explaining on the talk page the need for references and that his actions amounted to original research but he just ignores me. This editor has a long history of ignoring core content policies (see user's talk page) and has been blocked a number of times. --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 72 hours, for edit warring and disruption. The bright line wasn't crossed, but it's edit warring nonetheless. Note: one might expect a longer block, given their rather extensive log, but I see no evidence of name-calling or the use of racial or other slurs, which is what prompted earlier, longer blocks. If I missed them, feel free to lengthen the block. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was looking at that and debating action myself, not convinced a "Dear friend" letter was going to do the trick this time, so I have to agree with the block. I'm a bit concerned about the overall clue with the editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Good block. I'm afraid that this is becoming a lost cause but doesn't hurt to give yet another chance. I guess. --regentspark (comment) 20:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User Watti Renew

I added a comment (permalink) to Watti Renew (talk · contribs)'s talk page considering his behaviour. In Finnish Wikipedia, known there as simply Watti, he has been involved in two RfC:s (1, 2) regarding his/her disruptive editing and neglect of article scope. He/she also seems to continue his/her old habits in English Wikipedia, too. Please be careful about this user's contributions. --ilaiho (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Behavior on another project is not (yet) relevant here. If you have something specific you think requires admin intervention, you may bring that up. Without such specifics (that is, specific problematic edits that require some kind of action), this reads like blackballing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  In my comment at Watti Renew's talk page, I linked to this and this edit as examples of contributions to en that resemble those that were considered problematic in fi. I am not sure if this is the correct place for this thread, there are lots of different noticeboards in English Wikipedia. I just want to advice English Wikipedia admins to not allow the situation escalate to the same point as happened in Finnish Wikipedia. --ilaiho (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those paragraphs were way off-topic, especially the 2nd one and thus WP:UNDUE. But there's no immediate reason for administrative action. Your reverts address the problem adequately for now. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Parrot_of_Doom

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.

---

I came across User:Parrot_of_Doom while browsing the DR/N @ Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#A_Momentary_Lapse_of_Reason. I have no stake (nor opinion) in the actual content dispute, and note that User:Pigsonthewing is not blameless, but Parrot has a massive failure of several policies WP:3RR WP:CIVIL WP:OWN WP:NPA. This failure seems willfull, per the notice at the top of the user's talk page : " One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. [...] Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else."

His fundamental point may or may not be based in policy (Do featured articles have a higher standard of consensus/quality for incoming edits?), but his application thereof seems highly inappropriate.

and edit summaries such as "This is a featured article, either cite thing correctly and consistently or I will revert your changes. I make no apology for protecting an article against degradation like this"

or comments such as "Take your threats and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. If you want to add material here, do it properly, or lose it"

A few other choice diffs regarding previous warnings of policy violations [374] [375]

And it looks like he has been reported here quite a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=parrot+of+doom&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+noticeboards+%26+archives&fulltext=Search Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Old news, and you don't request any administrative action. I suggest you not bother PoD with a notification of this thread, and let me do it. I'm closing it.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict)This does not looks good. I see multiple problems with this user's behaviors. Most recently: WP: OWN problems (here), WP: NPA (calling another PotW's edit "degradation"), WP: CIVIL (refusing to discuss on the talk page) and general WP: IDHT. Something really needs to be done about this user's incivility. I fear it may create big problems in the future, especially for new editors. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 20:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  And what do you suggest that "something" ought to be? Eric Corbett 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  At least a stern warning. If it continues, possible future sanctions (e.g. blocks or 1RR restrictions perhaps). Open to suggestions, of course. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  You wouldn't like what I'd suggest, but it would involve acting like an adult, not a sulky child. Eric Corbett 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Please read WP: NPA. Calling other another editor a "sulky child" is not appropriate. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thank for the blue link, so instructive. Just remind me, who did I call a sulky child? Eric Corbett 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  (ec)So ... it's the job of the main editor on the page to just suck it up and deal with someone coming in and adding information (which may or may not be reliable) in any form the adding editor wants... no matter the fact that the article being added to is a featured article and must meet some criteria, including consistency of referencing format? Andy's not a newbie editor - he knows what a featured article is and he should know how to add reference information in different styles to conform to the style used in the article. Adding information in a style that doesn't conform to the article's consistent style IS degradation, especially in a featured article. I kinda doubt that PoD would have been nearly so bitey with a true newbie, but Andy should know better. Neither are clean here, and the best outcome would be for both of them to back down a bit. But right now I'm seeing calls for PoD to back down, but nothing about the confrontational additions from the other side. Frankly, as someone with a decent number of article edits under my belt, I find the constant demands that I clean up other editor's messes sometimes very very trying. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

