Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709

User: HRH2

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be grateful if someone could take a look at the above new user, who has posted threatening and abusive messages on my talk page [1], [2], [3], [4], as well as edit warring at King's College London (and making it very clear that they have a conflict of interest in respect of the subject of that article). Thank you. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one week; there's really no excuse for this sort of thing. The IP who left similar remarks is probably caught under that block, but should still be watched. --Danger (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This gets very close to WP:NLT is a week long enough ? Mtking (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have extended it to INDEFINITE and advised the editor accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD, AGF, and other things

I say people should put up or, um, shut up, since accusations of WP:POINT--such as the characterization of my having filed the Camel toe AfD as somehow an illicit campaign--ought to be brought to the appropriate forum and sorted out, to avoid such accusations from being bandied about in such a way as only to stifle the debate that was started. Any reading at all of best wp:EDITing practices on Wikipedia state that to debate various interpretations of the guidelines offered in good faith help the project by establishing current editing consensus. Further, it's a violation of Assuming Good Faith and a host of other basic principles to clog up content disputations with commentary about other editors. That is all. (arrgggh)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ANI not the random rambling sounding off board. What sort of admin intervention are you asking for? Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Seriously: It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camel toe (2nd nomination). I don't think any administrative action is required here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Andrewa#A little synopsis for my take on this. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a decent synopsis. Coming here after forumshopping to Jimbo and having brought it up on ANI already seems like a Plaxico style move; like when being accused of sockpuppetry or of not assuming good faith, claiming repeated behavior isn't pointy generally proves pointiness. tedder (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It is those who insist on personal attacks that are engaged in wp:Tendentious editing. For example, the assertion has been falsely made that a pointer about a content discussion currently underway on Jimbo Wales's talkpage is wp:FORUMSHOPPING, despite what this guideline REALLY says: "You can...draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together...." What produces such dis- ...or at least mis-information as to claim exactly the opposite, I wonder? As wp:CANVASSING specifically notes, editors are ENCOURAGED to post such notices (quoting wp:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification here) "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed."

What kind of ominous, "repeated behavior" of mine does e/g user:Tedder reference, exactly? Repeated editing of Wikipedia? Indeed, this "argument" provides a precise example of the "attack" solipsisms I refer to in this report. What are the guidelines are alleged that I violated and precisely how have I done so? Is that too much to ask?--since Wp:POINT says nothing about discussing a content issue on a user's talkpage, such as at that of user:Jimbo Wales's, nor does it say anything whatsoever about an editor's bringing up what s/he perceives as personal attacks in two closely filed threads at wp:ANI.

The only consistent thread of thought whatsoever to these claims is one of ad hoc disparagement of me, personally--with the seeming circular reasoning of "User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden is up to no good therefore this user's discussing an issue with Jimbo is no good, this user's discussion of other editors' chips-on-their-shoulders is no good, etc." I see an analogy with what I read within the biograrphy Henry Darger: In the Realms of the Unreal today; one episode in the book that stands out, for me, is how, at the turn of the 20th Century, the young (and likely Asperger's syndrome suffering) Barger was was falsely pigeonholed as not sane by examining physicians due to Barger's compulsive "self-abuse" (masterbation), all according to the diagnostic cul de sac: One's "self-abuse" must be due to one's mental illness; and what proves one has a mental illness is one's "self-abuse." Likewise, the aphorism "Claiming repeated behavior isn't pointy generally proves pointiness" seems philosophically suspect to me: more akin a Medieval regimen for discerning an alleged practitioner of witchcraft than a concise distillation of actual Wikipedia policies.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A large handful of users have said it's pointy. Sometimes that's called a consensus. tedder (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion remains that you are conducting a campaign to impose a personal preference which has been repeatedly rejected by consensus, and that it's in everyone's interest including your own that you stop. What would it take to persuade you to do this? Andrewa (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As a paraphrase of the old legal saw, "If the guidelines are on your side, lay out your argument according to a detailed examination of the guidelines; if the editing histories are on your side, lay out the applicable diffs; but if neither are on your side, confuse the matter by attacking your disputant's motives and character."

I have absolutelly no idea where anyone got the impression I have posted more than one AfD and one RM on this topic. The record plainly shows, after another editor moved most of Camel toe to Wiktionary, in good faith I posted this present AfD--my first and only one ever on this topic--on June 18, here" [[wp::Articles for deletion/Camel toe (2nd nomination)]]--and that prior to this Wikitionary entry having been expanded, I had suggested alternate rubrics for the slang term camel toe via an RM--likewise my one and only, ever--here: Talk:Camel_toe#Requested move. To draw an analogy from the essay wp:Don't revert due to "no consensus" [first paragraph of essay's lede]:

"Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is 'no consensus' for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to 'first discuss'. Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus."' "[¶ ... ¶ ... ¶ ...]"

--in this case, we have a wolfpack of editors alleging I am conducting some kind of campaign due to my personal preferences and therefore having been guilty of violating wp:POINT. If that makes for a so-called consensus, despite there being no detailed explanation backing up this claim, then such consensus is meaningless. That's why we have ANI: these points (pardon the pun) should be hashed out here (although most effectively with diffs) and not on the live discussion pages dedicated to content, in my opinion. In any case, in the current situation, I myself have chosen NOT to provide the diffs but this is only because my disputants' arguments right here in this ANI thread illustrate the very point I am making concerning them; however, note that they have been unhelpfully posted in Talk:Camel toe and at the AFD and noone (except me) bothered to raise these behavioral issues here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But what do you want done now? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camel toe (2nd nomination) isn't over yet. If your AfD doesn't go your way, you can either drop it, or appeal to WP:Deletion review. If you were to respond by starting a new thread in some forum other than DRV, or attempt some other evasion, then that would be forum shopping, and ignoring consensus, which would prove your critics correct. If the article is deleted as you requested, and you then proceed to create a new article that the move discussion opposed, that would also prove your critics correct that the nomination was pointy and against consensus. So what happens next really depends on your choices. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My complaint here at ANI is not about content but about the rampant accusations regarding editor conduct focused at me in the AfD. (Nonetheless, to answer your hypothetical <sighs>: I feel no great interest, before even its occurance, in filing a Deletion review. Well, if the admin that closed somehow egregiously violated basic AfD closing practices or guidelines in some way I might consider doing so, I suppose. Does this answer to your hypothetical help? Btw, I've never filed such a review in the past, that I can remember. fwiw. <shakes head in wonder at the pointlessness of this line of inquiry>)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you a hypothetical question. I made a statement about how your choices affect the future. The question I asked was, "what do you want done now?" You brought this thread back to AIN for some purpose. What is that purpose? What are you asking the administrators to do here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I believe an appropriate response to a belabored discussion of conduct within an AfD would be to scroll it up and add a header such as, "Off topic discussion best pursued elsewhere." Be that as it may, should you now wish to document your allegations w/rgd to pointiness on my part, one would think that this thread would be an ideal place to assemble the diffs to do so. My advice to you is, if you wish to talk about hypotheticals (or "make statements" about my objectives, etc.): either closely tie such, um, speculation (or, perhaps, "analysis," if you will) to the discussion at hand or perhaps post it elsewhere.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am feeling frustrated, even hurt, and react with some anger when a coterie of editors (to whom I apologize for characterizing as wolves) use discussion space to launch what I believe to be unsupportable accusations against me. Hence this ANI, which was to report my sense of being personally attacked with the hope that someone would caution the offending parties and ask them to put forward whatever claims about my behavior in an appropriate forum for such a report. Although I did not file the ANI to discuss article content, one claim made about my allegedly wp:POINTy behavior requires me to delve slightly into the "content" area. There seems to be a belief that another editor recently raised an AfD for "Camel toe." In point of fact, it was not for camel toe but the male versions of camel toe. (Which, although we're going further and further afield of my basic subject matter here, was successful in being removed. And--although, again, I do not believe this germane to the subject at hand--I (as did many others, although it was not unanimous) voted to delete "Moose knuckle."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm the admin who closed the AfD. I did so based on the arguments made in favor of deletion and keeping, and not based on how "dubious" the nomination may have been. However, if I might comment on that, I do believe there is some merit in criticizing your nomination. Not because I feel that you have been waging a campaign against the article, or that you had been forum shopping, but because the nomination itself was flawed. Your stated reason to delete the article was because you wanted to create a better article about the subject. That does not fall in line with our usual reasons for article deletion. Essentially, you wanted to improve the article by rewriting it, which can be done on any article without need for deletion. It can be argued that a request for deletion is not necessarily in good faith when you intend to immediately recreate the article as your preferred version. I'll add again that my opinion on that matter did not influence the way I closed the discussion, but I felt compelled to mention this to help explain some of the reasons why people objected to the nomination itself. If someone has a problem with the nomination of an article at AfD, it's appropriate to bring that up during the discussion itself. When you declare in your nomination statement that you intend to recreate the article (which "this article's deletion will pave the way for an article of arguably encyclopedic to be tentatively created" is explicitly saying), you can't say that others' objections are unfounded. They're going by your own words. -- Atama頭 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-thought-out, helpful, and even-toned reply, Atama. Apparently the nom was phrased poorly. My intention was to say something along the lines of "Hey, IMO this article fails Dicdef (that is, unless moved to a topic that might pass muster)."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that rationale was rejected, largely because you failed to take into consideration the point repeatedly made to you that the title of the subject was intimately linked with its perception in modern culture. Having thus failed to understand why people opposed the page move, you proceeded to try to simply have the page in question deleted. Editors were perfectly entitled to voice concerns about that your apparent determination not to comprehend the opposition to your proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The complaint I've raised here has to do with the most basic of wp:TALK page principles ("- Communicate.... - Be positive.... - Stay objective.... - Deal with facts....") and especially of wp:WIKIQUETTE ("Do not label or personally attack people or their edits," etc. Also see: wp:PERSONAL: "Avoid: - Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"; wp:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; wp:TALKNO: "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs.") In any case, the obvious fact is that the requested page move was only recently closed, thus I would ask--I suppose rhetorically--how it helps Wikipedia function and grow to insist on forestalling debates by insisting one side prevail before the fact, but if past is prologue, instead of a direct response, the question instead would be answered further claims of malfeasance.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Some editors here seem less interested in debating content points than in simply scoring points vis-a-vis another editor; whereas, to their point of view, I suppose, these editors look at my good faith ideas to improve WP and only see pointless effort.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Eddie1kanobi

Resolved

 – Good blocks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Following complaints of disrupting editing on Triple Entente on the part of an anon IP User:212.13.86.194, I have blocked the IP, which has previously been reported as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, User:Eddie1kanobi, for block evasion. Also added another IP, User:79.125.225.32 to Eddie's sock drawer. Blocked that IP too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry / OR / POV edits on Algeria related articles (Part III)

Hello! :D

I think that, instead of describing what is happening, links to the two precedent episodes are more meaningful : Part I Part II.

Here we are : Today, the Part III begins : [5][6]

This is incredible...

Omar-Toons (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Omar, it's probably time to start an SPI. I've blocked the IP for a week and User:KAMTCHO for a bit longer. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle _{vécut heureuse}

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [7] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [8] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [9] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [10], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated trolling from now-community banned IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off2riorob- Despite your phrasing of that comment as a question, it's clearly a veiled accusation. If you're going to accuse other editors of not understanding policy, or having forgotten it, you should do so forthrightly. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I was quite clear, my comment above "Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection" - as I was yesterday about your contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Will you lay off the ad-hominem attacks, please? That quote is nowhere in your comment above; had it been, I wouldn't have commented. You asked a question-- "surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFRP - is to request article unprotection?"-- and that's a loaded question. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bolded both comments above for you to see clearly. Can you see them now? So what if its loaded its supposed to be. If you begin to edit constructively and stop disrupting everywhere you go (and I hope you do) all issues with your contributions will cease. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure you're aware that that's not the comment I'm referencing when I describe your question as loaded. I'm happy to leave this where it is, but I would ask that you please stop trying to turn everything around on me in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I suggest you keep out of my way then - disrupt at distant locations, the far corners of the wiki are available for you, this thread is nothing to do with you, you should keep your battling disruptive nose out of issues that have nothing to do with you.Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, okay, whatever. This issue has as much to do with me as it does with you, and you don't own ANI, nor are you empowered to banish me to "the far corners of the wiki." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [11] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [12]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [13], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to SPI [14]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should we start another RfA because of excessive socks, suspicion? In general, misuse of RfA. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.

With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.

I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebe, are you serious right now? "Misuse of RFA"? If nothing else, let the SPI determine if there's actually a socking problem, and in the meantime, assume good faith. Obviously over the last six years there are going to be people who are now known as socks, people who blew a gasket and left, or people who decided to retire. Dragging Elle's name through the mud with absolutely no evidence (socks !voting in her six-year-old RfA isn't even circumstantial evidence) is insulting and degrading to a long-term productive contributor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as Temasek Review Emeritus for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.

In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[15]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support any consideration of a new RfA because some of the prior supports may have turned out to be socks. The numerical results were not a close call, and it could set a precedent we may regret. I have no problem with an SPI investigation if warranted, I'm simply disagreeing that identification of sock support six years after getting the bit is good reason for a new RfA.--SPhilbrickT 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the call for a new RFA, at least by recall motion, is because of the admin's actions, and hopefully not related to her original RFA. It would be ridiculous to think we'd make everyone who Freestylefrappe or Karmafist supported have to run a re-RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving before this issue is settled. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

New concern about La goutte de pluie has been raised on my talk page by the anonymous editor, saying that earlier in the edit war before page protection, LGDP might have logged out and reverted the anon as an IP. I'll quote in full the concern below.

During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again.

Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone investigating the issue with the IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor has explained that this was due to her editing on her Iphone and forgetting to log on[16], so I think we can ignore this. Also that she had been busy for the past few days hence her recent silence on the matter [17]. But now that she is actively editing again lets hope she can clarify her stand on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I only recently edited because of egregrious copyright violations by editors on Vivian Balakrishnan. I have since rangeblocked the offending IPs from the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore for constantly copying and pasting content from government websites and repeatedly ignorning warnings. My intention is to file an RFA on the matter, particularly because I have my own concerns about COI editing, as well as what I perceive to be an overdependence on bots to fight vandalism and anonymous removal of sourced content, which is widespread not only for Singaporean politics but goes as far as home owner associations editing Wikipedia to remove criticisms about them. Our system seems very good at detecting simple cases of COI editing as well as businesses who create pages about themselves, but not particularly more elaborate cases especially concerning the non-western world. Singapore's case is unique (and to a lesser extent, India and Malaysia) because it falls outside the western world but uses English in everyday life; hence certain entities have a strong incentive to improve their English-language public relations.

I do not know why I am the only administrator to notice such egregious incidents as wholesale copying and pasting being inserted from copyrighted websites; it is for this reason that I have been acting unilaterally and then seeking consensus. I previously sought requests for advice on this board twice on how to deal with this problem, including continued conflict of interest editing, and when I received no response for several days -- except for an editor who recommended that I block them all, I went ahead with my proposed remedies -- and I didn't block anyone at that time. The impression then I got is that a) I was still alone in noticing the problem b) I would have to take care of it myself. I do not know why this concern is raised against me when it could have been raised much earlier; why did people ignore my previous requests for help and advice?

As a young administrator in 2006, I issued my willingness to be recalled based on the idea that the recallers would be (like editors generally were in 2006) informed, rational Wikipedians who would approach issues rationally in the Jeffersonian spirit. I cannot respect recall requests from people who make such accusations that I used sockpuppets in my own RFA, or from people that cannot be bothered or informed enough to even look at the rich user contributions of retired admin User:Izehar before calling that user a single purpose account, or from editors who are willing to block someone for reverting an egregriously explicit copyright violation on the grounds of "edit warring". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the "copyright" content which you are talking about are actually content from government websites, which are essentially public domain for all intent and purposes. I.e. see [18] where "Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works, provides that "Copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government," defined in Title 17 USC §101, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." for something similar. So "copyright". You are free to copyWRITE the language if you think it is POV though to make it neutral (though that may introduce further subjectivity) or keep the same tone to avoid intruducing subjectivity. Your edits included additions like [[19]], "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem" which should be avoided.

What concerned me about your reply is your claim above that you had apparently rangeblocked on an article which you have COI issues with. This should NOT have been allowed considering the concerns raised here about possible abuse of administrative rights, and you should have instead raised your concerns to other uninvolved admins to action on it rather than doing so yourself.

PS Although I am not familiar with it, but there a free Internet service called Wireless@SG in Singapore locally, could this have caused some of this similar IPs to keep surfacing?

(Update: Apparently Singapore also allows that under Fair Use [20]) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Breaking my wikibreak here, but worth doing so to point out that only US Govt works are PD. SG govt sites are copyrighted. StrPby (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

But they have a fair use exception [21]. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out, my worry is that copyediting to prevent copyvio is one way by which subjective bias to the article could be introduced [[22]]. In which case it may be safer to stick to the government site content which when viewed objectively seems to be just a choronological list of the subject's portfolio. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus (by accepting the anonymous editors' edits) seemed to say that content should generally promote Balakrishnan wherever possible and avoid all criticism; it was not a POV edit in so far it supported consensus, and I was only trying to be reconciliatory. Zhanzhao, I mean this in the most respectful way possible -- but I don't think your interpretation of copyright law really flies. The assumption that all government works are public domain (this doesn't even apply for U.S. state governments' works!) or that wholesale copying is allowed under fair use (when fair use is justified for things like critical commentary and so forth) worries me somewhat! Wikipedia's burden of proof in order to use fair use is very strict. In any case, copyright violations cannot be tolerated. It is not at all safe to stick with a copyright violation revision! This is in fact, even an exception to WP:3RR. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Singapore's copyright laws do provide for some exceptions under its fair use clause. And as I also mentioned above, my worry is that you have snuck in some NPOV wording like [[23]] which I feel is the more worrying issue here. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here on copyright: Singapore's approach to fair dealing is not the issue here, as the Wikimedia Foundation is based in and governed by the laws of the United States (see WP:PD). Usage on Wikipedia must accord with "fair use" as defined by the United States (which may be more or less liberal than Singapore's; I haven't evaluated). If content is being used under "fair use", it needs to follow the policy and guideline at WP:NFC, which allows brief, clearly marked quotations, used transformatively. That's got nothing to do with the other issues in this thread, but I want to be sure we're all on the same page with this one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am all for summarizing that section, I am just SERIOUSLY adverse to Elle being the person to edit it down. As mention, she had been cautioned a few times on her own page that she had apparent COI issues with articles concerning Singapore politics especially where it concerns members of the ruling party. And this reason she gave for knowingly adding a NPOV statement into the main text of an article "That statement was to invite discussion, especially since no one appeared to be paying attention to the copyvio issue." is unbecoming of an administrator. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know nuts about all the rules in Wiki but the edits that La goutte de pluie made are not even rephrasing the copyrighted paragraphs. She just makes minor edits like "He contributed" to "his men contributed" in Vivian Balakrishnan page. That's not even the main point, just rephrasing of the nouns and not even correctly. I refer to ocassions when she couldn't help add in her own sarcastic opinion here and here ("While sometimes ridiculed by the youth ") and still got the cheek to argue back that people are white-washing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.234 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Going to draft an RFC on the issue of astroturfing

After spotting an IP-hopping editor -- the one with a similar editing pattern to the editor who would restore copyvio revisions at Vivian Balakrishnan deleting references wholesale at Tan Cheng Bock -- rather than attempting to rephrase and salvage material, which is the Wikipedia Way to go), I am alarmed at the proliferative extent of a possible astroturfing problem. I will be drafting an RFC for this reason. I invite the community to look at the blatant extent that copyright violations from government web sites are introduced without anyone barely winking an eyelid. It is not merely Singaporean politics I am concerned about, but other non-western articles as well. It is my concern that these pages are poorly watched, and what happens is that different editors of different views never collaborate on articles as desired. Because these edits pass through the bot filters quite well, no one notices a potential problem.

I actually do not have much concern about what actual material actually remains after discussion and consensus; what matters is that there is discussion and consensus. I am neither on the government or on the opposition -- I am currently a Singaporean college student attending a well-known college in the US -- I have no stake in the dispute. Some anonymous editors however, do -- I consider blocking COI-editors at government ministries justified. It simply irks me when anonymous editors with possible COI problems remove previous (sourced!) content (with legitimate uses) wholesale on petty grounds, rather than trying to salvage or revise the material. This is the Wikipedia Way, as I knew it. Often the removed content does not have an issue at all. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the main issue

I note that the Elle is still actively editing [24] and even personally exercising administrative powers[25] on the article in question. Granted there seems no problems with the recent edit per se, but the fact that she still doing so while recall is in limbo on the article where her actions have been called to attention is questionable. (In fact, personally range blocking a edit warred page with potential COI concerns on this particular page was the example I raised as a concern). As mentioned, her contribution history as raised by me and other editors (registered ones, not IP hoppers) throws doubts on her claims of being objective in regards to being an objective editor in matters relating to Singapore politics, specifically with regards to PAP representatives. To Elle, could you please withhold from actioning personally and placing any concerns you have to the relevant boards where actions can be taken by uninvolved editors? Thats one of the reasons Wikipedia has such notice boards in place. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This thread should imo be closed. While there has been a few users involved with editing articles with the user and such like and an admin stated that they would have blocked the user if the editing through protection had been seen at the time, there is only a limited request from a few users for recall ( recall requests have weight usually with over six users requesting ) so this has not been met imo and the user has rejected the request so that all to see here unless new related reports occur I imagine from their comments the user will move forward a little more cautiously and take the issues/complaints on board. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be the best. Ultimately as long as wiki procedures are followed, which in this case means the editor in question abides by wiki policy when editing, I see this report as having achieved its objective. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Elle's abusing her rights to delete Vivian Balakrishnan's page again. Is there a need to delete his background and the schools he attended... Come on, can someone stop her nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.236 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I only removed the section because of the blatant copyright violation (copied from other websites); this is a hard and fast rule for Wikipedia. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a whole chunk of edits and their details had been deleted recently [26] which makes it hard to evaluate the quality of those edits... Cant seem to find any discussion or reason on why those edits were removed so no clue from there either. In any case, lets just make sure that whatever is added adheres to wiki policy, be it on the grounds of objectivity or copyright.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. Since the editor seems to dispute my revisions the only way I could adhere to policy was by removing the entire problematic section until it could be discussed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you start a discussion for it? It must be hard for you to rephrase the section on which schools he attended. StrangePasserby requested for unprotection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.238 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) Rob quoted me at length, above, about potential admin abuse on Elle/LaGoutte's part. But if you look at the AfD from which that quote was drawn, you'll see a different picture emerge. Once I saw what motivated Elle's comment about a possible speedy keep, and saw RS to document that motivation, I agreed with her. The AfD did result in a "keep", btw.

It turns out that all of Singapore was in an uproar over a grossly unqualified "yes man" candidate that the government meant to shove down their throats. Rob made some remarks about the issue on his talk page to Elle that I thought were unduly aggressive and quite offensively chauvinistic toward the entire country. I asked him to retract, and he refused. Anyway, Elle's initial comment was injudicious, but entirely understandable once one learned that the entire country was vocally angry over the situation. My first response that Rob quoted to her initial comment shouldn't be taken as evidence that she was guilty of any admin abuse. She wasn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What uproar? Don't assume "all of Singapore was in an uproar". By the way, we are talking about locking of Vivian Balakrishnan page , not Tin Pei ling. Elle is not even based in Singapore. What does she know about the country? She got the cheek to say people are whitewashing. What's with her smearing of politicians on their pages and abusing her tools everytime people do not agree with her. Till date, I still see nothing done about her and she just goes on pretending nothing is happening and that she is too busy to reply. She certainly was very free when she was busy doing edit wars over at Teo Ser Luck page to come back everyday. Each time she would say that since I did not reply within a certain number of hours, she has the right to lock/revert back to her version. So why is she keeping quiet about the recall of her tools on her page and avoiding the issue? Is this just going to drag on forever?

