Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714

Suspicious edits

I noticed on Alain Chabat that I have reverted the addition of Category:French people of African descent six times over the course of the last three months. The interesting thing is that the edit was made from six different IP's: Special:Contributions/69.118.16.247 Special:Contributions/72.43.218.181 Special:Contributions/96.233.206.47 Special:Contributions/98.15.136.61 Special:Contributions/98.15.136.61 Special:Contributions/76.15.106.121. When I checked other edits from these IP's, I found that each of these IP's was used on a different day for almost exclusively one purpose: to add nationality/ethnicity categories to articles. I think this matter needs looking into. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The negative is that if they are not editing now, we can't action them for anything. IPs are finicky like that unlike registered users. We see IPs changing height and weight in hockey articles all the time (I've had to revert at Nail Yakupov, a rare article submission from me, three times now), but the same problem applies. CycloneGU (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to find out who is making these edits. It seems clear to me that there must be more of this going on, perhaps even every day. This could be the work of a registered editor who prefers to make these edits incognito. Notice, that many of them have been reverted. This editor seems to have certain issues with Wikipedia categorisation based on nationality and/or ethnicity that may be traced back to somebody. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think there is a good case for semiprotection (especially with BLPs), one can make a case over at WP:RFPP - I find semiprotection a better way of dealing with this than IP blocks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, they will not semiprotect in this situation. We're complaining about a single vandal (at a time) on multiple articles. Protecting all of the articles for another vandal attack that could be in three weeks or three days is preemptive and not in practice. CycloneGU (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a long term issue, involving tens of pages about people, and very specific edits. It could be worth our while to get to the bottom of this. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Today we had Special:Contributions/67.82.171.39, doing the same thing. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's going to continue and we can't do anything about it. We protect these articles, next time the IP will go to other articles instead. It's impossible to keep them away. CycloneGU (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser suggests that if this is one person, he's editing from multiple pcs and mobile devices using throwaway IPs from multiple providers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. All the more suspicious. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical question. I sort of understand what you guys (and gals) can do with Checkuser, would, say, a hacker with a small botnet be able to reproduce this behaviour, would you be able to spot that? Oh yeah, to the OP, where are these IP edits coming from? Always the same country? (it's just Alain Chabat is a wierd sort of target, but then again there are so many agendas on Wikipedia we could be a stationer's). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(sorry that joke crossed the cross-brain divide, agenda in French = diary, and Elen I'm still wondering how Homer Simpson ended up being of French descent ;-) ) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Alain Chabat was just the page where I spotted this. Then I checked these users' edits, and found that they targeted some 10-20 articles every time. I feel confident somebody has an agenda here, and I'd like to get to the bottom of this. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Same country, but it's a big one. I dare say it would be possible to program a bot to randomly add categories, I'm not the bot expert. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

They are far from random, usually a step up or down from a specific category that was there before. And many of the categories have to do with the Jewish ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DragoLink 08 redux

Resolved

Based on a current AIV report,[1] I've found some long-term disruptive editing by DragoLink08 (talk · contribs · block log). For additional background, please see:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive698#User:DragoLink08
• User talk:DragoLink08#For the last time, navbox colors
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DragoLink08/Archive
• Toolserver edit count for DragoLink08

The account has been blocked twice, most recently for 1 week, but their behavior does not seem to have changed at all. I'm thinking this person needs a new hobby and am leaning toward an indefinite block. Any objections? — Satori Son 21:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to wait, they obviously have no interest in discussing their actions and have a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Two years of warnings and no change or even reply to messages since June 2009. User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, obviously. Thanks. — Satori Son 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As well as asking me, ask the word bubble in my head. Feels like 2 years of warnings, and still going. Is this really a vandalism or a disruption-only account? StormContent (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:GenKnowitall

• GenKnowitall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Center of gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive106#GenKnowitall

This user's editing has been disruptive for some time and has recently gotten worse. This talk page comment, made a few hours ago, says that I should "perhaps" be executed, and it would be better for me to kill myself. I don't know whether it's really a serious threat of violence, but certainly it's going in an ugly direction fast and can't be allowed to continue. I recommend an immediate block; you can decide how long-term. I also recommend removing the comment from the talk page. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's Jimmy Wales he's suggesting should be executed, not you. It's flamboyant language, but hardly uncivil. If you've got edits where he's being actually disruptive - not just verbose - do post the diffs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's aimed at me or Jimmy Wales, I'm not comfortable allowing any user to openly fantasize about the death of any other user on Wikipedia, whatever language it's couched in. Is this really controversial? Melchoir (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's the equivalent of saying "you lot will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes." It's not a threat, it's a hyperbolic expression of his opinion of Wikipedia as a suitable source for students. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not saying that I'm convinced it's a threat. I'm saying that the language is uncivil to the point of disruption, and an uninvolved admin should step in before it escalates further. Melchoir (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it. I think he's probably said his piece. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Threat: no. Uncivil: no. Soapboxing: yes. Yeah, I know, talk pages are for article improvement and we aren't supposed to soapbox on them, but seeing how seldom he edits here, I think it would stir up more trouble to remove the soapboxing than it would to ignore it. Ignoring pontificating people is highly underrated, and unfortunately very uncommon, but I still recommend it. If actual disruption occurs, that would be another thing, but right now it's just complaining. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... I'm really surprised. I hope you're both right! Melchoir (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Article talk page and article both semi-protected indefinitely: 3+ months now.

NOTE: THIS IS ONLY ABOUT UNPROTECTING THE TALK PAGE! Not the article itself.

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher has been semi-protected indefinitely since April 29, 2011. That is three months. The main article page is also semi-protected. This means that no anonymous user can contribute here in violation of Wikipedia policies for three months so far in any way.

I asked for unprotecting on 25 July on RPP and was referred back to the admin that did it three months ago. That admin was unwilling to unprotect as seen here on 27 July.

Wikipedia:Protection#Semi-protection says

"Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time."

Can someone please unprotect this talk page? Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Because valid anonymous editors on a very high profile page are frozen out in violation of policy? Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is seriously going to be considered, then we should also seriously consider the unblock of Trowbridge tim (talk · contribs), which, from looking at the edit history, is the person responsible behind the semi-protection. –MuZemike 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PP. "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy." (Emphasis in original text.) Given the article's high-profile nature and the history of questionable (at best) editing from IP editors, I see more reason to maintain semi-protection than I do to remove it. If an IP editor wishes to make a contribution to that article, they can use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. MoMK needs to remain protected. It has at times been subject to full protection due to the contentious editing there. There has been some recent progress and unprotecting it would only serve to rekindle the fire. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not about unprotecting the aritcle, ONLY the talk page. I also cited that same thing which says Articles AND the talk page should not be protected at the same time. I want the TALK page only unprotected. Not the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Edit_semi-protected is for people to ask for the article to be edited. People can't even edit the talk page to do this. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PP does say "A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." It does NOT say "...may not be protected at the same time" or "...shall not be protected at the same time". If there is a clear administrative concern that calls for both to be semi-protected, admins would be doing less than their duty to not semi-protect both. Given the editing history of the article AND its talk page, it would appear that there is indeed a clear administrative concern regarding the integrity of both. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So for how long do we leave these users out in the cold? Quarter of the year so far. Half a year? A year? Two years? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A few weeks after the appeals process is over. That decision will have everything to do with what direction the article may take. It is currently on track to be decided this autumn.

I have no problem leaving them in the cold. History has shown that they aren't adding anything else to the 'pedia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I echo the sentiments of MuZemike, Berean Hunter and N5iln - seriously, unprotection at this point is a recipe for disaster. The sockpuppet attacks that necessitated the semi-protection included the posting of privacy-breaching information that required immediate oversight. Added to that, there has been quite enough misuse of the talk page even from autoconfirmed accounts; bringing the talk page off semi-protection during such a critical phase is more or less guaranteed to turn it into a swamp of personal attacks and a platform for unconstructive soapboxing. I speak from experience; this article and its talk page have been on my watchlist now for well over a year. The benefits of semi-protection far ouweigh the minor disadvantage of IPs being unable to edit - besides, if an unregistered user has something constructive to offer, they can always fill out an edit request. SuperMarioMan 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this discussion is focusing on one very-high-profile article. Wikipedia has over 3.6 million articles. IP editors are NOT being "left out in the cold". From a perspective of scale, they're being kept away from one very touchy pinhole. Just something to think about... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Leave it semi-protected. If any IP has a brilliant bit of sourced info that needs to be added, it's likely that info will be well enough known that a registered user can enter it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

other indefinitely semi protected article talk pages

This sort of protection is in violation of policy. I just figured out how to check, I think, and nearly no article talk pages semi protected. none of these are supposed to be.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ADisappearance+of+Madeleine+McCann
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ACarl+Hewitt

Anonymous users are supposed to be able to contribute. I wll ring that other admin too. Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From the past history of this, "valid anonymous editors" is a contradiction in terms. The topic area is rife with single-purpose-accounts as it is, and I would be hesitant to open the door to either random IPs or accounts that cannot even meet the ridiculously low threshold of being auto-confirmed. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So our masthead and all that says "anyone can edit" is secondary to our convenience? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. — Satori Son 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there of any other high profile article where we have for a quarter of a year locked out every single anonymous editor from any contribution at all? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would be quite pleased if this is the only article we have ever had to do this with. Just because we are rarely, if ever, forced to take such drastic action to protect an article doesn't make that action inherently wrong. — Satori Son 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember that "anyone can edit" is a double-edged sword; that also means anyone can abuse it, which was clearly been happening here. –MuZemike 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia requires article content to be verifiable and neutral in tone. There's way too much IP editing in the history of the articles in question that is neither verifiable nor neutral. As much as I'd like to assume good faith on the part of every IP editor that shows up on Wikipedia, history and experience have demonstrated otherwise...which is why Wikipedia has administrators and the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I would say it isn't convenience that demands semi-protection remain on these articles, but prudence. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also add, with Talk:Carl Hewitt, Hewitt himself has been significant disrupting that talk page. Unprotecting that page is tantamount to unblocking User:CarlHewitt, because he will sock to disrupt. –MuZemike 20:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(To play Devil's advocate here briefly) I mean, we could try lifting the semi-protection on said talk pages in hopes that those responsible for the disruption have ceased caring. However, I've personally seen that fail more often than succeed. –MuZemike 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These I just put out for discussion and comparison mainly. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if people participating in these discussions would at least pay lip service to the fact that excluding the vast majority of our editors from contributing to a subject is at least regrettable wherever it is actually necessary. Anonymous contributions to Wikipedia are declining faster than registered contributions [2] and that is not a good thing. causa sui (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see more constructive editing by IPs. WP:AGF holds more often than not. The problem arises when feelings run high, as in the case of the MoMK article. Soapboxing, coatracking, and even worse behaviors drown out the actual constructive contributions far too frequently when polarizing issues such as this case arise; even more so when what I call the "professional talking heads" (to most people, they're "pundits") start tossing their speculations around instead of being responsible journalists. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll grant that the worst editors are generally anonymous. We would expect that, since a person who is committed to achieving an agenda in a particular area of intense personal interest would not find it worthwhile to register or become part of the general "community of editors". On the other hand, a great many well-intentioned and prolific contributors to Wikipedia similarly have no intention of making themselves known to anyone on this noticeboard. If you want to see constructive editing by IPs I suggest you do some RCP for a few hours and consider what a terrible thing it would be to, rather than reviewing them individually using our extremely powerful RCP tools like Huggle, punish the innocent with the guilty and revdelete all the IP contributions you find in the stream. Effectively, that is what we are doing when we semi-protect a page for an extended period. I'll grant that sometimes that is necessary, albeit very regrettable, where deleterious IP edits vastly outnumber their constructive counterparts. But it is disheartening to see the idea tossed around that IPs -- real people, many of whom read a lot and don't edit much but have bought our propaganda that they can contribute at the same time as they consume -- need to be tossed aside. causa sui (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disagreeing with you. I haven't kept stats on such things, and I'm not sure anyone else does either, but I'm willing to bet I revert as many registered-account edits with Huggle as I do IP edits. And I'll flat-out state that it's most often the registered-account users who are the most egregious vandals. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the reports at WP:UAA or WP:COIN, either. Bottom line, without IP editors, Wikipedia wouldn't be half the size or quality it is today. But that begs the question: does an admin take the gamble and lift the semi on the MoMK article, talk page, or both, with the very real possibility of having to slap it right back on in just a couple of hours, along with a double handful of RevDels or full-on edit suppressions? Which approach is better for the Wikipedia project as a whole? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I would also like to see some of our more long-term semi-protected pages un-protected if we can. In fact, I know I proposed a couple times that we use pending changes (pardon my profanity) to help facilitate the un-protection of such pages and to see whether or not said pages can remain stable and as free as disruption as possible. However, PC is considered a bad word, mainly due to the chilling effect and stigma it brought upon the community. As a result, we're stuck with the "all or nothing" approach to page protection. –MuZemike 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merrill Stubing is missing a very important fact with regards to the semiprotection of the above pages and talk pages. The choice being made here is not a choice between letting everyone contribute, and letting only registerred users contribute. In these cases, it is a choice between letting registered users contribute and letting no one except the most disruptive contribute. If we unprotect those pages, in this case, we don't make it easier for level-headed, netrual contributions to occur, we make it so NO ONE can contribute in a constructive manner, because the people who wish to disrupt Wikipedia will take over those pages. These decisions are NOT made arbitrarily, and we aren't doing it to be mean or because we hate unregistered users. If there was a way to stop disruption at those pages that did NOT involve semiprotecting them, we'd be doing it. So, why don't YOU propose a solution. You don't like it; how do YOU stop the people who insist on monopolizing those pages and preventing good work from going on? --Jayron32 00:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

An idea: why not temporarily try a sub-page, like users whose usertalk pages have regularly been the victim of IP attacks use? Add a big notice at the top of the page that links (in some bright color) to a second page that isn't semi-protected. Yes, in almost every situation, this would be a terrible solution, because it creates a completely unfair two-tiered system. But we could use this as a temporary solution so that at least it would be possible for IP editors to contribute. Autoconfirmed users would need to monitor that page for 2 things: first, any useful comments should be copied to the main talk page. If the majority of comments turn out to be useful, we would do away with the two-tiered approach and unlock the main talk page. Second, any soapboxing, spamming, or outing would be immediately reverted; if that secondary page is dominated by such, we just shut it down to prevent ongoing problems. Would this temporary approach work as a semi-compromise? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

All this does is shunt the crap out of sight out of mind, like Talk:Muhammad/images does. Just wait until the trial is over, then the Knox-is-innocent offsite advocacy groups won't have anything left to come here and complain about, as she'll either be free or incarcerated for quite awhile. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's not going to do much to stop any blatant disruption, except move it to another place (which is why I don't really use my "non-autoconfirmed talk page" anymore). As far as the trial is concerned, though, who knows when that is finally going to end; it's almost been 3 years now, with no end in sight, and perhaps people (I mean, the public, not necessarily us) are getting rather impatient. –MuZemike 02:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While I am normally a zealous advocate of "IPs are human,"I also am uneasy with the idea of sub-paging, but would agree to it with some conditions. If the problem includes material that needs oversighting then putting it in a less-obvious pile doesn't help, but ff the page had text at the top like "this page is not for general discusion, and is blanked every 12 hours" or wording of that sort, and if anything other than direct edit-protected requests are indeed blanked (or revdel-ed, even). And this could be a time-limited trial, defaulting to "stop doing it unless consensus says otherwise." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be vastly preferable and would watchlist the subpage. causa sui (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that a subpage wasn't already tried, I thought it was the norm for mid to long term semi protected talk pages. Isn't there even a template for that sort of thing? Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

thank you. This is all perfectly plausible as explanations go. Herp Derp (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A Retired Educator Needs Assistance!

208 IP Addresses

1. 208.54.86.167 (talk · contribs) (questions edits)
2. 208.54.86.130 (talk · contribs) (questions edits)
3. 208.54.86.207 (talk · contribs) (questions edits)
4. 208.54.40.133 (talk · contribs) (sent letter to an editor to question my edits)
5. 208.54.39.134 (talk · contribs) (unsigned ip address on letter to an to question my edits)
6. A Wiki editor (who I wish not to out yet has been aggressive)

I am a New York editor with a non conflict of interest in the article for Marisol Deluna. However several 208 IP addresses in Texas suddenly appear, question my motives and revert information when Mrs. Deluna has been included. Simply and sincerely I have asked for many to use one account so that they can be contacted directly, reconsider focus elsewhere and/or work to improve her inclusion.

It appears to be personal. I have just learned by calling her design studio in New York that Mrs. Deluna in recent past reported a man to a Texas District Attorney's Office for harassment in her day to day life. He has since begun taunting her through Wikipedia since he is not allowed near her and a man has boasted about it as mentioned by another editor (with whom I do not know personally).

He is succeeding in questioning her credibility by putting doubt in other editors and readers who may not know her work well. (I do in New York and London) He rallied to have her page deleted. It was kept yet now has a banner questioning her inclusion on Wikipedia. Can this banner be modified to: {{Refimprove}} It is much less offensive and still allows editors to add to the article- Which I plan to do despite the constant uphill battle by the noted above.

I never rallied to have her article deleted! You are blatantly and openly lying in order to have a notability tag deleted that bothers you in its truth and you are pretending not to have noticed I was not the one who added or sugested adding it! Please someone verify my posting history and confirm this as I very much would like others to notice what is going on in that article!BbBlick (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies BbBlick. Simply, the IP 208 Addresses noted and the one from the "Literary Frenchman" (with a Wiki Account) are all from Texas and refer to people like me as "Deluna Supporters". I am certain their are many IP Addresses from Texas that edit this designer's inclusion. As another editor mentioned, they read through the mess created on Msnicki's talk page. Let's avoid doing the same here. I noticed you began to edit Marisol Deluna's article. This is a good faith sign. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to locate these IP Addresses if in coffee houses, libraries, etc? Thank you.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The list above all belong to a single mobile broadband provider in the US. Not having reviewed the edits in question, my first impression is that it's likely a single user who connects, edits, then disconnects in order to obtain a new IP address for the next edit. (Technical comment: it looks like a /17 CIDR range to me.) Another set of eyes would need to examine the IP edits in question to determine the likelihood that it is, in fact, a single user. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, if you visit the Marisol Deluna talk page I freely and openly admitted what my current and previous IP addressed have been since I started editing on Wikipedia. This after I and another editor were threatened with outing our real life identities and there was a huge rant against us. You can still see these accusations on her talk page which were never striked through or fully recanted. I am not pretending to be several people and my IP address changes by itself on a regular basis to no fault of my own. And I am editing from the same device. I just signed up for an account to end this speculation but stand by all my previous edits. Please also check this accusers edit history and her reverting my edits of several accasions minutes after I made them and repeatedly. More than four times in a row.BbBlick (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The notability tag isn't intended to be offensive, but if you think the refimprove tag is more appropriate, I recommend you suggest it on the article's talk page. I'll take a look at the IP's contributions and see if there's anything in there that requires administrator attention. 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. It looks to me like the 208 IP addresses belong to a single editor who's using a dynamic IP. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't pretend otherwise. We're certainly not going to try to track down the editor's personal identity. The editor obviously disagrees with you regarding the notability of Marisol Deluna, but I'm not seeing anything that would require administrative assistance in that editor's contributions; perhaps you can point me to a particular edit you think is violating our policies? 28bytes (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course! Which I openly admitted in the Marisol Deluna talk page before moving it to the accusing editors talk page when threatened with legal action by them.BbBlick (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear 28bytes, Under the various edits and disputes, he mentions that he is a Frenchman, a woman, a person with a literary background, unknown to her, stumbled upon her article, yet all the while is vested in her. I can send you links, yet know he is following my edits. He does not agree with me, however when it has served him, he has found plenty on Mrs. Deluna (such as FB and her husband's Flickr account) when trying to seek support from another editor whom he believed was an Administrator while trying to discredit me and other editors. One of which can be located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Msnicki.ElizabethCB123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

I NEVER said I was a Frenchman, or had a lirerary background, etc. You are openly lying! Find the link where I said any of these thingsBbBlick (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And here he appears again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna#Ongoing_Vandalism_in_Progress ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The banner is offense due to his taunting her about own her credibility. The words "or deleted" do not need to be there and are offensive to Mrs. Deluna due to his past threats and actions. The other banner would be more neutral and just as helpful. It was suggested to have it removed by a less than partial editor who seems to had realized of his actions yet went about it the wrong way by threatening to out him. The other editors were less than sympathetic (nor was I at the time) Yet knowing what I know now- I would like to edit in peace and not be marked. The man in question has labeled me and others as "Deluna Supporters"- Such as in "Them and Us". Can we please atleast have this changed? As for the IP Addresses- I understand you cannot block them. Yet how can this behavior be tamed? Or can it? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not add the notability tag nor did I ever suggest it go up. So the only reason you are bringing it up is to have it removed because it bothers you personally. More proof that you and LegalEagleUSA are the same editor or working together: you both had access to Marisol Delunas high school and college yearbooks, old newsletters that are not published in mainstream, had her entire private club membership info with many member only publications talking about her way before todays alleged phone call etc. Now you both claim to know of a man in Marisol Delunas personal life who has had personal conflicts with her and is editing her article, you even joined in your own talk page in the "outing" threats against "him". How could you possibly know this conflict has taken place and know the identity of the man (verbatin claim also made by LegalEagleUSA) when you claim "you don't personally know her" and also claim not to be LegalEagleUSA ? Please enlighten us! How could you and the other editor poses all this insider info long before todays alleged phone call where she shares with a complete stranger someone having a personal problem with her in Texas? How do you know the notability tag is offensive to her unless she told you personally, you are her, or are working together and being given this information?BbBlick (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

BbBlick- As written in my first entry on this Noticeboard... And I am not stating it is you: "I have just learned by calling her design studio in New York that Mrs. Deluna in recent past reported a man to a Texas District Attorney's Office for harassment in her day to day life. He has since begun taunting her through Wikipedia since he is not allowed near her and a man has boasted about it as mentioned by another editor (with whom I do not know personally)." (meaning the editor who threatened to out him- not me. I do not agree with his actions lack of tact) As for Mrs. Deluna, I spoke to her assistant by phoning her design studio (which was found on her company's FB Page (Marisol Deluna New York) and fully disclosed my identity as a Wikipedia Editor with an interest in her. What happened in Texas is not clear to me and is none of my business- You are correct. I am happy it is not you, as this would be unlawful behavior beyond Wikipedia and as mentioned in our discussion, her husband is an attorney as noted in the New York Times. As for the "Notability Tag", her assistant did not comment on it nor did I ask. I am the one with the question of taunting and it was answered as "Non Offensive" by other editors. I accept this. Please do not read into my words as we did all day Sunday and I will afford you the same. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that administrators cannot rule on content: whether to use the notability template or the refimprove template in the article is a decision the article's editors will need to come to an agreement on, on the talk page. An administrator cannot override the consensus there. Now, what an administrator can do is toss the blockhammer at anyone engaged in attempting to out other editors. Which editor is doing this? 28bytes (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why bring this up as a "charge" against me!01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)BbBlick (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can please read the two links provided. Two were done by 208 IP Addresses towards me claiming I have multiple accounts from multiple cities. The other was from another editor who agreed not to out him under his Wiki address and another 208 address, yet seems to support that there is some wrong doing and the discussion was closed. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In the first link, the IP says you are editing as Tinkerbell1989, LegalEagleUSA and WindyCityGal2011. Looking at their contribution logs, I can see why the IP is suggesting that. Are these accounts yours? 28bytes (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you notice the amount of personal information these individual accounts know about a subject they all claim not to know personally as well as all the legal threats they have made against myself and others for having had the "audacity" of editing the Marisol Deluna article not to her liking or having questioned their edits, I'd say at the very least they are a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or tag team of editors. Alteran1 confesed in a previous thread to having been asked by Deluna herself to engage in an edit war and accuse editors of having a personal vendetta for having edited Delunas article. The amount of bullying, legal threats, and outing threats displayed by proDeluna editors plus the confession by Alteran1 of having been asked by her to edit war with people editing her article proves that she is very much aware and engaged in the editing of her article. Please visit his edit history.BbBlick (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That is why I have brought attention to this link. I read over their reasoning and found it mirrored exactly what they have been doing. I only use this one account. Why have more? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to say that I placed the tag there not the IP, to alert others for the need to better source the article based on the outcome of the AfD, there has been no improvement in sourcing since the tag was placed there, the reasons for its presence are made clear. It is not there as any form of offence. {{Refimprove}} is not appropriate as the issue is references to establish notability. I also have concerns about the possibilities of socking here and came very close to starting up a SPI. Mtking ^(edits) 22:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

She knows who added it but was trying to pin it on me in order to have it removed or altered. She's checked my entire editing history. No way this detail went unnoticed!BbBlick (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

BbBlick- I did not finger point you as the editor who placed a banner on the article nor did I check the history of all of your 208 IP Addresses as you claim. The banner was placed in response and on the same day (by another editor) when a 208 IP Address, Aa1232011 and LegalEagleUSA (from Texas) got into a heated dispute on her page. Regardless, tonight I just added to that discussion page in a good faith manner to begin to rebuild it. As for being her, I wish life had afforded me her creative talent. Let's focus on our edits, as our behavior is beginning to appear here for the very reason I came to this noticeboard to avoid. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna was a mess of IPs and SPAs. I'm amazed there wasn't an SPI...actually it appears there was an attempt at something at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, now archived. Based on the few minutes I've wasted trying to wade through this multi-page fight (look at User talk:Msnicki), I wouldn't be surprised if there's inappropriate WP:SOCKing on both sides... — Scientizzle 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the user pages of some of the accounts in question, they seem remarkably similar and the correspondence between the accounts on Elizabeth's Talk page seems questionable.  snaphat ► 02:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Scientizzle, Only I have added to her inclusion and have countered an editor on my own talk page. I brought this us to edit more freely under my own account. Yet for mow, my grandchildren await. Thank you. (and sorry for making your head spin) ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mtking, You had every right to add the banner. Although you may have been directed to her page (or not) by a 208 IP address noted on a help board claiming he was being ganged up on. (Not by the accounts noted, yet others which also included me- referring to us as "Deluna Supporters") Since learning about the man that has threatened Mrs. Deluna off of Wikipedia, it should be known that not all motives are sincere- Especially since it appears to be from Texas. I am not an investigator, just seems difficult to edit on Wikipedia. I plan to add to her page, and will. Thank you and sorry for pulling you in. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you or anyone else decided this alleged man was editing her article but I find this story very hard to believe given all the other times people have changed their stories about how they found all this detailed and personal info. Can you link to where this wikipedia taunting was made against her is? Or where you claim I said I was French or a literary person? Really, you should provide diffs to the things you say for verification. BbBlick (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You needn't respond with "Dear this " and "Dear that"; we're all friends here. HalfShadow 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging words HalfShadow. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From my end, I do not intend to edit or comment on this article or its edits/editors at all from now on other than to answer questions if I need to defend myself. I do encourage admins or anyone interested in pursuing all these claims and check all our histories and take the appropiate action according to Wikipedias rules. Good night.BbBlick (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

IP editor indiscriminately reverting lots of edits

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Satori Son for 48h. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at User:76.6.36.145? He's been making lots of reverts, some of which seem to be purely disruptive (eg, his edits at Mike Brown (basketball, born 1970).) Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Disruptive editor is definitely disruptive. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As a sidenote, was this IP ever reported at WP:AIV? Or just here? AIV would be the proper venue for dealing with such activity. I'll look at the AIV history, and if they weren't reported there I'll put it in myself. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, AIV is generally better for this kind of blatant stuff. — Satori Son 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of mediation?

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.

Resolved

 – there is nothing for admins to do here. Several admins have noted that there is no obligation on the part of anyone to participate in mediation, bad faith nominations can be dealt with by MedCom leadership without invoking admins at this noticeboard. Closing this down before it becomes another venue for the opposing parties to snipe at each other. --Jayron32 04:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

It appears that NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) is trying to start up a massive mediation case dealing with abortion by trying to drag anyone who's ever commented on the issue into the dispute. I don't personally appreciate his attempt to drag me into some process against my will, but I'm willing to let that pass. What concerns me is the attempt to do this at all after months of discussion on multiple article talk pages and an informal mediation attempt (which was apparently closed recently?) So, the question here is, to me, is what NYY51 is trying to here with attempting to name 50+ people to a mediation case something to be concerned about, administratively? Is the apparent unwillingness to deal with months of prior discussion on this issue worth any sort of administrative action? I'm very slightly annoyed about the notification right now so I'm just going to drop this note here and leave it to everyone else, but... I'm thinking that the answer to both of those questions is "yes", right now.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link to the mediation case (I am not affiliated with the case):Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opposition to the legalisation of abortionKeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Probably doesn't need any admin action right now; (a) there is no way a 50-person mediation is ever going to get off the ground, so a mediator will probably close that soon, and (b) it appears Steven Zhang is in the process of initiating an ArbCom case about this. Yay, an ArbCom case about abortion... now if you'll excuse me, I need to log off so I can get down on my knees and thank God I'm not an arbitrator. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of mediation that it's the last step in the dispute resolution process (except for ArbCom)? So, isn't the idea that if there's a dispute, and it's not solved through noticeboards, RfCs, etc., that it then gets taken to mediation? Mind you, I doubt that everyone will agree to join, so it's unlikely to ever get started, but it does seem like the proper process to me. Unless this topic was already brought to ArbCom and the person is trying to circumvent that? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is a request being made to arbcom now. I wasn't aware of that, but it doesn't surprise me. This is part of what annoyed me about the attempt to create a massive mediation case about this. Apparently, now I'm a party to this dispute because I participated in an RFC? That's just shitty. There's no way that I'm participating as a named party to anything that has to do with this, whether that occurs at mediation or arbcom. I've never edited the actual articles, and I continue to remain 10,000 miles away from any of them, for a good damn reason (case in point, right here)! That NYY 51 is simply trying to drag anyone who's ever said anything about any of this into some process... well, I'm aggravated about that. It stinks, and after looking at his talk page since posting this (to notify him) I see that he's already attempted to start two other mediation cases recently that have already been turned down. I looks like this is a person who is unwilling to live with our content on the issue, is not getting his way, and is therefore trying to drag anyone and everyone possible into the dispute.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• This thread is a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation and should be closed. If you think that NYY51 is misuing the mediation fora, speak to the MedCom Chair. NW (Talk) 03:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  NW, that's BS. I'm not a party to any mediation. You can't force me to be a party, and I strongly object to the attempt to do so both by yourself and NYYankees51, which is why I started this thread. There's no privileged here to be broken, simply garden variety disruption through the misuse of process. This, right here, is why the attept to name myself and more than fifty others to a dispute resolution process is disruptive.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Sure. The purpose of mediation, and by extension mediation requests, is to provide a forum where editors can resolve "good-faith disagreements over article content". This cannot be done if a user is brought to ANI after filing the mediation request to face accusations of misconduct. Mediators are well capable to determining whether or not an individual is abusing their processes, and banning them if so.