PoD is quite correct to be vigilant about ensuring quality of articles. He however must do so without edit warring, making unilateral ownership decisions, and making repeated uncivil attacks against other editors. As I stated in my original comment, Pigs also has issues, but the issue with Parrot is that these isues appear to be endemic, and since he has seen fit to post on his user page that he will completely ignore all such issues, and that those who disagree should "screw off". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wholeheartedly agree. The edit wasn't particularly sound, and I know i've seen Pigsonthewing here at AN/I before. That still doesn't make it ok to direct those kinds of comments at other users. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from some kind of selective blindness. Why did you choose to bring PoD here rather than Pigsonthewing, who I believe has served two lengthy bans for his behaviour? Eric Corbett 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Content aside (and is the change for a band image from 1971 to 1973 verified?), this edit is just of real poor quality--I know how much time it takes to get the referencing right, and sticking in a bare URL and a "reference" like this, <ref>[[Classic Rock (magazine)|Classic Rock]]'' 2010 calendar</ref>, in an FA, that's in such poor taste that I can't fault PoD for getting exasperated. "because you don't like the formatting", as is cited in an edit summary or two, is totally off the mark: the formatting sucks, and continuing to add it without addressing the problem (PoD stated repeatedly on the talk page that he won't stand in the way of the addition of properly formatted referenced information) is...what, baiting, really. Perhaps Pigsonthewing doesn't care about another block and feels he can afford one, but we should not let him mess up an FA in hopes of other editors cleaning up his mess. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Mabbett's edits were crap; the bare ref, the middling trivia about the beds and the tide roll-in, and the technically incorrect caption alteration (protip; a poster isn't the same thing as a gatefold). Bad edits + churlish non-attempts to explain oneself deserve the type of reaction that Parrot gave. Civility is a trivial concern compared with making an artcle worse than it was before one touched it. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal Now that a little light has been shed on this case, I think we can come to a conclusion. I propose that both editors be warned, Pigsonthewing for making bad/baiting edits, and Parrot of Doom for incivility. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  And that would be likely to achieve what in your opinion? Sometimes adults need to be allowed to disagree. Eric Corbett 22:58, 21 May 2013 (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:Hortobagy

I would like to raise attention for User:Hortobagy. He violated 3 revert rule dozen's and dozen's of times in the past few days. For example:

• 8 reverts in 24 hours (Actually he created an unwanted fork article):

[376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383]

• An article had been speedy deleted, however he recreated it. His second article has been speedy deleted recently. Romani autonomy in Hungary
• He deliberately creates unwanted forks or articles without sources. For example:[384]

Please check his contributions. Is it normal what he is doing??? Fakirbakir (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, IMO he's heading for a ban. While we're on the subject, this reminds me a bit of Bonaparte (talk · contribs). Anyone remember him? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#4_Socks. Dricherby (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• While you folk decide what to do about the editor in the long term, I've blocked them for one week based on a report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:SpazAbiogenesis

User:SpazAbiogenesis is an obvious block-evading sockpuppet of User:MDPub13 and User:EunuchRU, both of whom have been indeffed for personal attacks, threats and block evasion. SpazAbiogenesis is continuing to post the exact same abusive vandalism that MDPub13 was blocked for.

User:MDPub13 admitted his ability and intent to engage in massive sockpuppetry.

An open SPI case exists at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis, but has not yet been responded to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal Threat at Help Desk

User:Joseph2707 has made a legal threat at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Correction_or_retraction_required Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The legal threat was made as a result of a WP:BLP violation that has been properly removed by User:AndyTheGrump. Andy has also warned the user of WP:NPA. I can't speak for other admins, but I'm not inclined to block the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - WP:NLT policy makes it entirely clear that we don't jump down the throat of someone making a reasonable complaint about a WP:BLP violation or the like simply on the grounds that they use words like 'sue'. We cannot assume that every non-contributor is familiar with the finer points of Wikipedia policy, and to do so is a sure-fire way to escalate things unnecessarily. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has linked it, WP:DOLT should be read, to wit, "When newcomers blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." --Jayron32 03:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wer900 proposing to proxy-edit on behalf of site-banned user Captain Occam

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.