Seriously the articles Elle wrote about Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Tin Peiling, Vivian Balakrishnan are just crap. There was never a neutral stand. It's always with sarcasm. Even the image uploaded on The New Paper was meant to be sarcastic. She seems to just want to magnify negative issues and downplay postive aspects (if any). Aren't Wiki articles supposed to be neutral? Seriously the article on Tin Pei ling is just long and draggy like a grandmother's story. I didn't know it's so hard to summarise everything and why there's a need for very insignificant bit to be written in. Tay Ping Hui's 8 Days issue must be such a HUGE deal and of greatest most importance that Elle had to write it in. Oh wait. Isn't the photo copyrighted material? Why is Elle allowed to post it then? Double standards? - from the anonymous IP above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.245 (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock with personal attacks and BLP violations

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely and talk page access revoked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A "new" user, FindersSyhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has made repeated personal attacks at Talk:Hebron and has repeatedly added BLP violations to Carlos Latuff. As I do not want to waste the time determining what the prior user account is (my first guesses are JarlaxleArtemis or Runtshit) and filing an SPI, I am bringing the matter here. The user is likely related to the accounts Anonehf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Jorogin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). nableezy - 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Jarlaxle's MO, speaking from experience. He specifically targets those users who've dealt with him in the past on their own talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor, I am sure, is it Runtshit. This account displays none of Runtshit's characteristic tics. RolandR (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-serious death threat from FindersSyhn

I don't take this too seriously, but it's serious enough to report here. FindersSyhn posted on my talk page "If I could, I'd kill every single one of you pieces of shit." The diff is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInks.LWC&action=historysubmit&diff=436764924&oldid=436474120. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"If you are reporting a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please also email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs" - GiantSnowman 00:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already done that as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff :) GiantSnowman 00:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have indefblocked for the (now repeated) threats to kill people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

...and talk page access is now revoked, as they did it yet again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

After conferring with a couple of CUs on this, this looks like Grawp again, folks. –MuZemike 03:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How many years will this continue? Why does the WMF allow determined vandals to operate with impunity for years and years? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest doing about it? There's a certain level of determination at which stopping the vandalism would do far more damage to the project than allowing it...Grawp rose to that level a long time ago. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there really anything that CAN be done about it? Would an ISP respond to a request from the Foundation? If so, would it have any real effect? Internet access is becoming well-nigh ubiquitous, and blocking one point of access will only redirect a user to another. Frustrating as it is, the only real recourse I can see is WP:RBI, as often as necessary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaints to his ISP in the past have been unsuccessful. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there must be some sort of legal recourse. Yes, this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", but that doesn't mean people can use it as a vehicle for harassment and hate speech. If there is truly nothing the foundation can do to protect their most famous entity, causing damage to it and driving off it's volunteers, then there is something wrong with this project. If someone was standing on the sidewalk in front of a volunteer organization and threatening to kill the volunteers as they walked in, using hate speech, then the police would be called in about 5 minutes. Yet, because this is the "internet", it's somehow different? I say it is no different and the foundation should do something to protect itself and its interests. Night Ranger (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Returned

The account is back, "editing" as Gytuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). More admins watching Hebron would be useful. nableezy - 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Racist e-mails

"Hey, Arab vermin. You are subhuman Arab scum. Get the hell out out America and go back to your shithole country, idiot." and "Anabta was an Israelite city before you Muslim savages invaded it." are some of the racist e-mails that I have received from the banned Captain Thoster I am guessing that these accounts are related. In the meantime, can the e-mail function be disabled for Captain Thoster? -asad (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Email removed. I trust that you did not respond, since they will then have your personal email and WP cannot stop them sending mail to that address (although you can block them from being received thru your mail provider). The same goes to anyone receiving hate/harassing mail via the WP system; never reply, just report it to get the facility removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And no, I didn't reply. -asad (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have received 85(!) exceptionally nasty emails from this account, all of them ending with the statement "I know where you live and what you look like. I will make sure your death is prolonged and exquisitely painful." I'm not overly concerned, as this is an obvious lie. But I wonder whether some sort of filter could be introduced, to prevent such flagrant (and presumably illegal) abuse of the email facility. RolandR (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am getting the same sort of bigoted crap. Could someone please disable the e-mail function by default for all the users associated with this nonsense. The latest user is User:My password is poopvomit. -asad (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

email blocked for this new account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And I have just received a further 29 from this account. RolandR (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have no problem getting these e-mails, it is pretty much a throwaway account and wiki mail gets put into it's own folder. It might be better just to keep my e-mail enabled so we can know all the accounts the person intends to use and disable the e-mail one by one. -asad (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Trollish sock on banned user page

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

• The target: User:Iaaasi (edit history)
• The troll: Aigarban (talk · contribs)

Would any kind patrolling Admin please take a look at the above? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Socked and BLOCKED indefinitely by Admin Floquenbeam. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:DUCK Block

Latest Mikemikev sock got blocked a few hours ago, 200.198.42.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now continuing the conversation started by the sock with out missing a beat. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

another 86.176.7.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The IPs are geolocating to different continents. Either Mikemikev has a handle on an open proxy somewhere or it's two separate users. Either way, though, obviously disruptive IP is obvious. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The first one carries on the same conversations without missing a beat. IIRC Mikemikev had his usual local ip harblocked so a proxy would be expected. The second already has a block log associated with Mikemikev. I think we caught one a while back from Indonesia associated with him too. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is the most effective route, then? Whac-a-Mole™ or just semi the involved articles for a while? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is semi'd but we dont block them i suspect they may simply move to our next Racial theorist or theory The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mikemikev has been enjoying a non-dormant period; it's only worth identifying the named accounts (Nam84 on WP:AN3 and WP:SPI in this case). The second IP mentioned here was already positively identified a while back because of comments on Shell Kinney's talk page related to Mikemikev's racist postings on Stormfront (website), already mentioned today on WP:FTN. That IP was temporarily blocked by Shell at the time. Mikemikev edits from London, presumably contravening the conditions for using accounts registered with Imperial College, London and University College, London when he edits from there. He has also used proxies, etc, from China and Brasil. There was a three month block on a range of vodafone IPs which has lapsed by now. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just a thought, but those two colleges sound like institutions that would rather not have their computer equipment put to the use mike has chosen for them. Is there any future in contacting them and asking them to revoke his access? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Mathsci (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

200.198.42.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is  Confirmed as a Proxy Server in Brazil The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest block per WP:PROXY. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unjustified name calling and threats to block

At my talk page [27] under the current heading "Census Issues, Parr II" (item 89) a user has called me a racist and threatened to block me if I continue to edit. This user [28] (the link is to his userpage) is an administrator who seems to be using his position as such to threaten and force compliance with his will. I do not really care that much about the specific way in which the demographic data from the US census is reported. However his high-handed use of his position as an administrator and calling someone who wants to reflect the fact that non-Hispanic white is the figure most close to how people in general talk about race, and so report that figure and ignore the figure of all whites when that larger figure is half Hispanic a "racist" and threten to block them if they continue to edit just makes any discussion on the matter impossible. This is not an issue about content, it is an issue of threatening people for editing at all and such. I feel this is the best example of bullying I have seen on wikipedia ever. Such high-handed unilateral threatening of people should not happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have notified Carlossuarez. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, you just beat me to it. I'm concerned at the least about the language left on JPL's user talk page, from an admin no less, and I'd be interested to see an explanation. -- Atama頭 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Me too. I don't have much to say on the ins and outs of the debate, but those are strong words. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • This editor has repeated introduced racist cuts of census data and I have warned him that if he continues to do so, he'll get blocked. He, for whatever reasons, believes that Hispanics and Latinos cannot be White or African-American according the census data. Our consistent approach, like the census, is to report race separately from ethnicity. John Pack Lambert insists otherwise, that Hispanics and Latinos can be everything but White or African-American so he puts in data, to serve his purpose, of non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic African-Americans, and then various other races, apparently Hispanic included. He also points out in several edits his purposes "updated to reflect the more close to how people actually think of thins non-Hispanic white figure" where by he removes Hispanics and Latinos to make Whites more close to how people (like him?) think of white or otherwise qualifies the data by pointing out (only where it suits him) that Whites includes "Iranians and other middle easterners". There is a link to how White (U.S. Census) is defined, why the unsourced added language? The pattern is unmistakeable, his editing is tendentious, contrary to the Wikipedia norm, and in furtherance of his agenda. It should stop. This was a topic I broached here with another editor, which alas got almost no attention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • I've already commented on JPL's talk page. Having delved extensively into the 2010 Census data, I think both JPL and CarlosS have valid arguments. The Census data do allow for some surprisingly detailed statistics on ethnicity to be reported, and JPL has been pulling out some valid statistics on groups like "White," "Non-Hispanic white," and "Non-Hispanic Asian." However, JPL is adding his own original interpretation in edits like this diff, where he described the non-Hispanic white population as "including Iranians and other middle easterners." That's not something the Census reports, and it does not belong in the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• So it's possible that JPL is wrong. But it's one thing to attack the validity of a person's edits, and another to attack the person directly and call them a racist. JPL may be guilty of original research, but attacking a race? I'm having trouble accepting these racism allegations as anything but a personal attack. Is there any more evidence of his "agenda"? Racism is a pretty strong word to throw around. -- Atama頭 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• What rationale is there to remove Latinos and Hispanics from the Whites and African Americans ONLY?? Nowhere does the census in its reports eliminate people by Latino and Hispanic ONLY by these races; either its all in or all out. Show me otherwise. With comments like how people think of white (absent Latinos and Hispanics), is that for real? Is that how Wikipedia thinks? how the people reading this thinks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In another of his edits, he presents data carved differently than anywhere else in reporting census data Where people who reported partial Asian ancestry are broken out from the 2 or more races for what purpose? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Census allows us to report our race, and then whether or not we're of Latino or Hispanic ethnicity - that's the census. This editor thinks that Hispanic is a race, not an ethnicity; without succumbing to Godwin's law, needless to say that others have had differing views on race, but we report what the census reports not how we may think. And as this editor says himself "Thinking that Hispanics are not white is not racist." (his emphasis). Naturally, I disagree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Carlos, can you imagine the possibility that he might be wrong about this, while not being a racist? Can you imagine how offensive it would be to be called a racist if you are not one? If you can, then you should apologize. If you can't, then you really shouldn't consider taking any admin actions with this user anyway. It shouldn't be that difficult to find someplace appropriate (I would have thought there'd be a Wikipedia:Wikiproject U.S. Census, but I guess not) to discuss this calmly, without assuming you know each others motives, and getting outside input if you need it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • An uninvolved admin should block him if he continues to degrade Wikipedia with his edits reflecting his thinking unless it's Wikipedia's coordinated belief and NPOV that Latinos and Hispanics cannot be White or African Americans as the Census Bureau defines these terms, and then someone ought to delete Black Hispanic and Latino Americans, because there's no such thing apparently. Imagine how humiliating it would be to have your ethnicity pulled out and classified as not White, African American, Asian, or whatever enough for inclusion. Those views found currency in the past, are clear POV, with a bias that is clearly reflected in the editing from this guy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll support the suggestion that JPL's edits aren't helpful, and any editor who continues to violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR despite warnings can and should be blocked. I don't question your concern with JPL's contributions or warning him that continuing the behavior can lead to a block. My problem is only with the racism allegations. You said before, "What rationale is there to remove Latinos and Hispanics from the Whites and African Americans ONLY??" You shouldn't conclude that any rationale must automatically be racism. Let me ask you, is a person racist because they are mistaken? If a person believes that a white person can't be Hispanic, he is a racist? Do JPL's actions or comments in any way suggest that he dislikes Hispanics or any other ethnicity, or considers one race to be superior to another, or made derogatory remarks about race or ethnicity? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. I would have to agree with JPL that thinking that you don't have to be a racist to have the (mistaken) belief that there are no white Hispanics, and strongly, very strongly disagree with you. Your insistence that a person's disagreement must constitute racism unnecessarily creates a hostile editing environment, and you should retract your allegations. -- Atama頭 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • My allegation: that the view that a White person (as defined by the census) cannot be Latino or Hispanic is racist stands - it's no different than substituting "Jew", "Italian", "Russian", or any other religion or ethnicity for "Latino or Hispanic". I'm surprised that you agree with that position. Apparently, the millions of Hispanics and Latinos who checked the box that they are White or African-American were wrong and that you and JPL are right? His view has no basis; in fact, practice, or other than his POV. The Census Bureau, whose data he links to and their definitions which he links to all say that White people can be Latino or Hispanic. His edits appear to further his belief that despite the position of the Census Bureau, to which he cites as the source for his edits, Whites and African Americans cannot be Hispanic/Latino. Let him or you defend that position and why that view is not racist in denying Latinos and Hispanics a race figure from the Census, and why his straying from the Census Bureau and its definitions while linking and citing them is proper editing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the lead from our article on racism Racism: "Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, justify the different treatment of those people, both socially and legally. Moreover, racism is the practice of the different treatment of certain a group or groups, which is then justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science." Did this user in any way allude to hispanics being inferior or different than white people because of their race? According to this ANI report I see nothing of the sort. Saying that his attitude is racist shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what that word means. It seems this user doesn't really get race vs. ethnicity, but that doesn't make him racist. N^oformation ^Talk 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, as an admin you should know better than to threaten blocks like that. If he had actually vandalized the page you could have left a vandal template...4 times and he's blocked. But he wasn't vandalizing; this is a content dispute and you threatened a block because you didn't agree with him. He may be wrong, but he clearly isn't racist nor a vandal. N^oformation ^Talk 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a content dispute; its removing POV from editing and replacing inaccuracies with sourced accurate data. Anyone who continues to edit tendentiously and adds inappropriate material is liable to be blocked. He should know that, he's been blocked before here. And as for "racism", wiktionary's 1st definition is thus: "The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes." [29] He has admitted that he thinks that Latinos and Hispanics cannot be White, nor can Whites be Hispanic or Latino. So in his view, one attribute of White is non-Latino and non-Hispanic; he's entitled to that opinion, but not to edit Wikipedia to promote that view. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment here, but it appears that Wiktionary's first definition is inaccurate. I checked 7 dictionaries that I have access to and the closest wording to what appears in Wiktionary was from dictionary.com, which states "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".

Identification of distinct or intrinsic attributes of different human 'races' is not racism, in the same way that acknowledging 'boys have penises, girls have vaginas' is not sexism. A key element of the definition is the presence of prejudice, that these distinctions determine capability and achievement. To refer back to the sexism example, 'boys have penises' isn't sexist, but 'boys are the better sex because they have penises' is. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What if one of the penises has "Hammer of the Gods" tattooed on it? As for the matter at hand, sorry Carlos, but while I understand that this is an important issue that easily calls up lots of emotion, I do think you came on a little strong. What I'd like to see is a wider input in this discussion on another forum than this one by knowledgeable editors--without ascribing motive. A discussion on what is and isn't racism (or racist) will not help solve this problem. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my head around the idea that someone whose ancestors came from Spain or Portugal can't be white. Is this some sort of 'one drop' concept? Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

At least in the US, it seems to me that there is a not uncommon perception that the term "Hispanic" or "Latino" would only apply to a person who is of a mixed European and Native American ancestry, and is a separate race in itself, considering that there is a significant population of resident immigrants from Mexico and other countries from Latin America (see Mestizo). This misconception is often reflected in the media as well. An educated person knows that this isn't the truth, and the US Census clearly reflects that view as well. I'm not suggesting that the majority of US residents believe this, I honestly don't know if it's the case, but in my personal experience this is too often the case (unfortunately).

Just to give an example, I had a friend in high school who was an exchange student from Spain. He was born and raised in Spain, as was his family for as far back as he knew. In appearance, he was white, nobody would call him anything else. Most people I knew wouldn't consider him to be Latino or Hispanic, even though he's about as Hispanic as you can be.

An encyclopedia is meant to inform people about what academic sources have to say about a subject. So I soundly reject the assertions that JPL has attempted to make in article space. I'm just saying that such misconceptions aren't that unusual. -- Atama頭 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unapproved bot

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

Hello, there appears to be an unapproved bot adding links to drugboxes at a phenomenal rate (~7 edits per minute, and it is already over 500 edits in less than an hour). It did not reply to my query, so I am taking this here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He posted this to Project Pharmacology: "That's me. The UNII is a code for defining substances. It's used by the FDA, NIH, Martindale, USP, and soon the EPA, primarily for defining food/drug/health related substances. We added a lot of the UNIIs as a first pass a while ago. I'm adding all the new ones that are linked to INN approved terms, but weren't originally caught. Note that the UNII is a part of the Drug and Chem box. Peryeat (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)" Looks like he's acting in good faith but it still could be a bot, though 7 edits per minute is doable if you're just doing the same thing over and over again. N^oformation ^Talk 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is ranging up to ten edits per minute, and I can barely ever make that even using an antivandal tool when ClueBot NG is down and I am the only antivandal person online. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, isn't Delta restricted to 45 edits a minute and still there's a thread about him breaking that limit? 10 is seriously pushing it, but 45, just wow, impressive. N^oformation ^Talk 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I might have misunderstood his edit restriction, so scratch that. Up above he was accused of 115 edits in 10 minutes, so I was way off. Still impressive though. N^oformation ^Talk 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as the data is right, I'd say let it run. It is a simple task that would easily get bot approval anyway. Just leave a note to the user to be sure to use an edit summary, perhaps go a bit slower, and consider whether bot approval might be helpful. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, if you open up multiple tabs in your browser and switch between them often, it's not that difficult to make a lot of edits quickly. I've made a lot of really menial edits quickly that way (not sure exactly how quickly but 10 a minute wouldn't be hard at all). It doesn't require any special software or anything, you just need to be doing something simple (like copy-paste), know what you're doing before you do it, and use multiple tabs or windows so that you're not waiting for a page to load between each edit. -- Atama頭 03:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's how I do relists at AFD. I spend 15 minutes or so lining up all the relistable AFDs in Firefox tabs and start pushing "submit" buttons at 0:00GMT. I'm surprised some people don't think I'm a "bot". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another FYI. As I understand the bot policy, that makes no difference. If you're using an automated process to make edits so fast that it appears that a bot is doing them, as far as the policy is concerned, you're running a bot. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're so paranoid about the running of "unapproved bots" by merely looking at edit rates, why doesn't someone propose a hardware limit on the number of edits a user can do in 1 minute of time, if that is possible? –MuZemike 06:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea -- that would prevent rollbackers from quickly cleaning up messes that might not have been caught for a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a case of IAR...if the edits are uncontroversial, and aren't being done quickly enough to cause system issues, who really cares if he's using a bot? Bobby Tables (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the many cases of misused and malfunctioning bots in the past, I think many people do care. That being said, there is a bit of paranoia regarding people who might be using unauthorized bots when, in fact, they are not; that was why I made the suggestion above. –MuZemike 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit warring at Yadav has turned into a legal threat

Resolved

Some slow edit warring at Yadav has now turned into a legal threat by Sumitkachroo. Needs a block, I think. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, we edit conflicted on this one, I saw the legal threat and have blocked him for that. —SpacemanSpiff 08:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this appears to be linked to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Veiled_legal_threat_from_an_IP_at_Yadav also, and it doesn't look like the named editors are different (as well as the IPs), the edits appear to be the same to the casual eye. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This[30] is clearly a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, at least one regular and (IMO) sensible editor has felt it necessary to cease contributing to Indian articles here in the last few days as a direct result of this spate of legal threats on such articles. I have the details if anyone should need them for some reason. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? If so, just been quite busy and behind on India issues. Also hadn't jumped into the SPI debate since I'm not really familiar/comfortable with that process and didn't want to go barging in trying to get involved in investigations. The legal threats don't bother me at all on a personal level, as I don't live anywhere near India and I rather doubt I'd be extradited for quoting PhD scholars on these topics. I do regret any hassle the WMF goes through due to this caste silliness, but it is inevitable that as WP expands in India various parties will be POV fighting back and forth, and then running off to declare "hate speech" when they don't get their way, so it might as well be now as any other week.MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, we're all behind on India issues; who can catch up? I wonder if it isn't caste-related wikistress that made Spiff give up a perfectly ordinary existence and become a bohemian. Sitush and Matthew, please don't throw your life away like that. Follow the example of User:RegentsPark, still plugging away heroically. Signed, honorary Tamil Drmies (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jj98

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what is going on with this user currently, thus I am posting here briefly. I first encountered the user at RfD, where they nominated their own implausible redirect for deletion. Fair enough, I deleted it under CSD R3 and CSD G7. I then, by pure coincidence, later bumped into the user nominating an article they had created at AfD for being "non-notable." This one was more odd, as the user created it, then sent it to AfD all within 60 seconds. I deleted as G7 again, closed the AfD and posted on the users talk page asking them what was going on.

Since then they have not replied to me, but I assume they have read the message as they have replied to later posts on their talk page. I also noticed that this user seems to be going around creating categories for various WikiProjects, only to tag them for db-g7 a couple of hours later. Sometimes he then recreates them identical to how they were pre-g7. Some pages deletion logs have him creating and then requesting g7 on the page multiple times. He also makes edits to assessment templates (grade/importance), undoes himself, then redoes himself within quick succession.

One recent create and g7 however caught my eye: Fucktoon Network redirecting to Cartoon Network. There are several instances of him making disruptive edits before undoing himself in his contribution history: [31]. I've found several edits like that in his contributions which are disruptive, but he usually immediately reverts himself.

As the rest of his edits other than these are constructive, i'm wondering what should be done here. The disruptive edits obviously need to stop, regardless of him undoing himself, but I also think that the creation of pages only to g7, AfD or RfD them immediately is borderline disruptive. As he won't reply to me ([32]) I would be grateful of others views on this somewhat odd situation. (I initially thought the account could be compromised, but the mixture of normal editing between the disruptive stuff makes me think otherwise.) Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified at this diff's timestamp. [33] --Taelus (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am here again, and it is considered offensive like "Crap" and "Shit". Well, I been nominating some for deletions, including WikiProjects that have died from 2006 and 2011. Well, I don't take no offense, the Courage Wolf isn't notable yet, and it is getting some hits Google. Also, I tired nominated myself for deletion like Portal:Cartoon Network, and kept. Usually, I don't make disruptive edits myself, and I got blocked before for messing around the images, while I am been editing the Courage the Cowardly Dog article myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the account is compromised, or at least semi-compromised - compare the semi-incoherent response above with the user's much more sensible/understandable user page... GiantSnowman 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I found the two had at least a certain consistency. But maybe I'm jumping to some conclusions.

Jj98, your reply above doesn't seem to answer the concerns that Taelus has raised. Creating pages or categories just to ask for them to be deleted seconds later, is disruptive. Repeatedly asking for the same page to be deleted, for no good reason, is disruptive. Making random pointless changes and then changing them back, on a regular basis, is disruptive. Perhaps you could agree not to keep doing that. OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but my account not yet compromised, and I am not hacked. Sorry, I just been busy, mostly doing some animation related stuff, including WP:ANIMATION which I am member myself. I don't want end up getting disruptive. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Jj98 has been asked in the past to slow down with the creating/nominating for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cartoon Network (2nd nomination). He has also been advised to use the sandbox for testing rather than rapidly undoing/redoing his own edits on talk pages. Assuming there is no compromise here, I am still concerned about the creation of Fucktoon Network and the inserting of "Cartoon Network sucks" into talk pages and the like. After all, his immediate reverting of such edits/tagging for deletion shows he is fully aware they are disruptive/vandalism... yet he does them anyway. --Taelus (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• The erratic deletion behavior and failure to respond to discussion attempts is ongoing. I noticed after closing two of his AFDs in a row as "redirect" (here and here); both were recurring cartoon characters in notable TV series for which character lists existed, yet there was no sign that he had even attempted to deal with these through normal editing and discussion. See also his recent inexplicable FFD nominations, and other generic AFD noms here ("Clearly, this website is not notable and fails WP:WEB"; still open, with unanimous keep !votes so far); here and here (both still open, all votes either keep or merge); here (closed as keep); here ("Only 2 sources, I can't find any more sources related to the article"; withdrawn within a day after one speedy keep !vote); here ("Clearly, this article does not meet the notability"; closed as keep). That last AFD was the second he had started for the same article; the first AFD he started back in January and then withdrew within about ten minutes.