  If you don't want to participate, simply state on the mediation page that you decline to participate. Per the current policy, that will automatically end the request. NW (Talk) 03:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? As I understand it, participation in the mediation process is voluntary (actually, participation in anything on Wikipedia is voluntary). If someone is trying to drag unwilling contributors into the process, all they need to do is decline. Any attempt to suggest that participation is obligatory is misguided... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes as NW and ATG say this seem to be a non issue. If you don't want to participate, don't. No one can force you and the mediators are I presume smart enough to stop any attempts to trick people into participating. Similarly while it seems unlikely a 50+ person mediation is ever going to work, presuming everyone agrees to participate, that's up to the mediators. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh* Now I know how User:HuskyHuskie feels; he got harassed for notifying all the editors of each article in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. Participation in mediation is voluntary and it takes three seconds to remove the notification from your talk page. I simply invited everyone who participated in the informal mediation. If I didn't invite everyone, I'd be accused of canvassing. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  So that's it? Your misuse of the process in the first place and apparent refusal to deal with other members of the community (by way of being unwilling to accept the earlier dispute resolution results) is all worth nothing more than a <sigh> and the claim that it's all fine because the notification can be removed in "three seconds"? Well, that's just shitty. Did you ever consider... I don't know, asking before jumping right to naming myself and everyone else as a party? Geez... the self-involved nerve of some people. Anyway, I'm gonna try to go get some sleep. Don't worry, someone will probably just mark this resolved and it'll all be ignored anyway. Neverwinter, Nil, and Andy are already working on that above, so I doubt that there's anything to worry about.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you don't want to participate, remove your name. That seems much more expedient than creating unnecessary drama by posting here, when there was no admin action necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Please remember you are at WP:ANI, not WP:RFC or some generic dispute resolution board or User:Mediation Committee, and it seems quite clear no administrative action is warranted here at this time. AFAIK we generally avoid interfering in the work of the mediation committee and it's also still not clear to me why you believe the mediation committee isn't capable of handling this themselves anyway. It seems clear to me it's intended to be a somewhat friendly process and the mediators would generally go to great lengths to ensure they aren't wasting their time with people who don't want to participate and are also good at rejecting requests (and I would guess quitely letting someone know if their request was silly or not so quietly if it was bad).

BTW if you do want to take this to a more appropriate place I suggest you clarify some things. In particular, if this was your suggestion, it's not really clear to me how informally asking 50 odd people if they wanted to partipate and then filing a mediation request if it was felt it was accepted would be better then just filing the request and letting people accept or reject, no matter whether the mediation request was justified or a good idea. It's possible to only approach a few people, but that risks making things worse as people may take offence at being the first ones to be approached, which suggests they're seen as the stumbling block. Breaching it on a talk page may be possible but it sounds like this issue affects several related pages.

Note that you don't actually have to reject the request, ignoring it completely will achieve the same purpose. This compares to an informal question, where it's possible someone may intepret ignoring the request as meaning the person who ignored the question on mediation as having no problem with it (particularly if the informal question is poorly worded), so will file a request only to find they misinterpreted the response. In particular, from a quick glance thru the guidance to mediation I don't see any suggestion it's best to informally ask people before filing a request, except perhaps that since it's clear it's supposed to be a voluntary process, it logically follows there's perhaps no point wasting people's time including your own, if you don't have reason to believe the request would be accepted or approached in the right way. Oh and BTW, the fact there's evidentally an arbcom case coming up suggests to me this isn't just one user refusing to accept consensus from previous dispute resolution methods as your comment seems to imply.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 3 August 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:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass

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.

Resolved

 – User:FaktneviM blocked for one month

---

FaktneviM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously asserted his/her right to vanish as a means of heading off the consequences of discussion here at ANI relating to his/her harassment of another user, User:Jeffro77.

That previous discussion is at Archive 713, and it was allowed to go unresolved. There were a number of warnings listed in that discussion, including 3RR, Harass4im, refactoring (non-template) and personal attacks (non-template). I have, again, suggested strongly that FaktneviM stop posting on Jeffro77's talkpage here [diff: [3]].

FaktneviM has continued to post borderline personal attacks on Jeffro77's talkpage:

1. [diff: [4]]
2. [diff: [5]]
3. [diff: [6]]

By all appearances, FaktneviM has not "vanished", nor has he stopped. -danjel (talk to me) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

+ [diff: [7]]

+ See my other contributions.

Nothing of that is "personal attack". Avoid weasel words!

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, are you vanished or not? If you are vanished, please leave. Using the right to vanish means you leave, not that you limit your contributions to templates, or anything of the sort. If you are not going to vanish, we need to reopen that harassment thread. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What´s mean "leave"? I can´t leave absolutely. I am not able of it. Rather emotionally or sth. I don´t know what. // If you read also previous talk with Jeffro, (barnstar, further comments, time zone), we are almost! friends now. There is no harass. If it yes, so everyone on Wiki harass each other on their talk pages. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Jeffro about this before deciding if he considered you a "friend". Because it certainly looks like you are harassing him yet again, even though you tried to invoke your "right to vanish" before to avoid having to account for your actions last time this came up. This certainly doesn't look good. --Jayron32 05:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I said clearly "almost". And if you read that talk section, I clearly reveal there reasons why we can´t be friends (very close). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, in the archived discussion, you said, "I wanted to finish my Wikipedia account some time before these problems starts. However, problems with my pages was like catalyst for me and I had to (in fact, I hadn´t, but I want) end all my activities vigorously and conclusively. For that aim was some cleaning of my pages quite useful". Since you basically agreed to quit and vanish, the previous discussion concerning possible sanctions against you for personal attacks and edit warring was allowed to drop. If, instead, you intend to continue editing, those concerns need to be re-activated, especially in light of the fact that the diffs posted above are at least close to that previous behavior, if not quite at the exact same level. You have to choose: keep editing on Wikipedia and abide by its rules (including the possibility that you could be blocked if your actions are damaging the project), or quit Wikipedia. There is no in-between ground where you avoid scrutiny by simply decreasing the frequency of your disruptive behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I still want to leave. But I am not able of do it so fast. For my mental changing probably will need a month of so to wean away fully. I also stated I want to stop in Czech Wikipedia, but I am not able to stop contributing fully. When I asked for forever block, admin gave me only two hours for disruptive editing (I deliberately revert all what I want repeatedly ... so I hoped for some block ... but only temporal come ...) I know. This seems funny, but it is truth. I tried to finish, but I am not able to achieve that. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Stop with the Purple prose. Using the vanish right and then continuing on to avoid examination on issues brought up by the community is highly despicable. Either face the music, or vanish. You can start a new account if you feel that you cannot leave Wikipedia, but avoid the subjects you focused on with the new account. Phearson (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: I originally want to use vanish, but in reality this doesn´t help me. As you can see that I still editing. So no solution from vanish. I originally thought this would works. But it doesn´t. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any option how to factually leave?

Assuming that you genuinely want to leave, this time... I think you (FaktneviM) want: Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_Enforcer. Use it, now, or it will be hard to believe that you're going to assert your right to vanish. -danjel (talk to me) 07:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks interesting. But how to use it? And what if I would like to edit e.g. after year or whatever. You know, now I am thinking that I want to forever, but what if I change my mind in the future? If I could manipulate (e.g. with time limit) for my own duration to enforce wikibreak, that could be helpful. // And ... I realized you never "assumed" good will from me. You always assumed only bad. You only mock it. OK. I try to assume that you sincerely want to help me and not another mock. So, show me how to use it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I did see this [diff: [8]] before you edited it [diff: [9]]. "Dildo", huh? -danjel (talk to me) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That one made me spit tea all over my shirt! It's pretty clear that this guy has WP:COMPETENCE problems and is basically begging to be permanently blocked. Perhaps he is a genuine WP addict that desperately wants to quit. However, I doubt he has the language skills to implement WikiBreak Enforcer on his own. The instructions are quite intricate. However, you cannot consider the plastic implement comment as a genuine case of incivility, since it was instantly retracted. Probably the best course is to reopen the original ANI, and let the chips fall where they will. Now I've got to change my shirt! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop mock surprise, Vobisdu. It is uncivil. That word was only result of my plan to force you to block me or forever leave me free. Leave me alone and let me editing. Otherwise I will continue with insults due plan to force you do it. Leave me alone. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You saw it right. I am firm on that you never assumed good will from me. Since starting your intrusion to me, never. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know... I'm not taking offence. I just wanted it noted for the hilarity value. It's right up there with being called a "big fat meanie" by a kindergartener (which happens from time to time in my line of work). -danjel (talk to me) 08:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I used online translator for your response. :) However, I have no idea if it is joke or some kind of apology. Could you explain it?. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: FaktneviM makes the statement above that he and I are "almost friends", and Jayron32 has requested my input. I did attempt to develop a rapport with FaktneviM at my Talk page after the original dispute, and for a time, it was going okay. However, FaktneviM then took exception to a (sourced) statement I made at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Are Jehovah's Witnesses pacifists?. Please see User talk:Jeffro77#A barnstar for you! and its subsections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro, this was mistaken by him. I clearly stated word "almost" + ! (=exclamation mark). He falsely interpret that. // Otherwise, I am sorry you have to come again and solve another bullshits from User:Danjel who persistenly harass me. My edits on your talk page were only my feel real reasons. Sorry if you take it personally. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jeffro: In your opinion, has Fakt made any positive contributions to English WP? Is his behavior a recent development, or has he always been this way? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have only been aware of FaktneviM's edits since he began contributing to the Jehovah's Witnesses WikiProject, starting from around mid July 2011. Despite significant language difficulties, some of his contributions have been meaningful during that time. However, he becomes emotional and sometimes abusive when (sourced) statements are made that are contrary to his religious beliefs and his impressions thereof.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Vobisdu: I am so only when I am annoyed. // For so called "positive contribs" see my overall history, not only approximately last 10 days. // I said you directly - block me or leave me alone. I hate annoyances like from you and others here. Stop harass me and I will be more cooler. That is a recipe. Not nonsense questions as you did. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...and still continuing...

In regards to your edit just now [diff: [10]], while this discussion is still ongoing, how can I possibly make this clearer to you, FaktneviM?

STOP POSTING ON JEFFRO77's TALKPAGE -danjel (talk to me) 11:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can´t read it. It is too small. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

with whom. You also still continuing with this nonsense interfere to me. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, in regards to this edit [diff: [11]], STOP refactoring my content. -danjel (talk to me) 11:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I still wait for your apology. That even strengthens my irritation. Last try to cool me. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I literally was just browsing through, but this comment seems to be the nail in the coffin. FaktneviM has no intention of ever reforming. My vote, for what it's worth, is an indef block. VanIsaac_WS 11:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked several times for block, or leaving me alone. They just still try to offer me other options that I disagree with them. Only fully free (without persistent interfere of these mocks) or block. They still don´t understand my directives. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That is due my mental sicknesses. And partly with native nature, what is between two extremes "choleric" and "melancholic". Moreover I hate injustice and interference. That could always even streghtens my irritation. So far no apology from them, who did wrong against me. If they stop to interfere with me, that will be okay. Otherwise, I will have to force them to decide. (((I leaved from all three WikiProject, when I was active, as I wrote in previous ANI. So asking especially you and assess me with WP is unfair and irrational. =These 2 sentences originally to Jeffro))) I am convinced that solution for me is taking Wikipedia seriousless and just for fun like welcoming. Admins without human qualities are not deserved of me at all. As a result, they are two options. Other ways will results another pressure (not on you, but on these ANI) and they should be sure I force them to decide. No matter if with insults or with other ways. I am decided to gain full free or full close. I am convinced that solution for me is taking Wikipedia serious-less and just for fun like welcoming. Admins without human qualities are not deserved of me at all. ( mock+mock+mock = group of mocks ) Hate those mocks, who are similar like you. Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, folks, if you're going to block this pest, do it. You're just encouraging him with this ridiculous banter with him. He has threatened to go, come back, then deliberately provoked you to block him. Speaking as someone who edits at the Jehovah's Witnesses page where he has acted in a disruptive manner, I think he's a time waster and a general nuisance. I've seen other editors blocked for less. Just pull the plug and move on. BlackCab (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a month's enforced wikibreak. Perhaps he'll feel better at the end of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel I've been put in a slightly awkward situation here, as it's been said repeatedly that FaktneviM has harrassed me and given me unwanted attention at my Talk page. Those charges are partly true, and I have indeed found many of FaktneviM's comments at my Talk page to be inappropriate and/or unwanted. There has been some contact that was not unwelcome and, briefly, even cordial. The comments about FaktneviM in the renewed ANI suggest that he has annoyed me somewhat more than is the case. However, given FaktneviM's own comments suggesting his inability to refrain from less than friendly comments, I support the temporary block (for what it's worth) in the hope that, if he returns, he's able to start refreshed and able to better contribute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is also the worst faked "bad English" I've seen in a long while.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit by user:99.233.44.187

Can someone please remove this edit from the history. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (t) (c) 08:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block 188.80.207.217

Kindly block 188.80.207.217, as this user vandalized Andrés Iniesta after his/her final warning. Vibhijain (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done In the future, please report blatant vandalism to WP:AIV. Favonian (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can the AFD for Tropang Hudas 13 be reopened, speedy/recreation problem?

Resolved

 – AfD is reopened. CycloneGU (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can this AFD, which was cut short earlier today, be reopened? The article was speedied on request from the creator/principal contributor, then almost immediately recreated. Assuming there's no important difference between the current and previous version, it would be more efficient to resume the AFD, which had been running for several days, than to restart the process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did so, with my reasoning for deletion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As the closing admin, I have no objections to reopening the previous AfD. I merely closed it because the page creator had asked for a G7 deletion. Apparently, I was fooled... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wonder Girls

Resolved

 – reporting user confirmed as a block evading sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

[12]

Extended content

If you look at the wikipedia page for "Wonder Girls" you will see numerous unsourced passages of gossip, rumor etc. There are huge chunks of that article which have no sources and which should probably be deleted. There is a well-sourced section titled "Controversy". This section has been up and running for weeks. It is extraordinarily well-sourced. The source is TWO undisputed newspaper articles (in English) from one of Korea's most respected and popular newspapers. This is part of Korean and Korean pop-music history. A person could argue it is one of the "few" well-sourced sections of the whole article. Apparently some folks believe this is information that might appear uncomplimentary to the pop group. History, however, is history. It is not for anyone using wikipedia to judge whether this trye information is good or bad for the group. It is history, purely and simply. I am a relatively new user to wikipedia who is not an expert on how to use this system. I am hoping wikipedia will prove to me that might does not make right out here and that just because a few folks know how to game the system the truth can be suppressed. I am asking that the attempts to remove well-sourced information on that page "Wonder Girls" be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseaarthur (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I looked at some recent changes. What diffs. in question are of concern? CycloneGU (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC) See WP:DIFF if that remark has you puzzled. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC) The problematic changes would seem to be these: 14:35, 2 August 2011 by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz 18:45, 1 August, 2011 by 184.75.69.218 14:39, 26 July, 2011 by 184.75.69.218 I apologize. I am very new to wikipedia. i think it's wrong that true information should be removed so that a wikipage becomes a "fan page". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseaarthur (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC) He seems to claim it is unimportant information and that consensus is against putting it in the article (from the talk page). It is under the heading "Removal of information that presents this company in a bad light". However, I personally don't see a consensus on the talk page and instead what appears to be a few other editors who are against not including the information ranting. He does make some valid arguments for not including the information though.  snaphat ► 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I'd say keep in mind that wikipedia actually is moving away from controversy sections, for reasons of undue weight, and this particular controversy section really isn't that well sourced. It does have two sources, but hardly enough to justify it being a "controversy", and nothing to justify the weight given to it as a separate section. In addition the talk is a bit of a mess, and made worse by some sock puppetry (already taken care of apparently)--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I will be hugely surprised if this is not the return of the blocked sockpuppeteer who started this round of nonsense a few months back. I don't believe that an editor whose career here began three days ago has somehow stumbled across this dispute, that a newbie edit would know enough to so quickly turn up here, or that an editor with no prior history would start slinging personal attacks like this after my initial revert [13] or would post flimsy sockpuppetry accusations on the article talk page [14]. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage/Archive and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean pop music scandals for some background, enough to make WP:DUCK's application a good idea. There's no actual controversy here, just a disgruntled former employee using his 15 minutes of press coverage as a handle to keep bashing his former employer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC) SPI filed. Please also note a technical error in my comment above; this would be a new sock for an editor previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts; the master account is not currently blocked. I mistakenly inferred that the master account's block was still en effect because it has not edited since being blocked. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:208.168.23.177

Resolved

 – No further action needed here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone look into 208.157.149.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and persistent vandalism at Special Forces. The article is ideal territory for those with a POV to push and boys own favourite super hero's. But User:208.157.149.67 is editing against consensus, has not provide a cite when asked and continues to re-inset material of doubtful quality. I suspect the other IP users are the same person by their editing history on the article. If nothing else can Special Forces be protected. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend reporting them to WP:AIV KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks taken there.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories

Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs) has been promoting the view that Al Qaeda's hijacking and crashing four airplanes in the September 11 attacks is the "official position" (which is also "regarded as a conspiracy theory"), and all other theories are "alternate conspiracy theories".[15][16][17] To that end he has also been insisting that conspiracy theories are not fringe views,[18][19] and has now canvassed five editors he considers to be like-minded on this subject to support him.[20][21][22][23][24] I've previously encountered him at a couple of other articles, where I found his behavior problematic, but it doesn't seem to be improving - on the contrary. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've notified this user of the sanctions in this area [25] and made a note in the ArbCom log [26]. Gerardw (talk · contribs) has already spoken to them about canvassing as well [27] Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

With the 10th anniversary approaching, it wouldn't be surprising if there was an upsurge in the 9/11 conspiracy theorist activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's too bad that 9/11 conspiracy theories grow faster than One World Trade Center, which now is not likely to be finished until 2012, almost eleven years after the event. Shame on everyone involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as well that it not be done by 9/11/11, as we don't need al-qaeda trying for an anniversary encore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

They already got their big boom many years ago. Do you think they'd try the same spot with a newer building again NEway? I'd be willing to bet they head elsewhere in the U.S. now. Meanwhile, I wish these conspiracy theorists would shut the hell up already; they already tried to ruin our Olympics. I'm usually light on wanting to deal punishment (which is good because I can't deal punishment myself), but I say if someone is trying to push this kind of a POV regarding one of the worst terrorist attacks in history (both for victims and impact), then I just say ban the whole lot. CycloneGU (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This guy's behavior is definitely a problem. He hasn't edited (yet) since this discussion began. It would be good if several experienced users could keep an eye on the situation. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a page in my userspace without warning, cause or consensus

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.

Now open at DRV, continue discussion there. CycloneGU (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I have been encouraged by User:Nick-D [28] to raise this here. My complaint is that User:The ed17 deleted User:Surturz/AdminWatch without warning, wrongly claiming it was an attack page.[29] I have since reinstated the page, and added my rationale for its existence. I believe due process would have been to seek consensus for deletion either on its talk page, or raise an WP:MfD. I would like User:The ed17 to apologise on my talkpage for misusing his admin tools. --Surturz (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like one of those strongly discouraged "shit lists" to me. Deletion of it without a prior MFD seems fine, although it would've been better to raise the issue with you first, or maybe here at ANI. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:44, 3 August 2011

It's definitely an attack page and should be re-zapped permanently. The user obviously has a copy on his own PC where the public can't see it. That's exactly the place for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:User pages, "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." Doesn't appear to be preparing for immediate use to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• And I've deleted it again. User can take it to WP:DRV to get it reinstated - if they get a consensus there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the admins above and strongly agree with Surturz. I am not familiar with the specifics of the particular issues involved with the page User:Surturz/AdminWatch in terms of issues with particular administrators or topics or articles. But the idea of Surturz's page is sound, in my view -- that administrators have great power here at Wikipedia and with power comes the chance to abuse that power, and perhaps the only way that non-admins can possibly challenge past abuse by admins is to expose it in a user's userspace. And that's exactly what this user is trying to do. If it is seen as an attack page, I see it as a defense page since as we all know admins have much greater power here. The page can alert the community about errant behavior by a few admins -- bad apples -- who can spoil the whole experience at Wikipedia for others. I had a situation where an admin deleted a whole article I had written without cause or consensus by moving it to my userspace, claiming it was not yet encyclopedic, but it had plenty of references (70+) and viewpoints, and there was very little I could do. I feel the whole issue of how to rein in bad administrators is an unresolved one here at Wikipedia, but at the very least, it should be possible for users to challenge bad admin behavior in their user pages. An additional other way to challenge bad admin behavior -- is via google knols by exposing it and I encourage Surturz to use this option if the page is deleted again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This issue, as I see it, is about power and accountability. Both should go together. Since administrators have greater power, they must be held accountable, and perhaps the only way to do this is with publicity and exposure. The action just now -- in which Elen of the Roads deleted Surturz's user page about complaints with past administrators -- prevents intelligent discussion about this issue here. It's powerful people silencing critics. At the very least, the page should be REINSTATED so that others have a chance to comment on this issue and delve more fully into what's happening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If the user wants the page reinstated, they can request it at WP:DRV, where it can be subject to a community discussion. If an editor wants to call attention to malfeasance by an administrator, the correct venue is WP:RFC/U, not keeping a list of whines in userspace. If this is the article that was userfied User:Tomwsulcer/Terrorism_prevention_strategies then you need to read our policy on original research, as that's what the article appears to be, and that's why it was taken out of mainspace. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was the article I'm talking about. It wasn't original research. Rather, ONE admin thought it was, or perhaps objected to a few lines in it perhaps. Rather than follow normal procedures (tagging, AfD, discussion, deletion) it was DELETED without discussion and moved to userspace. It was a slick move to bypass proper channels. It avoided discussion. There was no debate. It was abuse by an admin in my view. And, for your information, I know well the difference between original research and what Wikipedia wants. My original highly-POV research about terrorism prevention is in a knol here known as [[Common Sense II; the mainstream NPOV view is Terrorism prevention strategies -- my userfied (read: DELETED) article with 167 references. The two versions are as different as day and night. Was the Wikipedia version perfect? Of course not, but nothing is, but at the very least, it deserved to be subjected to the same AfD that we do for all articles. Frankly, I'm kind of bored with the whole subject of terrorism at this point in my life anyway.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting how different people can have differing views on the same set of facts. The admin who moved the article didn't delete it, he saved it. As is, it was almost certainly destined for deletion. By moving it to user space, you have an opportunity to improve it. You can move it to article space at any time, but if you move the present version, I'll propose it for AfD as Original Research. I will be stunned if there is any substantial disagreement. That said, I'm sympathetic to the notion that admins have power, and we needs checks and balances. We have checks and balances, but they may or may not be sufficient. Summarily dismissing user space pages that document issues with admins is not something I support. I accept the deletion of attack pages, but we ought to be able to craft a distinction between factual summaries and attacks. (I'm commenting generically, I haven't reviewed this particular page to see if it does qualify as an attack.)--SPhilbrickT 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a page full of accusations without the ability to assess its veracity seems counterproductive. Second, if there is a problem with admin behaviour one would think this page is the place to comment and ask for advise. Or, if you are so inclined, nothing stops you from filing a RFCU in order to attract outside perspective on any alleged misconduct.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have been happy to thrash this out on the talk page in my userspace, but the article was deleted. I'm not entirely sure how the page was dissimilar to User:Nescio#Coincidence_does_exist. So far I have been advised to ANI, DRV, and now RFC/U. To get a page reinstated one must build consensus by collecting evidence of admin error and running it by other editors. But the very act of collecting that evidence is seen as a WP:ATP vio and the page gets speedily deleted. Yes, I am happy to raise concerns in an RFC/U but I'd really like to get all my arguments together first in my userspace. I'm at the formulation step, not the allegation step. I think doing it on-wiki is actually more polite - the alternative is to do it off-wiki and blindside the admin(s) in question. (In actual fact the original page I was trying to help get reinstated was User:Timeshift9!) --Surturz (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some legit cases where we allow "argument assembly" preparation in userspace (eg {{Userspace RFC draft}}), but if you don't clearly label the purpose of what the page is going to do and take action on it in a reasonable timeframe, it will otherwise been seen as an attack page and removed as per the above. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that. If I had been told first, rather than speedily deleted, perhaps I could have remedied the situation. This is why I have raised it here at ANI and have lodged a DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Surturz.2FAdminWatch. Maybe the admins have seen this all 100 times. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to explain it to 100 different users. Like I said, this could have easily been thrashed out on the talk page, and then perhaps the page get deleted a few days later. Nothing on there was so offensive as to warrant deletion without warning. To be honest, it seems like the admins are trying to tire me out with arcane WP processes. --Surturz (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've seen several people claim this page was an attack page, but other than saying "it is an attack page", could you provide a quote or basis for this assertion? I've looked at the page history and from what I can tell, the last version of the page doesn't sound like an attack at all. Before ruling against Surturz, please actually provide a rationale for how this page constitutes an attack. Primarily this should include arguments that show how the content on this page can "disparage or threaten" a specific admin (per WP:ATTACK). -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu. I see this as a free speech issue. It's important. We benefit when opposing points of view can be thrashed out publicly. Perhaps the hardest thing for all of us to understand is that criticism can be good -- when it helps -- when it's right -- since it helps us all to improve. To label criticisms of admin behavior as attacks and then delete it summarily without discussion is akin to warlords stifling reporters. Criticism is tough but necessary. Wikipedia benefits from open discussion, from criticism, from opposing viewpoints, from airing out stuff. It's how we all learn.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an attack page, but it starts with an incorrect statement: Admins, in general, are not accountable for their actions to non-admins. They are accountable: if an admin takes action that clearly falls outside allowed admin behavior, we have AN, AN/I, WP:RFC/U, and potentially to Arbcom. There's no single channel to place admin complaints, giving the appearance of lack of accountability, but it does exist, and just as the community !votes to make editors admins, they can certainly !vote to remove that priviledge. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion SHOULD be happening, but it should be happening at WP:DRV. However, just to answer the specific question posed by Avanu, WP:UP#POLEMIC says all you need to know on this issue. As I already mentioned at WP:DRV, there are venues for asking for a redress of improper admin actions. Admins who misbehave should have their feet held to the fire, but that needs to be done by community discussion at someplace like WP:ANI, and the singular opinion of one editor that an admin misbehaved is not itself a reason to override WP:UP#POLEMIC to maintain this sort of list. You don't need to establish that the page "attacks" others, you simply are not allowed to keep lists of stuff you think people have done wrong at Wikipedia in your userspace. Again, this is not about holding admins accountable. If you think an admin misbehaved, use the normal processes to ask the community if they agree. If they don't agree, then perhaps the admin didn't misbehave to begin with. But we don't know if the matter isn't discussed, and maintaining a private "shit list" in one's userspace is specifically disallowed because it doesn't represent any consensus opinion on a behavior, just one user's singular opinion. --Jayron32 14:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it should be happening at DRV, except that we started by talking about Surturz particular page. However, the idea that admins should understand the leeway in this type of thing is something DRV won't address. Maybe we can address it at the Talk page for WP:ATTACK, but DRV won't solve the problem. DRV is just like jury nullification, but really there needs to be clarity in this. -- Avanu (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if you are talking about the principles in more general terms, there are also better venues to have this discussion. Discussing how to address matters of genuine admin misconduct are absolutely and totally good discussions to have. However, this particular discussion isn't appropriate for this thread. Consider the following alternate venues for these important discussions:

• Discussions about specific administrative actions (for example, the specific events that Surturz kept in his list) should happen HERE at WP:ANI, but in a new thread. This thread isn't appropriate for that.
• Discussions about undeleting this specific page should happen at WP:DRV and not here.
• Discussions about changes to Wikipedia policy or guideline pages should happen either at the talk page of the policy/guideline page in question (in this case Wikipedia talk:User pages or at the village pump, specifically Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Likewise, discussions about instituting new processes for dealing with bona fide greivances against admins are probably good discussions to have. But have it at WP:VPP, not in this thread.

This thread, right now, doesn't serve any real purpose. So, Avenu, if you genuinely want to effect the sort of change you are advocating for, you need to use the channels which are going to make that change happen. This thread, right now, doesn't do anything for any of the possible proposals you have. So please, please, please. I am telling you: you should make the points you want to make. Just not in this thread. It isn't productive right here. --Jayron32 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice, Jayron; it seems like one of the best statements I've seen so far, with actual suggestions for how someone should proceed, and less of the simple 'not here'. I'm not particularly involved, I simply want to help see that statements that are made in the context of admin actions (not editors who happen to be admins) are protected more strongly than simply saying we can't openly criticize someone. This seems to be a very good case where we can see how the community recieves this, and while I don't intend on making such a page about 'bad admins' myself any time soon, I simply can't see where it really hurts anyone, especially in a case like we have here. Making a strict but loose definition at WP:ATTACK or WP:POLEMIC will be a challenge, but I'm sure the community can find a way. Thanks again, Jayron; with that, I'm done for now. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• A deletion review is now open at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 3#User:Surturz/AdminWatch. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just a reminder to all that there is no "free speech issue" here, as Wikipedia is a privately owned website, and there is no right to free speech here. Everyone's participation is subject to the pleasure of the Wikimedia Foundation, which, for the most part, allows the users to set the rules which govern use. Therefore, if consensus policy is that lists of people such as the one under discussion here are not allowed, except under very specific circumstances, than that's it. You can argue that the policy ought to be something else, but you cannot argue against the policy on the grounds that you have a right to free speech. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 3 August 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.