---

• Wer900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Captain Occam (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Akuri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stanistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Captain Occam has become one of the most disruptive site-banned users on wikipedia. He has edited through several proxy editors including his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin (now site-banned by arbcom) and TrevelyanL85A2 (a cyberfriend of his girlfriend, now indefinitely blocked) amongst others. With his girlfriend he has also socked as Zeromus1 (blocked by arbcom), Mors Martell (also blocked by arbcom) and most recently it would appear through Akuri (blocked by arbitrators). Through a series of sockpuppets and proxy-editors, most notably the indefinitely blocked user Cla68, he has continued to wage an irrational vendetta against me. The sockpuppet Akuri was discovered recently for reasons connected with that. Captain Occam's editing through others has been obsessive and disruption-only. At the moment he is using wikipediocracy as his base. A user active there, Wer900, has proposed to act as a proxy editor for Captain Occam on wikipedia to continue his campaigns here.[385] I have never been aware of the activitives of Wer900 on wikipedia but was notified of their posting by the new notification process. That is a splendid innovation. If Wer900 is intending to act as a disruptive agent for a site-banned user, who has caused huge amounts of disruption already on wikipedia through proxies and sockpuppets, please could his editing be dealt with in an efficient way? Captain Occam is amongst the site-banned editors to have caused large amounts of disruption since being banned. All indications were that Akuri, a disruption-only account, was operated by Captain Occam. That account was blocked recently by arbitrators. So now, seemingly as a direct consequence of that block, Captain Occam is delving deeper into his dirty tricks bag to make mischief on wikipedia. (On the off-wiki site Wikipediocracy, User:Stanistani and User:Cla68 have encouraged disruption by Captain Occam. Stanistani is now behaving in a disruptive way on wikipedia.[386]) Mathsci (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to act as a "disruptive agent," I'm merely interested in filing a case on his behalf. I've emailed arbcom-I on whether or not such a case has been policy-compliant. If you look through my contribution records, I've not gone anywhere near Captain Occam in the past, and as stated above I'm trying to accomplish this in the most policy-compliant fashion possible. Please end this needless witch-hunt as soon as possible. Wer900 • talk 03:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was interested in governance reform of the community, and hoped that the case recommended by Captain Occam could in some way further the construction of further institutions. Again, I've messaged ArbCom to see whether my proposed actions would be compliant with policy or not. Wer900 • talk 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of free inquiry, Mathsci has the right to face his accusers. Since his accusers are banned and blocked, the community can't do anything in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Openly proxy-editing to promote the disruption-only agenda of a user, site-banned by arbcom, can only result in your own editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Given the history connected with WP:ARBR&I, particularly recently, it is known that Captain Occam (with his friends) has knowingly engaged in deceptive editing on wikipedia. So editing on his behalf as you admit to doing is not permitted on wikipedia. You cannot act as the agent for a disruption-only arbcom-banned account like Captain Occam. He is an extreme case. You might think it's fun, but that is not how wikipedia works. You are simply continuing Captain Occam's purely malicious campaigns. How difficult is it to understand that? Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

He may not be aware of this. Best to AGF until proven otherwise. Wer900 may have just opened a can of worms without really understanding the backstory. Maybe it is best to let this go, close the thread, and hope he drops it. I realize that this requires you to make a leap of faith, but you have nothing to lose. At this point, I think he deserves to be able to safely exit this thread with nothing more than a reminder. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wer900, you need to stop this. Captain Occam is definitely not welcome to edit through proxies here, be it in matters of article content or with Arbcom requests or anything. Doing anything at all here on Wikipedia at his request is a very very bad idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm stopping this. I'l relay to Captain Occam that I cannot edit on his behalf. Wer900 • talk 04:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Wer900: "Apparently Mathsci has taken ownership of articles related to Poland"

That's here. [387] I have never edited any articles to do with Poland. Wer900 has mistaken me for someone else and has caused unnecessary offence. Is that why he has submitted a report in private to the arbitration committee? If Wer900 has no idea what's going on, he would be better off leaving matters alone. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what Captain Occam and others have told me on Wikipediocracy; I shouln't take it on faith. Again, I have no desire to extend this. Any admin can close the thread at this point. Wer900 • talk 04:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A sensible solution. Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Wer900 cannot come on wikipedia repeating things like this just because site-banned Captain Occam has said it on wikipediocracy. My last 2000 content edits on wikipedia have been in mathematics, on the topic of hermitian symmetric space, Jordan operator algebra, Mutation (Jordan algebra), symmetric cone, Quadratic Jordan algebra, etc. No articles even vaguely related to Poland. If Captain Occam has been making false statements off-wiki, why repeat them on wikipedia? Akuri is mentioning Wer900 now on his talk page. More evidence, if it were needed, that Akuri is an account operated by Captain Occam.[388] Not good. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2013 (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.

removal of comments

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.

---

Bbb23 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing comments of myself, IP 24.61.9.111, and Little green rosetta [389] [390]. My reference to applicable policy on their talk page [391] was not responded to. I'd like the comment restored.