  I left some constructive criticism regarding some of his AFD noms here, pointing out that he should follow WP:BEFORE, that deletion noms should be more than WP:VAGUEWAVEs, and that he had nominated a number of articles that were at most merge/redirect targets without considering alternatives to deletion. He responded to that rather substantial comment with merely "Yes, I see that, I remember that next time"; when I asked him to elaborate, he instead archived it the same day rather than respond. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have been troubled by this entire wave of nominations myself. He started with targets that should have a delete discussion like List of Cartoon Network programing blocks which had a very abrupt reasoning of "Clearly, this website is not notable and fails WP:WEB", but then sabotaged my reasoned reasoning for a delete by asking for an inexplicable speedy G7 in response after taking it to AfD even though it was only the first day of the discussion (and which chilled it; it's been relisted twice and hasn't gone anywhere since my reasoning, with the quick-trigger G7 rightfully declined, and I'm resigned to it being kept under a no-con decision). I also suspect compromising as early AfD's were well-reasoned and he seemed to be an average editor, but now rationales have become blunt, short, and inexplicable (re: the Scrappy Doo, Cartoon Cartoon noms). I really don't know what to think on this one, but I know there have been rumblings that he is trying to do something to the CN articles within those discussions and some of the presented AfD's. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I found an instance (just yesterday) where this editor appears to be dismissive in the edit summary referring to the messages that are being left on their talk page. @Jj98, it's not that Wikipedians are trying to "bother" you, but simply trying to help you.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, the only problem is that I've been my edits doing poorly, because I thank been I've been trying to disrupt Wikipedia? What I've done wrong, creating a large amount of AFDs, MFDs, or TFDs? Well, I could have nominated Courage the Cowardly Dog and Dexter's Laboratory for deletion at AFD which could have been disruptive and I could have got blocked. Well, the only problem is its myself. Well, I been tagging some animation related articles with the WikiProject Animation banner including some animated films and episodes. Back in February Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) asked me about the Animation WikiProject while tagging The Simpsons articles, including MSGJ (talk · contribs) (who maintains all WikiProject banners), who also asked me about the WikiProject banners, including WikiProject Animation banner which I had 250 edits (however, I had 300 edits before the WikiProject Animation banner was protected by MSGJ (talk · contribs) due to the high visibility template back in March which transculed over 14,430 pages). Yes, I also admitted that I have nominated large number of deletions, including large number of inactive WikiProjects for deletion myself, including Kleinzach (talk · contribs), Kumioko (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) which also nominated some inactive WikiProjects for deletion which went inactive through 2005 to 2011, including Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) warned me about the MfDs in the past and to tag them as inactive and not delete any WikiProjects says on the MfD instructions. What I am look like, maybe a sockpuppet a of John254 (talk · contribs) like Mhiji (talk · contribs) which had been disruptive? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my comments. I've only gotten upset at you nominating inactive projects which were not obviously false starts. If any discussion or work has been done at a project, and at least a couple or three people were participating, it should be be marked as inactive and left alone. You (and Kleinzach) refuse to accept that and continue to nominate everything you can find for deletion. You're being disruptive, and completely ignoring the guidelines at the top of the MfD page. Based on the comments here, it seems this is not the only area where you are being disruptive. I recommend taking a step back and evaluating what you are doing, because you are clearly headed down a path which will lead to a bad place. We want productive contributions (even productive deletions), but what you are doing is not productive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned socks? You are not responding to the main point here which is you are creating pages and then almost immediately nominating them for deletion. Once they are deleted you are recreating them, sometimes several times. We all want to understand why you are doing this, what is the reasoning behind it. Carrying on like you are is disruptive. Take the revision history for Talk:Cartoon Network as an example, you added and removed {{not a forum}} at least 10 times in 3 months for no apparent reason. Why? That is one of the key issues here. In terms of XFD nominations, it is ok to nominate pages for deletion, as long as you provide evidence to support a clear and reasoned rationale: saying "doesn't meet WEB" isn't a clear and reasoned rationale, nor does it offer any evidence. Could you respond to these concerns please? Woody (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

JJ98 do you not think its a good idea to wait until your ANI thread about your nominations for deletions is done before you proceed with more nominations? Moxy (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Moxy, since I have been nominating some deletions, including articles and project, including my first AfD nomination was Field Intelligent Stuff which redirected to Bangladesh Army. Back in January, I've tired to nominate List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters for deletion back in February and withdrawn it myself. Also, I've tried to nominate Book:Naruto manga chapters and Book:Tokyo Mew Mew for deletion at WP:MFD and withdrawn it again. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note, I've also tired to nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics Competitions and Aqua Teen Hunger Force work group for deletion and also withdrawn it. Also note, when after I withdrawn WikiProject Cartoon Network for deletion and TenPoundHammer asked me "Why did you withdraw this MFD?", and reopened it for deletion and TenPoundHammer vote delete, along with Kumioko who to vote week delete. Then, I nominated Portal:Cartoon Network myself for deletion, and TenPoundHammer vote delete and said "Why even bother say "keep but add to it" then? Are you hoping the Portal Fairy will make it grow overnight?!", and I speedy deleted myself and recreated it again, before WikiProject Cartoon Network was kept as historical and I converted into a work group of WP:ANIMATION. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note, I remember the deletion guidelines next time before nominating for deletion. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone else smell something suspicious here? According to his user page he's a 21 and born in California, yet his understanding of english and his grammar is atrocious. --Blackmane (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, I was born in California, and I am American thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I sense nothing suspicious. Maybe a mild case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy; his social and communication skills are imperfect, and he learns a little slowly. But does that not describe many of us? He means well, is not particularly disruptive at worst, and is productive. He would, however, do well to ease off deleting things until he has debated and negotiated in a few more XfD discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

His replies are mostly incoherent; the bits that aren't incoherent are irrelevant. I find it hard to imagine that his editing is any good. Now, further up the page you people have come with a scheme to recruit and retain quality editors by putting pictures of kittens on their talk pages. Simultaneously you open the door to all-and-sundry, which is fair enough; but when confronted with this kind of thing you keep the door open, put flowers on it, urge the editor to sit down, have a cup of tea, help himself to your daughter etc. Over and over again. And over again. Why on Earth would a quality editor respect that kind of environment? Joined-up thinking, people. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In mainspace, he does a lot of small edits of very little cumulative difference, mostly without edit summary, sometimes with inaccurate edit summaries. These are to articles about cartoon programs. He is mostly alone working with them. In mainspace, he is making net contributions, and is not upsetting anyone there. JJ98 would do well do have a cup of tea while planning his edits. Indeed, I'd like to see him plan tomorrow's edits over a cup of tea today. But, Ashley, what would you have us do? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment JJ98 is contributing in good faith, though probably with a little too much enthusiasm. I agree with SmokeyJoe that he might consider slowing down a little. Xfd nominations of pages in which he has had a prior direct involvement have indeed been sometimes confusing and difficult to understand for other editors. The importance of clarity can never be over-emphasized here. Lack of it must be at the root of half our problems. If JJ98 is at fault here, then likewise half of all the other contributors to Wikipedia!--Kleinzach 02:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mattchewbaca

Resolved

 – User blocked for incivility. causa sui (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I have come to this thread today because I am having trouble with User:Mattchewbaca. I reviewed Howling Bells (album), which was nominated for good article status by this user. After an initial review of the article, I failed the article because there were many stand-out issues. After this, Mattchewbaca started reviewing both of the articles I have up for good article nomination which are Who We Are (Lifehouse album) and First Time (Lifehouse song). He also reassessed my first and only good article that was approved for good article status in 2010 (Halfway Gone). On all of these reviews, it seemed liked this user was trying to get revenge on me by finding false issues with the articles I have up for good article status.

Because of this, I decided to give this user a chance to fix the mistakes in his good article nomination. I also apologized for any problems that occurred. After this, he wrote a rather offensive and sort of blackmailing reply to the comment I left on his talk page at: User_talk:Mattchewbaca#Good_article_mix-up. He also wrote another offensive and vulgar post on my wall today at User_talk:Rp0211#Hey, kid. I am here to report this user for saying offensive and vulgar remarks to me numerous times.

I am also here because I do not know what to do with the status of my good articles. He is reviewing both of them right now, and from his reply, has said he is not going to pass them as sort of a revenge tactic. I honestly do not know what to do in this situation. After all the work I put in the articles I have worked on, I want to have honest reviews for the pages. Any help in this situation would be appreciated. Thanks. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I gotta say, that's as bad as anything I've seen here. I chose to leave the editor a final warning instead of blocking them; I must be in a good mood. I haven't looked at the GA review yet; if the user's way of interacting is typical of their general editing behavior, we may just quash it. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a topic ban from GA review as well. GAR is meant to be neutral and the reviewer is meant to be so. Someone with that type of incredibly immature attitude shouldn't be reviewing other people's work; if it doesn't meet GA, let someone without a chip on their shoulder say so. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Wow, I didn't think my comments would top the list of bad things people have said on Wikipedia, that's not very good. I was trying to make a little funny at least. If I could put my two cents in, Rp0211 had a thread started about his GA reviewing behavior here. His initial quick-fail of my article was here. He also had another quick-fail article this week here. This kid never gave me a chance to respond and change anything on my GA nominated article. Take a look at his review of it and you can clearly see that he lied about half of the stuff he came up with. I worked very hard on this article and to have him not give it a chance, is crap. He thinks his article is more deserving of GA than mine? I'm sorry I got excited at his expense, but look at the evidence. Clearly, to me, what he did was an injustice to my hard work on the article. Yes, what I wrote is indeed what most people would call harsh, so Rp0211, I am sorry if what I said may have offended you in any way. I am older than you and I clearly crossed the line of good taste. Just know that speaking out for what is right is something that nobody should be afraid to do. Mattchewbaca (meow) 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you actually see the error of your ways, even here. You are referring to another user repeatedly as "kid" and "the kid" in a clearly dismissive way. You are saying right here that he "lied" about things, without giving any evidence to support that inflammatory, personal accusation. You are accusing him of not giving the article a chance and calling that "crap" - again without support. Yes, you made an apology, but it is so half-hearted as to be almost a non-apology. Finally, you close it all by dismissing objection to your behavior because it is "something that nobody should be afraid to do."

Bottom line: YOU should be afraid to behave that way in this community, because that's not how things work around here, and you've been explicitly warned about it. I am just one notch crankier than Drmies, who posted on your talk page already. Comment on content, not people, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia. I assure you the project will continue - with or without your contributions.  Frank  |  talk  00:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just 7 minutes after posting your justification of your incredibly uncivil behavior here, you post more condescension on the editor's talk page here: [34]. "Look kid, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I thought what I was saying was more funny than anything. I guess it must be different on the receiving end of it. That still doesn't take away from the fact that you gave me a screwed-up review, where half of your suggestions were unjustified, and also didn't give me a chance to respond'. Again, I'm sorry that I offended you. " Attempting to blackmail an editor, as you did here [35] is unacceptable behavior, and should result in sanctions until you can demonstrate you understand how and why it is unacceptable, and pledge to not do so again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the above. There' even a page about it at Non-apology apology N^oformation ^Talk 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Like other editors, I am bemused by the surreal dismissiveness of User:Mattchewbaca. This is way over the line. Mattchewbaca, would you like to issue a complete and unequivocal apology to Rp0211, accompanied by withdrawing from reviewing his GA nominations, or should we move on to dealing with this in some other way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• So far over the line I've blocked Mattchewbaca for 24 hours. I've pulled the GA Reassement for Halfway Gone too, obviously done as retaliation and did not follow the process. Anyone who believes a GA review needs to be done besides Mattchewbaca can refile. Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey everyone. Thank you all for helping me in this situation. I have an update from the actions of this user. Mattchewbaca failed both of the articles I had up for good article nomination before he got blocked for 24 hours. The articles were Who We Are (Lifehouse album) and First Time (Lifehouse song). I addressed the issues he brought up with both articles and then he failed the article, presenting issues under "Review Summary" of other issues that he did not present to me at the time of the initial reviews. I believe these articles are ready for the good article nomination process. Should I put both articles under a second GA review or should it be put as a GA 1 because of the actions of Mattchewbaca? Thanks. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that Mattchewbaca "failed" the GA of both of these articles [36] [37] after he was warned by Drmies [38] [39] (and note - rather than retract his comments as suggested, he failed the GARs), in apparent retaliation for the filing of this AN/I report. I recommend these reviews be voided. Further I Propose a GAR topic ban for Mattchewbaca due to his retaliatory GAR fails. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This "kid" stuff, what can I say. Dreadstar, I do not disagree with a block. I had a quick look at the article they had nominated for GA, and it wasn't bad--still, one wonders about editors with 600+ edits doing such reviews. That peer-review process (which I'm about to celebrate in Boston at the WP in higher ed conference) is potentially much more satisfying, productive, and workable than similar processes in academia, but only if editors and reviewers manage to dish out and take criticism in collegial ways. If this editor can keep their foot out of their mouth long enough to come back, then a GA topic ban is (in my opinion) mandatory unless they can refrain from condescending "kid" language and can refrain from retaliatory action if they don't get their way. Thank you to all involved here and Mattchewbaka, please learn to accept criticism from your wiki-elders. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Persistent source of disruption

There is an IP editor who has been causing low-level disruption on Wikipedia for some time and it doesn't look like this editor is interested in either stopping his behavior or in engaging in discussion in a collaborative manner. The disruption is admittedly minor, however it violates Wikipedia's Guidelines and I think it should be stopped.

For the past several days (that I am aware of), the editor has been repeatedly attempting to "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. The editor makes perhaps 20 to 50 such edits in a day and then he emerges again under a new IP address. As I pointed out to him the first time I noticed him (and several times since), this behavior violates WP:NOTBROKEN. Despite numerous warnings, the editor has not stopped and has failed to even respond. Below is a timeline of my involvement with him:

• 27 June 2011 - User:68.120.84.143 - My first note to the editor thanking him for trying to help, but pointing to NOTBROKEN and asking him to stop.
• 29 June 2011 - User:68.120.81.209 - My L1 template warning in which I directed his attention to the 27 June warning
• 29 June 2011 - User:68.120.81.209 - My L2 template warning in which I very clearly explained that he was violating NOTBROKEN
• 29 June 2011 - User:68.120.81.209 - My L3 template warnings in which I once again explained that he was violating NOTBROKEN and asked him to stop.
• 1 July 2011 - User:68.120.80.100 - My warning to him that I had filed at ANI.

The IP editor has been using a dynamic IP address and has yet to respond to any of the warnings he's received. This means that it is difficult if not impossible to make any impact on him short of a block. I would suggest a range block for these IPs, but there may be a problem with this. The source of the IP seems to be Wikimedia Foundation. By blocking these IPs, would this be harmful to Wikipedia? Since there are at least 3 IP accounts that have been used and there are almost certainly more involved with this guy, should I be filing at SPI? A little help would be very much appreciated. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what IP range the Foundation has assigned, but according to the WHOIS, the IP in question has access to a /23 range. I doubt rangeblocking is a viable option since the range is assigned to a major ISP. If blocking is called for, it's probably going to have to be Whac-a-Mole™. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a pity. Anybody interested in Whacking the Mole, then? He still seems to be carrying on his activities. -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen and Pogrom article

I've run into a baffling and unexpected issue at the Pogrom article. The end of it contained what I thought was a rather arbitrary list of attacks, killing, ethnic cleansings, and genocides, all under the title "Modern usage and examples". Around a week ago I moved it to the article's Talk: page, expressing my concerns that this list was OR - essentially, whatever some Wikipedia editor decided was a "pogrom". However, I was reverted by Rjensen (talk · contribs), and met with very hostile responses on the article's Talk: page, in which Rjensen mostly talked about me to some invisible audience (repeatedly describing my actions as "vandalism"), and, in general, completely ignored WP:BURDEN. Given that Rjensen is a very experienced editor, I was astonished. After a few back and forths, in which I insisted that reliable sources needed to describe the incidents as "pogroms", Rjensen did start adding very brief citations to some of the entries, such as "'Pogrom' is used by Hugh Thomas, The English and the Normans (2003) p 28". When I tagged the items with quotation requests, so I could evaluate exactly what these sources said, I was ignored.

Today Rjensen returned to the article and removed the citation requests, using false/misleading edit summaries like format or add cites. He also removed a definition of "pogrom" from the lede, and added a new (and actually good) source as a definition for "Pogrom" - though, strangely, he re-added items to the article that actually contradicted his preferred definition. I used his source to add a definition to the lede, added material from his source to the article elsewhere, removed a small number of items (keeping most), re-organized some of the material in the lists chronologically, and re-tagged the items without quotations. His response was to simply revert my edits. I was admittedly a bit worked up by all of this, reverted him back (apologies for that hasty act), posted a lengthy comment on the article's Talk: page, and warned him that if he simply reverted me again, I would go straight to AN/I. His response was to re-revert me, so here I am. I have no strong objection to this "list of examples", though I think it will always be arbitrary, but I do want to at least see that reliable sources describe items on the list as "Pogroms". I don't want to edit-war, and, to be honest, I'm hoping that simply posting here will be enough to convince him to show some respect for WP:TALK, WP:BURDEN, WP:NOR, and WP:REVTALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"The question is whether RS use the term, and gthe answer in each case is yes--although not necessarily the cite given." Wut? Does this sentence from Rjensen actually make sense to anyone, because I can't make heads or tails of it. And, yeah, Rjensen is acting extremely inappropriately in this talk page section. Silverseren^C 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually followed what was being said. Unfortunately, it bears out the original matter that brought the issue to ANI, which is a lack of properly-cited sources. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but if Rjensen intends to cite a source, the full and correct citation is necessary. If one cites a passage in order to support a position or argument, one can't squeak around the WP:BURDEN requirement by saying "yeah, it says so, but in a different passage". Cite the correct passage, or don't bother with the citation...or the position. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen's and Jayig's discussion on the talk page and phrasing of edit summaries does not rise to a level that it should be reported here. The reversions by both Jayig and Rjensen have not reached 3RR and in any case are better dealt with at the edit-warring noticeboard. Content dispute resolution should be used when editors disagree on content. Rjensen's comment appears to mean that there are reliable sources describing these incidents as pogroms, but they have not been provided. Instead, the sources describe the events without calling them progroms. TFD (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So I should take the edit-warring to the edit-warring board, the Talk page comments to the WQA board, the content dispute to some DR mechanism, the question about whether citations have to describe the incidents as "pogroms" to NOR/N, the WP:BURDEN issue to RS/N, the false/misleading edit summaries to ?, and...

I think that when there are a comprehensive set of behavioral issues, AN/I is probably a more appropriate board. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

REquest admin assist for main page

See [40]

TCO (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Bump"TCO (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the links, but I guess I am kind of slow. What is the issue here? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. If this is urgent, you're gonna have to explain it for dumbass admins like me. CIreland (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I *tried* to sort this out for you - but all the layout is templated and I'm not confident I can redo everythign so that it works properly all round in a way that "just works" and also displays as you want it. Sorry TCO :( --Errant ^(chat!) 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks for trying.TCO (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/script altering accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD in violation of WP:DATERET

User:Ohconfucius/script is running a script that automatically changes all accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD to another format, regardless of consensus or previous usage

• Vancouver
• Manhattan
• Toronto
• and many more

He documents his intent at User:Ohconfucius/script#Date_formats based on what he dislikes. The MOS permits accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD (Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD.) Changing without getting consensus appears to be a violation of WP:DATERET. --JimWae (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered discussing it with them before bringing it here? Amalthea 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The script page in question includes a detailed section on what the script does with dates and why. ANI is not supposed to be the first port of call for whining about other editors' actions, be they admins or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have. No response, yet. I realize I did not wait long after talking there, but he has donre the same thing to so many articles that I thought some wider notice should be posted somewhere. People ought not be running scripts on hundreds of articles just to enforce their personal preferences in violation of what the MOS permits. I think characterizing this as whining is very unnecessary. If this is not the place for wider notice, please advise me where is? --JimWae (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to talk to him at User talk:Ohconfucius not User talk:Ohconfucius/script. I'm not sure I agree with what he is doing, but I don't think it is personal preferences. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

... and Ohconfucius hadn't edited since. I haven't looked at the changes, and don't know where consensus lies. In general I would advise anyone doing mass formatting changes to get an explicit consensus in advance; if there isn't one for those changes and the two of you can't agree on the best way forward, the respective MOS talk page might be the first place to look for further opinions, and it may be best if Ohconfucius would hold back with further changes of that kind until there is an agreement. Amalthea 22:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to stir this further, and I haven't clicked on any links, but what's being described here sounds like it amounts to running an unauthorized bot.

Not again. This bot keeps cropping up as problematic on Admin various boards, even during my rather brief spell of being hyperactive here. Is the problem a vagueness of the MOS or a POV? - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep your hat on! A bit hasty to come running to ANI... JimWae created a new discussion page and expected me to be watching it, then came here while I was off line. Yes, I admit there were a couple of named cases where the formats ought not to have been unified, and these have been partially reverted. There's no reason to revert the others, as they were definitely done in accordance with MOSNUM. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are infringing WP:DATERET -> WP:DATERET is part of MOSNUM -> your edits are not done in accordance with MOSNUM. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• MOSNUM is above all concerned with consistency within any given article, as witnessed by the opening sentence: This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of numbers, dates, times, measurements, currencies and coordinates in English Wikipedia articles.. The reference to DATERET is not a stand-alone, and certainly doesn't trump MOSNUM of which it is a part. It is intended to be read in context of the desire for consistency expressed in that first sentence, that assuming dates were correctly formatted, they ought not to be changed by a whim. Thus alignment of all other inconsistent formatting is expressly compliant with MOSNUM. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The edit to Vancouver by Ohconfucius was specifically requested by JimWae when he added the {{Use mdy dates}} template in May. The consensus for this change was demonstrated when the template was allowed to remain by the editing community for more than a month. What, you say, that's really not what {{Use mdy dates}} means? Then change it. What, you say, a hidden template cannot demonstrate consensus? Then enact a policy that all hidden templates that demonstrate consensus must contain a diff to the version of the talk page that demonstrates consensus. But don't blame Ohconfucius for satisfying JimWae's request. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• The second item on JimWae's list, Manhattan, had inconsistent date format in the reference section and was thus eligible for correction. Ohconfucius's choice of format can be justified by this edit which is the first actual choice by an editor to place an access date in the reference section. Prior date inclusions are template transclusions, and there is no telling what the transclusions looked like back in 2006, so I discount those. Since it is evident that JimWae's list is not properly screened for actual violations of WP:DATERET I don't intend to examine any further entries. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Background:

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision#Ohconfucius

Previous threads and warnings about the exact the same issue with the user (changing YYYY-MM-DD dates to something else):

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive676#Ohconfucius.2C_MOSNUM_edit_warring_.2F_ARBCOM_Date_delinking_case_revisited
2. User_talk:Ohconfucius#Date_Formats
3. User_talk:Ohconfucius#Osama_bin_Laden.27s_compound_in_Abbottabad_DMY_dates_to_MDY_.3F
4. ANI - Ohconfucios_mass-changing_date_formats

Also note that according to Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates, the community's consensus is to retain the YYYY-MM-DD date format. I believe Ohconfucius is acting against consensus. Can we finally at least get him to suspend his activities until he can demonstrate that consensus is on the side of his edits? My view that Ohconfucius seems to be simply ignoring all the requests and warnings urging him to stop, and just keeps going on and on with his mass-changes. The correct thing for him to do would be to launch a community discussion about the issue, and only resume his mass-changing of date formats if a consensus is formed that supports what he is doing. Nanobear (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already community consensus for Ohconfucius's edits: see WP:MOSNUM. In this case, Ohconfucius made two mistakes (ie edits that weren't consistent with MOSNUM) and as soon as he was made aware of this, he immediately reverted his changes (even though Jc3s5h shows how they were basically borderline calls that could have gone either way). This should not even have come to ANI, as it could have all been resolved by one comment to his talk page. There is absolutely no evidence in this thread that Ohconfucius is acting against consensus (all I see is an editor who made two mistakes and promptly fixed them when notified). Jenks24 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the above comments and clarifications. I think my position expressed here and elsewhere is demonstrably clear and not in violation of any policy or guideline. Unless anyone has any more to add, let's not waste any more time on the complaints of those who seem to be insisting on preserving the existence of ISO8601 dates in reference sections that may be in violation of said guideline. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for a little help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware / Gargoyle Router Firmware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hullo;

Having completed the close, I find I am now unable to delete the article. At first I thought my privledges had been mistakenly removed, but the "delete" link is still on other pages I see... Can someone please either tell me how to get to deleting that page, or if you're feeling really generous just do the deletion? (presuming you agree with the close, etc) I promise to bomb you with Wikilove if you help me. (^_^)
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The delete button worked for me. Looks like a reasoned close so I'm not going to second-guess or endorse/dispute. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a !vote and not a close to me. -Atmoz (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the interest of ANI readers, the deletion is currently being reviewed at DRV - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1. 62.200.86.169 (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of a talk page while blocked?

Resolved

 – With PhanuelB's talk page blanked, and his indefinite block upheld with both talk page access and email access removed, there is little more to discuss here. SuperMarioMan 14:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that the content here is inappropriate for a user talk page, for a number of reasons. The section consists exclusively of long, block quotations, copied-and-pasted from several sources. While I find this in itself dubious with regard to fair-use guidelines concerning text, what is potentially even more troubling is the fact that the content relates to a living person, and is essentially collected criticism of that particular individual. I am not convinced that the user's claim that the sources are reliable (although they are more or less opinion pieces) is a satisfactory rationale for using part of their talk page as a holding area for lengthy extracts, especially when the quotations are highly negative about the subject – the user page content guidelines state: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

I believe that a user talk page is not the place to host this content, which presents multiple concerns pertaining to WP:BLP and WP:UPNO (and quite possibly WP:COPYVIO), and that, consequently, it should be removed. I would appreciate opinions from uninvolved users and administrators.