Digitalfrontier conflict of interest

Resolved

 – Consensus at work here. CycloneGU (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Digitalfrontier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

This account appears to have been made only to resubmit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Digital Frontier after it is denied per the fact that it doesn't have enough sources. It appears the article itself may have been written in a conflict of interest. --Nathan2055^talk 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this does seem to be the case. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Reported user at WP:UAA. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User blocked. ceranthor 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Skyblueshaun

Resolved

 – User has finally seen sense and removed the material from his user page. GiantSnowman 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid bringing this anywhere, hoping it could all have been sorted normally, but whatever. Basically, Skyblueshaun (talk · contribs)'s user page violates WP:WEBHOST, WP:NOTBLOG etc., as it is just a record of his video game save. I advised him of this, but he ignored me, and continued to expand his user page. After waiting a short period, I advised him I would do it for him, which I did, but he immediately reverted me. I bring it here for some input/action. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

His response. GiantSnowman 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Users AzureCitizen and Xenophrenic on Annabel Park's page

A friendly request for administrators here to look at the editing patterns of users AzureCitizen and Xenophrenic regarding their re-insertion of currently disputed material on Annabel Park's wikipedia page.(Edits by AzureCitizen: [30]; [31]; [32]) (Edits by Xenophrenic: [33]; [34]) Administrators should also take note of the rapport that both users have with each other, especially from the correspondences both users have with each other on the respective user's talk-pages: [35], [36]Galafax (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to notify both of the above editors that you have filed a report on this board please. I would do it for you but I have to walk the dog before it gets too dark. Thanks --Dianna (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It probably didn't occur to Galafax that we should be notified; I will go and post a note on Xenophrenic's page shortly to make sure he's aware of it too. For Galafax, I'd ask that you please be a little more specific and let folks here know precisely what it is that you think is wrong with my editing patterns, or with Xenophrenics, or what the concern is with our rapport. The link to the first conversation thread you provided above indicates that Xenophrenic disagreed with one of my edits, saying it fell short of 100% accuracy. The conversation was respectful and does not indicate anything inappropriate or questionable in my opinion, so perhaps you could better articulate what your concern is. The link to the second conversation you provided above refers to several edits Xenophrenic and I happened to make at nearly the same time in Talk Page discussions; for example, compare here and here where we both made edits regarding the $100,000 offer made by Andrew Breitbart to donate to the United Negro College Fund. Could you clarify your concerns exactly, so as to make the most efficient use of our time here on ANI?

With regard to your posting of diffs above for edits made by myself and Xenophrenic on the Annabel Park BLP, I would like to respectfully point out that you probably should have disclosed your direct involvement in a content dispute. As you know, you've repeatedly removed the portion about the Coffee Party considering itself to be an alternative to the Tea Party from the article in question, the most recent three reverts taking place in the span of 7 hours here, here, and here, as well as removing a 3RR warning posted on your talk page. Please note you were also reverted by a third editor here (The Magnificent Clean-keeper). I'm really not sure ANI is the best place to resolve this, especially if things are a bit vague, so perhaps you could elaborate more on what it is you're seeking here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have full-protected the page for 1 week due to edit-warring. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• A related thread about Coffee Party USA is available at DRN. 2 of the disputants (Galafax and Xenophrenic) are listed as disputants to that posting. Galafax appears to have neglected notifying Xenophrenic again with their posting (I've resolved that one). Seeing that this is the 2nd Coffee Party USA (broadly construed) with some of the same editors I'm thinking we may have a WP:BATTLEGROUND going on here and closing down one of the threads would be optimal to try and resolve this nest of issues. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish and Jim Sweeney

Greetings. I stumbled upon some user behaviour issues, and thought I'd ask for some more eyes and/or opinions. Due to a conflict in a thread at WikiProject Good articles, MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) made a run-of-the-mill personal attack on Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) here, who in turn requested (demanded?) an apology. Marcus responded badly, the details of which are all at User talk:Jim Sweeney#Abuse. That's when I saw the situation.

Since Marcus had made several personal attacks at that point, I gave him a level-2 warning, which he blanked. In subsequent discussion between these two, Marcus continued to call Jim "contemptible", a "prig", etc. Jim did not make any direct personal attacks, but was not exactly acting like a saint either. All this is at the "Abuse" thread linked above. I gave Marcus a level-3 warning, at which point he stopped making direct attacks. In conversation on my talk page (User talk:Quadell#Hello) Marcus claims he has been harassed by Jim, and accused me at length of bad behaviour as well. Incidentally, another admin in good standing made an assessment of the situation here, essential advising everyone to not be dicks. Always good advice.

I know that Marcus was making personal attacks, and I hope he has stopped. I honestly don't know whether Jim has done anything worthy of sanction or not, though I suspect not. I believe that Marcus's accusations against me are unfounded, but if they're not, I'd like to know if I should have done anything differently. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