Prior discussion regarding closing may be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_10#archivetop_and_collapse_tags. NE Ent 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• You invoked WP:TPO in your question to Bbb, but I don't see how this noticeboard is a TP, v/r. There was a thread asking for admin intervention, none was forthcoming, an admin decides it's not actionable, end of story. Asking Arthur Rubin to explain Arthur Rubin's edits on Arthur Rubin's talk page seems like a good idea to me. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not how Wikipedia works, Drmies. Wikipedia makes decisions based upon consensus, not individual administrative opinions. Administrators only implement community consensus, they do not unilaterally makes up rules as they go along. I am concerned that you think there is some great divide between administrators and editors. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the lesson. Should every admin bring every single block to this board for your approval? Drmies (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• This and this are in absolute violation of policy. Bbb23 is warned against further violations of policy through editing and/or removing comments that are not his. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing what's wrong here. The discussion was closed, and Bbb23's comment seems to be entirely appropriate. Now, if someone had reopened the thread, then it wouldn't have been so bad - and I'm surprised neither LGR nor Ent took that route. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment was rhretorical stating in not so many words that if AR did not use any admin functions, so he was not required to give a response per INVOLVED. For the record, I'm ok with bbb23's comment removal per his edit summary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's common to be reverted over a closed discussion, at times drop the stick must be enforced without blocks it seems that the discussion ran it's course. Why keep adding fuel for the fire Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Just another voice echoing that its pretty common practice to revert comments made after a close, and that those comments could just as easily been made directly to the person's talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The close was not modified in any way. Additional comments were added in the same section but under the archived messages, as is consistent with policy. It is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy to remove comments from other editors. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Removing comments that were made after a section is closed, in the same section, is not a policy violation and it is done as a matter of course as it is, in fact, continuing the closed discussion. If the discussion is to be continued it needs to be unclosed, or to be re-started in an entirely new section - "tacking on" to the bottom of a closed discussion is acting as if it were not closed and is asking for the comments to be reverted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• And now Arthur Rubin himself is violating policy by removing comments. Interestingly, he only removed them after he commented and didn't like the direction they were headed. Additionally, AR is making wildly inappropriate sock puppet allegations. This is now three policy violations on the part of AR, WP:3rr, WP:TPG, and WP:HARASSMENT. The questions remains will anyone pull the block trigger on AR because he is an admin despite clear and unambiguous violations of several policies? My guess is "no". 24.61.9.111 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a wild ass guess that AR is removing your comments because he possibly thinks you are an indeffed user and effectively banned.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you were just talking about the importance of coming to consensus, and there's clearly no consensus forming to support such a block, so that was a pretty good guess. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Block 24.61.9.111

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.

---

I guess my original wild ass guess that this ip belonged to User:StillStanding-247 was incorrect. A quick look at the edit history of our ip user above, it is most certainly the same person behind the account of indeffed User:Basket of Puppies. Both the account and ip have shown an overwhelming interest in Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak. Hopefully a passing admin will block and someone else will make this section go blue and that will be that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am neither of the above. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin and Little green rosetta. Per their constributions I have blocked this IP as a sock of Basket of Puppies. De728631 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (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.

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:Tabarez: Edit warring and WP:OWN on Iranian presidential election, 2013

Tabarez was warned last night (21 May, 2013) by admin Toddst1 that "Continued edit warring on Iranian presidential election, 2013 or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice", but is at it again this morning, reverting other ppl's edits and making edits with total disregard for the opinion of others. An attitude that he has also shown on all other articles he has edited during his short but very active career here on en-WP. In spite of numerous ppl posting both stern warnings and friendly advice on his talk page (which he has blanked). He has also uploaded a fairly large number of images with dubious copyright claims, of which some have been speedily deleted as blatant copyvios while most of the others have been tagged as possibly unfree, and currently up for discussion. The uploads, the edit warring and the tendency to treat all articles he edits as his own property makes me believe that there is a WP:CIR problem, something that a period of forced rest from en-WP might help solve, by making him realize that he can't go on the way he currently does. Thomas.W (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I warns and I know what he said. But User:Farhikht reverted all my edits in the page. I add to page talk about the inbox but he only reverted. I add polls. You can see the page now. It's not correct. In inbox, only candidates with major chance must be not all candidates. Their name must be complete not A.M.AAA!!!! Please warns to him not me. Tabarez (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I can add that there also seems to be a language problem, with User:Tabarez possibly not understanding the advice and the warnings he gets. Which also means that there is very little meaning in pointing him to policy pages and general information for new editors. Thomas.W (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I don't know English completely but why he reverted all my edits in other sections? I correct the names that are incomplete but he reverted. Tabarez (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Tabarez: I explained you many times, on your talk page as well as on the article's talk page. But the fact is that you ignore all these friendly advice and warnings. I can provide diffs of all these warnings, your edit wars, etc if it's necessary.Farhikht (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabarez (talk · contribs) and Farhikht (talk · contribs) both blocked 24 hours for edit warring. I suspect this is problem is not over yet. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Too little on User:Tabarez and too much on User:Farhikht IMHO, since it was Tabarez who caused the problems. For whatever my opinion is worth. Thomas.W (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