Context: Following a series of short-term blocks, PhanuelB (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been indefinitely blocked since September 2010 for "Disruptive editing: Long-term SPA, WP:Battle mentality, WP:NPA)". Their talk page access, revoked in January 2011, has recently been restored to allow for further discussion. However, since returning to Wikipedia, the user has indicated little or no understanding of the reasons behind their block, and their actions have amounted to a continuation of the behaviour that resulted in the block being imposed in the first place. In this comment, besides barely addressing the concerns that I had raised about content on their talk page, the user accused a blocking administrator of "false allegations", which have yet to be meaningfully substantiated. SuperMarioMan 05:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My initial inclination is to cut the editor some slack on this point. The quotes, while on the long side compared to what we typically use in articles, thus pushing the boundaries of fair use, are not so long as to be a clear violation of fair use. They are clearly sourced, so there is no confusion on that point. They were added recently, so it is too early to claim he is "maintaining" such a list. It is titled as a list of reliable sources, so no one reading it is accidentally going to think it is a complete exegesis on the subject; I don't think the requirements of balance apply here. I realize this is a complicated situation, and I've only peered at the tip of the iceberg, but I don't feel this is the right next step.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a single purpose account, existing only to try to plug a particular point of view regarding Murder of Meredith Kercher. The user repeatedly created user page forks of the article in user space in order to be able to have a version which would express the user's chosen point of view. These user space pages were deleted as results of deletion discussions: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. eventually the user was indefinitely blocked, as described above. The user then proceeded to create a similar page at User talk:PhanuelB, which, in the circumstances, was a clear abuse of the talk page, so I removed talk page access. Since then the user has carried on a campaign via email. I have received several emails, and I know that some other users have also been emailed. My own view is that the email campaign came close to constituting harassment, and that withdrawal of email access might be considered soon. However, I was approached by another user who had been emailed by PhanuelB. This user clearly also thought that PhanuelB's email campaign was becoming disruptive, but suggested restoring talk page access so that if PhanuelB thought that he/she had a reasonable case then he/she could have an opportunity to express it. The user also mentioned WP:ROPE. My own feeling was that PhanuelB had already been given plenty of opportunities to express a reasonable case, and had instead been belligerent and obstructive. Nevertheless, I agreed to restore talk page access to give PhanuelB one more chance. PhanuelB has proceeded to use their talk page to assemble material intended to justify their plugging of a point of view, rather than, as before, to create a POV fork of the article. The situation is therefore not identical to that before. I was approached on my talk page with concerns over this, but I was reluctant to act unilaterally, and instead suggested bringing the issue here to allow input from others. However, as I see it, PhanuelB is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote a campaign to publicise a particular point of view, and to try to get a Wikipedia article altered to reflect that point of view. PhanuelB has also conducted this campaign off-wiki (i.e., completely away from Wikipedia, in addition to the emails I have mentioned). Whether the particular way that the user talk page is being used as part of this campaign requires any action is, as I see it, the question at issue here. Finally, I should like to say that I have no opinion whatsoever as to the article which PhanuelB wants changed: my involvement has been entirely related to PhanuelB's use of user space in various forms. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the section. This is clearly soapboxing, and given that the target is a living person there really isn't any alternative. — Coren ^(talk) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to be compiling reliable sources which could be used on articles about the subjects at hands, topics which other editors have already identified as possiblying having some legs.

On a different note, it may be time to review this editors' indefinite block. He was purged with a bunch of other editors for borderline violations of wikipedia policy as part of their attempt to restore order (or gain ownership) of a specific article. Several of the other indefinite blocks have already been reversed and identified as unjust or over-the-top...perhaps it's time to review this one, too.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As an administrator uninvolved in multiple disputes around the article in question, when I was asked to review the block (technically I was asked to "take a look at all of the illegitimate blocks", but that's neither here nor there) I agreed with the original block that was placed. Other administrators are welcome to review it and reach their own conclusions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I too agree with the block. I also don't know in what sense the policy violations were "borderline". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't really find the discussion that led to his block, but from what I pieced together on the talk page, it seemed to be accusations of disruptive editing and violations of NPA and BLP. The examples I saw were pretty minor and/or wrong. Of course, if there is more to it than this, I could definitely be wrong.LedRush (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations? How is the use of quotes of a public figure from a news source a copyright violation? And it is not allowed to state things about living figures which may be deemed negative? Does that mean that an article such as this is a violation of WP rules? It seems like a lot of editors have been blocked over the MMK article which raises suspicion of vindictiveness. I personally find the strident tone of some of the editors on that page distasteful and it is hardly an example of neutral editing. As for "off Wiki campaigns" what is that supposed to mean? Are we only allowed to conduct our lives on WP? I agree that a review of this blocking is warranted. BTW the living individual in question, like the one I linked to, is and Italian prosecutor who has been convicted of abuse of office and has a pending sentence of about two years. Other negative aspects of this prosecutor have been well documented. Just in today's front page news in Corriere della Sera we have the following comment on the forensic science employed by this prosecutor's office: "International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed [knife]. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item [bra clasp]; There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs; There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;" In other words, not only did they not follow proper procedures, in the case of the bra clasp there was nothing there to begin with. Dougbremner (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The main question, as I have explained above, is whether stockpiling long, copied-and-pasted, negative quotations about a living person is appropriate for a Wikipedia user talk page. Your comparison to the Blagojevich article (an article rather than a user talk page) is therefore invalid. Copyright was not my main concern in filing this report. Soapboxing with compilations of third-party quotations is soapboxing nevertheless, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SuperMarioMan 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there evidence that he's stockpiling? They've been there for less than a couple of days. Also, several editors (yourself included?) accused him of making edits which violated BLP. His defense is that there aren't BLP violations, and the quotations are evidence.LedRush (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Collecting", "compiling", "stockpiling" ... more a matter of semantics, if anything, but continually adding to the section, to me, seemed to be inappropriate. The user seems to be under the impression that a dispute resolution process is coming up, if I have read this response correctly. How the "evidence" will have a part to play in the said process is unclear, however. Their time would probably be better spent putting together an unblock request, rather than amassing a load of diffs that do nothing to refute the concerns that led to the block. SuperMarioMan 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have followed this dispute on and off for some time and it seems to me that the content on the user’s talk page is an entirely reasonable attempt to present a detailed defense against a series of dubious allegations against him. As a matter of fact, he has been remarkably restrained in response to what seems to be a campaign of abuse and attempt to silence him. Certainly, this editor is seen to be biased on the subject of a certain contentious article. But no more so than the others who oppose him. It is no sin to be motivated by bias in an attempt to keep an article neutral and prevent an opposing bias from unfairly influencing it. It IS wrong to single out and target an editor with a differing opinion (SPA or not). What concerns me is the tactics that have been used to oppose this editor and others who have attempted to support him; including baiting users into attacks and apparently one-sided application of sanctions. While it may be difficult to prove, there is a definite perception that one or more biased admins may have used their powers to support one side by selectively interpreting and enforcing rules. (To prevent reprisals from these admins, I have chosen not to log in to make these comments, but for the information of anyone who examines the IP address, I make these observations as a private individual and NOT as a representative of the U.S. government.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.17.254 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, to return to the actual matter in hand - namely, how a user talk page has been used - could you perhaps explain how amassing lengthy quotations about a living person is related to composing "a detailed defense against a series of dubious allegations made against him"? SuperMarioMan 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indef'ed SPAs should not be allowed to continue to use their userspace to soapbox in their topic area of interest. I think it is well time for a revocation of talk page access here. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The above editor has not acted in a neutral fashion relative to the MMK page. For instance he accused another editor commenting on the current page of being a "liar". That is not cool. Dougbremner (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As we see above, any editor who does not toe the Knox-is-innocent line is immediately set upon by all the other SPAs and declared to be "non-neutral", or when they're feeling less charitable, a "pro-guilter". This topic area needs a clean sweep, but for now, kicking one soapbox out from under one of these blocked editors would be a good thing. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be some kind of moratorium on this subject until the the case is fully processed. There's a concerted effort by some editors to use wikipedia for advocacy, which is absolutely not what wikipedia is about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the advocates owned the article for so long, that the resulting article has many POV problems ingrained in the structure. Since March, when the offending Admins and many of the offending editors left, the article and tone of discussion has gotten much better.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Really. Just judging by the sheer amount of drama I see on your talkpage and that of a couple of other editors related to the article, as well as endless mutual accusations of uncivil posting on every noticeboard, I'd have thought otherwise. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position, the talk-page may be civil, but it won't be constructive. Also, it engenders more anger by new editors (which you then need to indef...wash, rinse, repeat). The article (and talk page) has made vast strides since March, and I don't know that I've seen more than a couple of people disagree with that sentiment. Anyway, back on subject...LedRush (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely the first sentence in your reply is a hypothetical view of yours, right? Because if it's an accusation, I will have to ask to provide diffs demonstrating who indeffed whom for their views (as opposed for their conduct) or retract what amounts to a clear personal attack. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Man, and people said I was too sensitive to personal attacks! The "you" above should read as "one". However, even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be a personal attack.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We all know perfectly well what blocking administrators you were meaning with your you / one, and you allege misconduct of one or several administrators, which, unless you can provide diffs, is indeed a personal attack. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

LedRush and the SPAs have been leveling that charge against Black Kite for months now, it's regrettably nothing new. What they fail to consider is that perhaps one "side" is simply incapable of conducting themselves maturely, while the other "side"...if simply wanting the article to reflect the reality of reliable sources, i.e. Knox is in prison for killing Kercher, though is appealing...can be considered a "side" is debatable. Myself, I am not for or against any player in this topic area, but like in other areas in the project, I am simply anti-fringePOV. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I was going to say something along the lines that the article is less toxic these days because we now have editors pushing PhanuelB's POV who don't use a modus operandi of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them is somehow "pro-guilt", but I take that back now. LedRush is clearly the same as all the others. Like the others, he doesn't understand the concept that previous editors were indeffed for standard WP reasons - persistent incivility, battleground mentality, edit-warring, socking, using meatpuppets to stack votes, etc, etc. I thought he was better than that; clearly I was wrong. Yet again, I ask LedRush, the 152.x.x.x IP, or anyone else, to point out any time where myself, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here has edited the article to favour one POV or the other. Here's a clue - you can't, because it hasn't happened. Either put up or shut up. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Everyone involved, including you, could do with being a bit more nice to each other. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Can you please point to an instance where I accuse you, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here of having edited the article to favour of one POV or the other? Can you please point to an instance where I have indicated that anyone who disagrees with me is pro-guilt? This type of personal attack against editors who don't agree with you is exactly the problem on the article. I have often and consistently worked with editors who have been accused by others as being part of the "pro-guilt" group to fashion a better article, and I have consistently warned editors (yes, even ones that others accuse of being "pro-innocence") that they are being uncivil and that their edit requests do not conform to WP policy. Yet I am still the subject of this type of personal attack.
  • There was a time on the article when editors would get indeffed after only one edit for behaviorial evidence of sock puppetry. Or editors would get indeffed for accusing a group of people as being "pro-guilt", while the same Admins accused a group of SPAs as being part of an advocacy camp. Other editors were blocked for borderline civility issues. Were all the blocks bad? No. The SPAs are often too aggressive and not mindful of WP policies. But that doesn't excuse certain actions, it explains them. Now that some of the more controversial Admins and editors have dialed it back, the article has been improved vastly since March (Will anyone argue seriously that the article in existence in February is better than the one today) and people who want to explain the controversy pursuant to WP policies are not dismissed out of hand. Some SPAs still don't get it, and they are blocked. Some established editors still attack newbies, and this is the subject of controversy. Personally, I don't believe calling attention to incivility or uneven handling of editor disputes should make me subject of even more personal attacks.
  • Unforunately, once again, a subject which requires actual attention is being ignored...can we get back to the topic at hand?LedRush (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Above you ask "Can you please point to an instance where I accuse you, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here of having edited the article to favour of one POV or the other?", yes? An hour previous to that, did you not say "Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position..." ? Tarc (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Where in that do I accuse them of editing the article to favour one POV or the other? (answer - no where.) And I don't suppose you want to get back on the topic instead of trying to squeeze out some kind of "gotha" moment that doesn't exist?LedRush (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You said, and I quote "Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position..." - yet I, and the others have no position on this article other than NPOV. Frankly, I couldn't care less if Knox is guilty, innocent or a giant banana from the planet Zog - the only thing we are doing administratively is enforcing Wikipedia policies. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Ledrush, you're engaging in some mighty fine hair-splitting here. Again, you said "when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position". You are being asked to specifically name a "you" who has done such a thing, or retract the statement. Do you understand? Tarc (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
          • No, I do not understand. If others want to misrepresent my views, and I ask them for examples, I think it is fair to ask based on what they (and I) actually said, not something imagined. Regardless, this off-topic sniping should stop. If you want to persist in this discussion, can I suggest your talk page or Black Kite's?LedRush (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Answer the question, or strike the comment. Apples or oranges, yin or yang, Coke or Pepsi, the Beatles or Elvis. You just have to pick one. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The following was written by PhanuelB on his talk page with the request that it be put here. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am currently blocked and unable to properly defend myself at a discussion at WP:ANI. I request that a neutral admin copy this content to that area.

Black Kite writes:

"Yet again, I ask LedRush, the 152.x.x.x IP, or anyone else, to point out any time where myself, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here has edited the article to favour one POV or the other. Here's a clue - you can't, because it hasn't happened. Either put up or shut up. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)"

Really? Jimbo Wales says here that there has been systematic exclusion of reliable sources. Look at the responses by Black Kite to my list of reliable sources on the Meredith Kercher topic. here. I have fully proven that Black Kite engaged in "systematic exclusion of reliable sources." False allegations of AGF and NPA were made against me for saying the same thing that Jimbo found when he came to the page.

I have another idea. How about somebody go over and remove Black Kite's block of Gregmm. Let's see if he's a sockpuppet or not. What can it hurt to unblock him and see what happens. PhanuelB (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Gregmm has been unblocked.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By Black Kite, no less. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling editors "liars" (Tarc, MoMK talk page) and telling them to "shut up" (Black Kite) is a clear violation of WP:NPA and sniping at new editors as SPA is violation of WP Don't bite the newcomers. LedRush has been very patient with these blatant violations of WP policy. I don't think these editors, with MLauba, are acting in a fair way. I would like to return to the subject at hand, which was related to the repeated blocks of this editor. Dougbremner (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for .... "Put up or shut up" is clearly saying "either validate your personal attacks with diffs or other proof, or stop making them". Have you actually looked at this in any detail? Myself and the other admins involved (and other non-admins as well) have had to waste huge amounts of our time with legions of SPAs, recruited off-wiki, whose only purpose is to slant this article to their POV. I'd suggest looking through the reams of previous ANIs before you start casting aspersions on people. As for the blocks of PhanuelB, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher may be a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

They are quite right, Black Kite. Irrespective of what their editing patterns are, everyone should remain civil, including you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So they are allowed to accuse me of administrative abuse, yet I am not allowed to ask them to validate those claims or stop making them? I've got a thick skin, but this is really starting to get ridiculous. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to ask them to validate those claims. You are not allowed, however, to tell them to "shut up or put up". It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. As an administrator, I know you are aware of this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend placing {{NOINDEX|visible=yes}} on his talk page and any subpages and possibly allow the content he has been amassing in collapsed boxes (possibly on subpages). This will remove undue exposure.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've placed the noindex tag..so is it workable with the collapsed boxes?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Deskana, you're out of line. This motley collection of sock and meat puppets routinely screams "ABUSE!","you're incivil!", you're controlling the page!", etc... yet when invited to follow our procedures to deal with such things...dispute resolution, 3rd opinion, mediation, Wikiquette alerts...they specifically and emphatically refuse to do so. Instead, they just continue to drop in the same accusations whenever they post here or at the article talk page. Black Kite is wholly within his right to tell them to put up or shut up, and I have said the same thing to Ledrush once as well. You can't simply let people accuse, over and over and over, someone of doing something wrong. If they really think there is a wrong, take it to somewhere like WP:WQA so uninvolved editors can have a look. Tarc (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not out of line, and it seems like Black Kite you are missing the point too. Civility does not stop being policy no matter who you are talking to, whether they are SPAs, sockpuppets, or banned users. I agree with everything that you and Black Kite have said, but how you are saying it is unacceptable. That is the point of the civility policy. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Tarc, when you say "This motley collection of sock and meat puppets..", who exactly are you referring to? Oh I get it.. you're being ironic.. You're not attacking others, you're making a joke.. That's why these handful of 'neutral' admins aren't rushing to INDEF you like they have so many others over the last year for far lesser sins. Sorry, sly wit often doesnt translate well across the internet.. So back to the topic of PhanuelB..(Question to no one admin in particular) So put down all the flowery debate team language for a moment and let's talk man to man. What bothers you guys so much about PhanualB? What are you scared of? What do you care what he does with HIS SANDBOX so long as he's not changing your precious Meredith article? I remember him from last year.. I got indef'd for defending him.. He was passionate but I dont recall that he was ever as bitter, nasty or vengeful as some of you all have been at times. Why so much effort being put into blocking his/her voice ? So many admins working to keep his opinion out makes me think he must have something very important to say... tjholme Tjholme (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that must be it; disruptive, combative, tendentious editors aren't ever blocked for their disruptiveness, combativeness, or tendentiousness. No, it must be because such editors are dangerous revolutionaries whose message must be suppressed at all costs. By golly, why didn't I ever realize that before? Tarc (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thankyou, Tjholme, for ending your 3 month editing hiatus just in time to prove my point exactly. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Something I've asked for before on here that would be tremendously helpful on the talk page are a couple of uninvolved admins willing to watch the page soley for civility and call everyone when they slip up. The new editors often come in hostile and aggressive, boldly pointing out cabal's and proclaiming anyone that might possibly object to their view as "pro-guilt". There have been an extremely large number of SPA's that have been on that page, often using forum-type tactics and tone. From experience, once you get labeleing "pro-guilt", your hints, suggestions and warnings are ignored at best and deemed censorship and/or yet another example of the clique of experienced editors slapping down the little guy. Having a couple of admins that stay out of content and only focus on controlling the general tone would go a great deal towards helping. I've walked away for a few weeks from the article because I got damn sick and tired of constantly getting crap from a couple of editors and nobody calling them on it, save for the "pro-guilt" clique. Which gets ignored, derided or pointed to as an example of how The Truth is kept from he article. Until there are several admins willing to aggressively ride herd on that article, it will not change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Revensfire's suggestion about getting neutral admin to take a look, but I strongly contest his characterization of the talk page. Yes, SPAs and new editors often push too hard for their changes, don't demonstrate a full understanding of WP policy, and sometimes break civility issues. But what is surprising to me is that the "pro-guilt" editors (horrible name, I know) don't recognize their role in this. They are constantly condescending, insulting, bitey and agressive to the newer editors. Their frustration is understandable, but it should not be condoned. If new admins come in to police the talk page, I hope they do so with an even hand, and also with a mind towards understanding that not everyone is an experienced editor who knows all the rules (meaning polite and friendly warnings rather than knee-jerk blocks will be better for the long term health of the board). I would also hope that these admins would be able to recognize, and politely warn established editors from, the borderline uncivil needling aimed at the newer editors.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Ravensfire and LedRush, I already serve that role. I have been very careful to remain neutral with regards to article content on the talk page, and as I have not read the article and have no knowledge of the subject matter, I am free from bias. I agree that there should be more administrators with such a role on that talk page, but as we are all volunteers you may find it hard to fill such a position. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page access is only kept for blocked users to allow them to discuss and appeal their block. Talk page access was already revoked, but lifted last week. I have now again removed talk page access. The user can appeal to ArbCom or other accepted unblock channels if they want to discuss an unblock, but until then, their contributions are not wanted on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring all the personal stuff

I would assume that everyone in this discussion would agree that the correct order for productive contribution to our encyclopedia is as follows:

1. Get yourself unblocked
2. Compile sources for use on articles

As such, does everyone agree that PhanuelB should, in principle, concentrate on getting himself unblocked before working on sources for the article in question? If so then we're done here, at least until PhanuelB actually requests an unblock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And that he will. He's requested an unblock to me through private channels before, and he's emailed quite a few other users though I can't speak to whether those emails were about getting unblocked or not. The evidence he has cited for his unblock has been checked by me before and I've agreed with the original blocking admin. Rather than admitting his mistake and vowing to change it, he insists he has done nothing wrong, which both the original blocking admin, JamesBWatson and I have disagreed with. There's nothing further to be accomplished by reviewing the blocks he's had placed on him for the nth time. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. A blocked user (or any user) can compile all the info they want to, on their own PC, and save it for when (or if) they get unblocked. To post it on-wiki is defiant, and hence is self-defeating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB has emailed me a few times in the last month or so - on one occasion requesting the blocks be reviewed. A few weeks later I did take a look at some of the blocks (including his) and agree the blocks were valid because the editors were a disruptive influence. Sadly, unless he can demonstrate an understanding that his previous behaviour was unacceptable and agree to work constructively on the article talk page (keeping his temper, discussing content and understanding that his POV may not always represent the neutral one) I see no reason an unblock can be granted.

To that end; a blocked editor may only use his talk page for requesting or discussing an unblock - misuse of that privilege usually leads to it being removed. Suggest that if this happens again talk page access be removed again until it is impressed upon PhanuelB what the talk page access is for.

As a final disclosure I would not support an unblock right now because in his first email to me PhanuelB forwarded private emails from the Arbitration committee (to himself) without permission - which I do not think demonstrates the sort of change in behaviour we are looking for. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, PhanuelB seems (to me, at least) to be under the impression that an unblock will be obtained not by accepting the disruptive nature of his own conduct, but by compiling massive lists of diffs and quotes about the supposed misconduct of other users - such an approach amounts to little more than blatant WP:NOTTHEM. Furthermore, some of the comments above suggest that his emailing campaign (which has involved multiple correspondents) has, at times, bordered on harrassment. As such, I wonder whether - at some point in the not-too-distant future - his email access will need to be revoked in addition to his talk page access. In the case of this user, I'd argue that WP:ROPE is now well and truly a dead horse - the problems regarding WP:IDHT are simply too rife and entrenched. SuperMarioMan 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm. PhanuelB wasted little time in mailing me (twice) following this thread, following the established trend of blaming others / arguing over the article content rather than his behaviour. If that's what everyone else is getting subject to when commenting on this issue it's probably time to disable email access, as the user seems not to get that it is his behaviour and not that of others which needs to be addressed for an unblock to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is true that PhanuelB has once again started to send disruptive emails, I would endorse revoking their email access without further delay - enough is enough. This user's approach to editing and discussion is completely incompatible with Wikipedia values. SuperMarioMan 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are posts at these people's "Injustice in Perugia" web forum following the initial block where this PhanuelB solicits other users to come here and argue on his behalf. Once again, these are people who are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia; they are here to demonstrate and advocate for a particular cause. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have disabled PhanuelB's email access. It is impossible to tell how many users have been recipients of emails, but it is clear that at least several users have each received at least several emails, and that in at least some cases this has come close to harassment. It is also clear that the emails, in common with the talk page abuse and the other editing which led to the block in the first place, are not part of any attempt to work at improving the encyclopaedia, but rather part of a concerted campaign to promote a point of view by all means available, including subverting Wikipedia to serve that purpose. Therefore email access is not helpful to Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It would certainly seem to have been a wide-ranging campaign - at least five email recipients, from all that I have read - and a persistent one at that. Definitely time to put an end to all this madness. SuperMarioMan 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, what's the deal here? Are you stalking PhanuelB? Googling for their connections? Are you a member of 'Injustice in Perugia' or one its counter sites? How in other words do you know what they wrote on another website? I find it really disturbing that you seem so bent on keeping an editor blocked that you've searched out any information you can find on them. Probably taking things out of context. Wow, just wow. Issymo (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Phanuel has more meatpuppets than Hormel, what do you expect? Now, beat it, before you get lanced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's called "due diligence". It's not all that uncommon, really. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proxy editing

The Friends of PhanuelB have made attempts to add a message her eon his behalf; Tjholme (one) and NigelPScott (one), (two). I think we're in block territory here, certainlly for the latter. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I concur with blocking the latter because he was warned on his talk page earlier today.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is upsetting that some of the editors we have interacted with on the talk page may have been colluding off-wiki. I know Knox has a lot of internet support but I assumed, perhaps naively, that these individuals were here, like the rest of us, as individuals - except they shared a particular view of innocence. To now find they may be posting messages influenced by a blocked editor (at the very least) is.. disappointing to say the least. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have left a warning for NigelPScott. This edit, besides proxying yet again for PhanuelB, also contains egregious soapboxing. SuperMarioMan 23:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I would ask that everyone simply take breath and rest a sec before escalating this further. I cant speak for NigelScott. I only speak for myself. As to Proxy-editing: I didnt 'edit' for PhanuelB as such. Like a number of you I received a communication asking simply that I post a message to a Talk Page where his unblock request was being discussed. He (she?) stated that due to his block he was unable to defend himself. That he should have a say in a discussion about him seemed reasonable to me. In any event I wasnt aware that messaging the admins while blocked was a violation of WP:ANYTHING. I did a person a small favor. My bad. I received a warning from Tarc letting me know not to do it again. I'm ok with that. No need to make this into something bigger than the minor faux pas that it is. Additionally, PhanuelB's communication was a simple, straight forward request for assistance. To call it some kind of conspiracy or collusion is really a stretch. On the subject of warnings and blocks: I would like to point out that I only know about Tarc's warning because I stumbled upon the note at the bottom of my Talkpage quite by accident. I almost posted PhanuelB's note again when I saw it had been removed, thinking I hadnt saved it properly.. As I said, I cant speak for NigelScott but his double posting may well not have been some act of defiance but just the result of not knowing that posting to a ANI Talkpage is considered 'Proxy-Editing' It's been a long day.. I suggest we put this issue of blocking down for today.. Let bygones be bygones.. and take appropraite measured action when and if it happens again.. now that we're all on the same sheet of music. Regards, Jake Holmes Tjholme (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest explanation; that makes me a lot happier and I do withdraw my comments in relation to yourself. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest. Nigel did know and saw his warnings because of his preamble where he indicates that we should be running a totalitarian state and a number of other things that I won't elaborate on. Phanuel will need to appeal to ArbCom; it is no longer a matter for this noticeboard. This isn't the place to stage a defense. No one here can do anything for him now. Like many here, I have received emails from him and one held the response from a previous ArbCom appeal...this is a matter up to them. Further postings on his behalf are actually hurting his chances for appeal, seen as disruptive and potentially hurting those who, unwittingly or not, post on his behalf. Please see this excerpt of policy which forbids editing, presenting or transmitting something on behalf of an indef-blocked editor.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the next editor to proxy edit for a blocked user will themselves be blocked by me. There shall be no further warnings. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if they've never been warned? That seems...excessive.LedRush (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If they're posting here, then they'll see their message and it'll serve as their warning. So far there have been three attempts to post messages from blocked users here. Three violations of our standards is what's excessive. I'm not going to tolerate a fourth. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rememberway

This is in relation to the resent WP:POINTy disruptive edits, accusations of bad faith, edit warring and spiraling Civility issues. The user has become something of a single purpose account recently. Focusing on the articles Tau, Turn (geometry), Michael Hartl (also its AfD), and Pi. It's all based around the recent coverage of τ-day, where some people have proposed using τ = 2π in place of the mathematical constant π. He's made it his issue to include τ wherever possible. Whenever it's removed, he reverts.