General support exists for an indefinite block of LiteralKa (talk · contribs) but not for a topic ban or block of any other editors. Other editors can be addressed in WP:DR venues at another time. This thread has outlived its usefulness; time to move on. — Scientizzle 17:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by Scientizzle. Please do not modify it.
Hello folks. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar. Anyway, yesterday, I stumbled across the article at Gay Niggers Association of America while reading up on the old Scientology ArbCom case, and noticed it seemed a little - biased. As such, I drive-by-tagged it (apologies), and after the tag was removed, attempted to make a few changes myself. I made one (admittedly incomplete) content edit, trying to swing the article back to a more neutral state. Another user, LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again. So, I looked through the edit history and associated contributions, as one does. I noted that LiteralKa almost exclusively edits articles related to GNAA et al., and so I Googled the username. Not at all to my surprise, 'LiteralKa' is 'Director of Public Relations' for the GNAA group. I didn't think that LiteralKa's editing of the article was in the least bit appropriate, so I dropped him a note about COI. LiteralKa and I had a brief talk page discussion, and we left the matter at that. However, I also had a quick look at his contributions, and spotted a few AFDs LiteralKa had been involved in, as well as a history of 'owning' the GNAA and related articles. I'm going to make the following claims, therefore: LiteralKa (talk · contribs) is the Director of Public Relations at GNAA. Therefore, LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with regards to the GNAA and related organisations, and is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect. LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has recently created some particularly pointy AFDs, both of which have the acronym 'GNAA': Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry I wanted to close these as 'disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point', but I think it'd be best to let them run. There's also Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, which LiteralKa has shown an interest in. There seem to be a host of SPAs, meatpuppets and potential GNAA members who edit GNAA articles, for example: Prozak (talk · contribs) 24.57.119.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) TrollHistorian (talk · contribs) NPrice (talk · contribs) Murdox (talk · contribs) In short, then, I'm asking what we can do about this. Ideally, I'd like to get editors with a COI, like LiteralKa, to leave the GNAA article alone so that sensible, uninvolved folk can work on it. Some sort of topic ban? Community-endorsed? The Cavalry (Message me) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Ban all forever. Don't forget snaphat (talk · contribs). See also this after I opposed the recreation of the GNAA article in February.  Diego  talk  22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC) That LiteralKa is associated with GNAA is not at all news to anyone who spends time at #wikipedia-en, where LiteralKa is a regular. As far as IRC members go, he has recently ranged from mildly constructive to mildly disruptive, but has previously had a history of being banned from that channel and socking to get around that ban, and spent a few days as the single most disruptive troll that I've seen in IRC space in the time I've spent there, which is nearly a year. What does this mean for actual Wikipedia? It means that LiteralKa has proven that he has access to effective proxy services and is more than willing to sock. I would not be surprised to find that those SPIs are his sockpuppets, although it is likely that they are untraceable. At the very least, Murdox is also on IRC from time to time, so the two are either socks or meats. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the logical extension of that argument is that everyone on Wikipedia is secretly a sockpuppet of one dude with a lot of time and proxies. This is less of a matter of Wikipedia Administration and more of a witchhunt. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Diego, you just accused snaphat (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet when all he has done is vote against one of your articles. LiteralKa (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The vote is perfectly fine, and I'll leave it clear to you: I did not know of the existence of an article on mixed-breed dogs at the time I created the quiltro article, so I created it, believing it was some kind of "different" race when it is not. Snaphat's vote there is perfectly fine, yours is too; however, it is obvious you both are part of that so-called, racist organization I won't bother to spell.  Diego  talk  04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Diego, you're going to have to provide evidence that he is a member of the Gay Nigger Association of America before throwing accusations around. We've been over this before. LiteralKa (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Quite simple, user that edits very, very sparsely from 2005 votes in an AfD shortly after the director of public relations of the troll organization votes, too. Since there are no public records of who the members of the organizations are, I have no more proof than this.  Diego  talk  05:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Diego, that is the flimsiest argument I have seen from you yet. Why would that have anything to do with the GNAA except for the fact that I happened to vote a little before him? If that's what you see as justification for banning, I sincerely hope that you never get the power to ban here. You should notify someone when you're accusing them on ANI, BTW. You're grasping at straws here, Diego. Give it a rest. LiteralKa (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and because you wouldn't notify him, I did. LiteralKa (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not related to GNAA. I didn't know it existed until the accusation. It is actually pretty clear who I am if you google my username. I'm not making an attempt to hide this information. snaphat (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Ignore conflicts of interest exist everywhere because every single Wikipedia editor is involved with some other organization or interest, and they frequently edit topics of that nature. It's total hypocrisy for you to single out some who may be fans of the GNAA. death metal maniac (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Note above user is User:Prozak. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I'm tempted to say the AfDs should be procedurally closed. The ones that need deleting can be restarted with a nominator who isn't being obviously pointy. The AfDs weren't started in good faith, we should do the equivalent of order a mistrial. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I would let the AfDs run. If the subjects were obviously notable, then speedy close would be reasonable, but they're not. Also, even if the nominations are pointy, the nomination statements themselves are reasonable in pointing out the deficiencies of the articles.. I don't see the point in policy-wonking this for the sake of it. Obviously if there is a sock issue on the AfD that needs to be sorted, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, the yearly GNAA infestation <yawn>. SOP as follows: Congratulate them on another successful op. Then nuke from orbit, salt the earth, close any procedures or related procedures started by GNAA puppets, Checkuser the bad guys, Get steward cover if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) it's the only way to be sure! Blocks all round, then? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) They're not here to help build an encyclopedia. They're here for giggles. So yes, blocks all around. Let them get their kicks somewhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Get rid of the problem; yes.  Diego  talk  23:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) This is ridiculous. You're not assuming good faith on *ANY* of these accounts, and this really seems like a campaign against anyone who's commented in an anything-less-than-negative light on a GNAA-related article. I don't feel I've done anything wrong, and while I cannot account for other users, what's mentioned here hardly seems to warrant a permanent ban. If you look at past votes, they are clearly two-sided, and those who "lost" are now just trying to execute a vendetta against those who "won". Many of the accounts that have been listed are legitimate editors who edit on a number of subjects, and have participated in GNAA votes... Light-editing does not make a user a SPA or sockpuppet. nprice (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oh! I didn't realize this was a topic ban, and after a discussion on IRC, not everyone who's put in their input seems aware of that either. If we do this, we should at least do it by each "suspected" user account, based on its own merits. You can't just do a blanket-ban on a group of people you've arbitrarily grouped together because of a perceived connection. Each user should have the right to contest any actions done to their account, by their own merits. What's happened here is that a list of editors has been compiled who have legitimate edits, but few enough of them that SPA can be cited the moment they do something pro-GNAA. In the last DrV, there were plenty of "keep deleted" votes from accounts with the same status. If this happens, the moment any sort of block is placed, a certain editor who's pretty vehemently commented in this "incident", and HIS group are going to take advantage of the situation they've orchestrated to get the GNAA article VfD'd again. nprice (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) One more comment - if you block any supposedly pro-GNAA people from editing, as well as their detractors, who does that *LEAVE* to actually edit the article? Admittedly, it is very polarizing, and this would just arbitrarily unbalance things one way or another. nprice (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It leaves neutral editors to edit it, who edit for a hobby, rather than for a cause. Some people are interested in organisations like this without being a part of them - I studied sociology at university, as well as computer science, so I actually find it rather enthralling. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) It also leaves the multitude of editors who are forever biased against GNAA as a result of the many deletion debates. You know this. LiteralKa (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Comment "[literalka] is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect." I'd like to see evidence of this instead of accusations being thrown around. I have attempted to follow the COI guideline to the best of my ability. "LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" I'd also like to see evidence of how I made it pro GNAA. As for trollhistorian (talk · contribs), he hasn't edited since 2007, calling into question the amount of research that Cavalry actually did. LiteralKa (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You're the PR man from GNAA. Editing in the interests of public relations is frowned upon. Why don't you follow Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance, for example? Why do you consistently remove the 'COI' tage from the article, rather than waiting for a neutral editor to come along? It's all a bit fishy, if you ask me, and you're damned close to being blocked for being a single-purpose account. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Single purpose account? I have been editing for years across a wide variety of subjects. I find such accusations baseless, offensive, and childish. Coming from an arbitrator, no less. I removed the COI tag because no specific issue was taken with the article, aside from "LiteralKa edited it" (see WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits (mainly no. 6).) Additionally, you're going to have to prove that I'm "editing in the interests of public relations," instead of just claiming that I am. I have worked to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article. LiteralKa (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC) IDGI Firstly, the implication that TheCavalry has "never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar." is a pretty false statement considering that's he's commented upon it multiple times in the IRC. Secondly, I'd like to further understand why I'm not a "sensible" editor considering that outside of attempting to reboot the GNAA article in my own userspace (which earned me a quickly overturned block) I've never made anything approaching unsensible edits on-wiki. That said, I don't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of wikipedia's version of due process and most of my knowledge of wikipedia's various bureaucratic branches comes from being referred to them continually. I understand ignorantia juris non excusat, but I'd appreciate it if you made it a little clearer what I'm being accused of. TIA. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) NB: If anyone feels I closed this inappropriately, feel free to open it again. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I would rather see this section closed by an administrator, considering the seriousness of the charges you brought. Closing because there is "too much drama here" is bogus; what did you expect? You can't just open up a huge can of worms and then just say "Nevermind!" FYI, I am a totally disinterested party who has never edited or even read the article in question and has never had any dealings whatsoever with any of the parties involved, nor do I particulary care about the outcome of this incident, except that it be resolved properly and competently. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Actually, I don't have any problem with someone who originally brought an issue to ANI deciding to withdraw it, whether they're an admin or not. Sometimes one realizes that a particular issue is generating a great deal of noise, and not enough signal to bother with. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine if that's the case here, but in the meantime, if Cavalry wants to close out what he opened, far be it from me to stand in his way. (Sidenote, I'm using the pronoun "he" in the non-gender-specific manner.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Cavalry is an admin. LiteralKa (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I am an administrator, and have been since 2007, so I thought it perfectly acceptable to close it myself - but I digress. I think we all dislike it when this becomes a drama-board, and the last thing I want to invoke is drama. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I'm strongly tempted to close the AfDs summarily, as their intent is intentionally disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Is it really disruptive to put articles that were created with the clear intention of "diluting" the GNAA disambig page up for deletion? I figured I would leave it up to the community to decide if they were notable for this very reason. LiteralKa (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I'd have to say that yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate "dilution". The other articles, whether their subjects are notable or not (and that's still arguable...elsewhere), all bear legitimately-named organizations which just happen to bear the same initials. I'm not an attorney, but this strikes me as a prime example of scenes á faire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Created by the same editor during one of many GNAA arguments, one of which was mentioned in an academic paper once and another had nothing but passing mentions in sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I have to admit, I took a quick look at the histories of these articles and was going to snappishly post a response to LiteralKa along the lines of "these articles have nothing to do with the 'GNAA' controversy; they were created in 2005." But I looked a little deeper (after noticing that both articles on completely unrelated topics were created around the same time by the same user), and I now see the point LiteralKa is making. (Geez, I hadn't realized that GNAA has been a topic of discussion here since 2005!) I still think it would be better if these AfDs hadn't been created or had been created by someone else, but for what it is worth, I now see a somewhat greater substance to them than I might have initially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Could we please start assuming good faith on my GNAA-related edits now instead of just assuming the worst? I try to follow the rules as closely as possible when editing related pages. Also, I created {{GNAA History}} so that people could read up on the GNAA-Wikipedia relationship in as much detail as possible. LiteralKa (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I've tried to be fair to you. In fairness to me and others, you didn't make this point anywhere that I've noticed either in the AfDs or in this discussion, though it is one strongly in your favor insofar as the issue of intent is concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) That was because the point was made already by someone else. (In hindsight, though, I probably should have been clearer in the nominations for each.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I hate to say it, but I have a hard time assuming good faith based on the comments contained in the very diff you link above. And I'm still going to have to hold by my earlier comment: because the articles at AfD appear to name valid, albeit arguably notable, organizations or entities that just happen to bear the same initials as yours, you will have the WP:BURDEN of showing the articles were created specifically for (to use a marketing term) brand dilution. And having said that, I'll now step back and watch. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) As LiteralKa has noted, those claims are also my own, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon my shoulders as well. The fact that many find the GNAA distasteful isn't a secret, and years ago, those who found it distasteful sought to push the Gay Nigger Association of America to the back of the bus disambiguation page. One of these users was Astronautics (formerly known as Silsor). On December 7, 2004, Astronautics expanded the disambiguation page with three entries that didn't have articles at the time. On April 2, 2005, an anon removed the articleless entries from the page, and Astronautics's immediate reaction was to create articles on the Guilford Native American Association and the Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry in order to ensure that entries couldn't be removed from the page ever again. Astronautics then decided to belittle the Gay Nigger Association of America by having it listed last: [37]. Astronautics even tried to push GNAA as an acronym for the Great North Air Ambulance Service. Another user involved in similar activities was Brian0918. Brian0918 supported the idea of listing disambiguation page's entries by their perceived significance. When the tables turned on him, he pointedly added an articleless entry listed alphabetically over Gay Nigger and made an equally pointy comment: "alright, then, alphabetical order is fine." When Sam Hocevar removed those articleless entries, Brian0918 took a page out of Astronautics's book and created a Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica article. Those articles weren't created out of good faith; they were created solely to belittle the GNAA on a disambiguation page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Considering that the most flattering description I've recently heard of Wikipedia is "the place people go to win bar bets", and that Wikipedia itself won't allow Wikipedia articles to be used as reliable sources, I'm fairly well convinced that no one is going to take ANY article found on Wikipedia as God's Own Truth™, so an argument regarding irreparable harm to ANY of the article topics under consideration here is, in my mind, laughable at best. And now that I've said all that, here's what I see as the acid test for this case. Are the editors in question willing to accept a keep outcome on any or all of the AfDs in question? And what, if any, would the overall effect be on GNAA, other than having to share space on a disambiguation page? Yes, this is a serious question, and I'd appreciate a serious answer. And on a sidenote, I'd like to thank Michaeldsuarez for taking the time to lay out a clear, concise argument supporting his position...even though there are some who won't agree with it, it's a refreshing change from the dramatics I've seen lately on various noticeboards. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and to address the issue of OWNership, I'm pretty sure that I have abstained from editing the GNAA article as much as I used to once it passed the deletion review (ie. entered mainspace.) Before that, my intention was (and still is) to help develop a genuinely acceptable Wikipedia article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC) As an experienced editor entirely uninvolved with any disputes about the other GNAA, I think that this tempest-in-a-teapot is exceptionally unfair to the Guilford Native American Association. This is a solid, worthy organization that has existed for decades, and reasonable people may well disagree about its notability by Wikipedia standards. However, the Guilford group has done nothing that justifies its online reputation being dragged into this "inside baseball" dispute on Wikipedia. It is unjust and distasteful. They've had an article here for 5-1/2 years. Consider the impact on uninvolved people who stumble into this debate while looking for information about a group that was founded 25 years before Wikipedia was. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Based on the view stats, I'd reckon that doesn't happen much, if at all. LiteralKa (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC) So, if its only three parents of Native American kids with problems, rather than 20, that's OK with you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Seeing as how one of them is me, and the other two are related to the page deletion, yes. LiteralKa (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Google reports that there are an average of 36 searches per month for "guilford native american association". Our article shows up at the top of that search. The potential for collateral embarrassment to this group is real.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The "collateral embarrassment" you mention would be made no worse: its "relationship" to the GNAA would be no more apparent than it already is. LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Would you then agree the converse is also true...the existence of the Guilford Native American Association, and hence its article, causes no "collateral embarrassment" to GNAA? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Arbitrary break I'd like it to be known that I am not any way related to GNAA. I simply voted once on some article AfD of diegos. Since it is very easy to look up who I am, so there is absolutely no reason why this accusation should have occurred in the first place. What can be done about this? snaphat (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I have to agree here. I don't see that you're a part of GNAA in the same way as LiteralKa, and it's LiteralKa's conduct I have an issue with in any case - everyone else seems tangentially related, and I'm not 'anti-' or 'pro-' GNAA. The only reason I've issued a block so far is that NPrice (talk · contribs) turned out to be a reincarnation of a blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks you! I'm not concerned with what is going on here beyond making sure I don't wrongfully get banned or sanctions against me as I've done nothing wrong. snaphat (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Cavalry, can you please provide diffs of LiteralKa's alleged meddling in the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's revisions after your own revisions appears fine to me, and LiteralKa provide clear edit summaries. Can you please back your "[LiteralKa] stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" comment? Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Its not specific edits, because the edits themselves are individually small and apparently harmless - but they add up to have a cumulative effect. I find it amazing that he's removing COI tags added by neutral editors - and bizarrely citing Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits as a reason for doing so. Ask yourself this: Why is the Head of PR, and the 'Head of Wikipedia editing' (easily accessible through Google searches, seeing as 'LiteralKa' is the username he uses all over the internet, for everything), for GNAA, editing the article at all? This is a man who wrote - just four months ago - Jimmy "Babyrapist" Wales... convicted sex offenders known on Wikipedia as "Sysops"... forcefully ejaculating into MuZemike's pedophile mouth.... And let's not forget the wonderful quote that The Wikimedia Foundation refused to return our requests for comment. Saying only that "those dumb niggers" do not "deserve a fucking article". The man who wrote this is apparently an editor without a COI? Would we allow this from the Head of PR for any other organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) That sounds like a COI to me. Given his background, LiteralKa should not be editing the article at all. snaphat (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC) When LiteralKa removed that COI tag, there hasn't been any discussion about COI since the previous discussion on COI and neutrality concerns was settled several days earlier. Cavalry didn't make any attempt to re-initiate that discussion, and there wasn't any answer to my call for evidence. Silver_seren also noted the lack of further discussion. There isn't anyone who takes anything say on the GNAA website at face value. It's unlikely that anything said on that website will harm the Wikipedians mentioned. LiteralKa uses the GNAA website in the same way I use Encyclpedia Dramatica: To be funny and entertain visitors. LiteralKa didn't use those press releases to out anyone. Should we ban anyone who mocks Wikipedia on Encyclopedia Dramatica or the Wikipedia Review? Only one thing matters here: How does LiteralKa influence the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's offsite activity doesn't have any effect on that article, so that activity is irrelevant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC) With the greatest of respect, I disagree, and I do not have to cite specific edits, because the conflict of interest is plainly obvious. Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article. This isn't about WR, or ED - bringing those sites in is a fallacious argument, and a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue with drama. The only thing that matters here is: should the Head of PR of an organisation be the main editor of the article for that organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC) What do you mean by, "Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article"? I'm seeing a revision by you from July 8, 2011. You added the COI tag on July 14, 2011, and that talk page I had mentioned had only ended the day before. As the PR Head, LiteralKa has the best motivation to keep the article neutral and free of crud from those who despise the group. Why don't you point out how LiteralKa made the article less than neutral? Can you? You haven't done so so far. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Really? You're talking about allowing PR reps to be the main editors for articles because you think they're neutral? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I have to concur with ChaseMe: this is incredibly peculiar reasoning on MichaelD's part. PR heads, by definition, want to shape coverage of their subject to fit their own agenda, which is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If PR people were truly neutral, we wouldn't have 1/4 the number of UAA reports we get. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'm afraid I have to counter Michaeldsuarez' argument. As the self-styled PR man for GNAA, how can LiteralKa not have a COI when editing the GNAA article? I will stipulate that WP:COI specifically states that a voluntarily-disclosed conflict of interest should not be used as a weapon against the editor. However, WP:COI is also quite clear that an editor should avoid making changes to an article unless it helps the project as a whole, and given both the size and the heat emanating from this discussion, I can't see any help to the project as a whole. In fact, based on what I'm seeing, his editing is damaging not only the GNAA article (due to inherent bias) but several other articles as well, simply because the names of the articles have the unmitigated bad fortune to create acronyms of "GNAA". Add to that the comments from the GNAA Web site quoted above, and to me it adds up to a fairly damning case, very little of which is circumstantial. And before I go any farther, I'm also going to stipulate that I do NOT have a dog in this hunt. I have no association with GNAA (in any of the incarnations under discussion...hells, in at least two cases I couldn't even pass the physical!), I have not edited any of the articles, and I have not participated in any of the AfD discussions. My focus here is to examine the core issue and see if there's any sort of mutually-agreeable solution that won't wind up involving significant admin (or higher) action. Sadly, I fear it may be too late for that last, but that won't stop me from giving it a go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) WP:COI - "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." LiteralKa (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The COI template doesn't mention citations, and I can tell you right now that #6 doesn't apply in the case you're talking about. If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit, and you shouldn't be making it at all. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The way COI works is this way... If an editor has a COI but complies with all policies and guidelines, and other editors do not object to their edits, then we allow their editing of the main space of the article (we even encourage it, really). If, however, the editor is being disruptive (either through conflicts with all other editors or violating policies and guidelines), then that editor can be blocked or banned. If we can verify either through technical or behavioral means that sockpuppetry has been occurring, that seems to me a valid reason to do both in this case. -- Atama頭 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I've got no prior involvement with this article, but having read through this thread, I'll just add that LiteralKa seems to have a pretty transparent COI regarding this article, and as such should (at the very least) publicly make that clear; and preferably should avoid making any edits to the GNAA article at all. Minor edits are OK but not if they're controversial (and if someone reverts them, that's a clear sign that they are). Robofish (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC) This recent edit by LiteralKa is non-neutral and the edit summary does not accurately describe it.[38] Given the history and the ongoing problems, I think that LiteralKa and Murdox, listed as GNAA president,[39] should not be editing the article directly, nor should they be involved in AFDs related to GNAA. It would be sufficient for them to use talk pages to suggest edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC) It's one thing to say that something is "non-neutral." It's another to say why. LiteralKa (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm terribly sorry but my ADHD makes it very hard to follow the thread of a huge discussion like this without losing track of the argument. Could someone point out to me specifically which edits on the GNAA article are non-neutral or controversial, and why I need to be blocked from editing the GNAA article? My vague understanding of COI is that it doesn't apply if the edits aren't controversial. Murdox (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) If you're editing an article about a group of which you're the president then you should really become familiar with the relevant guideline. WP:COI.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Why do you keep avoiding the issue of citing specific edits and saying how they're POV? LiteralKa (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I don't see where I've violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. In fact, I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but I don't see why this means I should be blocked from making edits to the page I feel are appropriate? By all means, if you could cite specific edits or lines of policy it would help me understand your position more. TIA. Murdox (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) The edit removed text illustrating the perception of the organization's name as racist, it removed (sourced) information about the group's antagonism toward blogs and Wikipedia, and another mention of the intentionally offensive nature of the organization's name. Either you're being disingenuous about the slant you're trying to put in the article, or unable to recognize it, either of which is a very valid reason to ban you from further involvement in editing the article. -- Atama頭 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC) The "racism" was discussed later in the article. Same with the antagonism bit. Is there a problem with removing redundant material all of a sudden? LiteralKa (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Well that's true. The article does more-or-less cover it anyway. At the very least, it looks like a POV edit on the surface, and the edit summary was pretty vague (explaining that it was removing redundant statements would have been better). So I can see why Will might consider that a biased edit but I suppose it isn't. -- Atama頭 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC) In hindsight, a better edit summary probably would have helped. LiteralKa (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Conclusion, decision I think the consensus above (among neutral editors) is that LiteralKa and Murdox - and any other editors who hold positions within the GNAA - should not edit GNAA-related articles, except to remove blatant vandalism or post requested edits on the talk page. The problems with their involvement in editing the GNAA article is plainly apparent. To that end, and to clarify exactly what the problems are, I'd like to propose that: "LiteralKa and Murdox are banned from editing articles related to the GNAA, except to remove blatant vandalism, remove BLP policy violations, or fix spelling and grammar errors. All other edits should be requested using the {{Request edit}} template. I think that this is more than fair, and is in line with current community views on this level of COI editing. It also allows LiteralKa and Murdox to focus on improving other topics, while still allowing them to contribute to the article in question. I'd appreciate the viewpoint of neutral editors on this - ie those not pro- or anti-GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) NB: Someone also suggested a full topic-ban, but I'm not sure if that's a bit harsh. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC) We're struggling to get neutral editors involved, so I've mentioned this proposal to a few people who have commented above - but no-one who is openly anti-GNAA. I've also contacted Lugurr, who might come over from simple to comment. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC) LiteralKa has been permanently blocked and the consensus shaping up amongst the users who've actually taken an independent look at the evidence presented about my COI (instead of lumping me in with LiteralKa) is that it does not negatively affect my contributions to Wikipedia. Can we have this motion quashed already? Murdox (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Support Support topic ban based on inherent WP:COI of editors in question. Their editing history, commentary here at ANI, and AfD nominations of articles bearing names that can contract to the same acronym (whether or not those articles meet WP:GNG), demonstrate to me their inability to remain neutral when dealing with GNAA. I would therefore suggest adding a "broadly construed" qualifier to the topic. The GNAA article itself, along with those nominated at AfD, will stand or fall on their own merits; my concern is the maintenance of the Wikipedia project as a whole, and allowing editors with a clear and demonstrated COI to continue down the path they've selected does more harm than good. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC) In my defense, I would like to point out I have never ever ever put an article up for AfD at any point of my wikipedia tenure. I feel heavily that I'm being put in the same basket as LiteralKa despite an essentially spotless on-wiki record. Murdox (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Murdox, you're a single purpose account. Every single one of your edits has been GNAA-related - that's not exactly a spotless record seeing as you run the organisation. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC) That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm editing something I feel I can write for wikipedia about instead of doing what I usually do which is edit small gramatical errors and dead links as an IP. Murdox (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC) No, but it's not a spotless record. Why not edit about things that aren't GNAA-related - 4chan, or LOIC, or the quite excellent tech-rapper Dan Bull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I don't actually know much about any of those subjects except I think running LOIC and/or DDOS is illegal or something? I dunno. Murdox (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Could you explain why not banning me from AfD/DRV would be a bad thing? It's not a vote, after all. I'd just be adding my two cents. LiteralKa (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I would Support restricting the editors to non-controversial editing of the articles, as outlined at WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and as proposed above by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I don't support a full topic ban because I don't see that evidence of actual disruption has been shown, in spite of the close affiliation of the editors to the organization. I support the restriction to non-controversial editing because our guideline suggests it anyway, and because other editors have objected so strongly, but not because of any actual behavioral problems that I've seen thus far from LiteralKa and Murdox. -- Atama頭 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Support, obviously, as nominator. I'd be in favour of a 'broadly construed', perhaps, but I feel that these editors could really help with hacker culture style articles, and I don't want to prevent them from doing so. I don't have a problem with them being involved on the talk pages, or in AFDs, because their comments there won't have a direct impact on GNAA-related articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Support, clear COI violations. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC) If they're "clear" how come I have yet to see any edits cited? LiteralKa (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC) The 2 deletion nominations are clearly listed at the beginning of the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) And this relates to me directly editing the article how? LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC) It's not an article ban, it's a topic ban. In this case the topic includes articles that share the same acronym. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Including Gay Nigger Association of America! LiteralKa (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Support something or other, maybe not the full topic-ban, but come on, I've come across the PR agents for an organization/person complaining at the BLPN about their edits being undone, the username is blatantly COI and, in general, it results in a speedy delete for the article in question and a permanent block for the user, so what's going on here? Personally, I find GNAA funny like 4chan or all of the other stuff that says "fuck you authority, control , Big Browzer and so on" but this is really OTT COI. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) The Pope clearly has a COI editing articles about Catholicism, the bush, you are beating about it. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Good thing the pope doesn't have an account! LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Stop being such a gay nigger and take it like a man. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Please do not engage in personal attacks. LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Then don't set yourself up for them; not that I necessarily endorse it, but are you really surprised someone would say that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, do please stop engaging in personal attacks. It is not only hypocritical, but against policy. Simply put- it suggests much about the neutrality of the voter and doesn't strengthen supporting sides arguments in the least. snaphat (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, please shut up, if anyone could point out where the personal attack took place that would be useful, as contributors to Wikipedia, I assume that most of you do not take Wikipedian to be a personal attack, so saying 'stop being such a gay nigger' to someone who is the PR guy for the Gay Nigger Association of America can hardly be construed as a personal attack. Thanks but really this devolves into wiki-stupidity and pointiness. CaptainScreebo Parley! 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Again, please no personal attacks. snaphat (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Again, stop talking through your hat and repeating yourself, there is no personal attack. (Unless you want there to be one). CaptainScreebo Parley! 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Captain Screebo, you name called LiteralKa and told me to shut-up. I saw the warning on your talk page and the discussion on LiteralKa's talk page. I know that The Cavalry is already aware of the initial comment and such. snaphat (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support; had this been raised at WP:COIN on any other issue (i.e. a company), there wouldn't even be a question. Perhaps these users should shadow Orangemike and see how he handles articles where he feels he has a conflict of interest; his way of dealing with it doesn't create this kind of drama, or indeed any at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support only for LiteralKa. I took an extensive look through the article history for this year and see nothing Murdox has done wrong with regard to editing the article. However, LiteralKa is a bit of a different story. On the article, the only thing I see wrong was that he removed the COI tags. However, his deletion nominations for other GNAA acronym articles are why I am supporting this- those appear to be motivated by COI. If the latter hadn't been done, I would not support this decision. I would like however to voice my concern that anti-gnaa editors could try to have a field day with the article. I, myself, would rather he be allowed to edit the GNAA article and simply not allowed to AfD or edit other GNAA acronym articles. snaphat (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support only for LiteralKa; on the condition that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry can provide a neutral administrator or editor to protect the article. Although this looked like an interpersonal dispute at first, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has since shown me more instances than just the AfD of blatantly COI-inappropriate editing: edit-warring, COI tag-removal, POV edits; more breaches of trust than I can excuse. Although LiteralKa's edits are not inappropriate outside of the context of COI (indeed they can look pretty good; as I said in my erstwhile oppose vote, for a long time I did not know that they had a COI), they are inappropriate in the framework of COI good practice. As for Murdox, I know that he edits a lot on GNAA and little else, but these seem to be non-controversial cleanup edits, which I have a hard time supporting a ban for. Quigley (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support, as the conflict of interest at hand is too great a conflict of interest. I'm also in favor of bringing in neutral administrators to enforce this. (I also support the deletion of the article, but I can't imagine a sufficient amount do. This is a joke and not worth our time.) hare j 01:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support full-ban as there is no way for Mr. Kaiser and Murdox to be a net positive to the encyclopedia; there's nothing to do in their defence.  Diego  talk  01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC) You have been trolled relentlessly by the GNAA in the past, and thus are by no means a neutral and unbiased editor, especially considering the position you're taking in this discussion. Murdox (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC) He's still entitled to his opinion, Murdox, as are you. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Just trying to point out the possible WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC) There is no COI because I'm not affiliated to any racist organization, AFAIK. You, OTOH, are affiliated to the GNAA; and no, I haven't been trolled relentlessly, and anyway, how would you know that? Oh, right... :-)  Diego  talk  05:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support - based on the proposer's reasoning, and the precedents that have been applied to thousands of other editors with COI over the years. I am particularly unconvinced by Murdox' reasoning for not actually contributing anything to this project outside of the very area where COI is the strongest. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support only for LiteralKi, as Murdox' edits haven't been very detrimental. Perhaps Murdox can get a warning and a directive towards our COI guidelines. LiteralKi's COI is problematic, as evidenced by The Cavalry, so a topic ban is the common-sense solution. ThemFromSpace 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support only for LiteralKa. The sanctions seem perfectly reasonable, and just what we would expect from any other editor with a conflict of interest. However, I am willing to give Murdox the benefit of the doubt as their contributions seem to be within the COI guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Support deletion and salting, and permanent community bans of all editors ever having defended any article with such an offensive title as to bring the project into such disrepute. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Support there's clear precedent for this sort of provision, e.g. the scientology accounts. LiteralKa is welcome to become something other than a single-purpose contributor. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Support full topic ban, broadly-construed. Letting even a foot in the door will just lead to similar problems in the future. -- œ™ 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose Oppose you people are just looking to cause trouble. I see nothing wrong with what these editors have done with the article. They have kept a NPOV and cited all information added to the article. If we went around preventing anyone who had anything to do with a certain topic from editing, there would be nothing on this site. Kids in the sandbox (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - Struck, as user is linked by checkuser to hundreds of abusive sockpuppets. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose unless "adding citations to uncited statements" is added and "GNAA-related articles is defined as Gay Nigger Association of America, and Goatse Security." Additionally, as neither DRV or AfD is a vote, there is no harm in specifically banning participation in them. (Perhaps banning us from nominations only?) Why don't we ban all Wikipedians from editing Wikipedia while we're at it? LiteralKa (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose I've made this point before, but I've specifically endeavoured on the GNAA article to keep WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but by all means I don't feel WP:COI applies to me when I've already consistently shown that I can edit the article sensibly, uncontroversially, and without bias. A topic ban doesn't quite seem to follow the spirit of WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose I've watched developments on the GNAA article for a long time without knowing that LiteralKa or Murdox were connected to the organization, largely because their contributions to that article were not outwardly partisan or promotional. In fact, they are exemplars of what Wikipedians should be, in that they cited every statement, strictly adhered to NPOV, and calmly addressed the concerns of fanatical anti-GNAA people on the talkpage. Apparently there is some bad blood between old-time Wikipedians and the GNAA, and as a result, many Wikipedians tend to assume the worst in every action from these two users (such as their AfDs of obviously anti-GNAA articles created in bad faith). However, to uninvolved editors like me, looking at the presumed evidence with no prejudice against these two users, I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban. These editors, probably because of their outside involvement with the organization, are the only editors who would edit an article on such an unpopular group constructively. As long as they strictly adhere to WP:V and WP:RS as they have been doing so far, LiteralKa and Murdox's presence on GNAA articles is crucial to maintaining NPOV against the legions of users who would like nothing more than to have the articles deleted. See support rationale. Quigley (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Quigley, would you feel better if we nominated some uninvolved admins/editors to protect the article? There are several editors who'd happily volunteer and have talked to me about it privately, some of them are those who originally improved the article. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC) That wasn't his concern: "I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I'd still like his input as one of only two neutral editors who voted 'oppose'. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Two things. One: that's not the only "neutral editor." Two: it still won't change his opinion that I am "[an] exemplar of what Wikipedians should be" and that he "see[s] no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC) All other things being equal, to have non-COI editors is better than to have COI editors, so your suggestion is good on the face of it. But to gain my support for a ban on those two, I need to see specific diffs of serious disruption resulting from the COI; ideally a pattern of disregard for the points at WP:AVOIDCOI. Quigley (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) @the Cavalry: Out of curiosity, who's the other "neutral editor"? You claim that there are only two. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose – Those in favor of the topic ban have neglected to provide specific diffs or evidence of wrongdoing. Instead of answering my questions, the Cavalry and others decided to focus all of their attention on one of my more tangential comments: [40], [41]. I've provided straight answers. When can I expect straight answers in return? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose The Cavalry has a clear agenda here, this is not for the benefit of the wiki. incog (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose. For fuck's sake, I used to be an admin here, I have tens of thousands of edits on several Wikipedias, including this one, yet I got banned from IRC for being “associated with the GNAA”. Will whoever is in charge of that ridiculous crusade please stop and start doing constructive stuff? Will I be also banned from editing Debian-related articles because I was project leader some time ago and my edits could be biased? Seriously, fuck the bureaucratic bullshit I need to cope with everyday. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Sam, this isn't an anti-GNAA discussion - it's a 'person X has a COI and refuses to accept so' discussion. I'd vote keep in an AfD, I just don't want PR people removing COI tags from the article. What I've suggested above is actually less strict than the COI guideline asks them to do. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Yes this is an anti-GNAA discussion, regardless of the original intent. Several of those GNAA acronym articles were created or protected by an admin who had a grudge against GNAA and probably me (he accused me of cheating at the Wikipedia chess championship, so fuck him, too). AfD'ing them is just attempting to clean up the polluted namespace, yet it is used as an argument to show a CoI. LiteralKa probably has every reason to care about the GNAA article's high quality and because it's such a hot topic no one else will probably dare touch the article. What is suggested here is simply to get rid of the people who care enough to research good material for the article, because most of the others were bullied out of it (need I remind you that there was a long “no GNAA-related discussion” policy on `#wikipedia-en` and several ops would ban on sight?). 2 months from now Diego, who of course has no CoI here, or other people, such as the ones who believe I should be banned from `#wikipedia-en` just because I’m “related” to those people, will AfD it. I'm not saying there is premeditation, but there will certainly be causality. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Can someone explain to me where edits from either LiteralKa or Murdox have been BAD to Wikipedia in any sort of way. This is seeming more and more of personal opinion rather than an actual violation of WP:COI. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Changing my view to a support based on these comments, and per Quigley's notes in the Support area. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Trying to delete Wikipedia content solely because it shares an acronym with your organization is about as blatant a violation of WP:COI as you can get. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Well, let's see. One of them is going to get merged, and the other kept. I'd say that I improved the encyclopedia through those. LiteralKa (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Just because your abusive behavior wasn't completely successful doesn't mean it wasn't abusive behavior. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge your COI makes me more certain that a topic ban is appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Let's see, one of the AfDs was completely legitimate and valid. The other was in questionable territory, namely due to a severe lack of significant coverage, which the AfD fixed. LiteralKa (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC) The AfDs could be completely legitimate and still constitute a conflict of interests. If you have something to gain from the articles being deleted, you should have asked someone else to nominate them. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC) The AfDs don't fall under WP:COI, so I don't see what you're getting at. LiteralKa (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC) "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs." The warning signs have been presented and I believe they are convincing. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I should also add that WP:AVOIDCOI, point two, is pretty clear. Just because they're not in your industry, it doesn't mean you're not competing for the trademark 'GNAA' initials. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose for Murdox I cannot find anything he did wrong at all. Is there anything? It doesn't seem fair to me to lump them together. snaphat (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose There has yet to be any clear examples of a violation of WP:COI. Just because a user has a COI doesn't mean that they are not allowed to edit the article they are affiliated with. It just means that they are only able to make certain types of changes to the article and not to add material that advocates and promotes the subject. There is no evidence that either of the users in question have done such a thing, so this topic ban proposal is entirely fruitless and just plain vindictive. SilverserenC 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Let me also note that the proposal seems to be some sort of attempt to restate the COI policy so that there can be more active punishment for any mistake in regards to the article. It is entirely redundant and, again, pointless. SilverserenC 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC) SS: Just so you've got a better explanation of what exactly ires me here, it's listed at User talk:Quigley#As requested re:GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Just FYI, I've added my two cents and rebuttal to CMLITC's points on that page. I understand you didn't want to clutter up the discussion page, but is there any reason you couldn't have made those points within this thread directly to Quigley? Murdox (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I supplied them to his talk page, rather than here, because originally they were directed as a response to Quigley's questioning. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) The first thing I would point out is that practically none of the stuff listed there is about Murdox. You seem to just be going after him because he's a part of GNAA. As for your points in order: SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 1. The fact that the two of them edit around a set of articles doesn't mean anything if you don't have any proof that they are editing unconstructively within the articles. The reasoning for the AfDs has been explained and it is a reasonable enough reason. Thus, your point #1 lists pretty much nothing. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 2. I really don't think the "competitors" that COI is discussing means other groups with the same acronym. Again, the reasoning lsted by LiteralKa for the AfD nominations makes sense. So, again, this has nothing to do with COI. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 3. You list no examples, so i'm just going to skip this. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 4. The corporation thing is a minor quibble and would certainly seem like an edit war over something that has no real relation to the content in the article. As for the Prodego edit war, Prodego was completely and absolutely wrong there. He seems to think that sources from GNAA can't be used for basic information, like we allow for every other article on Wikipedia. This was already being discussed on the talk page as it is. The removal of the COI tag goes both ways. If you add it, then you have to list on the talk page what edits specifically are from a COI point of view. This did not happen and we do not perpetually have a COI tag on articles just because someone affiliated edits it. And the text removal, as LiteralKa said in the edit summary and on the talk page is already discussed in the rest of the article. Including it in the lede is both a weight issue and, I do think, a POV pushing of negative material about the GNAA. The only thing i'm willing to give you is the addition of the category, that was wrong to do. But the rest of your "evidence" is, to put it bluntly, utter crap. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC) It might be "utter crap", but it seems to be a concern for the 13 users above - nearly all of whom are uninvolved. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Because what you're asking for in this poll is essentially what WP:COI says anyways, except it doesn't ban other actions, so people largely don't have an issue with it. However, what they're not considering is that this is just WP:CREEP applied on a user level. It's baseless and is extremely pointless. I'm going to be watching the article and the talk page after this to make sure that this isn't an attempt to make the article entirely negative POV-wise. It is well known that portions of the community dislike the GNAA and are constantly out to try and make the article negative, but not encyclopedic. SilverserenC 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose WP:DENY is blatlanty broken in this thread... See the drama it generates? That's what User:LiteralKa wants us to do... Literally, we're feeding him... I support unblocking him unconditionnaly and i don't even care if you do run a WP:Checkuser on me... Just leave the article alone and leave him ALONE! --Zalgo (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Comments Could we identify an edit (aside from removing the COI tags, I won't do that again) that inserted POV? The only edit that people had problems with was explained and accepted as NPOV. LiteralKa (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I've moved the above comment to a comments section, rather than cluttering up the straw poll. In short, you are focussing too much on individual edits, and the individual edits aren't the problem: it's the fact that you have a COI. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I can't speak on LiteralKa's behalf, but I've shown straight up that I don't have a conflict of interest. Murdox (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I am not sure how to take your assertion that the President of X does not have a conflict of interest when editing an article about X. It is an unusual assertion. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) The very thrust of WP:COI is that the specific affiliation does not matter, it's the user's conduct on-wiki. Quigley put it much more eloquently than I ever could, but the fact of the matter is that I would only have a Conflict of Interest if I put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards Wikipedia. I believe my behaviour on-wiki shows that: No, I have not put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards wikipedia. After all, I hardly have to worry about being "fired" from GNAA if I don't promote them on Wikipedia. :) Murdox (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, but you're mistaken: How do you know you don't have an unconscious bias? Several uninvolved editors have pointed this out to you, especially that your editing pattern displays a clear COI - but you're not quite getting the hang of it. Ignore the wording of the policy, for a moment, and think: If we can't trust the anti-GNAA members to edit the article without bias - even when they are editing for the sole benefit of Wikipedia - how can we trust you? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC) This is a really unusual case for me, and I deal with a lot of COI cases. Generally, when we deal with COI issues, one of two things are happening. Either an editor has a COI, but is still able to edit productively, and nobody objects. Or, the editor has a COI, and is causing disruption, and people object. This is a case where an editor has a very strong COI (the president of the organization no less) but no actual disruption has been shown, and yet a number of people are still objecting to it. I'm not sure I've ever seen this before. I think that a fair compromise here is the one proposed above, that editors with a COI be asked to restrict themselves to uncontroversial edits. Technically, anyone can be banned from anything as long as a community consensus is found for doing so. WP:BAN says that it must, or should be in response to repeated disruption (it's difficult to tell which) but we can possibly infer that multiple people saying "please stop editing due to your COI", and the editors continuing anyway, could be considered disruptive. This is a weird grey area for me. -- Atama頭 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, why can't we let anti-GNAA editors edit the article if their edits are by all means NPOV and intend on improving Wikipedia? Quality and bias are measurable quantities in Wikipedian terms. Furthermore, my "editing pattern" is an incredibly vague term. I'd like to see which uninvolved editors have specifically taken issue with my edits and behaviour, and not lumped me in with LiteralKa's behaviour on-wiki. In regards to what Atama is saying, I understand it's a weird situation. However, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with what amounts to putting community consensus over actively improving Wikipedia. It would be much easier for me to understand where the oppose votes were coming from if I'd made grandiose, self-publicising claims on the article but the fact of the matter is I've utterly strived to play by Wikipedia's rules on this article because it's obviously an area which generates heated emotions. I'm willing to take into consideration other people's points of view, but I'm not willing to consent to a community-imposed ban for playing by the rules. Murdox (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Off-wiki canvassing This account has been canvassing this discussion off-wiki. Could whoever is running the account please not canvass their supporters? This isn't a vote. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I don't see any canvassing. Could you link to a specific tweet? LiteralKa (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah, you're reaching here. I don't see how a link to the New York Times or nads.org is canvassing? LiteralKa (talk) Just here, July 26th at 1:31am. Links to shortcode ending in cPpM724, which links directly to this discussion. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC) "Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" LiteralKa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Then check the main account? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Still no. LiteralKa (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Check harder please. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) And this fails WP:CANVASS how? (eg. since when does posting a raw URL on the Internet violate any policy.) LiteralKa (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Have you conidered that it's a spambot account, simply reguritating random webpages? GiantSnowman 20:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't worry until or unless a bunch of meatpuppets show up out of nowhere to support with their brand new accounts. But if that does happen it would only serve to hurt the GNAA in this case, so I think it's worth mentioning here so that LiteralKa can prevent it from happening, if it's at all possible. -- Atama頭 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC) We've already had MeepSheep show up, and the GNAA article has started up on SimpleWiki in the last few hours, under a new user (no prior experience with wikis, judging by contributions) called 'Lugurr'. I'm also a little confused as to how the Tweet disappeared so quickly... The Cavalry (Message me) 21:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC) And you attribute... a tweet to a sockpuppetteer noticing something controversial on a large, public noticeboard and a guy deciding to create a cross-wiki article? LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Lugurr isn't creating a cross-wiki article, he's just active on simple. You're saying that you don't know how the article on GNAA on simplewiki has started, that it's just a coincidence? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Not that far-fetched considering the recent controversy over this. LiteralKa (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC) The controversy is just on-wiki though. I'm trying to work out where/how Lugurr was notified of this discussion. He says it was ED, but I can't for the life of me find where on ED it was. I've just asked him if he recognises your username: if he does, then he's probably found it off ED, 4chan, or the like. If he doesn't, then I'm stumped. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC) And why would he recognize my nickname if you are concerned about a "Gary Niger" canvassing? Do I smell bad faith? LiteralKa (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination) as a disruptive nomination. Anyone who would like to re-nominate it for a good faith AfD should feel free to do so after a reasonable interval. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry, there seems clear consensus for a merge to Space Interferometry Mission and I've closed it according, choosing to disregard any possible incorrect motivation for nomination in order to deal with the article appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC) LiteralKa indefinitely blocked Full explanation here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I am completely and utterly against this block. All of the reasons listed are not blockable reasons. There is a consensus for a semi-topic ban in this discussion, that is not a consensus for an indefinite block. It has yet to be proven at all that they have been editing disruptively in the subject areas. The use of an account with a different name on Simple Wikipedia, without using an account over there with the current name, is not sockpuppetry. Having to reveal a COI interest over there is one thing, but it is most definitely not enough for an indefinite block. This is an utter perversion of our rules. SilverserenC 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Silverseren, I was against the block also until I looked at the talk page of Lugurr on Simple English Wiki. When asked if he was LiteralKa, he changed how he writes and lied about it.  snaphat ► 02:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well since you agree there was a consensus for the topic ban despite being against it, that can be enforced if/when LiteralKa is unblocked. However I don't quite follow how there would be a lack of evidence of disruption if there is consensus for a topic ban based on said disruption. Regardless, there is demonstrable evidence that LiteralKa is using these two accounts to create the impression of greater support for GNAA on multiple wikis, which is by definition sockpuppetry and disruptive. (after edit conflict) And per Snaphat's comments, the behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry with intent to disrupt is very compelling. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Hersfold: Is this an ArbCom-sanctioned block or one solely issued by you? ThemFromSpace 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee did not discuss this, it is not an ArbCom block. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Hersfold: I wouldn't necessarily say that it was to "create the impression of greater support for GNAA". It most likely was just to conceal COI.  snaphat ► 02:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Support block A strict reading of WP:COI confirms that anyone can come to Wikipedia and promote their outlook indefinitely, provided some very easily satisfied and common sense procedures are followed. However, when such a blatant case of COI is revealed, and it involves an editor politely pushing their outlook to promote a trolling group over an extended period, it is appropriate for measures more strict that WP:COI to be applied. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Good block. Having a COI is one thing. Using undisclosed alternate accounts to lie about it is quite another. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Yes; having undisclosed alternate accounts on a different wiki. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Are you for real? This is somehow acceptable behavior for an editor just because the page on which he lies to an arb about his multiple accounts starts with simple: instead of en:? 28bytes (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Or to redirect the query; we somehow gained the right to block people for behaviour which happens outside en-wiki and does not negatively impact upon it? No, this is not necessarily acceptable behaviour - but neither is it our role to punish for it. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The POV-pushing behavior is happening on both wikis; however, he's using the results of said behavior on this wiki to support his actions on the other. It does involve both wikis, and the disruptive editing he's put into this POV-pushing (bad-faith AfD's, POINTy moves and redirects, etc.) would probably be meriting of a block by itself if this weren't such a high-profile user. There are negative impacts on both wikis, although I will grant that part of the reason for the block here is to arrest the negative impacts on another. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Support block Wikipedia was being manipulated by this trolling organization as part of their internet activities. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose block badly formed block reasons, don't justify a block (they may justify a topic ban). Points 1 & 2 of the justification do not support a block. 3.1 is a discussion of policy. 3.2 does not support a block. 3.3's rationale for involving the English wikipedia is tenuous in the most generous reading, and tendentious in a common reading. 3.3 is a rationale which ought to have emerged from the community; which it has not, and further, goes only to a ban from GNAA related articles. Let Simple Wiki clean their own house, and note any COIs for their editors on their own project. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose block. Last time I checked, having an account on two wikis and undertaking the same actions with both is neither sockpuppetry nor a blockable offence unless those actions are themselves problematic. The case for an indefinite block has not yet been made. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Strongly support block. Editing on two wikis is not an issue. Being a little shit on two is. Hersfold's reasoning is problematic, but there are valid underlying concerns. Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose I do not approve of what he has been doing here, but the topic ban is sufficient. I think there is not consensus for the block, Hersfold, so perhaps you ought to unblock DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose The reasons for this block are thin, and it seems punitive. Is that the tone we want to set for this community? death metal maniac (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC) It's not punitive. It's intended to prevent disruption of multiple projects by a conflicted POV-pusher. He has now admitted to operating both accounts, despite denying any knowledge of LiteralKa (speaking as Lugurr) in the past. He is clearly trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, and is using his efforts to do so under this his LiteralKa account to bolster his efforts as Lugurr. In response to Ironholds above, no, this does not precisely fit any current definition of sockpuppetry, but if he were doing this on any single project he'd be blocked without a thought and nobody would be opposing it. Why should the global community be treated any differently? We're still all here for the same purpose - to build an encyclopedia - and regardless of the language, there is still a universal restriction against using Wikipedia to promote one's own (or any) organization. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Prozak is, I believe, closely affiliated with GNAA, or at the very least the related group who call themselves 'ANUS'. While he's entitled to his opinion, I would caution anyone against thinking that he's entirely neutral. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Good block. The pattern of disruption, promotion, and POV pushing has been going on quite long enough. Deceiving another community within the WMF is just icing on the cake of misconduct here. Courcelles 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose block Unjustified and The Cavalry has a clear agenda. incog (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I'd dispute that - seeing as I've never interacted in any significant way with GNAA prior to this, and I think the community are well aware that I can be trusted to not pursue agendas. Unlike yourself, of course - no ulterior motive whatsoever. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - indef?! Really?! Maybe he deserved a block for his recent attitude + actions, but an indef is, quite frankly, ridiculous. GiantSnowman 20:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Good block. GNAA's mission is fundamentally opposed to ours. Personally, I'd support blocking anyone involved with them, regardless of on-wiki activity, but this is even easier, because of LiteralKa's on-wiki activity. As always, it's somewhat amazing how much time and effort of good intentioned productive users we're willing to waste on trying to accommodate people who are obviously not here to produce a respectable reference work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Valid block. I've given this quite a lot of thought, because my impression all along with this GNAA situation is that the GNAA editors were clearly trying quite hard to stay on the right side of what they understood the line of COI to be. Quite possibly they were doing so only so they could solidify their positions as GNAA-members-who-have-Wikipedia-status, to be used as needed in the future, but nonetheless they appeared to be trying to follow the rules. Their actions put them slightly on the wrong side of the line, but I think that was inadvertent on their parts, in that they couldn't restrain their admitted interest in bettering GNAA's reputation quite enough. My initial reaction to this block was that it seemed iffy and was probably right on the line between "clearly called for" and "hazy, but possibly for the betterment of the wiki, in a hand-wavy sense". The socking could have been another (more or less) good faith line crossing (devil's advocate in my head: "is there any rule that says someone has to use the same name on all wikis?"), but upon evaluating LiteralKa's actions as himself and as Lugurr, it seems clear that he was quite purposely using the second account to evade scrutiny. He knew that people were watching the LiteralKa account for trouble spots, and he chose to use a different account to attempt to get the GNAA article created on Simple while slipping under the radar. As a result, I agree with LiteralKa's being blocked, since this action of socking is a clear indication that he's not simply trying-and-failing to play inside the rules, but is purposely hopping across that line in the sand. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose block - the rationale is concerned with non-enwiki actions; this was a unilateral decision to block, whilst a discussion was under-way here, and there was no urgent need to prevent disruption. I say this despite my strong dislike of GNAA, and my belief that we shouldn't tolerate trolling. We should rise above it, and follow due process. This is likely to cause more drama than it prevents.  Chzz  ►  22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Strongly oppose block - Just like the user above me said it. This is only going to keep the bitching going. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC) This wasn't the greatest block (not the most egregious either, but it wasn't good). I wouldn't stand by it, but... <shrug> — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I'm with Ohms. Not the strongest reason to block someone, but nothing I would get up in arms about either. -- Atama頭 02:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with the block to the extent it is necessary to enforce a topic ban. Having a COI is not blockable, but dedicating most of one's editing to promoting one's organization is. That said, if LiteralKa agrees to abide by a full topic ban regarding the "GNAA" organization, and makes otherwise useful edits, the block is no longer necessary and should be lifted. The concerns relating to other wikis do not seem to support a block on this wiki.  Sandstein  08:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose: None are blockable, "Cross-wiki sockpuppetry"? It would be a lock on the global scale. (Non-administrator comment) ~~EBE!@#~~ talkContribs 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC) support GNAA members are expendable.©Geni 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not an admin but I weakly support an indef block, and strongly support a block of 3-6 months and a topic ban where any further GNAA contributions mean an indef block Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Support- I agree with Fluffernutter's reasoning. Reyk YO! 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Support: I am especially concerned about the usage of Simple Wiki. This is clear evidence of an intent to use any means to promote this group across Wikimedia platforms, including through the use of deception. Had there not been such deception, I could have accepted the below alternative of an indefinite topic ban, but that tactic makes it clear to me that this user cannot be trusted to edit in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Support I'm not sure that this block is in accord with most of our policies, but it's definitely in line with one of them. This account is being used to disrupt both this Wikipedia and another one in multiple ways, and the sooner we stop it, the better off the encyclopedia will be. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose - "cross-wiki sockpuppetry" ? Unified login is a feature provided as a convenience for people to link their accounts if they choose to do so. Did I miss a memo somewhere that made unification mandatory, and forbade differently-named accounts on different wikis? Tarc (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Is using SUL mandatory? Of course not. When asked a direct question deception, however, is problematic. Courcelles 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Support block. Beyond the appalling deletion nominations, there's obvious intent to deceive above about how Lugurr (who LiteralKa refers to as "a guy") might have become aware of this conversation to create the Simple wiki article (timestamped in the 2100s, 28 July). I might support a topic ban (as proposed below) as well, but I am presently more concerned that such behavior demonstrates a strong commitment to COI editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Support in preference to the more limited proposal suggested below. At the risk of repeating myself, do we really see this editor as enough of a benefit to Wikipedia that we want to keep them around? EyeSerenetalk 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Support. Don't feed the trolls.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose – I agree with the block of LiteralKa's "Lugurr" account on Simple, and I believe LiteralKa should be limited to accounts named "LiteralKa" for the sake of transparency, but Simple's business isn't enwiki's business. LiteralKa's activity on Simple doesn't have any effect on enwiki. Abd and Poetlister aren't banned from every Wikimedia project; they're only banned from the ones they've disrupted. I don't believe that LiteralKa's activity on enwiki warrants an infinite block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Support. LiteralKa is not naive and shows experience at gaming the system in his favour. His COI is clearly uncomfortable to other users independent of the nature of the topic, which results in distrust and a fundamental breakdown of the collaborative environment of the project. He has engaged in conscious manipulation and deception to further his causes. LiteralKa's presence is a net negative to the project and I am unable to trust that the user is able to rework himself as a net positive. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Support Though, I was part of the initial discussion, I didn't outright say whether I supported the indef block or not. The deception on the part of LiteralKa as "lugurr" is a clear indication as to the user's intentions here. While the deception wasn't written directly on this wiki, it paints a clear picture as to how the user plans to contribute to the project as a whole- simply to abuse the system to promote GNAA.  snaphat ► 02:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Support stronglyI, and others, have been dealing with this person/organization and their sockpuppets over at the Simple English Wikipedia and they have caused quite a great amount of disruption. This person is obviously a troll and disruptive. For those who say no criterion has been proved, blocks can be issued for just disrupting the project(s), and is not sockpuppetry over and over also not a block-able offence? fr33kman 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC) FYI The community at Simple English Wikipedia has implemented an editing ban. fr33kman 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Support block due to COI, cross-wiki disruption and because "On Wikipedia, members of the group created a page about themselves, while adhering to every rule of Wikipedia in order to use the system against itself." From the GNAA wikipedia page. I don't really think you could find a clearer statement of intent. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Proposal to shut the hell up about the GNAA for at least two weeks. While I admit to being pro-GNAA and enjoy a chuckle every now and then, this silly discussion is leading to nowhere except giving their IRC channel a laughfest. Let's all stop feeding the troll guise. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Support - Don't feed the trolls. (And I presume someone needs to support this.) CycloneGU (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure why they are laughing since I'm sure the PR guy didn't intend to get banned. Probably to hide weakness as this did not go their way and they probably don't want to admit that.  snaphat ► 00:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC) There are currently 4 more people opposing than supporting this block, if you count Ohms and Atama as being undecided. SilverserenC 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC) You want to run that count again, this time not counting pro-GNAA cronies who are obviously just a little biased? Also, having heard that GNAA intends to out a bunch of people, including me, presumably in response to this, I'm not feeling too charitable at the moment. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I’m curious. Aren’t anti-GNAA cronies a little biased, too? Sam Hocevar (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Would those supporting LiteralKa please review the highly deceptive language used by Lugurr where they pretend to be a semi-literate new editor who only wants to help by adding GNAA to Simple. See any talk page contribution at Lugurr's contribs, or just review the example at can you undelete gay nigger. I encountered LiteralKa at WP:Deny recognition (commonly referred to with its shortcuts WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT). My summary of the disagreement is at WT:Deny recognition#Purpose of this page, and it is not reasonable to expect editors such as myself to enter into lengthy discussions in such a topic with someone who is at Wikipedia to promote GNAA—in retrospect, the image that LiteralKa wanted at WP:DENY (see this edit) is exactly what a troll would want at Wikipedia's DENY essay. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I guess I'm "supporting LiteralKa" (yuck!), but my main concern with this is the whole cross-wiki thing. I'm concerned that this new power (as far as I'm aware, blocking users based on their activity outside of the site is completely new) is not something that is good for all of us. I'm sympathetic that a couple of you are apparently feeling embattled here (hersfold apparently is, at least, based on the comment above), but an easy solution to that is to step back and let someone else take care of things. There doesn't appear to be any shortage of administrative interest here. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Ohms law, I was uninvolved until a week ago, and Hersfold made this block as an uninvolved administrator - neither of us has, so far as I'm aware, had any involvement with GNAA-related topics or discussions prior to this week. The situation was discussed on the functionaries list and in the checkuser IRC channel. I stepped back - as I was involved - and Hersfold, an uninvolved administrator, stepped in. The potential for 'outing' has only become apparent since the block was made. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I don't know about outing (and really, I don't know or care much about the GNAA stuff... I had read about it, offsite, a while back [the topic is held up as an example, by the way], but my level of caring about hate groups and hate speech is pretty slim). The only aspect of this that worries me is blocking another user for what they (supposedly) have done elsewhere (another wiki in this case, but the principal is easily applied to other web sites). Additionally, the impression that Hersfold is feeling embattled is from his own statement above. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC) If by embattled you mean "generally annoyed that any time a high-profile user gets blocked for reasons they've had coming to them for a while massive drama breaks out" then maybe, yeah. I've had no previous involvement with GNAA and frankly have tried to avoid the matter entirely - as many understandably would. However, when the issue of this disruption came up on the functionaries list, I offered to issue the block as a) an uninvolved administrator b) a non-arbitrator checkuser and c) someone who doesn't really care if he gets trolled on-wiki. From what I can see, making this block was necessary for the benefit of this project and Simple English Wikipedia, even though the primary reason for doing so (the cross-wiki socking) isn't strictly covered under policy. The majority of the opposition to this block appears to be either supporters of GNAA or those who have not really looked into the situation enough to see beyond my admittedly somewhat unusual reasoning. Those supporting for the most part appear to have answered the basic question to be considered when reviewing any block: "Would allowing this user (in this case, the Director of Public Relations for a self-avowed internet troll group who clearly intends to edit with a conflict of interest) to edit the project be, on the whole, a net benefit to the project?" I believe it is clear from LiteralKa's edits that the answer is no. His efforts at deception at Simple Wikipedia, which involve the English Wikipedia, only further compound the issue. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I'm proposing a slightly weaker proposal that I think answers people's concerns Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Counter Proposal for LiteralKa LiteralKa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Two month block and topic ban from GNAA articles. Block increased if he socks here or violates topic ban. As several editors have noted, he has done enough on this wiki to justify a block and topic ban Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC) To clarify: Topic ban is indef and far-reaching, basically applies to anything tangentially related to GNAA in article, user, talk, or Wikipedia space Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Support - topic ban & shorter (but still substantial) block are much more suitable. GiantSnowman 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Question How broadly construed is 'GNAA articles'? Would it include, say, articles such as American Nihilist Underground Society, Weev, etc? Would it also extend to AFDs in the appropriate subjects? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC) If I were the admin enforcing this, I'd attempt to keep him away from anything that could be about the GNAA. Certainly ban him from inserting anything about the GNAA in articles, and from talking about the GNAA in talk or Wikipedia spaces Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Question – Will the topic ban be two-months long as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Topic ban would be indefinite and kick in when the block expires. No point in having concurrent block and topic ban Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Yep, I'd want a permanent topic ban as well. GiantSnowman 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I'll support this. Having been reading about this since the thread began, and knowing his association with the organization, any editing on the subject is an unquestionable COI. I think a total block as suggested prior to an indefinite topic ban is a good plan. Though I laugh at how the topic ban kicks in post-block, as if saying he can edit the topic while blocked. Just say both kick in at once and remind on unblock, I'd say. Also, since user is already blocked, if this motion carries, the two months should begin from 00:51 (UTC) on 30 July 2011, when Hersfold enacted the indefinite block. CycloneGU (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose I believe his disruption on this wiki, and that spanning across multiple wikis, is meriting of an indefinite block. I also don't see that he'd be that constructive elsewhere; the vast majority of his contributions would fall under the scope of a broadly-defined topic ban. Most of the rest is adding cleanup tags without making an effort to improve the page, nominating articles for deletion (often disruptively), or removing content from pages (sometimes referenced). I don't see that he's usefully contributed outside of GNAA topics, and even there using the term "usefully" would be quite a stretch. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I don't feel that we've blocked someone who could ever be a productive user. We must ask ourselves: will he go on to be productive, or will he go on to participate in low-level trolling (for example, trying to get the picture heading the 'virginity' article to the front page)? I cannot support an unblock for a user who takes delight in describing Jimmy Wales as a "babyrapist... a bald, worthless narc and a boldfaced liar-turned-power hungry manchild" - even if they did so in jest. He abuses Wikipedians he is in conflict with off-wiki and described two prominent editors as a 'pedophile' and a 'Jewish cripple'. Is this really someone who we want to let loose, even after a few months? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC) As I suspected, opposition to my proposal from the more blockist. I was never opposed per se to the indef block. I would note that we appear to be deadlocked on whether or not there should be an indef block or not, which is why I proposed this. If you're sure the indef block will stick, go ahead with an indef block. If it doesn't, my proposal seems like a reasonable alternative. And I agree with you that Ka is not a productive editor, which is why I'm confident that if this proposal is adopted he will either sock around the block, violate his editing restrictions (either of which would be pretty clear grounds for a indef) or leave the Wikipedia outright. So you'll get your indef block later if not sooner. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC) It doesn't mean we can make this decision based on what he might do. Just because we suspect he'll violate his topic ban isn't reason enough to indef. him now. We're judging based on what has already happened. CycloneGU (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Just like to say, come on, speak English and speak truthfully, so many people pandering around saying "ooh I hope it doesn't violate wiki-something law" or "really, he only socked on another WP and blatantly owned the articles relating to his organisarion or their aims", come on, this is called playing the system, check the above 'dispute' with LiteralKa: people who will engage any and all methods to twist the rules while appearing to respect them. Until WP decides to stop being the tooth fairy to internet trolls (and vandals ;-) DENY, then WP will be ceaselessly rammed up the arse by this type of behaviour IMHO, omg, Darth Vader is my Dad, please do not nominate me for adminship, I don't think I cut it. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Screebo, I take it you want an indef block. Don't blame me for being soft, Screebo...I'm fine with the indef block. Blame the lack of consensus for the indef block. And yes, some of the opposition to the indef block comes from his cronies, but other opposition comes from well-meaning editors. This proposal is merely to make sure that if the indef block fails, this guy doesn't fall through the cracks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Purple, sorry my comment was a bit late-night and rambling towards the end, but, yes after reflection I would support an indef block, I had a brief run-in with this user on this page which spilled over onto my, then his tp, and all I can say is "what a pain in the wiki". Tendentious editing, wikilawyering and so on, I don't really see how or where this user could make a positive contribution and they are a head honcho of an avowed Internet trolling organisation. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I don't see why any of those comments would matter if they were made off-wiki. Furthermore, if you're taking that line about slander you may want to go ahead and block everyone on wiki who's ever contributed to EncyclopaediaDramatica. Murdox (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Support AFAIK operating a different account on another wiki hasn't ever been considered abusive sockpuppetry. Indef-blocking for this is setting a bad precedent. A 2-month block for recent disruptive behaviour is OK, with the indef-topic ban resuming afterwards. ThemFromSpace 18:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose, prefer the indefblock. Are we better off with or without him? I see no reason to facilitate such a disruptive editor. EyeSerenetalk 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose as noted above, indef block as I can see no possible change of attitude for this individual, a self-avowed (and deceitful) internet troll, as witnessed by the Simple English Wiki incident. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I perfectly see where you're going, and agree it's doubtful he will ever contribute meaningfully. I'm just saying "If there's not a consensus for an indef block (and there may not be), do this instead, because something obviously needs to be done Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Support, but only if the indef block doesn't stick. Reyk YO! 20:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Conditional Support – I don't agree with blocking LiteralKa, but if everyone else is adamant in their conviction to have LiteralKa blocked in some form, then a limited block such as this is the best alternative. The two months will give LiteralKa to rethink his role on Wikipedia and contribute constructive in the future. If LiteralKa fails to do that, he may be reblocked. I suspect that there'll be plenty of eyes on LiteralKa's contributions in the future as a result of this discussion. If what we're preventing is COI, then a topic ban should be enough to prevent a COI from manifesting itself in GNAA-related article. I also disagree with barring LiteralKa from GNAA-related discussions. Any GNAA discussion will have many eyes and ears and a variety of participants. It's unlikely for a single user to manipulate the discussion without notice or suspicion. We also shouldn't be afraid of a user who could deliver compelling arguments. If an argument is compelling, then there must be some degree of correctness or rightness in it. If someone is afraid that LiteralKa would successfully defend the GNAA in a deletion discussion with a compelling agrument, then that someone is also afraid of free speech or situations where they're not in control. LiteralKa may be barred from editing the article directly, but he shouldn't be barred from participating in discussion. In addition, if LiteralKa is forced to use the talk page whenever he wishes for the article to be modified, then they're already doing a good job of removing most of the leeway LiteralKa once enjoyed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Conditional support as second preference to an indef block. If - and only if - the indef block is overturned, I support this proposal. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC) RE: This Proposal Every single piece of dubious editing The Cavalry has produced thus far has belong to LiteralKa. I'm quite unhappy about the consistent use of the term "they" used throughout this debate to refer to edits made by LiteralKa (whether those edits are contentious or not, I decline to comment). I'm not sure whether the implication is sockpuppeting, whether I've performed edits I actually haven't, or that we operate as one "Hive Mind". Were I to assume bad faith, I would assume that this is an attempt to mar my standing on Wikipedia to people who don't actually check the edits provided as evidence. Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to assume good faith but between rough consensus from the discussion made above and the fact that the point of dubious editing is presented to LiteralKa I'm going to formally request my name be stricken from this proposal and we come to a consensus about what to do RE: LiteralKa's possible COI. Thanks in advance. Murdox (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Here is the problem: There is no such thing as the "Gay Nigger Association of America" except that someone came up with the GNAA troll, and others liked it and joined in—the only thing known for sure about GNAA is that its supporters like trolling. By definition, assume good faith cannot work with trolls because even when they look like they are contributing positively, it is likely that they are just pursuing a line to further their interests. There is no reason to imagine that any help for the encyclopedia would arise from spending more time discussing trolls. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Cav didn't propose the above counter proposal...I did, as a well-meaning editor (and not even an editor who could block you, not that I have any desire to at the moment). I never had any intention of bringing you into the counter proposal and agree that your edits, while somewhat troubling, are probably not as egregious as Ka's (no SimWP trolling, for one) and I think it's fair that you be decoupled from Ka unless proven otherwise Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I should've made it entirely clear I meant the initial proposal Cavalry made. Murdox (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC) In favor of request as the issue clearly points more to LiteralKa than it does to Murdox. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Counter proposal I propose that we temporarily ignore WP:NOR and rename Gay Niggers Association of America to Goat Getters Association of America (GGAA) or Drama Makers Association of America (DMAA) because that's really the reason why they exist and I have to hand it to them, they've done a damn good job of it here over the past 5 years. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussing disruptive anti-GNAA proposals at the expensive of Wikipedia. Murdox (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) For the first time in my Wiki-career, I've wanted a like button. Oh wait, 1 user likes this.. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 2 users like this. ...and now that THAT is taken care of, I really do need to ask how long this particular time-suck is going to continue. Surely everyone has better tasks on Wikipedia to devote their attention and energy to. I thought this would have been marked Resolved four days ago. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter's Signature