82.166.145.2

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

Could someone try to get 82.166.145.2's attention to stop them copy pasting Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs articles into the encyclopedia please ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm worried about more than just the copyright violation, they seem to be dumping a lot of opinion into articles that isn't sourced. I've blocked three months (static IP) to essentially force them to discuss the issues. Any admin is free to unblock without notification once they are clued in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

TheWikipreditor

Moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#TheWikipreditor. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I spotted some blatant advertising by TheWikipreditor (talk · contribs) and went back through his submissions. They had all been declined but I blanked most of them as near- or actual-blatant advertising and clear violations of the NPOV policy. Just wanted to give you all a heads up in case anyone asks about it. I've also raised issues about his username ("Wiki PR Editor"?) on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good call on the blanking, I've just found at least two containing copyright violations. His username has already been reported to UAA but a block was declined by the patrolling admin. Pol430 talk to me 09:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this has been moved here; the editor has stopped editing. Now that they have been 'educated' and gone away, perhaps they will one day return with a clearer idea of what Wikipedia is and is not. I don't see a pressing need for sanctions at this time. Pol430 talk to me 11:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I jumped the gun on this one. Oops. We are discussing the concept of a script blacklist here, so that will help with these inexperienced reviewer issues. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

delete my AC ASAP

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.

---

Look yeah...

I don't belong here

So delete my AC ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wat r u waiting 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by their edits, this person has either WP:COMPETENCE issues or is not here for the betterment of the 'pedia. Can someone step in and give them the block they seem to be requesting? Heiro 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wan some RESPECT. Anyway, who was meant to understand those anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (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.

AfC User's Rash Approvals

I have been active in #wikipedia-en-help for a little while now. At least 90% of the "editing help" questions are about the AFC process, and 90% of that is a familiar routine; the wait time, the COI issues (the vast majority of it is corporates or PR types, alas), WP:ADVERT, what's a good reference, why those aren't good references, why those references "do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

So far, so good. A couple of days ago someone came in asking about what is now Eric_Sanicola; in the course of discussion, they (entirely predictably) proved to be Mr Sanicola, who had written the entire thing himself. (Not grounds for rejection itself, but not a good start). We gave him the usual spiel - references not reliable or mention him only in passing, notability is not infectious, etc. - but at the end of the discussion, User:Coolboygcp pops in for some other purpose and says "sure, I'll approve it"... and did.

This seems to me to be quite contrary to the reviewing instructions - and frankly, it seems a little futile to hang around in the help channel explaining the need for good references if someone else will come in and approve articles with junk references.

I attempted to discuss this with User:Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled; a flat denial that there was anything wrong with the article. On checking further, their contribs consist of a series of AFC approvals many of which seem dubious, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association I am not the only editor to have an issue with them.

I'm seeking advice on what should be done next. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are certainly some highly questionable accepts among User:Coolboygcp's contribs. Apart from this, has the user been asked (on-Wiki) on be more careful and pointed in the direction of the reviewing guidelines? Pol430 talk to me 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I got a flat denial on IRC that there was any kind of problem. IRC does tend to make people terse, but if you agree that there is an issue, I would be grateful if you (or someone else) would bring it up on-Wiki; I appreciate a sanity check that I'm not overreacting. I observe the Eric Sanicola article has been CSDed. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're overreacting, but I don't think the Eric Sanicola article is the worst of them (CSD has been declined). I'd rather someone else took them in hand, a third opinion won't hurt and I've already raised one editor's AfC work at AN/I today – I don't want to earn a reputation :P Pol430 talk to me 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.

I had no idea that there were this many editors interested in my contributions.

Additionally, when I read the quote: "I attempted to discuss this with Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled:", I proceeded to laugh hysterically. I did no "stonewall" Pinkbeast, in any way whatsoever.