After reverting my edits, Gandalf61's edits, and David Eppstein's edits (all three of us are Wikipedia Maths Project members and Maths Reference Desk regulars) at the article turn (geometry), he was given a 3RR warning by Arthur Rubin. When reverting David's edits, who is an admin, he left the edit summary: "bad faith edit that significantly damaged the article". When I undid the changes he made while accusing David of bad faith and disruptive editing; Rememberway came to my talk page to pick a fight. I archived the discussion (on my own talk page), and Rememberway undid that to say that my actions were pathetic and that he was not in an edit war.

He seemed to calm down following the 3RR warning, but has started up again, edit warring on Tau with Quandle. We can see from the edit history that Quandle was trying to engage Rememberway in discussion ([41] [42]). Rememberway's response was to issue Quandle with a 3RR warning. Given that Rememberway had initiated the reverts, I gave him a 3RR warning. His response was to quote WP:DICK, [43].

Basically, to recap, the issues are as follows:

• Possible ownership of articles.
• Edit warring with anyone that disagrees with him.
• Accusing admins of bad faith and disruptive edits.
• Edit warring with people on their own talk pages.
• Increasing levels of incivility.

Obviously, this is just one side of the story. I hope that you will check the edit histories of Tau, Turn (geometry), Pi, Michael_Hartl's AfD, User talk:Fly by Night, user talk:Quandle, user talk:Rememberway; especially the latter because he wipes all cautions and warnings. Don't take my word for it because I've lost the plot. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy ^ is seriously harassing me, and continually assuming bad faith; and basically 'making shit up'.

The Arthur Rubin thing was discussed User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#3RR.3F here, and you can see that I'd only done one revert of David Eppstein's edit that bizarrely accused me of POINT (for no reason I could see at all), and then I got accused of OWNERSHIP by Fly By Night, and of edit warring with Gandalf61, someone I had never reverted, nor him me. According to Fly by Night this constitutes OWNERSHIP of an article I had contributed to in good faith. Just totally bizarre.

He's just being totally ridiculous. Just unbelievably bad faith all the way from start to finish. -Rememberway (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As for Quandle, if you check the history of the article tau, Quandle has been removing a link to the turn article for months, and people keep putting it back in again. There was also a peak in traffic usage three days ago where people were obviously searching for information about the tau constant, and they still are, it's still dying down. Quandle's entire argument seems to be that news sources like BBC and CNN and periodicals aren't reliable sources and don't confer notability or something daft like that. -Rememberway (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Night has done stuff like: "removing recent material pero WP:NOT#NEWS. The author's article is subject to an AfD. &tau'-day has been in the news today, and some people have been adding it to as many articles as they can" where I'm pretty sure he meant me, but it was immediately reverted by Waldir with the text "Restore text removed by User:Fly by Night: 1) The AfD has nothing to do with this content 2) The content was here way before today so it's not recent/news 3) Noone's been adding tau to "as many articles as they can" (otherwise, diffs?" And that was true, I'd only added brackets for a wikilink, and nobody else had either.

It's just horrible, horrible bad faith and horribly tendentious. There's much more of this crap, but I can't be bothered to put it here, can someone get him to leave me alone? -Rememberway (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN causa sui (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• In his previous accounts Rememberway was sanctioned for writing articles on words. Now he's moved on to letters. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive216#Proposed editing restrictions on User:Wolfkeeper. Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh? No? (I was AFDing articles that violated NAD). And hell no? And note I'm not under any restrictions at all. -Rememberway (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your block log [44] and talk page history tell a different story. Atama blocked you for having previous accounts and possibly evading previous sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope again. I was unblocked because I had not violated any of the restrictions while they were still in force (except for changing accounts, but they let me off that, probably because some mild stalking restarted as soon as it was clear who I was, which was why I hadn't publicised it.) -Rememberway (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• At WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper/Archive, there is evidence that Wolfkeeper/Rememberway violated sanctions on multiple occasions. Warden (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not even. Actually, I'm glad you bought it up, the edits you pointed to there were edits to talk pages, I was not ever blocked from those. Oh and I made entirely uncontroversial changes to Chav to make it follow WP:LEAD. No, this is and was just you slinging mud in the hope that some of it will stick. But it won't. That happened 9 months ago, and I am under no restrictions at all. -Rememberway (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• These edits (amongst others) by Rememberway [45] are an example of disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. It is not surprising that such edits were immediately reverted by multiple editors connected with WikiProject Mathematics. As Wolfkeeper, he was already blocked for making pointy edits across multiple articles. This is a repetition of the same conduct. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... Disrupting to make a point is when you do the opposite of what you believe just to prove how silly it is. Given that I think that tau is notable, I'm at a complete loss to understand how I could be being POINTy, and I'm sure I've done nothing that is unreasonable at that article. -Rememberway (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream mathematics does not recognize this eccentric usage of tau. Any agenda to suggest otherwise on wikipedia is WP:UNDUE, unreasonable and disruptive. Indeed if you continue doing so, I would fully support the imposition of some new kind of long term topic ban on editing mathematics articles. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, mainstream maths is extremely flexible. You can set any unused symbol at all to 2 Pi and use it throughout your work without any problem at all. -Rememberway (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you have taken a small subset of my edits entirely out of context. I believe this to be completely unfair, and an entirely bad faith personal attack. While I still do not consider it very good, the Turn article is, it seems to me, significantly better organised now and better written than it previously was, and a great deal of this is due to my editing. That you are trying to threaten me with blocks says it all really. -Rememberway (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Rememberway for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, with a block rationale of "There appears to be a schism between what WP believes and what Rememberway perceives to be legitimate editing. It is unfair to expect Rememberway to exist in such an indifferent editing environment." I did review the specific complaints and found them justified, but the decision to indef block was Rememberway's responses above to the complaint here; they exemplified the behaviours complained of. It may be that Rememberway/Wolfkeeper is correct and the WP community wrong, in which case the editor need find an editing environment that is more sympathetic. Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs", or small ones either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As a (relatively) new user I would appreciate criticism of my conduct. Quandle (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want more general feedback, you might like to look at WP:Editor review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Farsi and Persian

User:Kamran the Great continues to change references to Farsi to the Persian language,[46] despite being asked on multiple occasions by multiple editors to stop doing so[47], [48], [49], based on the fact that all English dictionaries consider Farsi to be an acceptable term for the language. Could an admin please try to talk sense to the guy as he is ignoring everyone else and has failed to produce a single RS to support his case? Ericoides (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the equation; Kamran the Great may explain why they should be unblocked and be allowed to continue to edit the encyclopedia. I advised them that they should consider basing any unblock request upon an undertaking to adhere to WP:Consensus and WP:RS in their contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference to a death in the future

Should something be made of this? An IP has filled in Josh Smith's death date as September 11, 2011. Zagalejo^^^ 21:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What about it? Revert it as vandalism, block the IP as needed. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I did revert it. Should it be considered a credible threat of violence? Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Probable vandalism, yes. Credible threat of violence, not very likely. A side effect of Wikipedia's policy of liberally granting editing privileges to practically anyone with access to the internet is a steady supply of juvenile pranksters and sophomoric nonsense. Unless you have additional information showing this is something more than simple vandalism it is usually best to not make more of it that needed. If you do have additional evidence showing this is more than simple mischief then your local police/law enforcement agency would be the appropriate people to talk with. --Allen3 ^talk 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review: Lewinsky (neologism)

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 deleted an article that appears to violate WP:BLP and blocked the editor who created it, an account created today with only this one article as edits. Please weigh in here. Dreadstar ☥ 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• So how is this "santorum" garbage not a BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, only this one is worse. Dreadstar ☥ 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Hard to imagine how. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, if you're poor little Monica it's one thing, an ex-senator, presidential hopeful, it's quite another. And I doubt the senator was a pawn of a more powerful person, or that he ever created the frothy mix. I tend to be far more sympathetic towards Miss Lewinsky than Santorum. This is just a pathetic worse step against human dignity. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added the article name to the heading. I hope editors will explain their thinking about the BLP issue at the DRV.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
        • A quick look at Google suggests that it had do with "giving a Lewinsky". That at least reflects reality. The "santorum" thing is the extremely gross fantasy of some shock-jock and is way much more offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Sure, let's victimize Monica even more. Pile on. Dreadstar ☥
            • The people responding at DRV seem to be using it as a proxy for the "santorum (neologism)" dispute. Each article should be considered separately. This term has been discussed in many sources and has actually appeared in slang dictionaries (unlike "santorum"). There's no clear BLP violation, and requests to point to the part of that policy which it violates have gone unanswered. This seems to be a simple case of "I don't like it".   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You're the one who proxied it there, Will, what the heck are you complaining about? It's a clear violation of BLP to me, but obviously not to you. Stop trying to twist this. You proxied it. Dreadstar ☥ 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it can be a BLP violation when it reflects something she did and was unashamed of it. The santorum thing IS a BLP violation because it's about a shock-jock equating his own bodily fluids to a politician. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It's certainly debatable whether neologisms named after living people are BLP violations. But it does not appear to meet the criteria a speedy deletion without any discussion. There is a good reason we have a specific list of CSDs.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It's not a BLP violation. The argument should be notability, not BLP. The term may have been all the rage in 1998, but that's ancient history by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • "Debatable" (controversial). "WP:BLP" (contentious). Inconsistent. Will, instead of your usual 'attack the editor instead of the content' tactic, try a different path this time. Dreadstar ☥ 00:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I haven't attacked anyone personally. If I have then please post the diff instead of making an unsourced accusation (I'm a living person too!). The fact remains that "debatable" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Your posting at the Santorum neo article is close to canvassing a location that has proved to support such disputed/divisive/disruptive - content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
          • "This seems to be a simple case of "I don't like it"", is, I'm sure, not a comment about others. Nah. No way. Obviously about content. "I" being..well..you know, the "I" that means, well, not the personal I, but the All seeing eye. Yeah that one. I have more, but that'll do it until the inevitable RFARB, right?  :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
            • If that's a problem talk page then deal with its problems separately from the "Lewinsky" neologism. I don't see where I've made any personal attacks, and I consider the accusation itself to be a personal attack, one which Dreadstar has made repeatedly without evidence.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You're saying I deleted this article and blocked the editor because I didn't like it. I take that as a comment about ME, and not the actual action. Dreadstar ☥ 01:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
                • Haven't you ever seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's a well-known section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which refers to arguments for without reference to a specific policy provision. I think it's strange that you consider that a personal attack yet you consider it perfectly acceptable to tell me to "fuck off".[50] Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ironically, as opposed to the Santorum malarkey, I have actually heard "doing a Lewinsky" in actual RL conversation. But that's anecdotal, and doesn't mean anything. Deletion is correct here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • On what basis?   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • B L P  ?, perhaps? Dreadstar ☥ 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • Which provision of BLP does it violate? I've asked you before but haven't received a reply.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • This content and this DRV and this thread is disruptive. This is nothing to do with creating an online encyclopedia it is just the multiplayer online game with no educational value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Black Kite's interpertation of NFCC=one non-free image per page maximum?

Since the liklihood of adminstrative action here is trendning to zero and there is a perfectly good talk page at WT:NFCC I'm closing this as outside the scope of ANI. Spartaz Humbug! 01:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Recently user:Black Kite went on a bot-like spree blanketly removing images from articles under WP:NFCC for everything in a category that had more than one non-free on a page. Now I know we are enforcing NFCC pretty strictly these days, but is it reasonable to justy shotgun remove the second or third image in a bot-like fashion without any talk? Particularly when the pages involved describe different versions of a fictional character, and detail pictures of the two versions? Is NFCC a blanket permission to remove anything more that one non-free image on any page at the editor's whim? NFCC #3a states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I don't think that's justification to remove the second picture on a page IF the second picture shows how a character is radically differen or has changed over the years. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Mathew, I've explained WP:NFCC to you enough times by now. Some articles justify more than one non-free image, some justify one, and some justify none. Now I expect someone will close this section as irrelevant to WP:ANI (which it is), so as I said before, please use talkpages. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Who appointed you as the sole decision maker as to which article get one image? If you want a change on a page propose it. This bot-like shotgun removal is disruptive. Mathewignash (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) One seems reasonable, I am going to close this , theres nothing to report to an administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) How about the fact that he removed images from a page, then I restored them, as punishment for my restoring them he nominates the article for deletion. Is that being a bit too pointy? Mathewignash (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Not really. I was going through either fixing or nominating the pages, but realised after looking a bit more at that article (mainly because you reverted me on it) that it didn't actually have any third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirt Boss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - please move to - Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria - there is already a lot of discussion going on at the policy talkpage - , Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

An all encompassing complaint regarding the disruptive editing behavior of User:Dolovis

First of all, let me begin by saying to any admins, if this is in the wrong place, feel free to close or move it. Perhaps it belongs at WP:RFCC, but I feel this user has had so many issues brought upon him that I should take it directly here. Over the past few months, User:Dolovis has become increasingly disruptive across Wikipedia, to the point that I have decided to bring a complaint to ANI that covers, to the best of my knowledge, all of the issue that in my mind deem this user as a disruptive editor. This complaint largely stems from a diacritic removal campaign he is currently engaged in on the bases of following policy. However, this user has been told on multiple occasions that his interpretation of policy is incorrect. His current ploy involves the mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles (85 in the past week), to English character titles, ignoring the fact that no new consensus has emerged on their usage, which would suggest that their current usage (no consensus to move) remain. As I mentioned, this user has also engaged in other forms of editing that I would consider disruptive, as I have pointed out in the following list that I believe encompasses all of Dolovis’ misconducts (although I don’t doubt for a second that I have missed many additional misconducts).

Diacritics controversy

Page moves while a discussion is on-going

Despite the on-going discussion on the usage of diacritics in biography article titles that has not gained a consensus of either pro or contra diacritics, Dolovis has begun a highly controversial campaign of mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles. Since he initiated the discussion on 17 May 2011, he has moved a total of 103 articles with diacritics in their titles, listed here. More alarming is the 85 he has moved in the past week alone. He claims that anyone with a problem should follow WP:BRD, and while that would usually be the procedure to follow, can someone explain to me who has the time to list 85 page move requests in one week? I don’t. One user recently listed multiple page move requests at a central location (Talk:Martin Ruzicka), and Dolovis has argued that “each move must be judged on its own merits”. Like I said, I’m not sure who has the time to initiate 85 separate discussions. This is highly disruptive, as Dolovis knows no one has the time to do this.

Reply comment: The page moves that Nurmsook refers to are actually "Undoing" page moves made contrary to the established policy of WP:Article titles. I have not been doing the mass-page moves. It is, in fact, quite the opposite, as hundreds (thousands?) of biographical articles have been systematically moved from their WP:COMMONNAME WP:ENGLISH WP:Article titles to their non-English form. It is well-established policy to Undo a controversial move to invoke Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Dolovis (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Talk:Martin Ruzicka is another mass-article move discussion started by another editor for 10 articles that were created with English titles. Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move discussions while a discussion is on-going

In addition to the moves Dolovis is making, he has continued to make WP:POINT requests for article moves. Since the naming conventions discussion was initiated on 17 May 2011, Dolovis has requested 8 page moves, again, a number highly disruptive as it is extremely difficult to keep track of all of these requests. You will notice that each move request that had a high level of discussion was closed as no consensus (Talk:Pierre Pagé, Talk:Jakub Petružálek, Talk:Anže Kopitar, Talk:Petr Sýkora, Talk:Tomáš Divíšek, etc.). If the page move requests he is making are consistently reaching no consensus, wouldn’t that suggest that pages should remain where they are? Not move 85 in a week? Is it not disruptive to repeatedly canvass the Wiki community for their opinion on a subject that has already been made?

Reply comment: The discussion which I started on 17 May 2011 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) has steadily devolved into a quagmire of POV repetitions with no consensus in sight which might change the established policy of WP:AT or WP:EN concerning the use of diacritics in article titles. When the situation calls for making a move request, the proper procedure is to open a WP:RM to seek a consensus on the issue. It is false to say that my RM are always closed as "no consensus". One example of a "support" consensus is found at Talk:Eric Castonguay. Dolovis (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I said each request with a high level of discussion closed with no consensus. Your example includes four participants. I certainly do not consider that to be high level of participation. Dolovis' blatant misinterpretation of my words is a prime example of how this use misinterprets policy. He chooses to take what he wants from it, and demean anyone who disagrees with him. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that you're being overly sensative about this. You seem to be personalizing everything. You're making accusations here on AN/I, asking that another user's editing be restricted, so I'm not sure why you would be surprised that the other user is defending himself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please point to where I asked that another user's editing be restricted. Stop distributing lies about me. Like I said, I came here to get uninvolved admins opinions and certainly have no issue with Dolovis defending himself against these accusations. But when he does defend himself, I'll make sure to fact check his defense. That is my right, just as defending himself is his. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ehrm... "Page move ban for Dolovis" isn't a restriction, I suppose. Ridiculous.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the edit history. That section was not one that I added. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous ANI controversies

1. Dolovis previously brought a user to ANI here. Of note, Dolovis was removed of his Twinkle rights because of abuse of the tool at this discussion.
2. Another example of Dolovis' use of ANI can be found here
3. Dolovis' controversial accusations of Darwinek, shown above, is another example of an ANI controversy. Not to mention his second set of accusations against the same user, also listed above.
4. Of course, another ANI was recently posted here regarding Dolovis' conduct.

Reply Comment: I have been editing on wikipedia for 14 months. I have made some mistakes, I have learned from them, and I have moved on. Dolovis (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry

1. Without any sustained evidence, Dolovis make a bad faith sock puppetry accusation of a long-time Wikipedia user and administrator. That quick-ending discussion can be found here. Dolovis simply made the blatant accusation without adding any additional commentary once his claims were disputed. His claims were identified to potentially be retaliation to a content dispute (note that Darwinek is the same user that Dolovis twice took to ANI on dispute claims).
2. Dolovis was accused of and blocked following a sockpuppet investigation here.

Reply comment from Dolovis: The sock puppet allegation raised by Nurmsook was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User and User talk page misconduct

1. Dolovis has acted inappropriately at his own user and user talk pages. In one instance, he banned a user from his talk page (Evidence) despite being reminded that he cannot do so per WP:UP#OWN (Evidence). In addition, he proceeded to threaten administrative action when the user made a comment after this supposed “ban” (Evidence), which is in clear violation of WP:TALKNO.
2. From 12 February 2011 until 31 May 2011, Dolovis claimed on his user page that he held rollback rights, when he in fact does not and was actually denied use of the tool when he requested it. This, again, is in violations of WP:TALKNO.
3. Some time ago, a user reached out to Dolovis following a dispute between the two editors with an apology. However, Dolovis took this apology, placed it on his user page, and is essentially parading it around to show others something along the lines of a “I told you so” or “I was right” type statement. This may or may not be against any policy or guideline, but it certainly is highly inconsiderate and the user in question has taken offence to its placement on Dolovis’ user page.
4. Dolovis again violated WP:TALKNO when he blatantly accused another user of ethnocentrism (Evidence), a claim to which the other user was highly offended by (Evidence).
5. Dolovis engages in censorship of his talk page, something Wikipedia is not. While he has the right to request other user do not post to his user talk page, I argue that his approach to end discussions at his own discussion, even if other user may still have something of value to add, something that doesn’t fall in line with the spirit of using talk pages (Evidence), (Evidence).

Reply comment: I disagree with the perception presented above, but that being said, it is my talk page and how I engage others on my talk page should be given a wide range of latitude, as it should be given to all editors. I have read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and I believe that I have acted well within those guidelines. I do try to avoid harassment and vandalism directed to my talk page. I am open to constructive criticism on this topic, and will continue to try to make my talk page a place for informative and constructive discussion. Dolovis (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Tag removal

1. Dolovis has conducted disruptive tag removals. In one instance, another user placed a {{merge to}} tag on the article Ivan Svarny. Without following the proper discourse of discussing the merge on the talk page, Dolovis removed the tag altogether, forcing the other user to undo Dolovis’ edit (Evidence).

Reply comment: The tagging editor User:Fly by Night mass-tagged about 16 articles for merge. The tagging editor was clearly using improper an interpretation of WP:MERGE, and I removed just one of the 16 tags and sent him a note here to engage him to discuss the issue as he had not started any discussion on the talk pages of the effected articles. Fly by Night replaced his own tag and proceeded with the mass-merge request anyway, which had a unanimous community consensus against the merges as demonstrated by the discussion on that issue. Dolovis (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no improper interpretation. I quoted the rationale " If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.…" several times. You had created over 100 one-sentence, one reference, presumably notable, BLPs. I saw from your edit history that many of your older creations had been untouched for 30+ days. If none of those had been expanded, then why should the new ones? So, by the quoted criteria, I tagged your 16, one-sentence, one reference, presumably notable, BLP's for merger into the club article of the players' team. There was also no unanimous consent. In fact, myself and several admins brought a case against you here. Several people support sanctions on Dolovis's editing. There was eventually a consensus that no editing santions should be taken, but there was a broad agreement that his conduct was unacceptable. Here's a link to that discussion This all shows that Dolovis either sees, or chooses to represent, things very differently to how they actually are. Notice above where he supposedly sent sent me a note here to engage in discussion… That was clearly a reply to a message I sent him! — Fly by Night (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Final commentary

I firmly believe that this evidence proves that Dolovis has consistently been engaging in disruptive editing since his arrival at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Dolovis' disruptive habits are not limited to the areas I have listed above. Dolovis has been widely criticized for creating, in some instances, unreferenced BLPs and other one-line stubs that he likely will never go about editing, regarded by some as content forking (I should note that I do not have an issue with his creation of stubs (I am an inclusionist), but still feel that the issues other users have with it should not go unnoticed). Additionally, Dolovis can be highly confrontational and aggressive towards other users, something not held in high regard by the spirit of Wikipedia. Frankly, the only reason I decided to bring this users habits to light is that I was shocked that no other user had done it before. In my opinion, Dolovis' abuse of Wikipedia is far and beyond a prime example of disruptive editing. Prone to engaging in disputes with anyone who disagrees with him, this User never makes the slighest attempt to reach a compromise or listen to someone else's opinion. Anytime he feels he has any sort of leverage he takes it. In fact, Jimmy Wales recently posted how he is opposed to diacritics, and Dolovis has since been parading this quote around as is anything Jimbo says, goes. He also recently begun edit warring with another user, and was warned of this on his talk page by User:Bearcat. The fact that Dolovis has been able to go about disrupting Wikipedia so blatantly alarms me to no end. How someone can make 85 controversial moves in one week and get away with it sickens me. I hope administrators will see the evidence I have posted and do something about it. This user does not edit at all within the spirit of Wikipedia. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:TL;DR. This has too many individual issues and particulars for examination at ANI. You were right; it should be handled through WP:RFCU. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about the "too many individual issues". The main complaint is that Dolovis moves articles from titles with diacritics to titles without diacritics. I have a solution (below). Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply comment: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I am not the one who is moving articles contrary to policy. I am not the instigator of these moves, but I have undone many moves made without discussion and against the policy of WP:AT; and it appears that Nurmsook, who is a strong and vocal supporter of encouraging the use of diacritics in article titles, may have a COI "difference in perception" with my vocal support in favour of following the established policy of WP:AT and WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the type of conduct I have referred to that pushed me to submit this ANI. Dolovis IS instigating these moves. He appears to forget that every page has an edit history, and a quick check of this history shows that most of these pages he has moved we originally created at their diacritic location. This is not a case of a move "undo". Further, Dolovis' consistent use of the term "Conflict of Interest" towards those who oppose his editing habits is perhaps his most evident disruptive habit. He disagrees with anyone who thinks what he's doing is wrong. I have never once stated that I am pro-diacritics. On the contrary, I have stated multiple times that I don't care if they stay or go. My problem with Dolovis' editing habits is his blatant misunderstanding of policy that has resulted in him moving 103 pages. Frankly, him saying I have a COI and blatantly lying about my position on diacritics is absolute slander. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply not true. A quick check of this history shows that most, if not all, of the page moves I have done/undone were originally created at their English title location. Dolovis (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (although, Nurmsook does have a point about using COI. It's a really minor point though, since you're hardly alone in that misapplication of the policy.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll do the research myself, because I hate being accused of lying or hiding evidence or blurring facts. I don't want to spend my night diving into this, so of Dolovis' page moves since 22 June 2011:

• Pages originally located at diacritics titles: 19 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19).
• Page originally located at non-diacritics titles: 0

Just because I have accused you of undoing page moves, doesn't mean you need to say I am lying. Sure, maybe I was wrong to say that most of Dolovis' page moves were originally at diacritics locations, I'll admit that. But for Dolovis to state that all of his page moves were originally at English titles is horribly false. When I get involved in policy debates, I do my research. Trust me, as a grad student, research is my life. The url's of page history are there. Check the evidence and then tell me I'm lying. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Six current example of move/RM abuse I am trying to defend against is found at Talk:Andrej Tavzelj where there is yet another request for multiple moves away from the commonly used English name. Nurmsook makes the argument in support of these moves stating “No established usage means they shouldn't have been moved in the first place”, however, contrary to Nurmsook's assertion, all of the articles were created with English titles. If that statement represents Nurmsook's true position on the issue of diacritics, then he should be supporting my efforts to “undo” these controversial moves away from their established use. Dolovis (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk about misrepresenting the facts! Every single page taht you linked to above was at a page title that didn't use diacritics and was moved without discussion by others to a page title with diacritics. Who's actually being disruptive, here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we reading the same edit histories!? Why are you shedding some sort of disruptive light on me when all I'm doing is presenting facts! Some of those pages that I linked were created at diacritic titles, and then moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles. The others were also created at diacritic titles, moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles, then moved back by another user, but then moved back to non-diacritic titles by Dolovis. Each of the 19 articles I linked were created at diacritic titles. Which ones do you think were not and I'll be happy to clarify them for you, diff by diff. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

False.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Your answer makes it pretty clear that you are just refusing to admit that you are wrong, but know you actually are. Let me just take a couple of these and explain the article histories on them so you can see what I mean by all 19 originated at diacritic title. Honestly, edit histories don't lie, so to say I am based on truthfully conveying these histories is bad faith editing. Link #1, Revision history of Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey): Article was created at Tomáš Svoboda 20:50, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 23:00, 23 June 2011. HandsomeFella moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) 04:39, 26 June 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 09:46, 26 June 2011. Link #12, Revision history of Lukas Endal: Article was created at Lukáš Endál 20:34, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal 18:29, 23 June 2011. Both took different routes to get where they are now, but both started out as diacritic titles. Explain to me, now that I have shown you this very clear evidence, how these articles started at non-diacritic titles. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply comment: Rubbish. The edit histories for those two articles show that both were created by myself on January 3, 2011 using English article titles. Dolovis (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly misunderstanding how edit histories work. They track the movement of all pages. The first page move at these pages was from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title. It's very clear in the edit history that, for instance, the first move of the Lukas Endal page occured on June 23 and that move was Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal. The edit history very clearly identifies that. Because this is the first time the page was moved, we know the page originated at Lukáš Endál. If it, as you claim, originated at Lukas Endal, there would have been a move before June 23 of the page from Lukas Endal to Lukáš Endál. There is no evidence of that in the edit history. How can you claim that the page originated at Lukas Endal when it is evident, per the edit history, that it did not. This is a simple case of you misunderstanding how edit histories work. Any user here can see that the page originated at Lukáš Endál. It is documented in the edit history, and cannot be refuted. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As a general comment: while I don't expect much of anything to emerge out of this discussion, I believe Dolovis is going to keep coming to ANI over and over and over again because I find him to be a net drain on the project. Far too much time is spent dealing with his move wars, lazy article creations and general standoffish nature that could otherwise be spent doing something productive. I will also note that while Dolovis seems willing to be a non-diacritic warrior on article titles, he doesn't bother to anglicize the articles themselves. So tell me, if the player's name at the lead of the article is Tomáš Rachůnek, why is the article located at Tomas Rachunek? Dolovis can't even make up his own mind as to whether diacritics should be used or not. And these inconsistencies become little messes that, as is typical, someone else has to deal with. Resolute 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply comment to Resolute: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. For example, the article is titled Paul McCartney, not "Sir James Paul McCartney" as appears first in that article. Dolovis (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move ban for Dolovis

Proposal: Dolovis is banned from moving any article that has a title with diacritics to one that does not have diacritics, and vice versa. He may propose such moves at WP:RM for consensus to be established as to whether or not the page should be moved. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support this measure. I got drawn into the dispute today and can attest that his understanding of WP:UE is definitely a little skewed — and that he simply ignores any consensus that doesn't match his own preferences. Additionally, I can attest that I've had past interactions with him in which he ignored multiple polite requests to change something about his editing habits — so clearly some sort of escalation is necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat, will you please be specific and point me to the consensus that you are referring to. Some editors have been very quick to say that there is a consensus to support their POV, but no one has yet been able to show me the consensus that has changed the policy of WP:AT or WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is not appropriate for mob justice. Follow dispute resolution: Send it to RFCU and Arbcom. --causa sui (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "mob justice"; it's a question of an editor simply not following standard and easily enforceable rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You've described the two ends of the stick. Situations like this need a closer look than a complaint and a summary vote. For example, there may be more editors involved who need their conduct scrutinized as well. Also, it is outrageous that voting has begun before the user to be sanctioned has had a chance to respond here. (I'm aware of his previous comments on ANI). --causa sui (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I may be inclined to support the measure with the caveat that it was a temporary injunction pending the completion of regular dispute resolution channels. --causa sui (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What vote, where? I don't see one. I see a community discussing to reach consensus, yes, but no vote. GiantSnowman 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got no problem with it being a temporary measure whilst further avenues are explored. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support this temporary injunction while third party administrators can review the case. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Opposed - In the current environment this is an obvious partisan move, regardless of whether it was intended to be or not. If you want to join the diacritics debate then do so. Attempting to generate sanctions against those with differing opinions than yourself, in the middle of a debate, certainly isn't the best example of collegial behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly not why I launched this ANI. As I have shown in my original post, this boils down to much more than the diacritics issue, something I have tried my best to stay away from, as I am impartial to if they should stay or go. Rather, this is a case of abusing one's ability to move pages. Saying I am lacking in collegial behavior despite an intensive research of Dolovis' editing patterns is rather disappointing. If you are arguing about action in the middle of a debate, perhaps you should be more inclined to support a page move ban. It is, after all, Dolovis who is blatantly moving pages while the debate is ongoing. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but perception is reality, you know? Also, I would be supportive of a page move ban if it included the other parties in the debate who have been moving pages in the other direction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Running to AN/I to try and place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate is hardly constructive.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, your bad faith accusation of me is very offensive. I did not "run to ANI" to "place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate". Absolutely not the case. I brought multiple issues to the table in the hope that third party administrators could add their commentary. I don't want to see Dolovis banned. I think he's a great editor, and being an inclusionist, I love the work he does creating articles for people that meet notability standards. What I am opposed to is his often confrontational demeanor and the fact that he has moved 85 pages in the past week. That's not normal. Please refrain from accusing me of whatever you think I might be doing here. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's actually the case, then why not participate in the RM's (even create them, if needed) and in the ongoing discussion on the WP:UE talk page? Instead, you're here picking on one participant in that debate. What about the other participants, who have been moving pages in the other direction? You say that I'm making an bad faith accusation, but you're provided the proof that you're not acting in good faith by singling out the actions of one editor in what is essentially a multi-party content dispute. The cries of neutrality here ring very hollow.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an endless argument with you. For the last time, I did not come here on the specifics of the diacritics issue. I actually have an almost bigger issue with how Dolovis conducts himself on his talk page or when he communicates with other users. Other users have come into this discussion and claimed that the page moves thing was the overriding problem; it's not. If I wanted to out Dolovis from the diacritics debate, I wouldn't have titled this ANI the way I did. As it states, this is an all encompassing account of his disruptive editing patters, not specific to one event. Check my history, check my background. I've been doing this Wikipedia thing for 6 years now. I have never once seen an editor that has been so overwhelmingly disruptive across the board that I decided to take my complaint to ANI. Go ahead an accuse me with whatever you like, but know that it simply is not constructive to this debate, and I know you are acting in bad faith making those accusations. This is Wikipedia, and everyone has the right to be heard when they feel a user as stepped outside the boundaries of what is acceptable editing practices. That is why I brought this here, not because of some silly diacritics dispute that has been ongoing since Wikipedia was first created! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Listing every event that the user has done something wrong is not appropriate, it's as if you're trying to start a lynch mob. Silverseren^C 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I am involved in the diacritics discussion. Silverseren^C 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I feel most of these actions all fall into the category of edit warring. There should clearly be a moratorium on any page moves surrounding diacritics, particularly by Dolovis and Nurmsook, whilst the discussions are pending. As these involve global interpretation, it makes little sense to tackle these page moves on a piecemeal basis; a global solution needs to be found. There are currently RfCs in progress, and Dolovis appears to be executing the page moves in an deliberately pointy and provocative manner. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for Ohconfucius: What about undoing a controversial move? How is that pointy? I would think that it would be the first bold move that is provoking, not the editor (me) who is undoing that move. How would an editor invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The sum total of your actions here and elsewhere indicates that you have an active agenda of ensuring diacritics do not impact Wikipedia. Something does not become controversial merely because you or I or any one individual object; it does, however, so become when there are a number of people. Most people running into the sort of opposition you are facing would be right to question their own actions as "controversial". As to your "undoing a controversial move", it seems that it is intimately related to the issue of diacritics use. Two wrongs don't make one right; you are not a Wikipolice officer. WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISRUPT were written to cover what you are doing. You should self-impose a moratorium, not only on page moves whilst the discussion has not been resolved, but also mass creation of stubs of marginal "presumed" and not "actual" notability. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why my name was mentioned as a potential page move banee. I certainly have not been active in moving any diacritics pages. Rather, if I do stray into these discussions, it is only at RM. I simply brought an issue to ANI that has been ongoing for months at WP:HOCKEY, so this would be a clear case of shooting the messenger. I know I opened myself up to scrutiny when I brought this issue here, but the level I have received from users for simply trying to bring an extensive list of disruptive editing patters to light is really discouraging. I think I'll try to stay away from these sorts of discussions in the future. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not that there'd be anything terribly wrong with imposing such a ban on all parties involved in this round-robin fracas until the underlying issue was worked out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose specific ban on Dolovis, because in the two examples specifically called out above, Tomas Svoboda and Lukas Endal, Dolovis originally created the articles with diacritics before moving them to non-diacritic versions, and there was very little substantive editing besides his. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here the user is move-warring on an article created by another user, and using a misleading edit summary as well (more moves here and here). Prolog (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. While Dolovis's actions have clearly been sub-optimal, there must be at least to users involved to have a "move-war". Dolovis is not the only user who has been moving articles while the discussion is ongoing, so my proposal would be to either move ban everyone who has been involved in the move-warring, or move ban no-one. This is analogous to a 3RR report where multiple parties have breached 3RR; either block (in this case ban) all involved, or block (ban) none. It's wrong to just pick on one of the users involved because you think they were incorrect while the others were correct. Disclosure: I have been involved in a number of RMs involving diacritics and have agreed with Dolovis's opinion the majority of the time. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I'm baffled that so many editors oppose a page move ban. It seems that several of them have not informed themselves properly, and believe this is about punishing an editor for having the "wrong" views. It is not. This ANI is not about the use of diacritics – it is about user behavior. And a ban would not last forever. It would serve as a warning, so it would not be the end of the world for Dolovis. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system

While Dolovis still doesn't usually create redirects from the proper names for his stubs, when he does, he has an unusual error rate. With six of the last seven redirects, Dolovis made a "mistake" and created a page history that blocks non-admins from moving his articles (these diffs speak for themselves: [51][52][53][54][55][56]) This is just the newest way the user is gaming the system. And he does this while being the subject two active AN/I threads. Can we finally concentrate on the forest and not the trees? Prolog (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First I'll admit that I was the latest, though maybe not the last, editor that Dolovis got into an edit war with – though I never exceeded 1RR on individual articles – so I'm not squeaky clean. My only defence is that I didn't know of this forum, so I didn't know where to report him, or how else to stop him. My input here could thus be perceived as biased.

But I think this proves Nurmsook's point: Dolovis has a pattern of acting in bad faith, and he is pushing an agenda of ridding wikipedia of diacritics, at least in article titles. In his arguments, he has been misrepresenting guidelines to motivate his page moves and his reverts of others' page moves. (Speaking of reverting page moves, I thought Dolovis was an admin, and until I recently found out that a page move can be reverted as long as there is no edit history on the redirect, which he now has "fixed" by applying the above measures noticed by Prolog.) When you check the guidelines Dolovis refers to, they don't hold water, but it could probably have worked on more easily impressed editors. I think his actions motivate a page move ban and a page creation ban, let's say for a month (at least). But he could still keep editing, though. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention things like using db-author on pages that other people have already edited (in this example a redirect) so that he can move the page to his newly desired location. [57]. He has also db-authored entire pages that weren't redirects in the same manor in the past only to recreate them immediately after deletion at the new location without the diacritics. Clearly we need to look at the amount of various bad faith type editing not just the individual incidents here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis is correct, when he mentions that those articles were (years ago) moved to diacritics style, without the benefit of an RM. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume "RM" means "Requested Move" (forgive my ignorance). Why request a move when you can do it yourself? You don't request edits, do you? If you move in good faith, and in accordance with guidelines and recommendations, that can't be wrong, can it? And does it have anything to do with gaming the system? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence

This is the second time in two weeks that Dolovis has been brought here. A quick summary of the points raised are as follows:

• Creation of poor quality, poorly sourced BLPs and refusal to update and expand said BLPs.
• Engaging in conduct contrary to WP:POINT, especially relating to the use of accents in BLP titles (with possible connexion to the previous point).
• Deliberate misrepresentation of past communication and edit histories.
• Edit warring and acting in bad faith.

This list is by no means exhaustive. It is just the main points from this current thread and this previous thread. In both discussions, various santions have been suggested, and have not found consensus. This failure to find consensus has been misconstrued by Dolovis as giving legitimacy to his actions. (For example, shortly after the BLP discussion fizzled out. Dolovis carried on in the manner that had caused his conduct to be brought to WP:AN/I). However, it is clear that Dolovis's conduct has annoyed many users and has fallen below the standard that we expect on Wikipedia. I do not propose any sanctions against Dolovis. I mealy propose a "motion of no confidence".

By supporting this motion you would be giving a clear sign to Dolovis that his behaviour and conduct fall below the standard that is expected of an experienced and supposedly well meaning editor, and that you expect Dolovis to improve his conduct and to work with the community to further improve the project.

• Support − I forward the motion as outlined above. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What's the point of this? Start a RFC/U, that'd be more productive than this meaningless "motion". --Blackmane (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  RFC and productive? What is remotely productive about a non-binding process that carries on for a month or two and that the subject of can utterly ignore?--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, but what good is a "motion of no confidence" that has even less meaning? Not only is it non-valid in Wikipedia, it's not even phrased appropriately. If someone thinks this is trouble enough, and RFC hasn't worked, then it's off to ArbCom ... a useless more-heat-than-light motion solves nothing. Dolvis clearly will not change his style (which appears to be what is wanted by some) without forcing it, and a silly motion won't do it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is clear: the lack of consensus for direct sanctions is being interpreted by Dolovis as the community condoning his conduct. Hopefully if he see that this isn't the case then he will change his ways. It's a bit unfair to call it "silly". If you've got a better idea then please, lead the way. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure I already gave my better idea in my original post ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Frankly, I'm baffled that so many editors oppose the page move ban suggested above. It seems that several of them have not informed themselves properly, and believe this is about punishing an editor for having the "wrong" views. It is not. This ANI is not about the use of diacritics – it is about user behavior. And a ban would not last forever. It would serve as a warning, so it's not the end of the world for Dolovis. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sadly it was the same with the last case at AN/I about the BLPs. It was clear that some people had just read the last three posts and then commented. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That's what you get when you bring long, complicated user conduct problems to ANI. RfC has its flaws (a great many of them), but for long-term user conduct problems it's the best we've got except Arbcom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I have never brought any issue to AN/I. Both threads were initiated by others. It's the responsibility of people commenting to be fully informed. There is no reason to believe that people would read the thread in any more detail if it were posted elsewhere. The length of the thread is a reflection of the problems left in its wake − big stones make big ripples. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Meaningless proposal. If anyone here wants to advise Dolovis that they disapprove of his contributions they can do that on his talk page. If you want actual injunctive relief, dispute resolution is the way to go. See WP:RFC/U or WP:ARBCOM. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A simple and straight forward question: do you think Dolovis' behavior – as accounted for above – is ok? That is what the motion (and the page move ban proposal) is about. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely have no opinion. When an RFC/U is filed and the involved parties have each posted their statements I may consider forming one. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You demonstrate that you haven't read the links I gave. I, and many other people, have raised concerns on his talk page. But he refuses to do what is asked. I politely asked him twice to expand his BLPs, and he wouldn't. That's why people brought these two AN/I cases. He's been asked on his talk page, he's been asked on article talk pages, and he's been asked in two AN/Is. This is a text book example of why Wikipedia is broken. People can act like jerks all they want and when someone tries to do something about it, no-one will support them. 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This has zero to do with support. It might seem like you've gone to City Hall and said "there a 40ft wide and 12' deep crater in the middle of Main Street" and they say "we can't do anything unless you fill out form T567P-1b in triplicate, thank you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you "sincerely have no opinion", then why do you oppose? Are you trying do obstruct the ANI process? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You must have read my mind. I was thinking exactly the same. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Such a motion is not within ANI process. It is not binding and has no action called for. I believe causa sui is opposing the filing of the motion but has no opinion with regards to the substance of the motion, however I may just be putting words in their mouth. --Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it should be labeled "comment", and not "oppose". HandsomeFella (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Beyond this meaningless edit warring over diacritics, Dolovis' accusers believe that he's in the wrong for creating a large number of articles that pass WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. If you believe they're in a sad state, expand them. I can't believe that an argument used against him is that he's been asked kindly to expand articles and didn't feel like it. dimaspivak (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That really touches a nerve. Have you looked at his first 100+ BLPs? They all scraped through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. But NHOCKEY does not mean that they are notable, it means that they are presumably notable, i.e. not certain! In the first AN/I I linked to several BLPs that has been untouched (except for BLPPRODs) for over six weeks. He used a link to the same stat page to wriggle out of the BLPPRODS for multiple articles, i.e. one team's stat page for all of that team's players' BLPs. After being asked by many editors (even people that had previously supported him) to expand them, he refused. His attitude was the thing that has annoyed so many people. If it was due to inexperience or lack of know-how then that would be different. But he knows exactly what he's doing; or more aptly: what he's not doing. When I suggested a merge per Rationale 3 he objected saying that they will be expanded. But hang-on, he refuses to expand them, he has articles over six (now over eight) weeks old that haven't been expanded. Who's going to expand them if the creator can't even be bothered? — Fly by Night (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I looked through a number of them and they're clearly stubs describing professional hockey players in the highest leagues in Europe. If the fact that the pages have little more than player statistics bothers you, go ahead and contribute to them. As far as I see it, Dolovis has no obligation to continually maintain and expand a page just because he created it. On the contrary, I see the benefit of what he does; if I were a fan looking to add information about a player, I'd be much less likely if I had to go through the trouble of creating a new page and adding infoboxes on my own. Merging pages of hockey players is, in my estimation, not in the spirit of Rationale 3 as the players, while part of a team at the time of writing, are often traded and have varying amounts of information available about themselves. As such, simply merging them would mean an unnecessary amount of maintenance of redirects and long articles when the alternative is just to have stubs. As an outside observer, I also wonder why you and a number of others take it personally that an editor creates a lot of pages that are light on details. Sure, I'd love if every article contained as much information as that found in the typical NHL players', but who is being harmed here? dimaspivak (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reporting User:A young communist, request to block

I had reported the following on the vandalism page, but I have been asked by administrators to move the report for such users/incidents here in the past:

A young communist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is the second time in one month I am reporting the behaviour of this user with respect to the same article Soviet War in Afghanistan. User makes similar vandalizing edits to the article and myself and some others are having to continuously undo his actions, see revision history of that article (specifically edits on 20 June 2011 and 30 June 2011, and several others in late May and early June). There is an entire section on the discussion page of that article relating to the edits he is doing but instead of discussing he continues unabated. He has been told to discuss before making the same edits and he has been warned several times already. In fact he was blocked for 60 hours for similar actions on the same article earlier this month itself but it seems to have had no effect on him. Looking at his user talk page, he has been vandalizing other articles in the past, which were reverted. He had been blocked for edit warring in the recent past and was also recently warned for personal attacks and abuse on others. As if all this wasn't enough already, he is also a known sockpuppet (again, just see his user talk page User:A young communist (talk page)). I request a longer duration block on this user this time, along with another sterner warning on his talk page. 202.3.77.210 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• No one is going to block the editor for those edits, at least not until some serious edit war breaks out. There are other elements of the editor's history (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of A young communist, for instance--see its history) that suggest a less than cooperative attitude, though. But what's happening on Soviet War in Afghanistan is far from blockable at this point. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Neither India or the states supported these countries OFFICIALLY as you said. So I say: We remove them all or let all of them stay. Because you don't agree that it stays India there, we may agree both India and the States. Because none of them participated directly (with troops and all), and both of them involved themselves officially, we may remove all of the non-participators. OK, I think we have a deal now, right? I remove India, but also all of the others that participated with secret financial support to both sides. Thank you. If you continue to report me now, I'll report you too. My former history here is someting my opponents may use against me, and that's fucking irritating... Greetings from --A young communist (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User page question

Anyone have any thoughts on this user page, User:Calethistlefan? Parents are listed there, jobs...also, that image seems to be missing a rationale. If it's non-free, it shouldn't be in user space, but I don't know that it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User appears to be 19 years old, as far as the personal information is concerned, I don't see why we should not defer to the user. The image is scheduled for deletion shortly, so I don't see any reason to worry about it too much either, unless the deletion process doesn't result in a delete. Monty₈₄₅ 04:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tiptoety has deleted the userpage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:TreasuryTag on his talk page against another editor

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 can't for the life of me see how these remarks are allowed on someone's talk page. I have tried to remove them (and I see in the history that others have also) and frankly I don't feel like engaging the user himself due to their attitude (see ongoing editor review) so I guess I have to take things here.

In the interests of full disclosure, yes I have had a couple of disagreements with TT over the last couple of days (see Talk:Shipping_Forecast#Let's talk about the introductory statement... if you're interested, although I believe that is now settled in my favour) and that is how I became aware of the content of his talk page, and yes I'm also aware of WP:BOOMERANG. But this is not point scoring or whatever - that seems to be a personal attack, clear as day, aggressively defended for gawd knows what reason.

Perhaps some reasonable Wikipedians will disagree.

Egg Centric 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I have seen TreasuryTag say some pretty pointed things and post in a hard-edged tone, the example you reference here seems more like sour grapes on TT's part than anything else. I just see a ranty string of WP:THIS and WP:THAT, hardly a personal attack unless you are a fluent speaker of Wikipedian. I would just let it pass and focus on those times when TT actually says something harsh. I wish there was a way for editors to resolve things without templating and feeling the need to rush to an Admin venue, but this is Wikipedia, for better or worse. -- Avanu (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying someone has a "rather lacking understanding" of a site policy or policies is not a personal attack. If it were, half of the people who commented at TT's editor review would need to be blocked, including the author of the comment that TT was responding to. On the whole TT has been remarkably restrained in responding to comments there. I don't see this as an issue that needs admin attention. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kind of snippy, but more about behavior than anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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

It seems inappropriate for TT to keep comments such of that on his talk page, but I guess there isn't a policy covering such things. He has accused me of nearly every wiki-acronym in existence, which is quite an achievement! Basket of Puppies 05:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jeffpiatt Unblock Request

Resolved

 – unblocked with conditions, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeffpiatt (talk · contribs · logs)

The user has requested an unblock. He was blocked indef for "Vandalism: repeated creation of deleted articles" preceded by several image no-nos in 2007. Personally I don't have full knowledge of the user's historyn but I would think after four years perhaps with some strict guidelines on editing and a clear understanding from the user in question regarding what does and does not constitute good image use, perhaps we could have an unblock?