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.

Signature is not violating policy, so there is nothing here requiring admin attention. Please join the ongoing discussion at WT:Signatures#Linebreaks if a change to the guideline is desired. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has flat-out stated that he's not interested in changing his signature, so I've brought this here. I asked him to refrain from forcing a new line every time with his signature as it unnecessarily added to the length of his comment. Essentially every time he comments in a discussion it is +1 line over what anyone else would generate. He comments 10 times in a discussion that's +10 lines of scroll just for his signature. His justification for this is that if he doesn't do it, his signature will sometimes "break". On the off chance that the comment he's written ends up putting him at the exact right spot at the side of the page, his signature will be split in two, and we couldn't have that.[42]. As pointed out at Wikipedia:SIG#Length Signatures have to avoid being long both in appearance and code. His signature gives undo prominence to his comment by making it longer than another editor making the same comment, and disrupts discussions by adding unnecessarily to their scroll. When I informed him of this, his response was to blank the conversation [43], which tells me he's got no interest in cooperating over this. This is a user who, otherwise, maintains extensive archives.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent consensus seems to be that a single line break in a sig is fine. I don't see a problem with it myself. 28bytes (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Linebreaks and the discussion on the talk page where they were told to take it would suggest otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread shows no consensus to force an editor to abandon the use of a single line break. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And it shows no consensus not to either. And taking each case as it comes, Berean hunter's reasoning for placing the line break is only because he doesn't want to "break" his signature in the off chance that the line length is within a very narrow window. In other words, he's constantly causing unnecessary scroll, placing his signature in a position of prominence on every edit for the tiny chance that his comment might fit a certain width on any given edit.--Crossmr (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not something to be overly concerned about. I agree that it's a little bit annoying and would prefer it if there weren't line breaks in sigs if only for consistency. However, it's only a minor issue and I don't think that you should let it worry you. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen worse. At least (1) it's got a link and (2) it's in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) FYI, if he replaces any space(s) in his signature with   it won't break no matter where it ends up on a page (I do that in mine), so he wouldn't need to add a linebreak to avoid that anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• The whole "unnecessary scroll" argument is silly, especially considering improvements to readability and ease of identity. It's just a weak rational to go dragging people into a dispute about, regardless.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Really? If he's heavily involved in a discussion, and commenting frequently he could significantly increase the physical size of the debate. There is nothing more silly then making a long discussion even longer simply because he doesn't want to fix/change his signature. As his defence raised for not changing it is weak at best, and the fact that Coren has now pointed out that he could change it so that it would prevent his signature from breaking, I can't see any reason he shouldn't remove the line break. And as someone pointed out they actually find your signature makes it harder to identify the poster. In a place where the signature pretty much always follows the comment, setting it apart actually breaks that expectation and makes it harder to identify. Yours is the same.--Crossmr (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Crossmr, find some encyclopedic content to work on, would ya? sheesh.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  What's to stop the user from simply hitting enter after making a comment, before their signature? It would have the same visual effect and is considered perfectly acceptable under our policies. The writing style of separating paragraphs with double newlines as opposed to single ones seems to have a much more significant impact on page length than a newlined signature. On readability and expectations, I think I'd be stating the obvious that it's a subjective matter. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Doing so in a threaded discussion like this will end up causing the signature to left-justify totally throwing it out of place, now if he then added the indents to line it up properly it would look the same, the problem is, it would still go against our guide-lines, whether one does it manually or makes it an automatic part of the signature. While double lines over single lines do contribute to the scroll as well, there is no getting around the fact that these two users are increasing the size of discussions with the use of their signatures, and for no reason. Just above we've got ohm's law giving us a whole 2 lines on a very short, and honestly unhelpful, comment. What it really boils down to is that we've got users who are unnecessarily trying to force prominence on their signatures and comments and in doing so inconveniencing other users in a variety of ways, both in increasing the physical size of the discussion and as someone else already pointed out causing confusion in trying to find out who it is that wrote the comment. This kind of signature creation also comes across as a little WP:MYSPACEY especially when combined with the utter refusal to change it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some concerning issues with signatures, this is not one of them. Ohms Law hasn't been disrupting this conversation with the linebreak after his signature, and Berean hasn't either. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that it has disrupted discussion enough for someone to bring it up here is telling. Crossmr raises some valid points. Maybe if Berean would be willing to conform with the way most everyone else signs this issue can be easily settled, but we haven't heard from him yet. -- œ^™ 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So is the perceived disruption only due to the signature on a separate line? There are some editors who post each sentence on a separate line and never indent. Surely that would be more of a disruption than a signature on its own line. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:55, 4 August 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.

Violation of NOTCENSORED

Resolved

 – Page is at MFD, no admin action needed here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could remember how I found this, but I was probably just idly following links. Nevertheless, User:Jeffwang/censor is a userspace-created fork of WP, called Project Censorship, "the project to censor inappropriate things on the English Wikipedia, for people who prefer it." This is a pretty blatant violation of policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and obviously, what is being censored is not objective, but subjective to the user's ideas. Could someone look into this and perhaps direct said editor in a more productive direction? MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While there's a presumption that "what happens in userspace stays in userspace", I'm thinking this runs afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Depending on how large that "side project" has gotten, perhaps it should be pointed out to them. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've sent the pages to MfD and notified the editor. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jeffwang. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user ID "wang" is a semi-subtle joking reference to what he's trying to censor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AGF there. Wang is also a (rather common) Chinese family name... According to zhwiki, 7.25% of Mainland China population had last name Wang in 2007 census, and Taiwan's 2005 census has 4.12%. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Not resolved. User:Jeffwang is now claiming that he is "retired", but will continue to edit. The two claims are mutually exclusive. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He hid my notification that I had reopened this discussion on his Talk page, which is his right, but the edit summary he used indicates that he will no longer interact with others. This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't much to discuss until we see if and how he continues editing. If he edits non-controversialy all is well. If he edits controversialy and then refuses to discuss the matter it can be handled then.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BilCat

Inclusion of material not supported by sources, removal of sourced material, abuse of tags, disrputive editing and personal insults. In fairness, I point out that a few days ago we were involved in a normal dispute on the talk page. Then today he has degenerated before the evidence of the facts. If he had not insulted me personally, probably I would be limited to request a third opinion. Here the history.--Enok (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just now saw that the required notification was not posted to BilCat's Talk page. I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the insults, as I was quite angry at that moment. Please not that this user has engaged in edit warring thoughtout this dispute, including removing dispute tags that I have added on several occasions, all without any consensus to do so on the talk page. I have tried to stick to no more than 2 reverts thoughtout this dispute, while the user has abused this on several occasions, and has a history of doing this. I'm not excusing my own behavior today - I lost my cool. I won't do it again, nor will I make any more reverts on the page in the next few days expept those to restore deleted content that is still under dipute. I again ask the user to referain from removing material while the matter is still in dispute, and I will report him for edit warring if he does it again. - BilCat (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• My 2 cents here, this is clearly a content dispute, you should head to WP:Dispute resolution (and the related WP:Dispute resolution requests) to ask for help instead of you (being a relatively new editor) pushing your personal view and refusing to get the point as stated by an established contributor such as Bill. As far as I can see, Bill has provided you with all the necessary explanation in the discussion page of Talk:Amphibious assault ship#Italian amphibious assault ship while you are still disputing them. Like I said, WP:Dispute resolution (and the related WP:Dispute resolution requests) should be your next stop. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the dispute, I have requested a third opinion on the special page. This is not the subject of this report. In practice there is no penalty for behavior of this user? On the contrary, who receives a long and interesting telling-off is me (on my talk page). Thanks. I hope you do not have in-depth about the history of that article, otherwise it would be sad. @Alan the Roving Ambassador. I'm sorry, I never used this kind of special pages. If I was calmer, I would have more accurately read the instructions. --Enok (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Dave1185 here. Normal content dispute which has become heated. Time to bring in some other opinions. I will support this process as best I can. --John (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the article's history, I'd say that both editors should be blocked. However, if both parties are going to enter into discussion, maybe we could fully protect the article for a week to give them time to find some common ground. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Full protected one week. I will engage with the editors concerned and try to draw in some other opinions by posting at project space. --John (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

History merge

Hello, I was looking at Royal Canadian Mounted Police Foundation (which I reviewed via AFC), and a notice was posted requesting a history merge with another draft of the same page. I've finished the necessarily work on the page, and need the page history of the draft merged into the article. The draft can then be deleted. Thanks! --Nathan2055^talk 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) already histmerged the article, which is actually in pretty poor shape and (IMO) should not have been accepted via AfC. Then again, I haven't reviewed any AfC submissions for a few months, so I'm probably behind on the guidelines there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is in bad shape, especially in the matter of sources, but the topic seemed like it was covered so I accepted it. It is ranked Start-class and has a several tags on it, so it should be cleaned up eventually. --Nathan2055^talk 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No no no. The reviewer needs to clean it up before accepting the submission. AfC is not about leaving trash out for others to pick up. This is one of the reasons why I stopped bothering with AfC—there was always too much garbage going out that could have been resolved with a ten-second edit (removing the unsourced and poorly-sourced material so long as the remaining content could still support an article). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I found copied content (both copyvios from the external website, which is not compatibly licensed,and copying from other articles which was not attributedSame contributor, so this much is okay), and it's certainly not neutral: "This auction gives buyers the opportunity to purchase horses with wonderful dispositions. Many have been well trained and Hanoverian certified, from the world famous Musical Ride breeding program." Why don't the submitters have to correct these kinds of problems before they're moved into mainspace? </confused> --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They're supposed to—the submission should have been "declined" with a note left to the creator explaining the issues. Now I'm tempted to start helping at AfC again. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan

Hello, User:MarshallBagramyan in Mubariz Ibrahimov article, blanked a section about the person's death without constructive reason, while just putting link to Mardakert Skirmishes which does not fully cover Mubariz Ibrahimov's death. Here is the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mubariz_Ibrahimov&diff=442269490&oldid=442124795 Even though, his grammatical fixing of errors are considered fine but he still removed again, without construtive reason and now blames me for fixing his blunders. One more time section blanking noticed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mubariz_Ibrahimov&diff=442530605&oldid=442527162

I ask admins to take action against him as he did not follow neither talk page rules or my warning and he already as far I know banned few times for his anti-Azerbaijani agenda. --NovaSkola (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already expressed my confusion regarding Novaskola's baffling explanations. I did not blank any section; in fact Novaskola's first edit reverted all my changes without distinction. My edits not only added about 700 kb of information but also adjusted several figures which had been inflated by previous editors. In two of his blind reverts he re-inserted the blatantly inaccurate claim that this soldier was responsible for killing 200 other soldiers in a brief skirmish, when the sources can't even agree if the number was perhaps closer to 5. He merely chose to cherrypick which edits he found fitting and which worthy of exclusion. Also, as stated on the article's talk page, I provided the details revolving around this individual's death, a fact which Novaskola apparently did not find important, but which I suspect has more to do with suppressing the rather controversial nature of his death. I find this report and its author's comments frivolous and find it all the more surprising that he is making unfounded allegations against me when they can better be ascribed to them. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not cherry pick, it is violation of Wikipedia's rules. By using section blanking, you wanted just like as some of your previous contributions to erase information about the actions that critical of Armenia. I am not going to waste my time and argue with you, I think it is enough for admins to check this user's background history to see how many anti-Azerbaijani actions has been implemented by this particular user. --NovaSkola (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I can confirm that Marshal Bagramyan did not do what NovaSkola accused him of. The subject of the article died in a skirmish that we have an article on - he added the link to the skirmish, and rewrote some of the text, he didn't blank the section. In fairness, it may have appeared that he did because of the quirks of the Mediawiki interface. NovaSkola seems to be coming at this with some sources which definitely have an agenda - Marshal Bagramyan's sources may be merely cautious, or they may have a pov as well. I don't know enough about the subject to say.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sergeispb-10 and the Norma Stitz article

Resolved

 – 3-day block confirmed by Chzz. No further action needed at the time. CycloneGU (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This inexperienced editor has added a strange little anti-pedophilia paragraph to the article on fetish model Norma Stitz, over and over, despite objections from multiple editors. The disputed text, which doesn't seem to have any genuine relevance to the article subject, was originally added several times by an IP, leading to the article being semi-protected. Tabercil has given the editor a final warning (yesterday), but the edit warring continues. Sergeispb-10 has also issued a rather odd threat, which probably violates WP:NLT although it's impossible to take seriously: I think can to be scandal in the case of address to FBI [44]; and some of his other comments there accuse editors who disagree with him of "latent pedophilia's lobbying". There seems to be a bit of a language barrier here, but the main problem is that the editor is entirely unwilling to engage rationally.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

He needs to stop acting like a boob. Seriously, there's a large language gapt here, and I'm not sure if he really understands what we are telling him. That being said, the rhetoric coming from him needs to be ratcheted down a few notches. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a language barrier? He's posting incomprehensible gibberish. It's word salad. I don't think a WP:COMPETENCE block would be out of line. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of dressing goes best with word salad? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Raunch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite a pickle to be in. I don't relish it. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lettuce move on SPhilbrickT 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll note I tagged it already. =P CycloneGU (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Well given the content of his edits to articles other than Norma Stitz, I'm suspecting he's Russian. The warning I gave yesterday was for 3RR and he's continued since then. Yes it is a day later but this editor started this back as an anon IP - see here. As such a 3RR block for that is perfectly justifiable and is exactly what I'm about to met out. The editor does seem able to add valid information (assuming the sourcing on those Ethopian-related article edits holds up), so I'm just going to give him a 3 day vacation. If the gallery thinks that's too long/too short, feel free to correct. Tabercil (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed this, and I believe the 3-day block was appropriate in this case. I added some comments to the user [45]. I think we're done here?  Chzz  ►  16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Extra eyes, please

Resolved

 – Socking detected and blocked by DeltaQuad. CycloneGU (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Running through the recent-changes list this morning revealed what may (or may not) be an incipient problem. A "new" user, Danteas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has marked several other user accounts as sockpuppets using the {{sock}} template. A quick look in the SPI archives shows what looks like a mix of correct and incorrect applications of that template. Could another set of eyes look these over and verify whether someone's actually trying to be helpful, or is on some sort of warped vandalism spree? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I undid some, which didn't look valid. There were 3 'valid' changes, changing the sock-master from Ghost109 (talk · contribs) to Arisedrew, which accords with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arisedrew/Archive, so I left 2 of those, the 3rd had already been reverted as vandalism by another user [46] which I think isn't correct.

The users only other edit thus far was to an article [47] which I undid for the reason in the edit-summary [48].

So - not disruptive, per se. Unlikely a new user, but AGF applies, for now - unless others know of anything?  Chzz  ►  16:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've informed the user of this discussion, and explained my edits on their user talk page.  Chzz  ►  16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm As many courtesy notifications as I've done for others, one would think I could remember to notify another user when I start a discussion myself. Thank you for letting them know. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 Blocked He's socking, See SPI. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bokan995

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tnxman307. CycloneGU (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bokan995 (talk · contribs) is adding disputed sources (eg a travel book by a journalist) to Medes. Two editors including myself have reverted him and there is a discussion, initiated by me but with two other editors now involved, on the article talk page. He's been asked to contribute there but he simply re-inserts his edits, using edit summaries to assert that his sources are reliable. I've asked him a number of times to communicate but he has never responded on either user talk pages (including his own) or article talk pages. Although there is obviously a content dispute, the issue here is failure to communicate and edit warring - my last post to his talk page said "I am asking you again to use Talk:Medes to discuss your edits. Two other posters have responded to me there but you haven't. You really should not reinstate your edits without consensus now" which he ignored, simply reinserting his edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

G-Zay user conduct

I have had various encounters with G-Zay, and have followed the edits long enough to think his contributions won't work out with that attitude: namely tendentious editing, adding original research, giving undue weight and going against community consensus. Just a few examples:

• Original research on Hiroyuki Ito: Following continuous notices ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53]) that sources will be needed for the designer's involvement in Rad Racer, Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy II, G-Zay keeps re-adding the unsourced content back to the article ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]), out of some personal fondness for him. Usually waiting a few weeks to make the edits go unnoticed.

• Edit warring on Final Fantasy XII: G-Zay keeps re-adding review scores despite consensus on the talk pages of the article and the project not to do so: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] (again waiting several weeks to conceal his most recent edit from the opposing editors).

• Adding original research/edit warring on Square Enix. Removed sourced content and added unsourced speculation. Undid multiple edits by users that told him to include sources ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]).