When I corresponded with him/her, I provided several reasons as to why I approved the Eric Sanicola article. I truly cannot comprehend why he/she would fabricate such an accusation and story about me. However, Pinkbeast has repeatedly threatened me on the mentioned IRC channel several time. Threats such as, "if you upload that image, I will delete it", and I will report you if you upload that image, as well as "I will report you for even thinking about creating that article". Additionally, he/she has repeatedly misinformed dozens of editors and users who come to the IRC channel in order to seek useful, and proper advice and help, who instead receive misinformation and incorrect instructions among other worrisome advice.

In fact, I would advise that Pinkbeast has exhibited very much more worrisome, and detrimental behavior and conduct. Coolboygcp (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CB: Please feel free to show equivilant examples of Pinkbeast's disruptive behavior/content. Your behavior on the other hand causes problems, both for volunteers and the project as a whole. Your article approvals could cause editors and admins to have to edit the newly minted article and potentially have to go through the process of deleting it, having to sort out a policy morass, or potentially opens the foundation to liability. I'm saying this as nicely as possible, be extra careful with your approvals due to the fact that previous approvals have been questioned. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These accusations are false. If there is any doubt about that, I would suggest contacting other users of that channel to see if their clients keep sufficient scrollback; I believe any of User:gwickwire, User:TheOriginalSoni, User:Huon, or User:Yngvadottir might do so. For the avoidance of doubt, I am completely happy to have any comment I addressed on-channel to User:Coolboygcp, or any comment to anyone similar to those above, made public.

The only discussion I have had with User:Coolboygcp about images is that I declined to upload a non-free image for them, responding that "I can't really see that there is much justification for using a nonfree image there" (direct quote) after quoting the Wikimedia Commons guidance on non-free images verbatim.Pinkbeast (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've lightly interacted with Coolboygcp in the past. The direct interaction between us was minimal, and if there was, I dont have a strong memory or a log of it. What I do carry is an impression of him trying to help others, though giving quite a few wrong advices. Based on only that impression I carry from there (which I think were based on some articles he was involved in), I think he might make a good reviewer if nudged properly. I think a mandatory adoption for him before he can continue reviewing articles might be sufficient.

Also, IMO IRC interactions have a lot better chance of actually generating a positive response and actually solving the problem than escalating the issue, which I've often found on-wiki interactions do. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Looking through his declines, and his assurances that nothing is wrong, when many of his reviews clearly are, anyone willing to support an attempt to get a topic ban? Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through some of his approvals and am the one that nominated the article that brought this up for CSD, which was declined, and subsequently nominated for AfD by myself, which at my last check had only one other person with a Delete nomination and no Keeps. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be best, but I'm not exactly unbiased here. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They're still at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history is an approval of an AFC which took a whole five hours to get G11ed! Pinkbeast (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure IRC is the best way to communicate to people about what they might be doing wrong. Suggesting improvements or problems to people on their user talk pages leaves a record, which can be very helpful for anyone coming with subsequent problems. (It also eliminates pointless disputes like the above about what has been said.) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree; I just happened to see him pop up there while I was thinking about it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from reviewing AfC submissions for a period of three months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• There comes a time perhaps where some reviewers should be asked to cease reviewing, at least for a while, such as in the past we have had to ask patrollers to stop patrolling new pages. A polite request rather than a formal topic ban may be sufficient. Like many meta areas, AfC is one that attracts many relatively new and/or inexperienced editors. This has always been a thorn in the side of the AfC process which often requires an admin level of knowledge of inclusion policies. I am absolutely not advocating that only admins should review the pages - there is backlog enough - but some campaign to attract truly experienced editors to the task would probably not go unrewarded. Nothing will change much however until the Foundation comes up with a decent landing page for new users / new, new-page creators. Concurring with DGG, transparecy is required for discussions and IRC is not followed by any means by everyone. Some of us do not use it at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We have one example here, an AFC approval which has now survived AFD. Before topic banning anyone we should be looking at enough diffs to form a pattern, and that pattern would need to indicate a problem. But if an editor's judgement has been born out by the article surviving AFD then it is the rest of the AFC community who have got this one wrong. Note I'm not proposing that Pinkbeast be topic banned from AFC simply for this one case where he declined an AFC submission that went on to pass AFD, I'm hoping that that is an isolated mistake and a learning experience. But there is something deeply wrong with the AFC process when it is regarded as controversial that someone approves an AFC that goes on to survive AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was improved enormously (by someone else) while the AFD process was going on; the version that was approved was essentially uncited and bears little resemblance to the one people were commenting on later in the AFD process. This is not the only example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_1&oldid=551942369#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association (expunged from talkpage history)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history (G11ed within eight hours)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Construction_Contracts (notability? And the article is basically a pointless list of stuff.)