That is presuming there has been no socking. I can't find any linked socks. I'm also curious to know why the user has suddenly come back. Is it just a passing fancy? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

_{I have advised the user in question and the admin who blocked them indef. S.G.^(GH) ping! 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}

Seems like a reasonable request. Indef for repeatedly creating deleted articles is perhaps harsh - that's not vandalism per se it's just irritating - and there's no sign of attempting to recreate the article in the intervening period. Fences&Windows 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to unblock, but I held off when I saw SGGH's wise comments on the editor's talk page. 4 years is a long time, and the editor's conduct prior to the block doesn't seem all that terrible. I will point out, though, that Jeffpiatt did add a very large number of images with rationale that didn't conform to WP:NFCC (dozens of them, maybe up to a hundred) that were deleted. So if Jeffpiatt is unblocked, I'd hope to see more care taken with image uploads. -- Atama頭 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it's worth a try to me. There's a big difference between (maybe) 16 and (maybe) 20. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I support giving a second chance. However, if there are any images that need to be uploaded, then they need to be checked to make sure they are valid (alternatively, we could stick a condition not to upload images on the unblock, but IMO I don't think it's necessary). –MuZemike 21:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A requirement to use WP:FfU would seem to be sufficient to fulfill that condition. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems fairly safe then. I'll unblock with the condition that admins will be watching closely for a while, and he must use WP:FfU and demonstrate a good understanding of image use. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Done with conditions per above. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Conduct by User:Tifetondu on Bernard Tomic

I'd like an admin to look at the situation surrounding this page. Some brief background: following various back-and-forth edits, the page was fully protected by Fastily to force some proper discussion. There has been a generally productive discussion here, and a consensus had emerged just prior to the expiry of the page protection. According to the talk page consensus, Jenks24 changed the page to incorporate the new text.

Just a few hours later, Tifetondu (talk · contribs) changed the page to incorporate his/her own version of the text, completely ignoring the consensus. I undid the change once, but Tifetondu has reinstated its version. I'm not going to get into an edit war, and since Tifetondu is ignoring talk pages, it's probable that dispute resolution won't be of much use either, so I'm coming straight here. The talk page is still being used to re-evaluate consensus, but Tifetondu doesn't seem interested in discussion. All we've had so far are a series of SHOUTING comments and no real responses.

I know that things should only be brought here if specific admin assistance is sought, so I'll be plain and state that I'm asking for a temporary block for Tifetondu. The debate is already hot enough without somebody pouring hot water over everything by making unilateral edits. Thanks for your time. Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I will only add that I endorse Absconded Northerner's summary of what has occurred. Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page harressment by user:2andrewknyazev

Resolved

 – User:2andrewknyazev blocked for 24 hrs. by User:Daniel Case. --JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

user:2andrewknyazev keeps on harassing me on my talkpage by repeatedly adding a deleted comment [58][59][60][61][62][63],... the whole thing began when he deleted repeatedly [64][65][66][67] a sourced statement by the Economist Blog Eastern Approaches, which mentions that a soon to be released movie about the 2008 South Ossetia war has been financed by members of the Georgian Government; calling The Economist (and other media) material either "irrelevant info", "your irrelevant propaganda", "the questionable edit", telling me in condescending tone to do Original Research about the party affiliations of all the other members of production, and "to post reliable and relevant information, with proper references." When he was told by another user to stop deleting the material [68] he ignored that and immediately deleted it again. He fails to understand WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. Also from his edit history it is clear that he has pro Georgian POV [69][70], adds Original Research [71] or unsourced material to articles [72].

I have now inserted the material again with 4 more sources and as neutral as possible [73], and he hit my talkpage again with the same edit immediately afterwards [74] - four times! the second time with the comment: "repeated deleting would not do you any good"... and then even after another user told him twice [75][76] not do it anymore HE KEEPS DOING IT AGAIN AND AGIAN [77][78]. noclador (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And while I was writing this he did it again [79]!!! WTF!!! noclador (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

user:2andrewknyazev clearly broke 3rr on your talk page, but I think you also broke it at the article. This really seems more appropriate for WP:ANEW Monty₈₄₅ 04:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's at least disruptive. Whatever happened on that article is not relevant: a user has the right to not have a posting repeatedly placed on their talkpage, plus they were notified of those rules by another user. I've given them a 4im warning and trust that it will not happen again. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want him to stay clear of my talkpage! I told him after his first edit on my talkpage "Keep it to the articles talkpage!" but he never posted the question there just kept on harassing my talkpage! noclador (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

half a dozen warnings later... he does it again!! [80].... noclador (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reported this editor on AIV for his harrassment and violation of 3RR. He reverted my removal of his harrassment as "vandalism". The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks! I am still dumbfounded by this! :-O noclador (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is any admin going to block this guy? Despite a page full of warnings on his Talk page, he's now accusing a vast conspiracy of attacking him on the article's Talk page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Harassment, personal attacks

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

see above. Still nothing for admins to do, and (speaking as an admin) we'd like to keep it that way. --Jayron32 20:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Shorter version - please get this removed and get the editor to back off me.

Longer version - Egg Centric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – who has previously been blocked for generally disruptive behaviour – is currently engaged in a campaign to harass me down every possible avenue. Examples:

• Explicitly and steadfastly refusing to engage in talkpage discussion on the talkpage;
• Explicitly excluding my viewpoint from the consensus-forming process – I finally took the initiative to resolve this impasse by requesting a third opinion since he refused to do so;
• Providing comparisons to three 'hypothetical' articles [81] which just happened to be Jobsworth, Oppositional defiant disorder and Nuisance – three subjects clearly selected to attack me over my opposition to his edits;
• Accusation of Wikistalking without the slightest attempt to justify it (I invite anybody to demonstrate otherwise);
• Deleting content from my talkpage on spurious grounds and warning me for making "personal attacks" when there were none;
• When this failed, initiating an ANI thread in complaint, which was given very short shrift;
• Removing the content from my talkpage again despite the outcome of the ANI thread;
• Leaving a comment at ANI which was nothing but a gross rant and attack on myself (eg. "...once you see that TT is full of drivel he becomes a figure of fun,");
• Including disruptive and inflammatory material in on his userpage ("This user wants to be an admin so he can block User:TreasuryTag for various civility infractions,") with the edit-summary tit for tat :) This is still on the page and I would like it removed

I don't know if this absurd behavioural trend reaches the level necessitating an interaction ban or not, but it certainly needs a warning, and I'd request that someone issue a very stern one. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems directly related the the AN/I thread posted by EggCentric, and to me really seems like a Wikiquette issue more than anything. -- Avanu (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This is vindictive rubbish from TT and I'll leave it at that unless other users really want a substantive reply and all that that entails. Egg Centric 17:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Erm if this is just me being vindictive then how come the diffs above show your personal attacks etc.? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 18:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

...*YAWN*... erm, sorry, did someone say something interesting and worth-being-bothered-about? 94.9.211.34 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You've obviously brought this on yourself TT, you don't get to complain about people posting stuff like this in userspace when you yourself are doing the exact same thing and reverting any attempts to discuss your sham 'indictment' as 'vandalism'. I'd suggest that if you remove your absurd schizophrenic conversation about another user, Eggcentric may be willing to revert the changes to their userbox, but you don't get to have it both ways. Otherwise the hipocrisy and wikilawyering doesn't seem likely to make you any friends. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As an unregistered user am I allowed to close this discussion? There doesn't appear to be much to see here. 94.9.211.34 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure go for it (imo) Bob House 884 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well if it is acceptable to post this sort of crap on one's userpage then I will do so now regarding Egg Centric. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 21:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed both TreasuryTag's and Egg Centric's notices from their pages per WP:BATTLE. That should put an end to it. — Edokter (talk) — 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Clubfoot Johnson removing talkpage comments

User believes that this sort of behaviour is acceptable and believes that removing it because editor feels it's defamatory is acceptable. An administrator is required to intervene. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments appear unnecessary and come across as a personal attack; I don't blame Clubfoot Johnson for his reactions (which are in turn not ideal). I would suggest you retract your accusations on your own accord. And please notify Clubfoot Johnson of this discussion, as is required. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have suggested to Walter Gorlitz that he retract his accusations of his own accord. To this point he has refused to do so. What are my options in requesting someone else remove these attacked from the Larry Norman talk page? It doesn't seem fair that someone can make an attack on another editor and the only issue be with the offending comment being deleted by the one who was attacked. Thanks for your help.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Strange Passerby. A couple of you folks need to tone it down before ya'all get sent to the naughty step. I also took the liberty of letting ErrantX know about this as he seems to be up to speed on that thread as well. No comment on article content. — Ched :  ?  17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and I appreciate the third party review. I agree that my more recent comments may not have been helpful, but this was after many requests on my part for Walter Gorlitz to stop his personal attacks. When he not only continued but started accusing me of engaging in slanderous behaviors, I was not sure what else to do but delete his defamatory comments. He reverted each attempt I made at this, and then accused me of vandalism. I did not want to simply leave such an accusation sitting there without response, so I responded - and may have been a bit more curt in my tone than my previous responses out of frustration. I also attempted to collapse the conversation out of respect for those engaging in the actual topic, but he then pirated the label to say "Clubfoot Johnson is a single purpose account but is the editor showing a conflict of interest?" This is really becoming too much. I would appreciate any intervention you can offer on my behalf as I am not familiar with how to address this kind of harassment (he has done the same thing to me on another article). My preference would be to simply participate in the Wikipedia community without the constant harassment and stalking of this individual. Thanks.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh it quickly became apparent (when I raised the issue) this is a contentious subject :S which is derailing what is IMO an important issue. It's always worrying to see articles about controversial people bring that controversy on-wiki. But I've deliberately not commented on their little "spat" so as not to feed the flames :) thanks for the FYI Ched. more eyes on the content issue would be excellent FWIW, even though that is tangential to this AN/I --Errant ^(chat!) 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

NP .. and I notified Clubfoot. — Ched :  ?  17:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks. No slander on my part either. And no accusations of vandalim, just notifications on editor's talk page not to remove or refactor the comments of others. No pirating of labels, I simply expanded the conversation, but that could easily be edited. And definitely no harassment.

I have noted that Clubfoot Johnson is a WP:SPA and am trying to clear the editor of my concerns regarding WP:COI. The fact that he has removed my comments several times on the article's talk page is more troubling. Sorry that I failed to notify Clubfoot Johnson that this was undergoing. First time I've done this. I now see the notice at the top of the page. There is no question though that the editor is a SPA, so I take it that there is no COI?

Now as for claims of stalking, I have been an active editor on the two only articles Clubfoot Johnson has taken an interest in for several years and simply notice a disturbing tendency to restore any material that is libellous to David Di Sabatino. I am not stalking the individual in any way, nor am I harassing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They are absolutely personal attacks, and I would like you to please stop harassing me. Your questions regarding COI have been asked and answered more than once. I suggest you move on and leave me alone. The personal attack comments have been removed from the LN talk page as, in addition to being personal attacks, were inappropriate to the topic.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They most certainly are not personal attacks. I'm sorry you feel that your behaviour has opened you up to these charges though. I will not move on as those articles are in my field of interest as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They are personal attacks, and the behavior is also bullying and harassment in that you repeat the same charge and attacks without basis despite the fact that I have responded to your accusations multiple times, and you have refused to supply any details to substantiate your accusations despite many requests. Please move on and find another target. Alternately, if you are unable to do the right thing and stop your harassment, I would suggest engaging in the behavior on your talk page rather than continuing to disrupt the discussions going on at the article talk pages.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and misuse of the term "vandalism" again

Walter Görlitz has now reported Clubfoot Johnson to WP:AIV, inappropriately, for "vandalism". There is most certainly a revert war going on regarding the comments at this talk page and it would be best if an admin stepped in and handed out some blocks. I note that WG was here very recently over his misuse of the term "vandalism" and then-abuse of Twinkle... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My apoogies. I didn't misuse the term. Twinkle's ARV tool reported it as vandalism. The editor, Clubfoot Johnson, has removed my comments on Talk:Larry Norman‎ at least five times today and was warned four times. The last was after the fourth warning. Is there a way to report without labelling it as vandalism? I didn't know that it would be labelled as vandalism when reported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing someone else's comments is inappropriate. The statement in question is, "you are a single purpose editor who shows no other interest than slandering Di Sabitino." The first part of that statement appears to be true. The second part is probably a matter of opinion. The best thing to do, when suffering slings and arrows, is not to edit war over the comments, but to prove them wrong. That's what Clubfoot should do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have at no point engaged in any type of slander, and have asked that Gorlitz point out such instances when he made the accusation. Unsurprisingly, he has failed to do so. Beyond that, what else would I need to do to "prove" anything as you suggest? I have responded to the accusations as best I can, and have never engaged in the slandering activity I have been accused of. This is simply a case of a veteran editor who disagrees with the opinions of a new editor and is attempting to bully that person into submission. It does not seem reasonable that I should be subjected to the same accusations over and over and over. It is fairly obvious from his responses that Walter Gorlitz intends to continue his harassing behavior, and it also appears from his historical behavior that I am not his first target. How does tolerance of this type of harassment and bullying improve the Wikipedia community?--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Newly-created users, who immediately zero in on some controversial topic, typically look inherently suspicious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that it is accepted Wikipedia policy/practice for veteran editors to respond to new editors who have an initially narrow focus to attack and harass them are you? All of the guidelines I have come across state the opposite. He is welcome to be as suspicious as he likes, but it is inappropriate to cross into bullying and harassment.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I have not crossed either line, your question is inconsequential. I asked questions and you responded, but I am still suspicious of you as an editor for the reasons stated above. You then began to remove comments added by me on a talk page and I warned you not to. That is not harassment. Stop stating that I am bullying and harassing you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I had issued a warning to Clubfoot Johnson yesterday for removing sections of content without explanation and he specifically asked me for advice as to how to handle this situation. As I see it, this is little more than a case of two people that really need to learn just to shut up and stay away from each other, or at least take on a heightened level of decorum while dealing with one another. Walter Görlitz is apparently fuzzy on the idea of what a personal attack is. If you make derogatory, defamatory or just otherwise condescending comments to someone, then you are starting to get the idea of what a personal attack is. Simultaneously, we have Mr. Johnson who has been removing or refactoring the comments left on talk pages by Mr. Görlitz. This is also what we like to identify with the technical term of a "no-no". I find the behavior of both of you to be a little bit on the childish side, but not to the point where I see any serious need for community intervention. Perhaps both of you need to just take a step back, take a deep breath and go play a few nice flash games elsewhere on the internet until you can return and be rational. In other words: Chill Out. I don't see any part of your dispute that can't be worked out by discussing it without all the nastiness that has brought it here. Trusilver 22:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User:E2e3v6

E2e3v6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A general nuisance. Repeatedly asked to stop disruptive behavior.

• Removing talk page comments:
  • 20:27, 24 June 2011
  • warning by Pinkadelica 20:32, 24 June 2011
  • second removal 12:39, 25 June 2011
  • second warning 15:48, 2 July 2011
• Adding original research/uncited material:
  • 13:21, 22 May 2011
  • warning 13:47, 22 May 2011
  • 05:58, 28 May 2011
  • warning 09:57, 28 May 2011
  • 18:11, 29 June 2011
  • final warning to stop 21:52, 29 June 2011

• Previously notified ANI for user's edit warring on Press Your Luck 22 June 2011 [82].

Posting here following a recommendation after opening case at WP:ANI [83]. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Being semi-involved (as I have encountered E2e3v6's edits repeatedly and warned them about removing talk page comments), I thought I would comment. I don't believe E2e3v6 means to be disruptive and probably means to improve the articles he edits, but there seems to be a bit of a competence and maybe even a lack of understanding about what Wikipedia actually is on his part. E2e3v6 edits and creates articles on subjects that he obviously has strong feelings about which sometimes leads to some fan-like behavior that obviously doesn't fall in line with policy and leads to warnings. I think E2e3v6 would probably benefit from a very patient mentor who doesn't mind repeatedly explaining policies. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case

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

 – Block evading IP's blocks and editor referred to Arbcom

Two months ago I reported that this administrator had revoked my talk page access on the ground that an innocent failure to log in was "socking". Whatever happened to WP:AGF? I would like to respond to a reader at Talk:Computus#Miscellaneous and should be grateful if my talk page access could be restored to enable me to file an unblock request to enable me to do this. The proposed text of the response is

Something very similar was legislated for Britain in the Easter Act, 1928. One of its provisions was "Before this Act shall come into force regard shall be had to any opinions officially expressed by Christian churches" (don't quote me on the exact wording). Still unimplemented yet still on the Statute Book after 83 years, this must be a record for deferred legislation. The churches cannot agree.

I've been examining Daniel's contributions and some of them are plain weird. Some of them are downright offensive, involving swearing and ridicule of people in authority (congressmen, judges, police officers, Jimmy Wales) and particular groups (Germans, obese people, voters, women). Here is a selection:

Extended content

If your brother got a hold of the account that's it. Over. Fat lady sang. Goodbye. We do not unblock admittedly compromised accounts. Start a new one if you wish to edit productively. DarkfireII2, 9 March. The evidence before the Court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire... Unitrin, 14 March. And SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE! IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!! Right? That's the truth, too? Seriously, this is trolling. It's only because of AGF that I'm not cutting this talk page off. One more request like this and it will be, however. 208.54.87.73, 19 March. What color is the sky on your planet? 92.7.157.4, 21 March. So how would you explain this edit, then, Mein Herr? Huh? Just why are people like you obsessed with this sort of thing? Huh? 64.136.197.17, 6 April. Account creation is blocked from this IP for the duration of the block since some juvenile person made edits like this and...this, daring to defile the most holy and sacred user page of OUR LEADER. In cases like this we often prevent account creation from IPs we have blocked because otherwise vandals would just go create accounts and continue their dastardly deeds. 124.129.207.254, 9 April. First, this account is blocked directly so this template isn't applicable. But letting that go...you were warned several days ago to stop vandalizing and then...you went back, Jack, and did it again...Wheel turning' round and round you went back, Jack and did it again. 192.148.117.83, 17 April. I don't find anything more convincing in your latest begging; as for what's presented at the SPI, "the evidence before the court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire. So not only am I denying this, I'm cutting access to your talk page off because you would otherwise be wasting administrators' time looking for one who'd unblock. But, since you did ask, there are other avenues for this (but that should not be taken as a guarantee of ultimate success, and per Fisher Queen above you should really consider other ways of spending your time). So, I will commend you to email.unblock-en-1@lists.wikipedia.org and see what happens. Or doesn't. Ultra X987, 25 April. We are the future. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. 138.163.160.41, 4 May. Obviously we can't handle the truth! Boredsohere, 17 May. GOO GOO G'JOOB. Talk page access revoked. Casuallybeingawalrus, 20 May. NO, IT DOESN'T. SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO: SIT BACK AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE (BY SAYING "THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?" OR SOMETHING SIMILARLY CUTE), OR WE'LL HAVE TO TELL YOUR PARENTS YOU HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD BOY. Flying Fische, 29 May. You have now officially lost your talk page access. How's that for voting for change? (Cute huh?) Vote (X) for Change, 30 May. Hi, Congressman Weiner: Per WP:GOTHACKED, we generally leave admittedly compromised accounts blocked for security reasons. If you'd like to open a new account, just make sure you note the connection on your userpage. Tpunk628, 8 June. So a group of ski-masked ninjas broke into your house, held Glocks to your head with cocked hammers, and told you they'd pull the triggers unless you opened a new account? I didn't think so either, and otherwise you can't claim you were "forced" to open a new account. And, even allowing for your full control over your own actions in doing so, there is a procedure for abandoning old accounts in favor of a new one, which you didn't follow. Talk page access revoked; we've had enough of this and we need to be able to review requests from people who might actually have a valid reason to be unblocked. Toug ma Tojer, 13 June. "It's an orangy sky; always it's some other guy...It's just a broken lullaby" You have done nothing but repeat the same basic request over and over in the hope that some new admins will take pity upon you. Well, with this previously uninvolved admin you have had the opposite effect. We have been far too patient with you, IMO. I am actually doing what BWilkins threatens to...not only declining but revoking your talk page access so we don't have to deal with this anymore. "Closing time...You don't have to go home but you can't stay here". Incogfrig, 13 June. Unfortunately there is no page here entitled Wikipedia:Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, because if there were it would be a perfect link in response to your continued (soon to be discontinued) preposterous parade of unblock requests. Whether you remember it or not, it's there...several grafs up on this page. Talk page access revoked for duration of block. "But officer, I didn't notice I was speeding". That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee with the judge at traffic court. Talk page access will still be revoked...if you're that reckless in your editing, we're doing you a favor. Dbpjmuf, 29 June.

Can a more experienced editor please notify the parties required to be notified under the rules? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case notified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• 194.66.226.95, your next step is to request a review by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org; requesting edits be made on your behalf is not the purpose of this board and could be construed as block evasion. Tiderolls 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Those edits are, in general, responses to unblock requests from vandals claiming they didn't really do it. Silly responses to unblock requests are not exactly professional behavior, but they're hardly actionable other than "hey dude tone it down a bit". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted. How come no one complains about FisherQueen's unblock denials? She's funnier than I am. Is it because she's a lesbian? Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Flip mode off: Perhaps we should stick with the original issue, rather than the completely irrelevant issue of my occasionally finding it necessary to write unblock denials in something other than boilerplate (And I rarely use profanity ... in fact I think the "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining" one is probably the only one I've ever done in any off-color language). OK, it is relevant. What's wrong with quoting from popular songs? They get the point across, and they're more memorable. I would also add that some of those that he seems to think are offensive to particular groups are not ... in the "Mein Herr" one, I was alluding to the fact that the user kept adding "Jewish" to descriptions of people when it was not clearly relevant. (I do admit the Flying Fische one was a little overboard, and I said as much later).

But ... I do not know what talk-page revocation he speaks of because he provides no diff nor a user account to check. Could he please do so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Two messages have been posted on my wall. To give the senders the assurance that the replies come from me can somebody re - enable talk page access?86.164.114.65 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Though this editor does not identify himself, he is probably User:Vote (X) for Change, who has edited on the topic of calendars and has one of the longest SPI reports ever filed. Here are his userlinks:

• Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was indeffed back in March for abusing multiple accounts and had his talk access disabled by Daniel Case on 29 May. Since their unblock options go through unblock-en-l at this point there is not much reason to continue a discussion here. His modus operandi is apparently to come back to ANI about once a month, without identifying himself, to complain about whichever admin has blocked one of his IP socks most recently. I suggest lengthy blocks for two of the IPs that he has used to submit ANI reports, since they have both edited in article space while his main account was blocked, and only been blocked previously for a day or two each:

• 194.66.226.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 156.61.160.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of this thread, once administrators get the bit they seem to view everyone with suspicion, rather than assume good faith. Of course the cited IPs have "edited in article space while [her] main account was blocked" - I have already pointed out that these are computers in public libraries which are used by the general public every day. On the subject of writing to Arbcom, can someone please explain how an editor can do this?156.61.160.1 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And on the subject of calendars, a happy Independence Day to you all. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've stuck in some month+ blocks to those IP's to discourage the block evasion. To Vote X For Change: you may not edit here even via IP. Please refer your unblock requests to Arbcom via email - the instructions for this can be found here --Errant ^(chat!) 10:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The procedure you describe relates to banned users. However, the issue was taken to the community last year when it was decided that there was no reason to ban me and I should be allowed to continue editing. 86.164.114.65 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No; it relates to indefinitely blocked users who have not been able to successfully attain an unblock via the usual mechanism (talk page) and for whom no admin has agreed to unblock you. You are not allowed to edit. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Checkuser

Regards, --Base64('RnVjayB5b3U=') (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you need? –MuZemike 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"RnVjayB5b3U=" is "fuck you" encoded in Base64 fwiw. Now call me cynical but I doubt this user is going to be terribly helpful. Egg Centric 20:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And that is why DeltaQuad blocked the account. Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as FromHex('4675636b20796f7521') (talk · contribs) also means "fuck you", I'm sure (also blocked, BTW). –MuZemike 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently punctuation and capitalisation are more important in a 4 bit world... translates to "Fuck you!" Egg Centric 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's a fan of the Cee Lo Green song of the same name :) –MuZemike 21:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is anybody going to do a checkuser on them to see who they are? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Two checkusers already have done.. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I block this editor, anyone want to comment on the page moves?

I blocked Consorveyapaaj2048394 (talk · contribs) for continual undiscussed page moves and apparent refusal to discuss anything. We now have Deadly Coordinates (talk · contribs), created shortly after I blocked the earlier account, making similar page moves. Both have edited/moved something about the Vulva page, one moved some Twilight articles, while another edited a Twilight character page. And both have moved the FAQ page. Quack quack. I was dithering between SPI and an immediate block but I could also use some eyes on their page moves to see if any are worth keeping. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have extensively studied the editing history of both accounts, and I have no doubt they are the same person, so I have blocked the new account. I have also reverted a couple of page moves which seemed unhelpful, including the move of FAQ. Unfortunately I don't have more time to spend on this now, but it seems likely that there are more that could do with reverting. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Deadly Coordinates attracted my attention as a problematic editor after some dubious page moves and edits to policy pages, including creating Wikipedia:Angelina Jolie. Since there's a general lack of clue across both accounts, and they're both blocked, it's probably best that all their edits are reverted.They appear to be editing from their own notions, rather than from sources and references. Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that this editor's first language is not English. From looking at the sul contribs for both accounts I'm guessing that it's Vietnamese. Someone who also speaks that language and is also proficient in English might have better luck communicating with him. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hottest 100 Australian Albums Of All Time

This article was created by User:Tyler j1992 a few days ago. It was only a half complete list, and so was tagged for an AfD. Tyler j1992 asked me what he could do to stop the article from being deleted. I recommended that he work on it in his own user space. In order for the article not be be deleted by the AfD, and so to avoid WP:CSD#G4 when it was reintrodiced; I suggested that Tyler j1992 tag the article with {{db-author}}. That's exactly what he did. He moved it to User:Tyler_j1992/Sandbox, the AfD was closed, and the article was deleted per {{db-author}}.