• Adding original research or misleading/interpreted sources: G-Zay usually uses sources that do not confirm the statements he adds to articles. For example Final Fantasy X-2 (not in source, unsourced, unsourced, not in source), where he sourced the development team with an Edge article that does not even mention the development team. Also used for Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy XIII. Again done after several notes to provide reliable sources.

• Unverifiable speculation and undue weight: Makes a big effort to put unconfirmed/wrong designers in articles for unreleased games, either unsourced or with misleading sources, such as in Final Fantasy XIII-2:
  • adds Toriyama and Sekito unsourced
  • adds Toriyama with misleading source
  • admits to his speculation
  • adds Toriyama and Sekito unsourced
  • adds Watanabe unsourced
  • adds Toriyama unsourced
  • adds Nojima unsourced
  • removes source and adds Watanabe unsourced
• Same goes for Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy, where he changed around the unconfirmed writers nine times ([79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]).

This is, by far, just the tip of the iceberg. After countless reverts by multiple users and many warnings on his talk page and several article discussion pages, I started a subsection about G-Zay's conduct at the administrator's noticeboard, where I suggested another chance to let him reconsider his editing practices. But four months later, he is still on with the tendentious editing and, much worse, adding original research and interpretations of sources to advance POV statements and speculation (if that wasn't bad enough, many of the edits with original research affect featured articles). He has had many chances to learn his lessons, and has shown more than often that he does not care about Wikipedia's policy concerning original research and consensus-building. At this point, I am just really sick of cleaning up his mess and talking at a wall, so I'd appreciate it if someone finally got him in line. Prime Blue (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Still going against consensus and adding original research. Prime Blue (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The user has been warned. The "I will never stop reverting." comments are especially troubling. If the behaviour continues, he should be blocked. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he will revert the review table again. My bigger worry is the original research, as he still continues to add statements without sources. And if he actually does give a source, it's usual an interpretation where the information or person in question is not even mentioned – which is particularly problematic in featured and biographical articles. It's hard to trust him if he posts "false" sources that do not address the statements he wants to add, just because his earlier unsourced edits were reverted ([88][89][90][91] — [92][93][94] — [95][96] — [97][98][99][100]). That said, I have not yet checked some of the new references he has added yesterday, but I am also afraid I don't have the energy to police his edits in the future. Prime Blue (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm following him now. He makes good contributions, I just wish he wasn't so in love with Ito and so tenacious over the long run. --PresN 21:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's oversights of swift deletion

No administrative action required. AFD will take care of this in around 6 days time. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As an artist who has received a multitude of press (Washington Post, 3 variants of the BBC, Newslite, Reuters and many more), won a Guinness World Record, performed on large stages and played roles in film and TV - who is both humble and heart and a warrior for his art, I am appalled by Wikipedia's oversights of swift deletion. The page featuring me, not created by me, had 7 quality & verifiable sources noted below. Member KOAVF decided it should be deleted because he is a) a volunteer & b) he personally didn't find the article notable & c) the sources below were not good enough for him. What kind of thing is this, that real people achieving real goals are put down by those who don't even have the sense to do some research prior to 'deleting upon content'. I find this COMPLETELY UNFAIR, a chaos and an anarchy. ^ "10 strangest Edinburgh Fringe venues". BBC News. August 12, 2009 ^ "Musician gets record for longest single title". Newslite. April 22, 2011 ^ Season 3 Actors. Alias The TV Show. accessed August 2, 2011. ^ "A virtual first for the Fringe". The Scotsman. June 22, 2009 ^ MacKenzie, Ian. "Acts flock to Edinburgh Fringe despite recession". Reuters. June 10, 2009 ^ Ruh, Dennis. Oldenburg Film Festival. August 24, 2009 ^ Scholer, Robin. "Mikhail Tank Wins a Guinness World Record and Continues Being a Renaissance Man". Studio City Patch. April 24, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillbetold3 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) It appears this user is upset that an article he contributed to has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Tank (2nd nomination). The AfD is ongoing. It is a dispute over notability. No admin action required here. Singularity42 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC) User Koavf notified: [101]. Singularity42 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. This user is the subject and he has removed the AfD tag from the article and sent me harassing e-mails (in case someone really needs verification, let me know.) This can be safely ignored as a crank. I've told him repeatedly that if he wants the article to not be deleted, he can establish notability through verifiable and credible third-party sources either in the article or at the AfD. Instead, he decides to spam my e-mail, post to ANI, and even e-mail Jimmy Wales. *sigh —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The comment "This can be safely ignored as a crank" is inappropriate. Not everyone understands Wiki-speak, and insisting that people follow Wiki-rules when they are essentially new to the entire process isn't very fair. A simpler approach would be to clearly outline what you feel they (or other editors) need to provide for the article to meet Wikipedia standards and give a reasonable amount of time, maybe 2 weeks, for them to provide what is needed. -- Avanu (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Oh to hell with that milquetoast nonsense. Someone who goes to the trouble to harass via e-mail deserves no coddling and certainly no over-abused WP:AGF consideration. Read standards and guidelines first, then create the article. Those are the kind of editors we need to work on retaining, not the ones that treat the click-on-a-redlink aspect of the project as a personal myspace band bio page. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC) A user who shall go unmentioned (not me) once said that he was fully in support of blocking any username with "truth" in it on sight... I'm wondering if he might have been onto something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC) They didn't create the article, they are its subject. The person only has 11 edits. So I'm kind of asking for those of us who do know how things work to be classy and accept that not everyone understands how Wikipedia works and people can get frustrated with it easily. It is hardly 'milquetoast' to act like a decent host for a guest. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I sent Truthwillbetold3 a personal welcome and an offer to explain our arcane ways. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC) @Avanu No, he's a crank. He wrote me a profanity-laden e-mail asking "what I've ever accomplished" and calling me names because I nominated this article for deletion. This isn't an issue of him not understanding policy (I received an e-mail from his representation simultaneously which was professional and respectful--that was an e-mail about not understanding policy.) He's mad and rude and is harassing me--you shouldn't give his complaints the time of day or else you will end up wasting your time as I have done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC) You might be right, but also it might be just a really poor reaction in frustration. Certainly not what we want to deal with, but understandable. I hope his attitude changes. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I sternly warned the user not to do that again. Even newcomers should be minimally aware that they cannot be harassing like that; this is not "wiki-speak", this is common sense. –MuZemike 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) If he really is Mikhail Tank, then he's edited here before as User:Emperortank. An article on this topic was created and deleted twice in 2006, by him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with tendentious editing?

The thread below, up to Fowler&fowler's msg at 18:58 is copied from WP:AN per their advice. MangoWong and Thisthat2011 are two contributors who have been arguing tendentiously across numerous India-related articles, at the India project, at the Article Titles project, here at ANI, at NPOVN ... and probably in other forums also. A third contributor in this loose group is Yogesh Khandke but s/he is currently on a one week block.

How do we deal with a situation as ridiculous as, say, the goings-on at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_45#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna
• Talk:Kurmi#Source_for_Shudra
• Talk:Nair#Lede_section
• Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni#Overlinking (this was Yogesh Khandke alone)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Please_look

In their attempts to either censor Wikipedia (by, for example, objecting to inclusion of shudra in the Kurmi article per the above thread), or push an India-centric POV over Wikipedia's NPOV ethos (as in threads regarding article renamings for Ganges and Gandhi), they are raising the same issues time and time again but rarely have a policy-based argument to substantiate their positions. Indeed, they appear often to misunderstand policy but are fluent in the systemic bias argument. I acknowledge that there is such bias, by the way, but that is a wider problem & will not be resolved by going round in circles on a few articles here and there.

Edits such as this one demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, seemingly in an attempt to wriggle out of having to acknowledge the list of 15 sources presented to support a statement that MangoWong objected to.

There have also been examples of rather poor advice such as this being given to relatively new contributors, and various instances of undermining the integrity of the project.

This is occurring on a daily basis and it is wearing people out. Well, it is certainly wearing me out. There are surely far better things to do than run round in circles dealing with people who rarely present sources to support their opinions, wikilawyer to an extreme but in a way that totally misrepresents policy, and simply will not drop the bone, How does one deal with this situation? The list of examples of the tendentious repetitive disruption would be truly massive & the idea that I would have to compile the thing is daunting.

I've gotten so confused and hassled dealing with these contributors that I've been making errors of my own, btw. Eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_comments_on_Hindu_Jatis_related_discussion. Keeping track of all the repetition etc is a nightmare, but feel free to boomerang me. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is still being discussed at India Related Topics. I would suggest to excuse the shortcut that Sitush has taken to take the topic on this noticeboard before discussions elsewhere are done with, before issues can have chance as suggested by Sitush to boomrang. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have brought in an ANI on Sitush for wasting phenomenal amount of my time with unnecessary arguments, accusations, proposing things which he is not serious about, edit warring on minor issues, claiming policy says x, when it does not, putting up unnecessary warnings on my talk page, trying to revert my edits by inserting garbage sources, claiming myself agreed to things when I did not, etc. etc. etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that despite having unsuccessfully tried before to get support at ANI and other places for a perception that there is admin "incompetence" etc, Thisthat2011 is still persisting in the trend even after receiving a notice for this discussion - see here. TT is entitled to the opinion but it is counterproductive to keep carping on about something that has already been reviewed by numerous independent observers at ANI. Mind you, since they would mostly also have been admins I guess that this is a part of the Big Conspiracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only Big Conspiracy I see is the Big Bang. The rest are details. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just found an example of Yogesh Khandke's recent disruption on a FAQ page, although I note that he subsequently self-reverted. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC) :Sitush, this discussion should be taking place at WP:ANI, not here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Boing! said Zebedee thought this would be the best venue when I asked a while ago. Can I just copy/paste the entire thread? - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, cut and paste this thread there. I'll add my bit there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about MangoWong, but Thisthat2011, in my view, has become a disruptive presence on Wikipedia. Whether his knowledge of written English is truly poor or he feigns ignorance, I do not know, but he has been handled with kid gloves for over two months now. In this time, however, he hasn't learned much. His posts are both repetitive and vague in the extreme, seemingly blithely unaware of the prevailing Wikipedia standards of logic, reasoning, citing, precision, prose writing, and even reading comprehension. Talking to him is akin to talking to a child who keeps asking, "Why?" in response to every answer. It is only so long before the parent gets exasperated. I don't know if he needs a topic ban in the manner of Zuggernaut, some kind of supervision by a firm and very patient mentor, or a week-long block in the manner of Yogesh Khandke, but he needs to be given some message from the community. He has wasted an inordinate amount of time of a number of productive Wikipedians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My experience of Thisthat2011 is more or less the same as Fowler&fowler's. Discussion is utterly frustrating. Every answer is responded to with yet another question which just goes on and on and on. His posts demonstrate a complete inability to understand basic arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with Thisthat2011 as have Fowler and Paul Barlow. I have had lengthy (very) discussions with him on two occasions, wherein I have seen the same points being stated and restated, and where he tries to repeatedly insist that there is some consensus. Lynch7 19:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am yet to get any answer on why sources related to legends etc. on Hindu Jati pages are required as per strict standards of Wikipedia, when the legends/classifications etc. are religious in nature. As far as "a notice for this discussion - see here", let me know where I have mentioned anything against admins after that as well. I don't know from where Paul B is giving his opinion from suddenly. About ML and Fowler, the feeling is mutual. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the discussion are going on, I would also like to suggest a standard like WP:KnitShA meaning "Knight in the Shining Armor", where secondary sources are not presented till some time when all editors have a go of opinion in the absence of RS, and then a Knight in the Shining Armor will present the source to corner glory while an editor will be remarked upon just to demand RS in the absence of consensus. I can cite an example here, shows kind of arguments that keep going on and on and see where and who has presented sources and who has argued without sources. Calling me tendentious would be incorrect in such a case. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, is it really wise to introduce here proposals here that you have raised seemingly ad infinitum in other forums? It is practically one of the definitions of a tendentious person (see 2.9). I note an interesting thread around this diff where you mention the "knight" theory, one of a series on that article talk page where you and Mango (by self-confession, at that time editing as an IP) tied up a lot of the time of people such as Paul Barlow & Bwilkins. Your current Hindu Jati sourcing hobbyhorse seems to be appearing on all sorts of tangential forums.

You refer to the diff that I had previously mentioned regarding your attitude to admins. If you look at the timing then you will see that your comment occurred after I had notified MangoWong and after you had acknowledged receipt of my mispoted notification to yourself. There have been no such further statements probably because it has been raised here and also MangoWong warned you off doing so. But you (and IIRC MangoWong also) have for some time had a predilection for this type of "biased admin" comment. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, till now hardly anyone has given a clarity on how strictly RS standards are to adhere to on topics related to Hindu Jatis, though perhaps there are some diffs that explicitly are stated by Sitush/others about how Hindu scriptures like Puranas are not to be considered for the page because ... etc. I wonder why such exactness is required on pages related to Hindu Jatis, where many legends/beliefs etc. could be related to ancient texts and where Hindus might well have to go through the maze of issues including english-translation-of-texts, their relevant RS explanations, even proto-religions etc. to clarify details of beliefs and legends. And so this topic comes here too, along with the tendentiousness allegations. If this is not done properly, you will definitely find many people logging on Wikipedia just to point out how incorrect it is as per beliefs/legends and will be subsequently be disappointed on finding out that each of them have to prove God along with rest of the issues discussed above to make their point clearer. That is why I had mentioned the topic on India-related discussion board, which was cut off immediately and mentioned in two boards ANI and AN. An example of similar page, according to me, could be Catholic Church, where religious legends are not ignored on/similar pages.

As far as 'biased admin' part is concerned, I would like to clarify that admins should have pointed out how these pages could not have to be so stringent in the first place, a position that otherwise will emerge regardless according to me. This is high time someone makes it clear.

About this diff, the source I do not believe was RS, and the issue was settled long time ago, which you have missed, immediately after mentioning RS for the same content. It is therefore incorrect to say that the discussion was tendentious at all for anyone. Although User:Sitush gets the exact sources needed to make his point, I would like to point out that he leaves it half explained for the other side to do the explanation part very well as per understanding of the rest of people/admins. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About "attitude to admins", you have yourself stated that "There have been no such further statements probably because...", bordering on assumptions that I almost did it after warning which does not mean anything. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any thoughts regarding how to deal with MangoWong's ludicrous wikilawyering etc? An example already referred to being [such as this one this]. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

---

Thisthat2011 is topic banned from India-related articles for three months. Basically, he needs to learn how to collaborate with others by practicing on less emotionally-charged (for him) topics first. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal or already decided? Will I be able to log in and follow topics of interest in my watchlist, without edits/discussions - if this can be clarified as well please. I was going to reply of above post by Sitush, but if I am already topic banned, I am not sure if I could. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a proposal. You are entitled to comment on it. A topic ban would not stop you watching but it might stop you from commenting even on indirectly related/unrelated pages. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than introducing a topic ban on ThisThat2011, my impression is that it may be enough to advise them to study the TPG closely and to not to get involved in too many articles at the same time. The way I see it, I think ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints because of not having read, or not having internalized the TPG. Secondly, I think ThisThat2011 has been trying to do too many things at the same time. Spreading oneself too thin does not seem like a good idea to me. Thirdly, I agree that ThisThat2011 be advised to stay away from contentious issues for some time. The way I see it -- getting involved in too many disputes, without having internalized the TPG, spreading oneself too thin--seems to be the reason that ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints. ThisThat2011 may also have become worried because Sitush seems to have been behaving in a way which would suggest that he could get admin support for whatever he wants. This can have an unsettling effect on some folks. Besides this, I would like to be allowed to give some friendly tips to ThisThat2011 on how to formulate comments on the Talkpage. These are already there in the TPG, but still....Having studied the TPG multiple times myself, I think I might able to go some distance there (although I do not see myself as a "master" of TPG, to be clear). Secondly, I too am having complaints with Sitush's behavior. I would request that they too should also be examined.-MangoWong (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You questioned my behaviour here in the thread you started on 22 July and which rambled on for several days. Questioning it again, so soon after a prior thread, seems likely to be tendentious unless you are going to stick to issues which have arisen since that thread closed. However, I will accept with whatever the wider community thinks of this. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

NB: I did mention WP:Boomerang above. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is perhaps a difference between WP:Boomerang and Boomerang. WP:Boomerang is more social than the other one. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MW, it is rather disingenuous that you, of all people, are offering helpful suggestions on TT2011, given that you are the other problematic party addressed in this thread. I would also be quite leery of any offers of yours to mentor folks, as you have a terrible habit of playing Iago and trying to sweet-talk other editors into edit warring for you (most recent example: [102] where he refuses to take his sweeping allegation to ANI, but in the same breath nudges a rather bewildered but well-meaning new editor to go ANI Sitush). For any outside party curious about MangoWong, note the man's Contribution record: he spends almost all of this time wikilawyering on Talk pages, and even on Talk we have barely seen the man offer so much as a citation, or even specific refutation of any citation he disagrees with. All he does it toss around policy names, even when corrected by uninvoled editors for mis-using those policies to push POV points. He also has this obsession with removing the word "Shudra" (labouring class in Hinduism), but rather than discuss the matter professionally will hurl accusations of oppression, ignore all evidence that the term is used by academics, and even refuse to use the word, typing instead "S*****", which I submit casts some doubts on his ability to approach the topic in an NPOV manner (example: [103]). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That I have too many talk page contributions is because I am having a dispute with folks who would go through great lengths to revert citation tags, (tags which they could never provide cites for). Moreover, they have a penchant for irrelevancies and even argue about stylistic issues which can be settled by the MoS. And that newbie was quite frustrated at that time. All his proposals were being rejected for quite some time. He was even being given a week's timeframe for replies (and was expected to wait for that time). etc.-MangoWong (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three months might be too long. I would support an initial three-week topic ban on Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs) from India-related topics, with the clear understanding that he would face stiffer penalties if he went back to his old ways upon his return. Hopefully, the topic ban would force him to work in areas where he is not so emotionally invested, and give him some perspective. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I want to make clear that by "India-related topics," I mean topics that have some bearing on the history, geography, culture etc of the Indian subcontinent. In other words, pushing the antiquity of Indian mathematics in the History of Mathematics article, even if the region of antiquity, such as the Indus Valley Civilization or Mehrgarh), is in present-day Pakistan, will be considered a violation of the topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had the same experience with Thisthat as Fowler, Paul, and Lynch, I would support a three week topic ban (agree that three months seems excessive). This [104] thread at Talk:Mathematics says it all. He made some highly POV edits to the article, they were reverted, he edit-warred, then spammed the talkpage with irrelevant crap. A real time-sink. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that a three week topic ban will do it. Thisthat has been warned and advised on numerous occasions since registering and there has been no change at all in their behaviour. This is one of the latest contributions, which I can make no real sense of at all. However, I will go with the flow provided that Fowler's "stiffer penalties" condition is acknowledged by Thisthat as being serious rather than just some throwaway remark. TT appears possibly to have some difficulties with the language, and so I would like it to be crystal clear. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From my limited interaction with Thisthat at Mathematics articles, I would support Fowler's proposal for a three-week topic ban and for the same reasons. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on extensive experience with TT in a very short amount of time, I would definitely support a topic ban of some sort, but agree with Sitush that TT has a long, long history of this exact behaviour throughout his entire time here regardless of topic. Dig his Talk page, and he's been told the same things for the same misbehaviour the entire time. However, a 3wk India ban would buy Sitush and me some breathing space, and after that I would anticipate WP:ROPE coming into effect more than any real change out of TT. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not opposing the proposed topic ban, I would not see much use for such a topic ban unless it would provide ThisThat2011 an impulse to study the WP:TPG. I don't see much value in a topic ban if it is merely meant to be punitive. Unless things are explained, the same thing is sure to get repeated.-MangoWong (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support for 3 week topic ban. I think we all agree that a punitive topic ban is unacceptable. This issue, though, isn't really punitive; it's the fact that ThisThat2011 is, for one reason or another, not understanding how to properly interact with other users on article talk pages. This behavior is disrupting the ability of editors to improve these articles across a wide ranch of topics (though all within the bigger topic of Indian issues). While I've been a bit on the fence, after looking back at some more work today, I'm inclined to offer support for a three week topic ban on articles, talk space, and user talk space discussions related to India, broadly construed. It would be ideal if TT2K would use this chance to edit other topics and get a feel for what its like to edit in a less disruptive manner. Whether or not xe does that is up to xyr. Upon the expiration of the 3 weeks, TT could come back to India articles, and should xe demonstrate no improvement, it would likely be necessary to extend the topic ban, perhaps indefinitely. It's possible that it would help for ThisThat2011 to have a mentor (before and after the topic ban), though I don't know if anyone would be willing to do it. Note that, MangoWong, you would be an exceptionally bad choice as mentor, given how close you also are to the subject matter; I'm afraid your influence would likely lead TT down the wrong path. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

TT has been referred to the various guidelines on more occasions than I care to remember. It has also been suggested on several occasions that xe might benefit from contributing to articles in which xe has less likelihood of a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, neither of these numerous suggestions have had any impact at all. If a topic ban causes TT to (a) explore other areas of Wikipedia and (b) actually take on board the various advisory comments about behaviour then all should be well. If it doesn't work then TT has a fair idea of what to expect next. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Referring to guidelines is generally not sufficient unless specific points are shown. One is unlikely to find the specific point in a longish guideline. It is also possible that one may ignore to read through the guideline entirely. I don't say that it is good to ignore reading TPG. But it may have happened. And suggestions that eds with an Indian background should entirely stay away from India articles seem "not serious" to me. Nevertheless, I agree that ThisThat2011 should work through WP:TPG. And I was only offering to provide some "friendly tips". Nothing more.--MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide him friendly tips as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I went through the both the Kurmi and Talk:Kurmi pages last night I believe that both user:Sitush (the original poster of this thread) and user:MatthewVannitas are too inextricably involved in the dispute there to be truly objective in their views here. In my view, the overseeing admin here should not factor their posts in the overall decision. I still support a three-week topic ban for user:Thisthat2011. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is up to the closing admin but, frankly, is very peculiar statement to make. Of course we are involved, so were you, so is MangoWong, so is or was practically every person who has commented here. That, surely, is the entire point. This is not an issue about one article, it is an issue that has spread over many, many articles, talk pages etc. - 2.125.226.61 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) That was me, got logged out for some reason and now the edit window looks odd also. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. I was not involved in the India caste-related articles. It is my view of course, but judging from the discussion there, I believe you and MatthewVanitas are not entirely guiltless. You are both pushing for a certain point of view there, and apparently in are in a hurry to see it through. MV says as much in his post above: that three weeks will give him breathing room. This, I'm afraid, is not about his comfort. By pushing to absolutely have "Shudra" in the lead you are unnecessarily stoking the flames. Most academics, by the way, don't consider the Kurmi to be Shudras as you seem to have it in the lead. In any case, I'm aware of the problem now. Whether MangoWong or Thisthat2011 are there or not, you'll have me as a stumbling block if you insist on having "Shudra" in the lead with the kind of shabby evidence you have thus far collected. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Who said it was just caste-related articles? You have said here that you have had unfortunate experience(s) with TT: the issue extends beyond caste articles. As for the content stuff, well, you need to read what has gone on at the specific articles in full, as it seems to me that at least in one instance you have not done so. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the "breathing room" comment was not "let me get my way on Kurmi while he's gone", it was "can turn my back on Kurmi for half a moment to work on other articles without TT2011 demanding attention." Let's leave the content issues at Talk:Kurmi, but hope to see you there. Getting back to behaviour, I would dispute "guilt": Sitush and I are trying to show an array of complexities, TT2011 just likes arguing and MangoWong is convinced that a term that appears in academic literature is too obscene for polite company. Though I'm not perfect, I feel in the right here, but am open to critique. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 2 August 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.

Another proposal

I don't support that MatthewVanitas and Sitush be barred from India related topics, specially caste related stuff. They have brought forth a very important part of Indian history. Though S and MV have very little knowledge about India, but they will learn overtime. They seem to be engaged in disputes with everyone on India related topics. I would suggest that they work under the supervision of someone like Fowler&Fowler who has a lot of experience about India. Fowler&Fowler can help them improve the articles. I hope that Fowler&Fowler will agree to such a proposal. MatthewVanitas and Sitush want to improve te articles, but due to their limited or no knowledge of the topics they end up damaging the contents. I hope they don't get punished for:

• taking ownership of articles
• biting the new comers
• POV pushing, etc.
• I hope these guys don't get WP:Boombrang.

I know they may not be involved in such practices, but due to their limited knowledge of the topics they seem so. Nair, Yadav, James Tod, Kurmi seem to be distorted beyond recognition. There may be other India topics, but it takes a lot of time to assess the damage. I know they are trying to improve the articles, but are limited in their knowledge. I hope that having a good mentor will help them come up to speed. Qxyrian is another editor who may benifit from such a mentorship. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I too have the strongest impression that the articles have a weird look. They seem to be in complete contradiction with reality. I too have suspicions that ownership has become an issue. And the James Tod article just wont look like unmalicious.-MangoWong (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What?? Okay, be calm, be calm... Let me just try to say this as simply as possible. I have not personally talked to a single editor on Wikipedia who does as much in depth, detailed research as Sitush. Period. I have no idea where either of you got the impression that any sanction against Sitush or MV is in any way recommended by anyone. Saying Sitush (I know less about MV) has "limited or no knowledge" either proves you haven't paid any attention to the article talk pages in question, or are simply being intentionally inappropriate. I've known Sitush to read dozens to hundreds of pages out of books when other editors read only the one paragraph they could see on Google books. A simple glance at Talk:Kurmi demonstrates Sitush showing more intricate knowledge of the sources than everyone else on that talk page combined. While there have been times over the last few weeks where Sitush has come to speak abruptly and strongly, this is only due to the extreme POV warring being carried out, the extremely malicious off-wiki claims, and an amazing amount of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your concerns here, Nameisnotimportant, are extremely misplaced. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify: I'm sure there are other editors who do as much or more research than Sitush. Many of our articles are great and well-researched. I'm simply saying that Sitush is the best I've personally talked to and worked closely with thus far. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Conduct need to be looked into

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing

OK. Please explain this comment by MatthewVanitas - I would caution you against the goading of TT2011 and particularly MangoWong (fresh off a block). MangoWong has shown a clear pattern of trying to get other editors to fight his fights for him; note on Talk:Yadav he makes allegations worthy of an WP:ANI report, but then refuses to make them himself, but encourages you to make one. You'll note MW does very, very little constructive work on articles himself, but hangs about Talk pages adding hostility, and goading others into fights. To make an analogy: he's that guy at the corner pub sidling up to his "friends" and saying "Oi Ted, did you hear what that bloke said about your mother? You're not gonna stand for that, are you???" He's a cheerleader for conflict, and I'm probably remiss in not having an ANI on him already.

Qwyrxian:Please add the appropriate wikipedia policy that has been violated. What do you think of this???? You are an admin.

I am surprised. Admins please take this thing into consideration how MatthewVanitas is going about killing the reputation of two editors. This is gross misconduct. Please look into this serious misbehaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing

Nameisnotimportant (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer to this specific instance of MW refusing to file an ANI yet encouraging Bill to do so above, and here's the diff again.[105]. If you look at the timestamps, it was this diff which led me to drop in to say hello to Bill and give him overall advice (its in the link you give but not copy-pasted here) including encouraging him not to let MangoWong talk him into filing claims MW had pointedly refused to file himself for whatever reason. I fail to see how this is "killing the reputation" so much as publicly stating concerns about the work of others in the context of telling a new editor that he's walked into the middle of a difficult and heated discussion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush has a long history of saying uncivil things. And you always keep trying to slander others in a direct/indirect way. Lots of users have been driven away by you guys (through incivility, stubbornly refusing to agree to anything, getting block on them etc.) and When I had put up that comment, it was because you had made an apparantly uncivil comment to the new user. I had said what I had said in order to inform the new user that he has protection + to discourage you guys from misbehaving with new users. If I find you saying uncivil things to new users again, I think I will do so again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas - I hope this will help you. I am not sure what all other policies may apply on the sweeping claim made above, but I hope this will not be repeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attack This section seems more relevant :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F

This repeated coming to ANI is becoming a serious drain of time. I hope at least something will be done this time.

I will assume WP:AGF and hope that Sitush and MatthewVanitas will learn from this, and possibly won't do this again. MatthewVanitas: I hope you will retract your statement, and if possible apologies to the editors. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admins: I encourage you to look into this repated behaviour. This is becoming a serious headache now. Fowler&fowler never had any interaction with these guys, still he got the picture crystal clear. Please look at Talk:Kurmi. They are into serious issues with him too. Please do something so that we can get rid of such useless time waste. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can agree a little bit that the message from MV is a little strong, but I don't think it crosses over into being a personal attack (other more objective admins may disagree, though). I think there is a very real concern with MangoWong giving advice to new editors, despite not having a clear grasp on our civility, reliable sources, or neutrality policies; thus, I read MatthewVanitas's comment as a sincere attempt to save a new user from getting bad advice. You're right, this repeated coming to ANI is a waste of time; this would be fixed if editors acted more like Sitush and MatthewVanitas, and less like Mango Wong and Thisthat2011--that is, if they looked at reliable sources, listened when others explained policy to them, didn't keep repeating the same thing over and over again, etc. Also, as always, other users are more then welcome to join us at Talk:Kurmi--i think having more univolved, neutral editors will absolutely help the situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: This reminds me of a famous quote:-

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about."

I hope that this is not the reason that certain sources are termed as unreliable.

Qwyrxian: What do you think user:Fowler&fowler was doing? He got involved in this mess because of Sitush. Actually, he is the one who had issues with ThisThat2011, but still he can see clearly. You have concerns that this is bit strong?? For how long things will be swept under the carpet. I have my doubts as to why would you think in such a manner. Anyways, it's crystal clear that gross miscounduct is happening, and things are just being brushed aside. 

It would have been OK if this unreliable sources phenomema was happening on Kurmi, but this is a major concern across all the topics these two editors have got involved into. Why so?