These are likely not the only ones, just what a quick trawl finds. I think a more compelling argument for opposing is that the editor appears to have stopped doing it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, addendum, I have never in my life declined (or accepted) an AFC submission. But if I had declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Sanicola&oldid=551199625 I feel I would have been right to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Copied to ANI here Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think some of his approvals are questionable, however we need a more thorough investigation before doing anything rash. I have started a thread at the WP:ANI, and have copied our discussion here as well as adding my own comments. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also informed everyone involved in this discussion via the ANI template. I hope this is due diligence - I even notified myself. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ummm... I think I said all I had to say in that AfC discussion and had thought this issue was closed. Echo me if you need clarification of what I had said, but otherwise I've nothing further to add at this time. (I'm not monitoring this discussion as I would rather stay away from ANI right now but will check back in a "few" days). Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - While there does seem to be a problem, its too premature to throwing around topic bans yet. There needs to be further discussion, and a longer pattern of troubling decisions, before that is warranted to be discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would like the editor to voluntarily stop approving AFC's right now, based on their poor history. If they refuse to do it, then I will 100% support a 3 month topic ban (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in general against a topic ban on Coolboygcp because I think its neccesary that we try to approach him directly and help him understand the reviewer functions more before trying anything of this sort. We need more reviewers, and not less, and AGF, I believe, coolboygcp's intentions are good. Maybe we ought to suggest him to be adopted by another experienced reviewer before he actively reviews articles again? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose á la flying off the handle with this one. Basket _Feudalist 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Coolboygcp does, judging by the diffs that have been posted here and his response here, not have the competence/maturity needed for the job, and should be stopped before he causes even more damage to WP. Thomas.W (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Bwilkins, I also think they can think of voluntarily stopping AFC review for sometime (2—3 weeks?), in addition they should be more careful in future, but, I don't support the "Topi ban" right now! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance. I'm not seeing any sign of Coolboygcp realizing their acceptances were problematic, and I see recent creation of two articles of their own that have been deleted as non-notable, so I don't think they "get" the criteria yet. So rather than ask them - again - to hold off on accepting any more articles at AfC for a while, I think we'd better make that official: for a short time. They can always consult with someone else if they think an article is ready, and should be encouraged to do so. Making it official will send the message that they really do need to re-read and internalize the criteria (including, for example, checking for copyvio in the obvious places). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just AFC that's the problem...

• Support per User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace. Copyvios, plainly non-notable articles, and articles that were recreated in the same state after being deleted at AfD. That was only a small subset. They weren't all AFC submissions, some were userspace drafts that the user took it upon themseslves to move into mainspace. When I redirected the unsourced non-notable article, the editors response was to tell another editor that I was "some random vandal" [392]. And then, personally, created an article for a fictional recipe in an episode of a TV program. Here you go - have another completely unsourced list of dubious notability. Unsourced BLP anyone?. This one is not only a G11 but also a G12 ... etc, etc, etc. A topic ban per WP:CIR is required here. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• SupportPer BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment He also seems to be committing copyvios. A great portion of this text is pasted straight from here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• BLP vio [393] unsourced accusations against a BLP. This is a copyvio from here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note That copyvio was made with the creation of the page back in 2007. [394] It is not the editor's fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Editor's competency is clearly insufficient to continue reviewing AfCs and their behaviour so far shows me that they don't seem to take well intentioned advice onboard. Indeed, their responses show a certain combativeness that leads me to suggest they won't stop voluntarily. This, taken into consideration with the evidence of introducing copyvios, makes a topic ban entirely justified IMO. Pol430 talk to me 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per WP:CIR and the editor's demonstrated unwillingness to take good advice on board. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC).
• Support a topic ban per Black Kite. For whatever reason, this is clearly not a user who has the judgement to participate in AFC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite and Bishonen, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - If Arbcom requires intermediate steps of dispute resolution before considering the sanctioning of an editor, why do we so routinely see calls for sanctions here when nothing of an equivalent is considered. This is RFC/U material, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. It is reasonable to insist that users who are involved in reviewing AFC contributors' work -- and giving advice to those contributors -- show an awareness of and willingness to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This user's record at AFC, the incidents described here, and the WP:BLP/WP:NPOV/WP:V violations I found when reviewing the user's recent edit history (diff) lead me to conclude that this user is not currently qualified to evaluate the main-space acceptability of other users' contributions. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Commenting so this unresolved discussion won't get archived. (The user hasn't edited in several days and this discussion has gotten quiet.) --Orlady (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support When I read the title "AfC User's Rash Approvals", I thought let me report coolyboygcp here and voila, whole discussion is about him. When I had noticed him sometime back, he not only approved "yet not ready" articles, but went ahead and gave "B" ratings on quality scale to the Stubs.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this started off as a dispute about afc & now it has turned into a "shitstorm" of "everybody-hates-coolboygcp".