Whilst reviewing the New Pages list, to my horror, I noticed that user:Ck786 had created more-or-less the same article (with two columns swapped), some information left out, and with a slightly different title; at Triple J Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time, 2011. It was well documented on the original AfD and on the orignal article's talk page that Tyler j1992 had moved it to his user space to work on it.

I was hoping that someone could take a look at this? The article, as it stands is a half empty list that will be completed sometime in the future. As it stands, the article does not deserve to be up there. Like I said, it was several days into an AfD and was looking as though it would be deleted.

I feel terrible. I offered my advice to Tyler j1992, and he followed that advice. It sets a really bad example to him: play by the rules, and someone else will come along and beat you to it. If there's nothing that can be done, then can we at least re-open the AfD? — Fly by Night (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a possible reason to delete. As the original was on Wikipedia, any recreation by another editor would need to be attributed, otherwise we are straying into WP:COPYVIO territory. If the article was not attributed when (re)created, it could possibly be deleted for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In my defence, I am a casual Wiki user/editor and dont generally go searching around the thousands/millions of wiki users' sandboxs' looking for articles under construction. There was a gap in the information, so I started to fill it. Being an avid Triple J listener, I am aware the article is not complete as the countdown is ongoing through this next week, culminating on Friday IIRC. Furthermore, with the "regular"/annual countdown 'Hottest 100' article's the page is never only created following the completion of the countdown, so I am unsure why this would be different in this instance. Finally, I did check the Talk page of the overall Triple J Hottest 100 article and there was no mention of the existence of a 'Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time' discussion. I apologise if another user was hoping to be the one to create the page, "getting in first" was not my intention (I wasn't aware this was a big deal either), I was just aiming to fill a gap. As previously mentioned, I'm not sure why this article would be deleted given that ALL of the previous 'Hottest 100' pages are created prior to and updated during the countdown itself. Again, I apologise if I was out of line :-S - Ck786 (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: So between seeing this proposed deletion half an hour ago, and replying above, the article has been removed. Again, I didnt realise that people took great offence to others taking the initiative to create an article where none existed, and I didnt realise it was aa big deal as to who started an article. Personally, I couldnt care less who starts it. I'd still like to know why this countdown is different to at least the last three 'Hottest 100' countdowns which I have participated in updating, whereby there is no page that exists prior to or during the countdown Ck786 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, in User:Ck786's defence, there wasn't much mention of it outside of the deleted article's talk page. However, on both the Triple J template and the Hottest 100 page, I added a small note, viewable to those who edit it, that a page of this nature has already been created. Also, it wasn't about getting in first or anything. Basically, I had created the article after a user had just implemented the data into a very poorly designed list on the Hottest 100 main page. So, in order to clean up the page, which I do regularly, I moved the information to it's own page, which was going to be created soon enough anyway. The page was then marked for deletion, as most of the Hottest 100 pages are anyway. But the date which the page was to be deleted was 3 days before the completion of the list. So rather than argue, I volunteered to delete the list, which was violating Wikipedia's standards by being incomplete, and move it to my Sandbox to be completed, and then moved to it's own article again once the countdown had finished.

And to hopefully help answering your question regarding why this one is different to previous countdowns, well, this one is ongoing at the current time. Yes, the previous ones were too, but the yearly ones are finished in a matter of hours, and likewise, the previous Hottest 100 of All Time Countdown was finished in under a week. However, this one will remain incomplete for almost 2 weeks (until Sunday July 10th), which realistically, is too long for an article to remain incomplete.

However, once the countdown is completed, I'd hope to resubmit the completed article if allowed. Tyler j1992 (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• These lists are a copyright violation. They are creative in nature, not factual, and we need permission to display them. While we received permission from Triple J for some of their lists, they were very specific in their permission as to which lists they were releasing. Their release (Ticket:2009071010018621) was not general and did not include future lists. I've blanked the list portions of both pages. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure for verifying a usable license for this list as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree entirely with this, there is nothing creative about counting votes from 100000s of listeners. It is factual compilation of other people's creative efforts, so does that make it a derivative work and should each listener be asked what they want to do with their copyright? But why was my contribution to the original article of adding an independent reference allowed to be deleted by a "sole author requests deletion" CSD clause, when he wasn't the sole author? Why wasn't it moved to his sandbox instead of deletion and recreation? The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that our attorney feels differently, as I explained at Tyler's talk page. No answer on the G7 question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• If there were nothing copyrightable about poll results, polling would be a considerable less lucrative business. To be honest we probably want to make that more explicit, as we've surely got tons of articles with the same problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've sent an email to both the website of Triple J itself, and its parent company, the Australian Broadcasting Company. So we just have to sit tight and wait for any reply regarding copyright before we can continue. Tyler j1992 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

99.90.197.244

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

 – IP blocked for 3 months, for Disruptive editing, soapboxing

The IP refuses to not refer to others as liars[84][85] use quality RS while trying to make a point.[86][87] The English is also unworkable. A clear history of edit warring and other issues in the block log and talk page.[88] I am requesting a 6 month block on the IP since there is nothing but trouble coming from it since April 2010[89]. Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so that explains Israeli insanity. But what's the explanation for anti-Israeli insanity??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My eyebrows were raised until I read the name. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And now this. I think he is actually saying that kosher salt makes Israelis insane. Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the editor, and it does appear to be "linguistically" the same person, uses a machine translator for whatever language they are conversant in. Of itself this would not be an issue, providing they were contributing to a discussion - however, it appears that this is pretty much a SPA regarding the current tensions relating to Middle East political issues (Gaza blockade, US Koran burning, etc.) who is using the project as a soapbox. I am going to enact a 3 month block, with a view to escalating blocks if this behaviour is not modified upon sanction expiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good block, but I have some doubts about your analysis. No machine translator would confuse blockade with brocade. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Or tourism for truism, but perhaps they were "assisting" in areas where the machine translation failed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I am fairly certain that I do not like this evil IP fellow and that it does appear that he was both ignorant of the subject matter (not a crime, but annoying) and a soapboxer most foul (wiki-crime). Good block imho. Btw, just a side note, everyone who is a citizen of Israel is allowed to vote regardless of ethnic background or faith (and that includes many Arabs of different faiths). Just wanting to clarify. :p So all is good. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Death Threat on Talk: Pamela Geller

Being handled accordingly. –MuZemike 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The diff is here. Is this something that should be taken seriously, and if so, what should be the proper course of action? Difluoroethene (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-stop editing by socks of User:Prince-au-Léogâne

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne/Archive
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prince-au-Léogâne

This guy doesn't stop. Everytime a sock or IP is blocked, he starts editing from another one. The last IP to be blocked was 76.109.142.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which began editing one of the socks' userpage to indicate it was an administrator. That IP was blocked on June 30th. Within a few hours, the sockmaster began editing from 76.109.149.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and that IP's edits include using the usertalk page of a sock to spam himself. Is it possible to look into a rangeblock on this one? Singularity42 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Best ask at the SPI, although I am willing to bet that the potential range has too many good editors to allow a block. I would also suggest that any of the self promotion edits can be reverted when found, which I realise is a pain as they make many legit (but often trivial) ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple more patterns to the title blacklist, which should slow them down a bit, and softblocked 76.109.0.0/16 for 72 hours -- existing registered accounts will still be able to edit from that range, but anons will not be either able to edit or create new accounts. The next logical step in this process is to create a rule in the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been created again with a different title - see HipHop561 (talk · contribs) and 64.134.27.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Peter E. James (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, so much for the rangeblock idea. Singularity42 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm working on crafting a filter. Currently, it's in log-only mode -- I'll wait a couple of days, and see what happens. I'm going to lift the rangeblock now, since it's clearly ineffective. -- The Anome (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A day later, a new set of articles and socks:

• Royal Menace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SpeakLoudnFree (talk · contribs)
• And additional edits by 76.109.142.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now that the block has expired.

Sigh... Singularity42 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

For those with edit filter rights, see this edit filter, which is a tightly focused filter which attempts to catch the essence of their specific editing pattern. See also this edit filter, which is a logging-only catch-all designed to catch the editor's whole range of behaviours for later analysis, albeit at the cost of many false positives. -- The Anome (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also just  Confirmed and blocked:

• NWAStreetMusic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'm currently looking into a rangeblock, but I don't know what good that will do. –MuZemike 17:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I could only manage a 1 week hardblock on 76.109.128.0/19. He extends all the way out to that /16 range (and the ISP extends all the way out to an /11 range), but there is too much collateral damage, I'm afraid, to even softblock the /16. –MuZemike 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a trick I figured out to determine if a new article has been created by this sockmaster (which leads to both the article and the sock). I would prefer not to advertise this trick publically (why give away the secret to the sockmaster), but feel free to contact me privately if an admin wants to know. Singularity42 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Persistant autobiography creations

Tonight, a friend directed my attention to the existance of the article George Jay Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been deleted several times in the past when it was located at George Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which had been created and heavily edited by Georgewienbarg (talk · contribs). I've sent George Jay Wienbarg to its third AFD (second under the current title), and also discovered Davidcapurso (talk · contribs) and David Capurso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the process. This behavior should not be allowed to continue as it has for the past several years. Georgewienbarg should no longer be allowed to edit this project or to have his biography or the biographies of his associates (Davidcapurso started the current page on Wienbarg, and Georgewienbarg created David Capurso) in any form included on this website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The new article looks substantially similar to the originally deleted one; can any admin confirm this? It may be a candidate for WP:CSD#G4, even though the previous one was deleted in December 2006. (Note: I can only find one previous deletion discussion; the other two prior to that were policy-based.)  Frank  |  talk  02:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Checked, and I find them not 100% identical, but substantially the same in content. These various reincarnations are obviously a tenacious attempt on the part of the author to get himself into Wikipedia. G4 seems appropriate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So can G4 be implimented and the earth salted as per his message on my talk page he does not realize that he has done anything wrong?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you delete David Capurso as A7 and salt it while we're at it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article that you took to AfD seventeen hours before that comment? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the same boat as Wienbarg's.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't locate any previous deletion of David Capurso, and Davidcapurso (talk · contribs) shows no edits to that article. So it doesn't appear to be the same situation. Doesn't mean the article should be kept, but I don't see a speedy deletion justification. --RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A7 is still a valid reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also something should be done about Wienbarg.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

David Capurso contains credible enough claims of significance to pass the low bar of A7, so an AFD was the right thing to do. Wienbarg's user page has been tagged as such and doesn't look very much like an encyclopedia article, but if he expands it into a WP:FAKEARTICLE, then a nomination at WP:MFD would be appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on BelloWello

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

BelloWello/WikiManOne/Salegi is banned by community consensus. Courcelles 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Salegi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.72.159.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Letsgocrazytogether (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dumler for Supervisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BelloWello's name has appeared several times on this noticeboard. When editing as WikiManOne, he was on the verge of being community banned because of his edits related to abortion. All the accounts above were operated by the same real life person who recently divided his accounts into two: one to edit or create articles connected with Democrat campaigning in Albemarle County, Virginia (last two accounts); the other IPsock to continue tendentious editing of articles relating to Seventh Day Adventism. The new accounts used as a source the real life blog of this editor, which was in blatant contravention of WP:RS. This editor has consistently used wikipedia to push an agenda. In the latest SPI, when the connection between the different accounts was mentioned, his response was defiant and aggressive, when it was evident that he was deliberately operating sockpuppets.[90] This last round of sockpuppetry and activism is the final straw. This editor has shown that, despite being given one last chance after another, his editing goals conflict with those of this encyclopedia. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community (the possibility of an indefinite block was not discounted by Jclemens, one of the checkusers who has been involved in checking several of the accounts above).

• Support as proposer. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support WMO was at the core of the Abortion 1RR sanctions. Bello was at the core of 1RR sanctions at Southern Adventist University. IP 50.72 contributed to full protection at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim‎ and semi-prot at Generation of Youth for Christ‎‎. The sum total of this user's disruption is staggering. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  Bello was also on the verge of topic-banning here as evidenced by the substantial support. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing disruption by now-blocked Lovetinkle
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support provided we ban Mathsci as well. Two particularly odious birds with the same righteous stone. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Lovetinkle warned for inappropriate comments and edit-summaries in relation to past several edits. DMacks (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC) With the greatest of respect, you can insert your warning wherever is most comfortable for you. I repudiate it and stand by all I have said. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC) In addition Lovertinkle has accused Lionelt of being a sockpuppet of my account. [91] It looks as if their account might be compromised. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) He is a sockpuppet. Your sockpuppet. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Accusations vs. accusations. BelloWello, despite being labeled a sockmaster on some of the listed accounts, is not even currently blocked. What's up with all this? Where are the SPI's for all these claims? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello was linked in the start of this thread but obscured as an extlink to a certain revision. It mentions why that account is not blocked at this time (and leaves the door open for doing so), exactly as the original link says. DMacks (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Roger. So why is BelloWello still being allowed to edit? And where is the evidence, if any, in support of Tinkle's claims? I'm also amazed that the user got away with that ID, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Again again, the answer to your first question is in the original post in this thread and also in recent comments in the SPI (maybe it's in the active part not yet archived?). This thread here I assume will establish how to proceed, whether to block and/or ban, or keep open as a last-chance. DMacks (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC) See Lovetinkle's block for harassment and also click on my IP to see where I edit from. Honestly Bugs. [Mathsci editing while logged out] 82.66.163.12 (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, I did see that Bello was given a short block despite two occurrences of sockpuppetry. Not good. I also saw that "Miss Ejaculata Lovetinkle" is appealing the block. Also not good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Lovetinkle shot its wad and is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A bad faith editor who has caused severe disruptions in several topics. He's been given many chances to reform already.   Will Beback  talk  11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. (non-admin) At one point, some months ago when he operated as WikiManOne, I thought that some of what was being contributed was useful, reasonably sourced etc but after some involvement supporting a few of his points, my opinion soon changed. The editor is sly, tendentious and an extreme POV pusher. There have been numerous blocks, numerous incidents of major drama which did not actually escalate to a block, and numerous reincarnations (some sanctioned, some not). Enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as per Will. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Will and nominator. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - indef block all accounts and ban the person behind them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - inappropriate behavior in many ways. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. This user has clearly disruptive behavior and assumes seriously bad faith. The recent activity by BelloWello is an example of giving too many last chances. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support With that many failed attempted CLEANSTARTs and failing to remedy the underlying problem, it's time to go. Also, wikimanone may have been related to a family of three other sockpuppets. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per Mathsci the nominator, Lionel and Will B. Long overdue.[92] It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support -Abusing multiple accounts, edit warring, engaging in "wiki-lawyering", and on the advice of Will B who at one time was an advisor to Bello.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - persistent and remorseless abuse. Delete, salt, pepper. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• I am troubled by BW's behavior as an editor. We worked together on several very successful articles. BW can make a positive contribution to the Wikipedia community. But, the evidence is overwhelming that he has another side to him; an unacceptable one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with great sadness. Like DonaldRichardSands, I was able to collaborate with this editor on several occasions and know that he is capable of making useful contributions to this encyclopedia. However, I now see his other side - what seems to me to be his appetite for confrontation, for advancing his personal agenda and now sockpuppetry. It's all too disruptive for me to stand up for him now. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Will. Kcowolf (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The editor's battleground behaviour, sockpuppeteering, and other abuses far outweigh any positive contributions he's (or she's) made to the project. He can't let it go, he won't let it go, and the encyclopedia is being actively harmed by his intransigence. --NellieBly (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Socking on top of other issues makes this an easy call. I hoped this editor might turn it around, but clearly that's not happening.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Suppport, disruption of this discussion via sock demonstrates that community cannot exhaust anymore patience here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support banning as the user causes too much disruption and treats WP as his battleground.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

copyright infringement

Hello, I have a question about the copyright status of this picture. This picture has been taken from a Danish Newspaper, not from an American Newspaper. So it can't be used fair use under United States copyright law. What is your opinion? Regards --وحید قاسمیان (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's servers are physically located in the United States, they are controlled by United States law. Therefore, United States copyright law applies, including the doctrine of fair use. Also, it appears that OTRS has already vetted and cleared the image in question for use with that article. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice. Consult a licensed and practicing attorney in your area for definitive legal advice regarding your particular situation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Alan, huh? OTRS has done nothing of the sort.

قاسمیان, both the United States and Hollard are signatories of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Our article on it explains what that means: "The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way as it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created." As such, the newspaper in question in copyrighted under United States law, but can be used under fair use criteria in the United States. IANAL. NW (Talk) 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected...I'll strike that part of my comment. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the picture is from Denmark, not Holland (sic, actually the Netherlands), but that's ok; Denmark's a sigantory, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a creative attempt to get around the Mohammed picture issue, but WP:NFCC allows for fair use of fully copyrighted pictures in the proper context; that is we consider a work either "eligible for free use" under Wikipedia policy (i.e. "commons" worthy pictures in the public domain OR properly liscenced under GFDL or CC-BY-SA), or the pictures aren't eligible for free use, and this picture isn't eligible for free use. As such, it must meet WP:NFCC which it does. The country of origin, and provenence of the picture isn't at issue. Fair use is fair use, and this picture qualifies for fair use, as it is clearly the topic of extensive commentary in the articles it is being used it. As I stated, this is a novel means by the OP to get around WP:NOTCENSORED by reframing the arguement. Points awarded for creativity, but alas, the picture will stay today. --Jayron32 00:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, whose sock are they? Their single edit is to make this post. Anyone else hear quacking? Heiro 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, وحید قاسمیان is just an account from fa-wiki. They have half a year's worth of contributions over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, had noticed this edit a few hours before the post here, thought they might be connected. Didn't even think to check other wikis. Heiro 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Éric Gagnier

Hello all. Éric Gagnier has been active for a long time on wp.fr (under a variety of IP ranges, as well as a number of usernames, mainly M-A92 and A-31). 204.237.12.81 has been identified there as a block evasion of this user ; i blocked this IP back in April. It seems it is still active here ; furthermore spamming my talkpage, begging for an unblock on wp.fr --MAURILBERT (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is blocked on fr-Wiki, that is a matter for that site. Said block does not mean that the editor is blocked on en-Wiki. As long as there is no problem with their editing here, they are free to edit. Should there be problems on en-Wiki, the situation will be assessed on its merits, and no account need be taken of editing on other language Wikipedias. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But Éric Gagnier (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked on en.wikipedia and so 204.237.12.81 is a block evading IPsock on en.wikipedia. He self-identifies here in a highly disruptive way, harrassing Mauribert by vandalising his talk page. [93] (From that post another IPsock on en.wikipedia is 209.226.116.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).) Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's different. Said IP socks should be blocked in that case. Maybe also a temporary semi-protection of Mauribert's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism/harrassment occurred again just recently.[94] Please could administrators on en.wikipedia take the hint and just block the two accounts? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Something needs to be done about this user - fast! So far I have caught these IPs, but there are no doubt more. I propose some sort of rangeblock.

• 166.137.136.81
• 166.137.136.103
• 166.137.137.69
• 166.137.137.190
• 166.137.138.15
• 166.137.139.45
• 166.137.139.82

The user is deliberately polluting articles with false information. I just caught edits - still in place - done by this user almost a month ago. Nymf _hideliho! 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody vandalizes Jim Varney and gets away with it, know what I mean? 166.137.136.0/22 blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 20:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility: Threatened by Admin mjroots over edit to Wikipedia article which contained false uncited information introduced by admin

Resolved

 – Nothing here requires admin action – any further discussion should take place at the article's talk page. —DoRD (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts:

Yesterday, I noticed an article named "2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision" on Wikipedia, created by this same admin User:mjroots. The citations in the article were highly questionable and the link(s) to these citations were broken - looking at the titles, the broken link(s) were taken from a political anti-Iran propaganda site which no longer exists.

I researched the facts behind the article and found that this accident was not a "Collision" at all but rather an apparent crash caused by a malfunction as reported by Huffington Post. I corrected the facts based on actual sources, and added the "Citation required" tag where needed while correcting the name of the article indicating that it was a crash not a collision. I removed a POV political statement which was completely uncited, unrelated, speculative, and original, from the article also presumably written by the same admin Mjroots.

Less than 24 hour later I noticed a bizarre hate message containing slurs from said admin User:mjroots on my talk page [95], claiming ownership of the article. The admin further made an apparent slur accusing me of being "Iranian" and making multiple threats expressing contempt towards me for correcting the article. He threatened to plaster this page with a number of warnings over your editing to the article [sic].

He further claimed that because I am allegedly "Iranian", I am trying to change the article to a "truth as seen by Iran" [sic] article [96]. I categorically DENY THIS BASELESS ACCUSATION. The revisions I made WERE BASED ENTIRELY ON WESTERN MEDIA AS THERE IS NO MENTION OF THIS ALLEGED INCIDENT IN THE IRANIAN PRESS, Is user "Mjroots" accusing the Huffington Post of being Iranian???

User:mjroots changed the name of the article back to the incorrect "collision" title, removing all of my edits and reintroducing uncited information claiming a "collision" with another aircraft along with political propaganda.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I must say that I am thoroughly disgusted by what I saw today - especially from someone that holds an Administrative position on Wikipedia. Request this user be barred from making further edits on this topic as obviously Mjroots has personal feelings towards this topic. Xonus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Since you did not notify the other editor as you are required, I have taken the liberty of doing so. —DoRD (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is largely going to devolve into a content dispute, where differing sources are casting the incident in different lights. I have to say that I do not think that either editor has acted in the most appropriate manner, and that it is disappointing that a long term editor such as mjroots reverted another editors contributions without explaining why the new cites were improper (my review of them is that they seem to meet WP:RS). However, the proper representation of sources per WP:Due weight is a matter of dispute resolution and I am interested in mjroots comments regarding his actions and less than optimum commentary. As long as there is an acknowledgement that matters could have been and will be handled better I do not believe that there are any grounds to remove any editor from these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Xonus is starting to edit-war. Maybe a reminder on WP:BRD is in order. I was just gonna start a section, but... y'know... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 I have already given you a note about Wikipedia:Civility, regarding your message on my page which reads as follows: you won't get very far with obvious lies here. Stop being deliberately foolish - Again I find this extremely rude,offensive and nonconstructive. Sounds like I have set off a hornet's nest of Iran-haters, accusing me of being "Iranian" simply because of one valid editXonus (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Further information: user talk:Mjroots § PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS

Obviously, I see this somewhat different to Xonus's version of events. The article history shows the story. All five references from four separate sources meet WP:RS. They all state that this was a mid-air collision which destroyed Iran's only operable AWACS aircraft, killing all seven crew. I don't claim to own the article. My actions this morning were aimed at maintaining adherence to WP:NPOV, and WP:V via RS. If Xonus or anyone else wishes to present evidence that there are material errors in the article, then they should do so by introducing referenced material, not be deleting referenced material and adding {{fact}} tags to what is left. The talk page of the article is available for discussion of any evidence presented. That there are no Iranian sources used in the article is not surprising. I would not have expected the accident to have been widely reported in the Iranian media in the first place, and I don't speak/read Arabic, so I am unable to assess the merits on any sources in that language if they should exist. That is not to say that such sources cannot be used, as I can always request assistance from Arabic-reading editors should this be needed.

I apologise to Xonus for any perceived insult in my post to his talk page. It was not my intention to make any personal attack, and I do not believe that my post there was in any way a personal attack. It should be noted that my communication was by means of a personal message, rather than a warning template. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, that'd be Persian. Can someone else revert this mess now? The version Xonus left is unacceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Huffington Post reference contained the same video which is available on YouTube and is contained in the second Daily Mail reference ([5] in the article). Thus there was no removal of referenced material in my reversions. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can the article please be reverted to this version, which is how I left it this morning. My belief is that there are no major inaccuracies in that version, and that referencing is in accordance with WP:V. Note the complete lack of fact tags, as all statements are referenced, and the references given verify the information in the article. The current state of the article is not acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots, the Huffington Post was a written article with text which supported my entry - the fact that it contained "the same video" as you claim is irrelevant! There is no dispute over the contents of the video here. Also, your knowledge of this topic comes into question since obviously you are looking for "Arabic Speakers" for an Iran-related article - indicating that you are not even sure as to what part of the world this incident occurred as you seem to think this article is about a crash in an "Arab" country . Xonus (talk)

Xonus, I'm happy to discuss the Huffington Post source - it meets WP:RS. Will open a discussion on the article's talk page about this source, where you are welcome to put forward your views. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll point out that this version of the article, which is Xonus' last edit to it, contains this reference to the Daily Mail website. That link states explicitly, both in the text and in the included video that the crash was the result of a mid-air collision, although Xonus omits that from the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)