Admins: I have nothing more to add, and I would have not bothered to enter into this if not initiated by Sitush into this. I know nothing will happen to Sitush or MatthewVanitas even if every diff, proof, editor, etc. says otherwise. This entire situation around these articles due to the conduct of certain editors is grim and hopeless. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, aside from the unnecessary bolding, it is encouraging to see a newcomer with such an extensive knowledge of policies and guidelines even if they appear to be being somewhat misapplied. It may even be unique in my own experience, although the misapplication is very similar to that of MangoWong/TT2011 & so perhaps there is some scope to review the wording of the policies to which you refer. I am sorry that you feel myself and Matthew Vanitas are somehow above the system but can assure you that we are not - you either believe that or you do not, but either way it is in fact true. I am unsure where I have "initiated" you into anything. I did notify you of this thread when it started, but that was just a common courtesy. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying that I misapply policy. I don't believe that putting up cn tags in the lead or infobox is wrong. I don't believe trying to use the MoS to settle stylistic issues is wrong. Show me the policy which says so, and you will not see me do it again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The list is pretty long and often convoluted due to the tendentiousness etc. A clear-cut example is this. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Or this to a new contributor, which mis-states things entirely. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Or this which was a complete misunderstanding of 3RR. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The first example which you provided does not seem to be a misapplication of policy to me. I was saying some general things without citing any policy except for WP:CIVIL. I had cited WP:CIVIL because you had asked me to go away from WP, at a time when we had hardly had any interaction. Is it wrong to regard that as a violation of WP:CIVIL. The other things which I said were without citing policies and they were general things. Which policy did I misinterpret? I don't see what could be wrong in the second example. I am trying to show some argument to the new user. What is/is not fringe can be a contentious thing. I even warned the new user about it. It is something which can be decided only after a discussion. Even if my view in that matter be incorrect, I don't think that it is wrong to put up an argument of that sort. If the thing be fringe, we would not need to have it in the article. At least that much should be correct? In the third example, you show the 3RR. I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. After that mistake was pointed out to me, I accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. I did not argue that my reading or interpretation of 3RR is different and that it only is correct. Did I? That is not a misinterpretation of policy. I had accepted my mistake immediately.-MangoWong (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In the first instance you were told that you had got the wrong end of the policy stick (on several different counts) by the admin to whom you complained, and you are repeating here an allegation that was and remains untrue: I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else but rather suggested that there are other places where you can contribute if you do not like the way things work here. The second example is quite astounding and various people picked up on it. The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. I could dig out more examples but right now am actually trying to do something useful here. There is nothing wrong with not understanding policy etc but when you start arguing the toss about it and you start passing on your lack of understanding to others then it becomes problematic. The idea is that you learn but, no, you are still now claiming, for example, that a cite request in an infobox is justifiable even though the article contained a cite; and you are still saying that you would prefer it if a historically certain was omitted because "it is a lie". You have been told time and again where you can go if you don't like the system but you more or less consistently refuse to use the options that are suggested to you, be they here on Wikipedia (RSN, DR etc) or elsewhere, preferring instead to keep rattling cages. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain this Sitush: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurmi&diff=prev&oldid=442109883 I hope this comment was in WP:AGF, and not because anyone with a different view is definitely WP:MEATPUPPET.

Admins: If anyone is ever blocked, does the block makes the editor someone lesser than the others? I am not sure why Sitush feels that way - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yadav&diff=prev&oldid=441934534

Bill has a decent brain and doesn't need your wikipolitics corrupting him. You are the only one out of us four who has been blocked from editing and that is hardly a good recommendation for your advice etc, is it? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, about the first diff, [106]I have already said that I was only talking about one policy in there (WP:CIVIL). The other policy which came up was WP:CANVASSING. I think there is some misunderstanding there. I was talking about some other instance of canvassing and the admin appeared to be explaining something else. I don’t think there is a misinterpretation of policy on my part there. I wasn’t talking about any other policy there. Here’s the diff [107] of you asking me to go away from WP. (At least I interpret it in that way). And I think it was your first ever comment to me. Whether or not it is a violation of WP:CIVIL is for the community to decide. Salvio seems to more or less accept that it may be a violation, but seems to regard it as not serious enough to require a warning. In that comment, you are assuming that I don’t like WP:V and WP:RS, and asked me to go away because of that reason. Actually, I think the sourcing policy (WP:V) is excellent. Your assumption is baseless. I do not understand how you could assume something like that about me even without having had much interaction with me. I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else… I think you did tell me to go edit somewhere else. What you are saying seems untrue to me. About the second example, you have not yet explained what policy I misinterpret, and how. Various people pick on it does not mean I am misinterpreting any policy. About the third example The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. This is an untruth on YOUR part. If it is not, please show a diff to prove that I argued anything about it after it was pointed out to me that I had misread the timestamps. I had provided four diffs of reverts by you, and after it was pointed out that they were not within 24 hours, I had accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. There was zero argumentation about it. And where did I confuse 3RR with edit warring? About the cite request in the infobox, it was put up because the article DID NOT have any valid cite for the line which I had tagged [108]. You did put in one ref once, [109], but it was unsupportive of the material (i.e. a misrepresentation) and I reverted it [110]. Plus, you too have now accepted that it is not a good source, [111]. It is obvious that there was no source in the article which could properly support the material which I had tagged. Rubbish refs don’t count. The material has now been deleted. Why do you keep saying again and again that my tagging was wrong? I had said that the material in the infobox was a lie, and I can still say it unless you can show some proper source for that material. I interpret the WP:V and WP:NOR to mean that anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation. I interpret them to cover the lead and the infobox too. If they are kept out of the scope of these policies, these areas would be misused to insert unverifiable and OR material. We don’t want such things on WP, do we? How was my tagging wrong?-MangoWong (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not replying to you here any further regarding these issues. It is descending into another tendentious wikilawyering farce. If you believe that you were/are correct then feel free to carry on doing so. I will never change your opinion because you have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to change. If you are/were correct in your opinion then the community will deal with me as appropriate. Right now, I have better things to do here. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

One more classic by Sitush:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zuggernaut/Archive

• The trenchant views and tendentiousness bear a likeness to those which resulted in Zuggernaut's topic ban. There is definitely something not right regarding the prolonged discussions at Talk:Kurmi and there seems no reason for MangoWong to want to avoid entering that discussion, although s/he clearly does avoid. This may be a meatpuppet rather than a sock but I feel that it deserves some attention. If it is possible to check for sleepers then that, also, might be worthwhile.

As per WP:MEAT - <quote>The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.</quote> Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, Nameisnotimportant. The word was, however, used with care and sockpuppet investigations are overseen by admins etc, so if I was really off-beam then I would have anticipated a sharp rebuke to that effect. That has never happened to me but it seems to make sense to me that if someone is clearly being uncivil etc in an arena that is chock-full of admins then they would rebuke if they felt it to be appropriate. The SPI revealed no connections. It is the only SPI in which I have been involved that has had that result, and it surprised several people rather than just me. The result was good news for the project and I did apologise.

I am not the only person who is of the opinion that there is, for example, off-wiki canvassing going on with regard to articles of this type. It is in fact a well known phenomenon but you may not realise this as you appear to be a relatively new contributor. The pattern of edits pretty much confirms it, as do some other sockpuppet investigations which have resulted in blocks and can be reasonably tied into comments made by contributors. Is it ever definite? Well, perhaps not. But experience counts for a lot when considering this type of thing. I do not have that much experience, but I do have a reasonable amount and, sad to say, in this particular regard it is growing fast.- Sitush (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, you want to discount me as 'newcomer. It doesn't take long to figure out such things. Wikipedia is really easy to master, and that's the beauty of it. I won't boast about my IQ level, my scores in standardized tests, or my being an alumnus of one of the top 10 MBA schools, as these are unverifiable claims. Anyways, let's focus into the core policy violations that I have cited. Please feel free to edit my comments if there are issues with bold letters. I hope the issue is not with WP:BOLD. I sincerely wish that we all get back to important stuff rather than wasting time here.

Admins: I hope there is no WP:BOOMARANG for Sitush and MatthewVanitas for endlessly wasting precious time. I hope there is no ban on them for editing India related articles. Mentorship will definitely help them on India related topics. These are reputed editors, just that they seem to have very little grasp on India related articles. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant unnecessary bolding of words/sentences. I won't boast if you won't. <g> - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone close this?

Resolved

 – Handled by C.Fred - nothing else to do here. CycloneGU (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lae Garden and Landscapes. Once I told the article starter that offline sources are allowed, he did a good job sourcing the article. I would close it myself, but I forgot how to. I think that the sooner this is closed, the better since the member is new. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing as a speedy keep, withdrawn nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Extremely serious and severe edit war commencing at "Sophie Scholl"

Resolved

 – We're done here then, I guess? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This IP address 50.40.243.7 keeps removing content from the page above, so his vandalism got reverted 7 times. Gave him 2 only warnings, answered the AIV report for the IP address, requested page protection, and now i'm left with no choice but to report this to you. What has really gotten to the IP address?? StormContent (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The page protection has now been put in place by Materialscientist. --Dianna (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Either the IP needs to be blocked or Dayan Jayatilleka needs to be semied too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Semied that one too. The vandal was already IP-hopping again, and had been vandalising that article repeatedly over several weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. Multiple edit wars from different IP addresses from 50.40.xxx.xxx range make up one big, serious, and critical edit war. Also, one of the biggest edit wars in Wikipedia history. StormContent (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Reynolds (actor)

Resolved

 – Taken care of by Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I need some more eyes on a topic that I don't have the time to spend on, and to be honest I don't know quite what to do about. The article Patrick Reynolds (actor) has recently been edited by User:2Patrick2 to change a lot of details and ad in what amounts to personal blogging and strong anti-smoking advocacy and advertising. 2Patrick2 has been spending a lot of time spamming anti-smoking advocacy sites over Wikipedia, even on articles that have nothing to do with smoking or tobacco. Now the thing is, 2Patrick2 is now claiming to be the person in question for the article, Patrick Reynolds. Any chance someone can take a look at that article and the user's edits to see if they're okay. I think they're slightly essay and blog like, with unbalanced views and undue weight. See this edit which contains all of them. I have warned the user about spamming external links on Wikipedia, and I have notified them about this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a 48hr block for the spam, as he had been warned already several times over a couple of weeks, and advised him about how to go about getting factual corrections to the article if it is him and the article warrants it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad our BLP subjects don't do a little more research into how to do this type of thing. Do we perhaps need to have something at the top of every BLP advising of this? Typically they don't wish to dig through pages looking for answers and it's only after being warned for something that they get any information to on what to do.

NEway, I'm tagging this resolved. Discussion is welcome on this briefly, though. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor attempted to remove Afd

• The article Aunt_Bam was listed as an Afd. The creator/sole contributer (Lilwoo93) of the article than removed the Afd from the main article. The Afd will expire in two days and no-one has commented on it as of yet. Questions. Where should people alert admins if they notice stuff like this? What should be done about the Afd? What should be done about the editor? Thank you --Djohns21 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The editor probably doesn't know Wikipedia policies on this stuff. Just revert him and leave a friendly note on his user talk page welcoming him to Wikipedia and letting him know how to comment at the AFD discussion. --Jayron32 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a set of uw-afd warnings, but a personalized message is always good too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock request.

User:201.245.212.89 was blocked earlier for 31 hours. However User:201.244.43.102 couple of hours later starts to vandalize similar pages. By doing a geolocate both IP addresses come from the same source. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious in the edits, so I'm going to leave that for a less tired admin. That said, the range is a /15, which is larger than Mediawiki lets us block, and doing so for two abused IP's would be quite overkill, as it would be blocking 131,072 individual IP's. Courcelles 04:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ST47

Resolved

Perhaps it is a Huggle bug but I believe that ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be blocked temporarely due that he is reverting everything on the page 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album). Maybe that or I don't know what's happening. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks really odd to me [112] (immediate reverts with no reply at their talk). Anyone knows a technical (HG-related) glitch which can cause this? Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the response on his talk page, and bug report filed, there's no need to block at this point in time, as he has aborted Huggle and stopped the immediate problem. Courcelles 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Extremely serious and severe edit war commencing at "Sophie Scholl"

Resolved

 – We're done here then, I guess? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This IP address 50.40.243.7 keeps removing content from the page above, so his vandalism got reverted 7 times. Gave him 2 only warnings, answered the AIV report for the IP address, requested page protection, and now i'm left with no choice but to report this to you. What has really gotten to the IP address?? StormContent (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The page protection has now been put in place by Materialscientist. --Dianna (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Either the IP needs to be blocked or Dayan Jayatilleka needs to be semied too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Semied that one too. The vandal was already IP-hopping again, and had been vandalising that article repeatedly over several weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. Multiple edit wars from different IP addresses from 50.40.xxx.xxx range make up one big, serious, and critical edit war. Also, one of the biggest edit wars in Wikipedia history. StormContent (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Reynolds (actor)

Resolved

 – Taken care of by Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I need some more eyes on a topic that I don't have the time to spend on, and to be honest I don't know quite what to do about. The article Patrick Reynolds (actor) has recently been edited by User:2Patrick2 to change a lot of details and ad in what amounts to personal blogging and strong anti-smoking advocacy and advertising. 2Patrick2 has been spending a lot of time spamming anti-smoking advocacy sites over Wikipedia, even on articles that have nothing to do with smoking or tobacco. Now the thing is, 2Patrick2 is now claiming to be the person in question for the article, Patrick Reynolds. Any chance someone can take a look at that article and the user's edits to see if they're okay. I think they're slightly essay and blog like, with unbalanced views and undue weight. See this edit which contains all of them. I have warned the user about spamming external links on Wikipedia, and I have notified them about this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a 48hr block for the spam, as he had been warned already several times over a couple of weeks, and advised him about how to go about getting factual corrections to the article if it is him and the article warrants it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad our BLP subjects don't do a little more research into how to do this type of thing. Do we perhaps need to have something at the top of every BLP advising of this? Typically they don't wish to dig through pages looking for answers and it's only after being warned for something that they get any information to on what to do.

NEway, I'm tagging this resolved. Discussion is welcome on this briefly, though. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor attempted to remove Afd

• The article Aunt_Bam was listed as an Afd. The creator/sole contributer (Lilwoo93) of the article than removed the Afd from the main article. The Afd will expire in two days and no-one has commented on it as of yet. Questions. Where should people alert admins if they notice stuff like this? What should be done about the Afd? What should be done about the editor? Thank you --Djohns21 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The editor probably doesn't know Wikipedia policies on this stuff. Just revert him and leave a friendly note on his user talk page welcoming him to Wikipedia and letting him know how to comment at the AFD discussion. --Jayron32 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a set of uw-afd warnings, but a personalized message is always good too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock request.

User:201.245.212.89 was blocked earlier for 31 hours. However User:201.244.43.102 couple of hours later starts to vandalize similar pages. By doing a geolocate both IP addresses come from the same source. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious in the edits, so I'm going to leave that for a less tired admin. That said, the range is a /15, which is larger than Mediawiki lets us block, and doing so for two abused IP's would be quite overkill, as it would be blocking 131,072 individual IP's. Courcelles 04:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ST47

Resolved

Perhaps it is a Huggle bug but I believe that ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be blocked temporarely due that he is reverting everything on the page 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album). Maybe that or I don't know what's happening. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks really odd to me [113] (immediate reverts with no reply at their talk). Anyone knows a technical (HG-related) glitch which can cause this? Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the response on his talk page, and bug report filed, there's no need to block at this point in time, as he has aborted Huggle and stopped the immediate problem. Courcelles 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

John254 sockpuppet suspicions

Given the results of the CU, there is no admin action required here. 28bytes (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recently, there has been some off-site discussion regarding whether certain users might be sockpuppets of User:John254, a banned disruptive editor. One of the most suspicious accounts is User:Cbrick77, who has extensively commented at the Cirt-Jayen ArbCom case. This user account has less than 250 edits, the first of which was on April 20 of this year. The account holder claims to be (1) a new editor and (2) 16 years old, both of which I find highly implausible after reading their contributions. We know that John254 has a history of using sockpuppets to disrupt Arbitration cases; he was banned when he was discovered using both John254 and User:Kristen Eriksen to argue both sides of the same case. He later used another confirmed sockpuppet, User:Chester Markel, to open the MickMacNee ArbCom case and make various proposals, before he was discovered and again blocked. Now we've got another new account making extensive edits to Arbitration and making questionable claims about his identity... do I hear quacking? *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC) In general, the best way to handle this is by WP:SPI. Sure, checkusers who could look into the issue DO check this noticeboard as well, but the advantage of using SPI is for filing purposes: keeping all of the sockpuppet reports and checkuser checks in one location makes it MUCH easier to track a sockpupetteers behavior and make it easier to spot trends. If we just have sockpuppet discussions on this board, we can of course resolve the case for the specific sockpuppet account, but that resolution doesn't help the overall situation. For that reason alone, I would recommend starting a formal SPI case. If you wish, you can link that case from here so we can have the discussion at the SPI case page. But I really think that sockpuppet issues (excepting in the most obvious, simple cases) should be kept together, and this one is complex enough and onerous enough that we should be keeping this under one file. --Jayron32 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Cbrick What evidence do you have to support your claim that I am a sockpuppet? You provide no proof except my constructive edits to an arbcom case and that I am 16. Neither prove anything. I haven't been disruptive, far from it. I am active on both the English and Latin wikis (on the Latin wiki I am trying to organise editors to improve the chemical element articles) and added content to commons. Is that the actions of a sock puppet? I would like proof for these accusations beyond being new, being active, being young, and being constructive. Cbrick77 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC) All I'd add here is that, in general, when someone is accused of doing X, if they are innocent of the charge, generally react with such as "Don't be ridiculous, I would never do X". Whilst guilty parties generally react with "Why do you think I have done X?" or "What evidence do you have that I have done X"? This is a general sociological point, not a Wikipedia one. YMMV. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) But he said he didn't do it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) You turn up and comment that you write scripts , just like User:John254 and then you focus on an arbitration case involving User:Cirt , just like User:John254. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Just because this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not mean that single purpose accounts should involve themselves in disciplinary proceedings against other editors. It seems to me that for a user to be able to offer informed opinion and analysis, they ought to either have had interactions with the parties or to have significant experience editing the kinds of pages that are at issue in a given case. For example, since this is a case about CofS and BLPs, credible workshop proposals will come from editors with a history of editing articles about CofS or a history of editing BLPs. Non-credible workshops should be removed and copied to the user talk page of the proposing editor. There is no reason to clutter the workshop with proposals from non-credible editors, whether or not they can be proved to be sock puppet or bad hand accounts. Thatcher 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Yes I totally agree, well said. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I ask for proof because no one has any. I write scripts, so what? Most of Hollywood does and as I said on my talk page, I do it through a program, script frenzy. My script frenzy user page is here. I had to validate in April so that winner bar means I do write scripts as cbrick on script frenzy and I did it in April. I doubt john did that. Because I am focused on the arb case on the en wiki doesn't mean I'm not doing anything. On [la.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Cbrick77 the Latin Wikipedia] I have been working on translating and creating infoboxes for the elements. I am not a single purpose account. And I have offered my best input as an uninvolved editor to the arbcom case. I aspire to be a clerk or even an arbitrator and before throwing my hat in the ring, I felt it would be best to get experience with arbcom cases and show I can offer valid thoughts. In conclusion I have done my best to contribute to this encyclopedia. I have source BLP's and have worked to revert vandalism. I have contributed to la.wiki as well as this one. I am not a sock puppet and I am 16. And rob, if you agree that inexperienced editors should not comment on arbcom pages, why were you so supportive of my proposal and my evidence and my input into the case. Cbrick77 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I found Chester Markel's participation odd in the MickMacNee case. Equally well, for a 16 year old, as I've written off-site, the editing history of Cbrick77 is equally puzzling. Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Someone should run a check user then... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I am directed as an experienced contributor to assume as much good faith as possible, but the quacking is deafening WP:duck. I am also supportive of the comments here and at other locations that arbitration cases are not correct places for uninvolved inexperienced new users to focus their energy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC) @Eraserhead1: My editing pattern is confusing because I most often hit the random page button and see what ways I can help. @Rob: Well why didn't you say that before? If you think I was focusing too much on the arbcase for a uninvolved inexperienced new user, tell me that, I'm always willing to listen to friendly suggestions (as such, I'll try to be less involved in the ArbCom case). If check user would be best to clear my name, I'd be willing to have it done (not like I have a choice, but I'm assuming that volunteering would get it done faster). Cbrick77 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC) A user whose 5th edit is this (note the edit summary) is either (a) not a new user, or (b) incredibly quick at picking up citation templates, referencing style and projectspace tags (WP:URBLP). Having said that, I edited as an IP for quite a while and picked up quite a bit of this stuff, so .... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I came across citation tags and styling from WP:URBLP as well as WP:REFB(linked to from WP:URBLP) and studying other article styles of citation. If I remember correctly, I learned about WP:URBLP from the notice box above the watchlist, that or I saw an edit summary in recent changes with the link in it. Either way, I clicked and decided to help since I'm good enough at googling things. Cbrick77 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Other possibilities: User:Cbrick77 is a CleanStart editor who would rather not make that public. User:Cbrick77 is an undercover ArbCom agent probing the editing climate to gain information relevant to some ArbCom cases. Count Iblis (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I forgot to mention another possiblity. It may be that an Arbcom member wants to participate in the ArbCom case and wants to do that anonymously. If this is the case then it's quite likely that User:Cbrick77 = User:Coren. Count Iblis (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC) {{checkuser needed}} /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Count Iblis, I appreciate your alternative suggestions as to whom I could be, but they are also false. I am not a CleanStart, nor an undercover ArbCom agent (I didn't even know they had those), and I am no arbitrator. I am simply another editor who, through an unfortunate series of events, has landed himself in this situation on his first and only account. Cbrick77 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Iblis, if you really do think this user is a sock of Coren, the correct course of action is to open an SPI, not make random accusations here (oh, he might be Coren, or an Arbcom plant - and what exactly is one of those anyway - or he might be Greta Garbo, who knows). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Possibilities are just possibilities, not per se something to be concerned about. And that also applies to the thread subject of whether User:Cbrick77 is User:John254 or not. Because even if this were the case, as long as User:Cbrick77 behaves in an exemplary way as he's done so far, Wikipedia is better off with him contributing here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Ah, but you see, no. If Cbrick77 were a sock of John254, he would be blocked immediately, so it is important to establish whether he is or not. Hence the request to the OP to file an SPI, as the Checkusers have all the background info. On the other hand, randomly accusing an editor of sockpuppetry, without any intention to file an SPI and have someone actually investigate it, has been established to be a personal attack. Consequently, the advice to you has to be to either put up and file the case, or shut up and withdraw the allegation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia suffers from OCD? The "personal attack" charge reminds me of my aunt who has OCD, when I joked about her floor not being 100% clean. It was as if I had made her floor very dirty (like throwing dirt on the floor) and then forced her to clean it. :) . As far as I'm concerned, Cbrick77 is an excellent editor, whether he is Coren, Greta Garbo or someone else, until his actual edits prove otherwise. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Normally, once a doubt has been raised, checkusers on ArbCom do these kind of checks without a check being requested (cf Chester Markel and Risker). Presumably that has already happened. cqfd Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I haven't been notified nor seen anything about me being check usered. Though it's not required, I assume someone would tell the results instead of just letting this simmer. Cbrick77 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Accounts can be checked by checkusers (including most of ArbCom) at their own discretion, in private without notification. I would assume that has already happened and that the result was negative. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) With respect to the accused and to "clear the air" as far as the sock accusations are concerned, Cbrick77 is completely  Unrelated to John254/Chester Merkel, and is also completely  Unrelated to Coren. –MuZemike 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC) What accounts are associated to the address...is the question we really want answering - anyway - it doesn't matter who his previous contributions are under or if he is actually an innocent minor wandering by wanting to get involved in wikipedia arbitration related to Scientology - its a good offer he has made to stay away from the arbitration and that is the only issue anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid ArbCom would have more information about that than me, especially if it's regarding Scientology. All I have is what I have seen in front of me with the CU results. –MuZemike 22:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Your CU is that the new user is not User:John254, you have evidence of who the user could be but are unable to inform us? Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC) There's a reason we decline CUs without good evidence as fishing expeditions; if you look hard enough, any IP can be correlated with some other user. The question is whether that's just random coincidence, or enemy action. I'm not sure that (barring some obvious miscreant based on the actual IPs and CU history) it's worthwhile for us to continue the thread here. If the CUs find someone who is a known troublemaker who matches the IP(s), then they can do what they always do. If not, then it's not an actionable ANI-ish sort of incident. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gurt Posh and his mistakes on "copyright violations" in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 16

Gurt Posh (talk · contribs) has removing the episode summaries section in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 16 and he thinks that he added the copyright violation tag and accidentally deleted the section. Actually, the section is from the article itself and copied it to a blog without permission. I guess someone restored the article for good and block him. He's been an editor since May and has over 8,000 edits. ApprenticeFan ^work 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user. Done. CycloneGU (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what he is saying. The blog is datestamped 7 July 2011, but all the material existed in the article well before that (page at the start of April 2011). Therefore the blog has copied Wikipedia, not the other way round. However, all content you provide to Wikipedia is licensed for reuse without restriction, so there's no problem in someone doing that. I don't see why you thing it was Gurt Posh, but it wouldn't be a blockable action even if it were. I've put the content back, and I'll mention to him that it's not a copyvio - thinking a mirror is a source is an easy mistake to make. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's talk page may be tagged with {{Backwardscopy}} to avoid later confusion. Reuse must conform to the WP:Reusing Wikipedia content policy. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This section of the article is actually copied to a blog (link). ApprenticeFan ^work 07:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RaúlLoveMiley

Resolved

 – User currently blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has been making unconstructive edits to Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus related articles over the past month or so. The user has been previously blocked for uploading copyrighted images to the articles, and has been warned for edit warring with the same subjects.

Now, this user has been reverting edits I had made to the infobox of Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus (where I added more information, and merged the two infoboxes - as it is all one album, and not two). In doing this, the user did not leave an edit summary, and continued to do it again after I reverted, explaining why. I then decided to leave the user a message asking why they were doing when they were doing. The discussion was unsuccessful and then afterwards the user moved the page in anger. Doesn't look like I'll be able to get through to them, which is why I'm bringing this up here. ℥^nding·start 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The user is now moving a bunch of pages, messing up links, and the proper naming of articles. (See their contibs). ℥^nding·start 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. I went for a block at apparently the exact same moment that Reaper Eternal was leaving a "final warning." Given that they were explicitly asked to be more careful with page moves two days ago and were moving a large volume of pages I thought a block would be the best way to drive home the point since they ignored that warning, but if consensus favors leaving it at a final warning instead I'm ok with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you beat me to the draw. I warned him for moving without consensus, and blocked him for ignoring a previous warning over something else - if he does it again, he deserves another block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw all the moves and this user is becoming quite annoying. He or she is always reverting and adding false information to Miley Cyrus articles. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this has been resolved already but I too have had issues with this user for the same reasons. They pretty much to me don't seem to respect or care about what wikipedia guidlines are and if you ask me a temporary block doesn't seem suitable cause once it's over they'll be right back at it. They've already done it twice now. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 09:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If he causes problems again and I see it, the next block will be for a month. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Review and Close Needed

Resolved

 – Closed by User:Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The thread was a few hours from archiving before I posted, and no one else has commented since, so it seems we have as much comment as we'll get. Can an uninvolved administrator please review and close this thread, which originally appeared here at AN/I before discussion moved to the COI noticeboard and since to AN? CycloneGU (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Neptunekh2

Resolved

When I bring a problem to this page, you guys always talk me out of admin action, so I'm hoping someone can come up with another solution here. Neptunekh2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some learning difficulties - see her talkpage. She's been the subject of two previous reports Copyvio_edits_among_other_things_by_Neptunekh2 (Dec 2010) and User:Neptunekh2_-_long_term_competence_issues (May 2011). I tried to help her after the first one, and after the second, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights offered to mentor her. There's also User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2 and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2_back_doing_copyvios_again. I've tried to advise her [114] - anyone who works at one of the Help or Reference desks will be used to seeing her asking the same question in multiple places. She creates loads of categories that have only one entry Category:Fictional Americans of Belgian descent - I kid you not - but she's quite good at putting things into categories. She creates bad stub articles, then posts on the helpdesks asking people to clean them up, but they are about obscure subjects that no-one would think of eg Looty Pijamini.

Anyway, after a round of grief that involving getting about 10 categories deleted, and a copyvio, see User_talk:Neptunekh2/Archive_1 and Special:DeletedContributions/Neptunekh2, she discovered that Velasca from Xena:Warrior Princess was based on a real (legendary) character, an associate of Libussa. She created an article Valasca on 27th (here's what it said).

I'd rather got the ache by this point, particularly as Blade confirmed that he has had no success in getting her to communicate with him. I gave her a final warning [115] on 28th and, among other things, sanctioned her to creating articles only in userspace. She's got something of a bee in her bonnet about Valasca (or Dlasta, which seems to be a variant spelling of her name) though, because she went on to create User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta (deleted in the mistaken belief it was a copyvio). In the meantime, I suggested the topic would have notability issues, and that she should add a line to List of women warriors in folklore. She added this, which was reverted. She then added this to a random spot in the article on Velasca (the Xena character). She then created User talk:Neptunekh2/Dlasta/Temp, and asked at the Helpdesk for someone to expand it [116]. She then created Dlasta, and pointed the edit at Velasca and List of women warriors in folklore to it [117] and [118].

At this point, I'm fairly pissed off with chasing around over this, but feel I'm too involved to block her - if indeed this warrants a block. After all, I imposed those sanctions unilaterally. I'll notify Blade as well as Neptune of this report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)ETA [119], posted after being notified of this thread. I'm just finding it very frustrating. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I think some outside eyes are needed. I've been trying to get her to work on existing articles, but I haven't had much success. If there was something else I could do, I'd gladly do it, as I too enjoy seeing some of the obscure topics she frequents; however, I'm not sure what else I can do over the internet (face-to-face, I know exactly what I'd do, but it doesn't work in type). To paraphrase from what I've said earlier, I'd have no problem reviewing her contributions to articles, except I can't seem to get her to contribute much. If anyone has any other ideas, please tell me, but I'm at a loss as to what I can do short of asking for a block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I think what Elen was trying to link to was the creation of the Dlasta article. 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of you have tried and tried and tried, but we are still seeing exactly the same problems on which she's been given repeated advice. Your final warning was perfectly reasonable, but again you didn't get the acknowledgement you requested and she merely blanked your warning. You've both tried, but enough is enough. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads and The Blade of the Northern Lights should be commended for the time and effort they have put in to attempting to rehabilitate Neptunekh2, but enough is enough. Neptune's editing style, personal interaction skills, and poor communication have proven to be completely incompatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and it is now apparent that no amount of hand-holding and guidance will change that. It's time to cut the cord and block the account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As an initially involved editor, see for example [120], I have been monitoring this from the sidelines for the last couple of months. Although there appeared to be a slight glimmer of hope initially, Neptune's inability to take on board the slightest piece of advice is utterly disappointing. I agree with the above editors that Elen and Blade deserve kudos for their time and dedication and, unfortunately, Neptune appears to have tried everybody's patience and hasn't really responded to Blade's mentoring. As a huge drain on editors' resources and considering WP:COMPETENCE for example, sadly I believe there is only one solution, as stated above. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of topic, but if that Dlasta article is really copy/pasted from a 1910 source then that's a case of neither copyvio (since presumably it's in PD) nor plagiarism (maybe... at least not any worse then copy/pasting massive amounts from the 1911 EB).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's never been a copyvio, as I've explained to numerous people now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• There appears to be consensus for a block here - is there any uninvolved admin willing to enact it before the thread is archived? Note that Neptune has again started to create new, sparsely populated categories which will all need to be reviewed and cleaned up. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  And that after I explicitly told her to run new category ideas by me... if no one has done it by this evening, I'll go through them and see what is and isn't salvageable. I'm almost tempted to tag them all G5, since she created them after she was told not to, but I think that'd be stretching it a bit as there was never anything formal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That does it, I give up. She has just re-created Category:Fictional American people of Belgian descent [121], and posted at the Helpdesk [122] to ask if it's OK to put Scott Evil into it. The first time she created the category, Captain Screebo joked that she'd missed putting Scott into it - the only other fictional American of Belgian descent! I'd block her myself, but I think it would be totally out of order - could an uninvolved admin please do it before she starts re-creating categories for random parts of Canada. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rather reluctantly blocked this user. Their edits are disruptive and they are not contributing productively to the project. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Much as I hate to say it, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A mixture of relief and disappointment all round I'd say. Blade, you did do your best, she just wasn't responsive. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RaúlLoveMiley

Resolved

 – User currently blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has been making unconstructive edits to Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus related articles over the past month or so. The user has been previously blocked for uploading copyrighted images to the articles, and has been warned for edit warring with the same subjects.