first: the discussion has been split by what seems to be an unnecessary subsection, which makes it more difficult to tally opinions; that needs to get sorted out.

second: this started off as a discussion about coolboygcp's actions in afc, NOT as a "general-complaint" about said user. IF we want to convert it to a general complaint about the competence/merits/etc. of the user, then let's do so openly (rename/restart the topic, revise the suggested sactions accordingly). IF NOT, then let's please try to stay on-topic? right now the cat & the kitchen sink are competing for attention in this discussion, & i breathlessly await the next startling revelation from this user's sordid history.

whereas, if you look @ the user's overall contributions, it actually doesn't look like the antichrist has come to wikipedia (yet?)

third: some of the "excitement" in this discussion needs to cool down. there's nothing this user is doing that is vandalizing or irrevocably harming the project; we can afford to take a little bit longer, reaching a decision here. given the agitation & strong feelings of some of the commentors, perhaps we should seek a wider range of opinions within the community before reaching a decision?

(i'd also like to know how many people were "social-networked" into the discussion)

fourth: while i may not agree with some of the cited editorial decisions by coolboygcp, i think that a topic ban (or any other, broader sanction) would be an OVER-REACTION.

this started off as a squabble @ afc; absent some urgent problem, or persistent edit-warring, it shouldn't have been brought here.

there are plently of (you should pardon the expression) "hard-ass" editors @ wikipedia, who freely vote "no" to most new contributions & "yes" to most deletions; they get along just fine & seldom face sanctions for their actions, except for the most severe abuses.

this editor is perhaps a bit too permissive, but there's no "severe abuse" at hand & they shouldn't face any worse sanction than a comparable editor who is excessive "in the other direction". when we start to hand out tougher sanctions for "deletionist" zealotry, then we can revisit this case.

right now, there aren't enough "inclusionists" @ wikipedia & this editor isn't doing any harm. you'll note that (at least) one of the cited "rash approvals" that sparked this argument has survived DR.

that said; if anybody can build a real case for the actions of this editor being or becoming harmful (or at least egregiously incompetent) to the project, i'll reconsider my vote. right now it just looks like a local spat @ the afc sub-project, that's turned into a "pile-on" here.

i'll finish by c&p'ing my comment from the original discussion @ afc; other parts of which have already been copied above

"*Oppose with all due respect, simply not liking or not agreeing with another editor's decisions is insufficient grounds for a ban. Lx 121 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)"

endrant

Lx 121 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

post-script: as per somebody else's comment (either here or @ afc) it's not really good or useful to cite an irc chat, when nobody else has access to the text. Lx 121 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lx, I'd like to WP:TLDR that entire rant. But, since I read it, I can't do that. So I shall respond. This is not (in a major sense) an ideological debate between inclusionism and deletionism. (full disclosure: I am a precisionist.) This is an incident involving an AfC reviewer flying in the face of article guidelines. Also, you provided no evidence for your contention that there are editors who abuse the process the other way. And even if they did, that should not be evidence to end this dispute. Sanctions should be issued to the (theoretical) deletionist abusers as they should be issued here. TheOneSean | Talk to me 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

oppose - I'm not sure that its' fair to ban someone simply for having a different threshold of notability than you. He isn't breaching policy exactly, He is simply approving articles that someone else could in good faith not approve. Both perspectives are reasonable. Personally, I would never even think to make something like Australian Construction Contracts which is frankly almost lethally tedious but the article is well cited and well referenced. If his standards are dramatically out sync or out of whack with 99% of the community's, that's a cause for mentorship or advice, not for just banning from a vital responsibility solely because of one potential slip up (re: Eric Sanicola, an article that actually looks pretty good despite the hyperbolic assertions made elsewhere). DrPhen (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support User is clearly far from ready from even providing input on AFC. I encountered this edit on Country Crock connected to the 'Sketti' article BlackKite mentioned a couple weeks back going into detail about the 'recipe' on that reality show and a highly inappropriate hypothesis that the product is mostly used by low-income households. I reverted it because it seemed ridiculous to mention it in a product article, especially as it could be 'made' just as well with generic margarine (though I'd also delete it on the margarine article just as well), and the financial wellness attack. The user's page is filled with deleted or AfD'ed articles. If they're not even ready to edit in article space on a regular basis (or in template space), they should be nowhere near approving articles for creation. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

An admin to close this topic ban proposal one way or the other, please. Also, as far as I can see, Lx 121 has two !votes in here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)