Now, this user has been reverting edits I had made to the infobox of Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus (where I added more information, and merged the two infoboxes - as it is all one album, and not two). In doing this, the user did not leave an edit summary, and continued to do it again after I reverted, explaining why. I then decided to leave the user a message asking why they were doing when they were doing. The discussion was unsuccessful and then afterwards the user moved the page in anger. Doesn't look like I'll be able to get through to them, which is why I'm bringing this up here. ℥^nding·start 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The user is now moving a bunch of pages, messing up links, and the proper naming of articles. (See their contibs). ℥^nding·start 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. I went for a block at apparently the exact same moment that Reaper Eternal was leaving a "final warning." Given that they were explicitly asked to be more careful with page moves two days ago and were moving a large volume of pages I thought a block would be the best way to drive home the point since they ignored that warning, but if consensus favors leaving it at a final warning instead I'm ok with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you beat me to the draw. I warned him for moving without consensus, and blocked him for ignoring a previous warning over something else - if he does it again, he deserves another block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw all the moves and this user is becoming quite annoying. He or she is always reverting and adding false information to Miley Cyrus articles. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this has been resolved already but I too have had issues with this user for the same reasons. They pretty much to me don't seem to respect or care about what wikipedia guidlines are and if you ask me a temporary block doesn't seem suitable cause once it's over they'll be right back at it. They've already done it twice now. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 09:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If he causes problems again and I see it, the next block will be for a month. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Review and Close Needed

Resolved

 – Closed by User:Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The thread was a few hours from archiving before I posted, and no one else has commented since, so it seems we have as much comment as we'll get. Can an uninvolved administrator please review and close this thread, which originally appeared here at AN/I before discussion moved to the COI noticeboard and since to AN? CycloneGU (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Contravention of manual of style guidelines and vandalism edits

User:Ruairí Óg's seems intent on pushing a POV on boxing articles, especially where it concerns trying to enforceflags in infoboxes and that boxers from Northern Ireland are of Irish nationality in the infobox - where the nationality field refers to citizenship (which i have informed them of), without any reliable or explicit sources. This is made worse by the fact they are now trying to use press/tabloid sources which are sensationalist and frequently label Northern Irish people as simply Irish without actually referring to their citizenship.

This may stem from Ruairí Óg's possibly ambiguous interpretation of what nationality means, however Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph 3.1 states "the country of which the person is a citizen or national". However whilst that applies to ledes which Ruairí Óg's has edited, i take it to cover the "nationality" field of the infobox as well.

They have also vandalised boxing articles by removing wikilinks or references or both to the UK, Northern Ireland etc. i.e. [123] where he removes Northern Ireland leaving just the settlement Charlie Nash is from. Here where he removes the wikilinks to Belfast and Northern Ireland and adds a nationality to the lede without evidence that Gerry Storey had changed his nationality. Here is an example where they replace United Kingdom with Ireland, despite the fact Ireland was not a country then, and was part of the UK.

They have also resorted to using press/tabloids as references (which tend to sensationalise) to insist that someone born in Northern Ireland is of Irish nationality without actual proof that they actually have Irish nationality (even though they are entitled to it) - hence why i blanked out the nationality in the infobox and lede as it is highly debatable whether they identity as a British citizen or have Irish citizenship without concrete sources which none of the sources contained, hence the most neutral route in my opinion is to leave the nationality blank and just state the country they were born in. This is compounded by the fact some boxers represented both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Examples of dodgy press sources include here and here. Other press sources include here and here. None of these back up Ruairí Óg's nationality claims. Only the source provided for Matthew Macklin actually stated he had an Irish passport, however as he was born in the United Kingdom he is legible for British nationality which it doesn't say he never had, though Ruairí Óg's felt obliged to remove "British" even though "Irish" was stated along with it.

In one article they even resorted to adding in ethnicity such as "Irish-Canadian" for a Canadian boxer despite the fact this also contravenes WP:MOSBIO unless it is highly notable which in this case it wasn't as far as i can see.

Wierdly though, they seem intent on adding Republic of Ireland flag icons to Northern Ireland boxer articles, however have edited many Republic of Ireland boxer articles but haven't added the flag to them even after i removed them in the edit before or several edits before theirs, i.e. here, here, here, and here. However the above examples of Northern Ireland born boxers such as here, here and here all have the Republic of Ireland flags added in. This i interpret as a strong attempt at provocation.

This is simply disruptive provocative behaviour that the editor seems intent on persisting with.

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Ruairí Óg's needs it explained to him in words of one syllable that nationality and ethnicity are not necessarily the same thing. If it needs the banhammer to drive those words home, then so be it. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Mabuskas sole purpose in life is to go around removing the word "Irish" from wikipedia and doesnt like it when someone else has an opposing view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs like this are worrying. WP:COMMON is no justification for changing "Belfast, United Kingdom" to "Belfast, Ireland" - especially when sources on that person explicitly and repeatedly refer to the UK. There are a lot more edits like that... bobrayner (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be worried. Maybe just read the MOS and you will be enlightened. Anglocentric wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IE#Biographical_articles. Ruairí Óg's

That is a very poor arguement Ruairí Óg's which is easily countered when you look at any article of an Irish boxer (from the Republic of Ireland, or is stated as having an Irish passport such as Matthew Macklin) where i removed the flag per WP:MOSFLAG but left in their nationality as that is their nationality. I have no problems with stating Irish, however without proof that Northern Irish boxers have Irish citizenship to have them stated as Irish and seeing as we can't confirm whether they have a identify with their British nationality, leaving theirs blank avoids the POV and edit-warring problem over it.

A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial is Barry McGuigan, the article states and has a source that states he took out British citizenship making him of dual nationality however Ruairí Óg's edit here and here keeps removing it. In one of those edit summaries he clearly confused nationality with cultural identity and not citzenship despite the fact nationality here is on about citizenship. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a joke that Mabuska refers to my edits as vandalism. I may not be as experienced as Mabuska on wikipedia and know what buttons to push to game the system. But Mabuska wishes only to push his Loyalist POV and claim all people from Northern Ireland as British when they can be Irish or British. In each case I have provided a source to show that the sportsperson is Irish not British. Mabuska has removed these sources to leave information as he would wish and unsourced. Is this not against wikipedia rules to have unsourced information holding power over sourced information?

I understand from the tag Mabuska left for me that you can not have flags in infoboxed. That is OK, I have learned something new. But Mabuska uses this rule to remove both the flag AND the nationality. See an example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Wilton&diff=prev&oldid=438032691 where he removes the Irish flag and nationality and replaces it with 'British' and the edit summary 'per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality' with no source to back his claims up. This is surely abuse of the system. The removes other editors inserts with references or citing suprious inaccurate policy and replaces it with his unsourced POV.

Again here he removes sourced information to suit his POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Duddy&diff=prev&oldid=443157779

I will get new information to build a stronger case but hopefully this is enough proof of his abuse not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks Ruairi Og's, if you noticed anything at all in regards to Northern Irish boxers, i have left "Irish" AND "British" out of (almost all of) them due to the problems over proving their citizenship or whether they changed it. The same for the ledes where it simply states where they were born rather than "British" or "Irish". Yes very loyalist pov and very pushing everyone is "British".

In regards to [124], they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland, however if it should be omitted from there then so be it. However this edit Ruairi is hardly proof of citizenship and is very poor. In regards to this edit, your source doesn't state its on about his citizenship especially when the press sensationalise people especially Northern Irish people as simply Irish.

If my edit summaries are a little bare-boned i apoligse for that, but i have short time and at times many edits to make and i can't elaborate on every detail.

Anyways if they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland and are born in Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom, then how is explicit proof actually needed to state that they are British nationality when by British nationality law they are British citizens? Would the impetus not be on to prove that they have taken out Irish nationality? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The good friday agreement states that people from northern ireland can be british or irish or both. do you have a source that every british person from northern ireland have rejected their irish nationality. Do you have a source that Ian Paisley has rejected his irish nationality? if not should i list him as irish? that is a stupid argument. you prefer unsourced information to back up your POV as opposed to sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wierd arguement, the GFA says you are entitled to both British or Irish citizenship, however it doesn't automatically mean that you are of Irish citizenship for you to refuse it. Under British nationality law most people born here are a British citizen anyways, however the GFA means that here you can take on Irish citizenship as if you were born there without any problems or complications. Hence you don't need a source of ian Paisley rejecting his Irish citizenship as he never had it in the first place - something that'd make all the headlines if he ever did.

Due to this problem, its why for Northern Irish boxers i've taken the option of omitting the boxers citizenship as its problematic and very hard to find credible sources.

It still doesn't excuse your provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles (whilst not putting them boxers from the RoI) and your imposition that the boxers are all Irish, without any proof that they aren't British citizens as well and the use of highly dubious sources to back it up. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And under irish law everyone born on the island of Ireland is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. You cant have things all your own way.

I have not tried to make 'provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles'. I didnt not know that you could not have a flag in infoboxes. I know that now and have not included a flag in the infobox. To prove this you cite MOSFLAG to remove both the flag and the nationality http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=prev&oldid=443104622 This is wrong and corrupt and highlights you bias and POV. You can see that I reverted that but did NOT include the flag. This shows you are a liar. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=next&oldid=443104622 I am multiple other examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence there doesn't contradict anything i said in the comment before it. We both said entitled, which means we can claim it, it doesn't mean that we automatically are citizens. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the examples i provided above, you edit articles on RoI boxers where i removed the flag and never readded it, but added the flag to NI boxer articles. Regardless of guidelines or not, that is provocative. Also seeing as [[125]] edit was only made today after you've finally accepted WP:MOSFLAG - it is hardly proof to back yourself up with. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More examples of Mabuskas abuse of wikipedia. removing sourced information for POV 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you don't read all of my responses to you. Explainations are given. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanations are unsourced POV. My edits are backed up with references. You might be a lot more experienced gaming the system then me but the facts are the facts. Doesnt wikipedia work on references and not twisted bitter POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you have a source doesn't make it viable for use on Wikipedia. It must be verifiable and reliable and not subject to synthesis. Unfortunately your guilty of synthesis with the sources you provide, the reliability and verifiability of which are highly dubious. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So instead of starting an edit war, why not highlight WHICH sources you consider do not pass WP:RS and then we can actually have a rationale look at it and see if there are more or better sources? No, instead you run headlong into a war and screaming about all sorts of suprious policies as a smokescreen. If you saw a fighter from Belfast come into the ring in a pair of tricolour shorts, with a Irish flag behind him and the Irish national anthem blazing around the arena, you would still argue that he was British. Its bloody embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks

Ruairi seems intent on personally attacking me. [126], [127], and add in above where he has labelled me as a liar, and tries to label me as having "Loyalist POV" and of lacking neutrality despite the fact i'm treating the matter in a very neutral manner by having both nationalities omitted to avoid a POV problem in the first place. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You referred to my edits as vandalism so I call your edits POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another personal attack. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you or did you not refer to me as 'anti-British' FIRST? Gamer. Plain and simple, game the system to silence opposing views thats are backed up with FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I said "A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial" - notice how i said what you could call, not that it exactly was. I never called you "anti-British", i basically said your behaviour could be interpreted as that. Very big difference, and to be honest is backed up by some of your edits, whereas your personal attacks on me aren't backed up at all with anything - and anything you have tried to use as evidence i've explained above and you've skimmed past not responding on it. Please stop the personal attacks in your future edits please. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is yet another personal attack where i am labelled as having a "twisted bitter POV". And here is anotehr one. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So you can call me anti-British and a vandal but its not OK not me to point out your twisted POV. Let me ask you a question then if you do not have an agenda or a POV. Why is it that you only alter peoples nationality from Irish to British but NEVER the other way around? Why is it that on every page I see you in conflict on, see CS Lewis etc, that you are in conflict with people arguing the they are British not Irish. I am only the most recent person to encounter your particular brand of nastiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my last comment in regards to "anti-British". So your going to do ad hominem now. The C.S. Lewis article stated "British" and an editor argued to have it removed and "Irish" used, providing original research and synthesis. That is not a foundation for a change on a tricky situation. I was not the only editor to argue against them, and they were told to provide weight of proof and evidence to back up their stance and it wasn't given especially as most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British. Also the lede is meant to state citizenship, not ethnicity unless its important to the article (which the user couldn't prove without a degree of synthesis). There was no Irish citizenship then and most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British not Irish. I and most other editors agreed to a compromise proposal so that Ireland got mentioned. So very poor example of ad hominem. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad homie what? What about Darren Gibson or Johnny Evans. You are a troublemaker thats all. Scream and shout until the other person is asked to leave. Every article you go on you cause trouble and you spend most of your time here. Which is why you are so good at twisting everything and playing the victim. The centre of this argument is that you prefer unsourced POV material over sourced information. Plain and bloody simple. Drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Darron Gibson? Another poor example seeing as i agreed with calling him Irish seeing as he plays for the Republic of Ireland! That blows all of your claims against me out of the water. In regards to Jonny Evans, he is a Northern Irish footballer - what problem is there in that seeing as an editor was trying to remove that fact from the article. Please stop trying to find faults by going through my edit history to try to create more ad hominem statements. Although not a stranger to this place (reporting editors or commenting on cases), i am rarely ever here to spend all my time here. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that really "blows all of your claims against me out of the water". Do you not think that that is a bit of a dramaqueen thing to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack summary

As the above is heading too much back into content dispute issues, i'll summarise the personal attacks labelled at me today by Ruairí Óg's:

POV pusher, You are just an anti-Irish POV pusher., You are the most anti-Irish editor on wikipedia. shame on you., push his Loyalist POV, you are a liar, twisted bitter POV, your nasty bitter twisted POV, dramaqueen, then add in several attempts at ad hominem above, and i think there was one or two other things that i might have missed. Another editor HighKing has twice informed them to be civil.

This in contrast to me labelling a few times continued reverting of edits based on Wikipedia guidelines as vandalism (which it is) despite informing the editor in the edit summaries of the policy being enforced, and once stating that an edit could be considered as anti-British. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But you are a POV pusher, its not a personal attack its a statement of fact, you push your POV on pretty much every page you touch. You would rather try and throw up smoke screens like this to avoid the substantive issue here which is you removing sourced information that you do not like and replacing it with unsourced POV. That is the whole reason we are here. I would rather not go about whinging and balling about personal attacks because I am not an attention seeker, but that facts of the matter are that you were the one that instigated the left of centre comments by referring to edits as anti-British behaviour and also calling my sourced edit as vandalism and that I was pushing POV. You cant start giving it out and not expect those actions to be mirrored. So stop trying to play the little victim here when you instigated all of this. Simply game playing.

Lets call a spade a spade here, you go around cause trouble and when you find it you cry foul and accuse people of making personal attacks. Its your tactics and it seems to be very effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) .

If you would actually read my comments where i explain those edits and take time to understand the concept of what is a reliable source and what synthesis is then you have no arguement and why u were reverted. Ive explained myself above for all my actions and im happy to let an admin decide who really is thw trouble. Im not the one persistantly dishing out personal attacks and trying to use ad hominem claims to try to back myself up. you instigated it with your constant reversions of policy and imposing bias in regards to nationality with dodgy sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And like I said above, at no stage did you ever question or attempt to discuss the sources I put forward. You were only to happy to start and edit war and reverting sourced information for unsourced POV. There is no way around that to be honest. If you hadnt have carried on in the usually agressive confronation manner that you go about thing then there wouldnt have been an issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seeing as i only reverted a couple of articles you added dodgy sources too you dont try to act as if thats the focus of my actions. Most of your edits contained no sources at all. You started any edit warring by reverting again and again enforcement of policy such as flags and reimposing nationalities without evidence that any of those people identified as that nationality. Our actions are recorded and ill let them stand for themselves. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The evidence doesnt back that up. The only thing I will give you is that I didnt know that you couldnt have a flag in the infobox. Once I realised that I didnt reinsert the flag only the nationality.

Here is an example of your actions. On the Luke Wilton page. You swapped the nationality from Irish to British, adding NO source to back up your change. I then changed that back to the original and added a source to back that up. You then REMOVED the sourced information and replaced it with you unsourced information.

Same trick again here. Removes BOTH nationality and flag citing MOSFLAG. I then reinsterted it adding a source and Mabuska then removes the sourced information. I then reinstered it WITHOUT the flag as I had at that stage realised that you dont put flags in infoboxes.

Admin needed as nobody has intervened yet, if these two are left to it this will run all day (and night) and fill up the page with this back and forth POV name-calling. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually i haven't done any name calling if the above is read properly and read in the right contexts. Anyways yes an admin is needed sooner rather than later. I want this issue to end and be finished. I wouldn't have to keep replying to Ruairi (feeding the fire?) if Ruairi would stop distorting and mispresenting my actions when i've already several times explained them to him above, causing me to further defend them as no doubt readers may skim past vital information. And even ignoring the content issues, there is absolutely no call for the personal abuse directed at me by Ruairi - no call at all. My last comment was intended to be my last anyways, but this one will do instead until an admin steps in. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

all you go on about is name calling to try and deflect from your dodgy use of various policies to cover up your POV editing. I have shown you up for the POV editor that you are. On the issue of name calling, without trying to sound childish, although I realise it does, you started it and I only said the exact same things to you that you said to me. I am cringing typing out that post but its the truth. I wont be posting again until an admin comes along.

Obama sanction vio

Resolved

 – Block Issued for 48 hours. Phearson (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:John2510 has violated his ban from the talk page of the Obama article within the hour of it being issued. The issue he is having is that he wants to change Mr. Obama's Heritage from "African-American" to "Biracial". While this may be TRUTH. Consensus has determined otherwise. John2510 was sanctioned per ArbCom ruling, from the mainspace article, and then complained about censorship, in which his privilege to edit the talk page was then sanctioned. He then posted this [128].

A block is requested. Phearson (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. This was a very clear-cut violation, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How in the world is Barack Obama a Featured Article when it is that unstable? If we accept this as is, then we seriously need to rescind FACR 1. (e), as well as GACR 5 (both of which have to pertain to stability. –MuZemike 07:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's been put through WP:FAR seven times since it was promoted in 2007. The gist I get from the more recent reviews is that while it is controversial at times, it is still more stable and of a higher quality than most of Wikipedia. This is also only my likely-butchered summary based on skimming through them, and as always, if you disagree with its status you can open a FAR yourself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the occasional hyper-partisan who hops in and edit-wars against an issue long, long settled can be said to unstable the article. It has been quite awhile since there was a legitimate row over that article's content. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I don't know. I sometimes get confused with Presidency of Barack Obama, which I know that one is an unstable mess (also given that he's the current U.S. President). –MuZemike 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexanderalgrim

• Alexanderalgrim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please see this discussion for background.

This user seems completely ignorant of our notability guidelines, and unwilling to learn about or acknowledge them, and has been constantly and consistently creating articles about non-notable BLPs. About 2 weeks ago, another user advised Alexanderalgrim about what was acceptable and what was not, but he has compltely ignored this (as he has indeed everything for the past few years), and recently created a fresh batch of non-notable BLPs. His edits are becoming increasingly disruptive, creating a lot of work for everyone involved who has to tidy up after him. Can an admin intervene please? And would a ban from creating new articles (or similar) be suitable? GiantSnowman 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked the first six of those. They're garbage. I'll check the user page and enact a warning on it. I'm not an admin. and can't block if it came down to it, so I'll let someone else take over if a block if eventually needed. CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticed a past Level 1 warning. Upgraded to a Level 2 warning. CycloneGU (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe slow down a bit... While there have been problems in the past, and the stubs are very feeble indeed, those players are notable. According to their zerozerofootball pages, all those players have played in this year's Portuguese League Cup, which is open only to clubs from the fully-professional top two divisions. The footballers notability guideline WP:NFOOTY says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here) or cup, will generally be regarded as notable." (my bolding) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Alexanderalgrim's auto-patrolled status for now; given the concerns raised by others and his extensive deleted contributions, their article submissions need to be more closely monitored. It can easily be restored once the outstanding concerns are addressed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good spot (the site I checked, Fora de Jogo, didn't mention any appearances, even though it is usually more comprehensive) but the wider issues still stand - refusal to discuss issues with other editors, and the repeated creation of non-notable and borderline notable articles. Look at Fábio Sturgeon for example, and use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE - he has played one minute in a pro-match! GiantSnowman 14:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My point wasn't about the quality of the articles, because they haven't got a great deal. They're one-line stubs, with external links for references, but there've been plenty of them created in the general history of football coverage round here. Or about the quality of the notability criteria, which allows consideration of articles on players with very limited playing time, though it's unusual when an article on an English footballer doesn't appear as soon as he makes his one-minute debut. My point is purely that in this particular case, the creator is being warned and further punishments requested for doing exactly what he was asked to do, i.e. waiting until players pass the notability criteria before creating articles about them. And he shouldn't be. Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the warnings are deemed to need to be retracted pending this conversation, go ahead if it concludes before I'm back. I have to leave the house for a while and won't be monitoring. CycloneGU (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove the warning and de-PROD the articles, and assume AGF and believe that this user has (finally!) taken note of what we've been trying to tell him for far too long. Cheers everyone. GiantSnowman 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope he has... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ismail Javeri

Resolved

 – Was tagged by Wildthing61476 one minute after this thread was created. CycloneGU (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Could an Admin do a speedy delete of this: Ismail Javeri. It seems to be a vanity article. Thanks, --Tovojolo (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been tagged for CSD A7. (Not by me.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It was tagged by Wildthing61476. Whether it gets deleted or declined, I daresay this is resolved now. It doesn't get speedied from this page, so no action needed from over here. CycloneGU (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wonder Girls

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Wonder Girls

I've just removed this personal attack on another editor by the same block evading editor mentioned in the previous report. Should this edit also be RevDel? —Farix (t | c) 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so, and of course block the IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to get the edit where Twinkle screwed up and only reverted SineBot instead of the whole comment. —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack rev-deleted, both all 3 edits; IP blocked a week. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That page really needs protection. Any votes? StormContent (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already put in a WP:RFPP of Wonder Girls do to the ongoing edit war. Not sure of the talk page should be protected as well. —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Wonder Girls is high enough visibility or traffic to warrant protection on both the article and the Talk page. (I've only come across one article that earned both, thankfully.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems in balancing out an article.

I don't know if I am in the right place to ask for help. I am trying to fix the article on MonaVie, which I find negatively slanted against the subject matter. A couple of people have been reverting my attempts to erase weasel words that make the article seem like a slam. Can somebody help on this matter? Thank you. Wefihe (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to bring up these proposed changes on the article talk page? That would be a good first start to see if there is consensus to make the changes you request. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an 'incident' here at all. Instead, the contributor seems to wish to force through changes without debate: he/she has already been asked to do so in an edit summary. The article topic is clearly controversial, and edit-warring is unlikely to be productive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, you are edit warring against three editors who endorse the current stable version. If there are specific areas that you find problematic, bring up the issue on the talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Derp

Resolved

 – Blocked, tagged, a few other accounts also found. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Blackmagic240843, User:Ziva 82, User:Saturn 56, User:Jill Tuck, User:SeanRose

These accounts are sockpuppets of Kagome 85.

Good Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.195.45 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations in DYK on front page

I can't believe Bitar Mansion is on the front page. A large proportion of the article is about the most recent owners and problems with neighbours etc (see WP:BLPGOSSIP). No way would this be considered appropriate in a biography on someone, yet it seems to be OK because they own an expensive house?! A new editor who removed this info ([129]) was summarily reverted. I'm guessing this editor might be the person involved as they also put some BLP violations on the page of Nigel Jaquiss, who wrote a not very complimentary piece about the guy. This is a low profile individual who has been in local news a couple of times, now having their problems broadcast on the front page of one of the most widely read websites in the world. Polequant (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's off DYK now. Polequant (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just yanked all the recent history as BLP coatracking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary editor restored the information, so I've started a discussion on the article talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion on the talk page. I was doing the same after I reverted your edit, hence the edit conflict. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle by User:Τασουλα

Resolved

User:Τασουλα has been abusing WP:Twinkle to revert edits in a content dispute, using the edit summary "rvv vandalism" [130]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The user does appear to be engaging in edit warring using TW and disguising the edit war as reverting vandalism - which it is not. But this is not the place to discuss edit warring. Toddst1 (talk)

The OP has already opened an AN3 thread; this looks more like forum shopping to me... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, not sure whether it was a good idea to block Tasoula after the IP was already unblocked again. Toddst, were you aware of the unblock? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR is a different issue than abuse of Twinkle and rollback. If someone is going to use Twinkle misleadingly, they should not be permitted to use it. causa sui (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I am disappointed in 79.97.144.17. I originally blocked the user for edit warring, then unblocked in good faith soon after noticing that I missed seeing an attempt to discuss a dispute on the talk page. The user's next action after being unblocked was to report the dispute on AN3 and here. It certainly looks like forum shopping to me, and I will not hesitate to re-block if it goes on any further. I have already declined the AN3 report.

That said, I do agree with the anon that Τασουλα should not be characterizing content disputes as vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't disagree that there is a boomerang here since you seem to be more familiar with the issue than me. But that the boomerang hits the person who threw it doesn't mean it can't hit the person it was thrown at, if you follow my meaning. I'll warn Τασουλα for abusing rollback. causa sui (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Salvio did it already at User_talk:Τασουλα#Blocked_for_edit_warring. I think it's resolved then. causa sui (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I also left a note a couple of sections above that. In any case, Τασουλα has acknowledged their mistake, so this does appear to be resolved. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report this edit[131] for being a personal attack, accusing me of being snide. I have only ever tried to be formal with this editor, and apologise if over-formal bordering on rude, my English can be wooden at times. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should let this die. Attracting further attention to this situation here is not going to help you. causa sui (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Parousie

Resolved

 – Per updates within, block enacted and nothing else to do. CycloneGU (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Parousie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting on the page Lincoln (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once just after the article underwent an AfD with consensus to merge the article to Steven Spielberg and again after I told xe to bring the matter to DRV. So far, xe has been unresponsive to my message and offer to explain xe's actions. I request a second opinion on how to proceed with this issue before getting into an edit war. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced article, so I reverted to the redir, and I've warned the user about recreating it without showing coverage [132].  Chzz  ►  23:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Parousie is in all likelihood a puppet of AlexLevyOne. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne/Archive. I'll file a report later this evening and he'll almost certainly be blocked. (The bad news is that within a week or two another puppet will pop up. Whack-a-Mole!) JohnInDC (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Got to it sooner than I thought I would. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. If past is prologue, these are the last edits we'll see from this account, irrespective of when the block takes effect. JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Who said things don't happen fast in Washington in August? JohnInDC (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Windsor University School of Medicine

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.

Qwyrxian has pointed to a current discussion at a more proper venue regarding this dispute herein, so closing. CycloneGU (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I am coming to AN/I to request a review of a report made to WP:ARV. Over the past few days, User:SGMD1 has been removing information based on at least 10 reliable sources. It has become quite obvious that this is a single purpose account that has significant conflict of interest issues. It appears as though a member of the school in question is trying to remove any negative information from WP [Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windsor_University_School_of_Medicine&diff=443117827&oldid=443116546] This user has been reverted by 4 other users, each considering his edits vandalism (5 if you include ClueBot).

In the past, this type of removal of WP:RS has been dealt with as vandalism (content blanking). (For example, the exact same situation presented itself on Caribbean Medical University, where admin User:Orlady felt the whitewashing and removing negative information by the school's owner constituted vandalism and blocked them. Therefore, I went to WP:ARV to report. However, User:Qwyrxian felt it was a content dispute, because User:SGMD1 counter-reported myself. In discussions with User:Qwyrxian, he suggested I take it to AN/I for a wider admin viewpoint. Thank you for your assistance. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I certainly did not. You suggested taking it to ANI, and I told you to go ahead, but that you should beware of WP:BOOMERANG. yes the other editor is wrong to add all of those details about the curriculum added (unnecessary details/promotional, whatever you want to call it, you are correct that it doesn't belong). But the section on "Accreditation and licensing" is pure WP:OR. Unless those sources cited explicitly mention Windsor University, deciding on your own that they are not accredited in those places is original research, and should be immediately removed. Taking a source about a general rule, and then deciding that the specific case fits that rule is original research. I was hoping the 2 of you could start talking about this on the article talk page so that I could advise in a less stressful/combative venue than ANI, but, we're here now.... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the Curriculum section was not originally written by me (almost none of the content was, actually, except for minor edits) and I am not concerned with the level of detail in that section. My primary concern is with respect to the accreditation and student loan scandal sections. SGMD1 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SMGD1 just made another edit to the article after explicitly being warned about 3RR (and user acknowledged it). After giving my opinion above I now feel too involved to make a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't block me; I thought the 3RR rule only applied to reverts. I deleted both mine and Leuko's edits, not just Leuko's; this was just so that we could resolve this dispute first (I indicated this in the edit comments.) I won't make any more edits. SGMD1 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is rather late in the evening in the time zone that the offending editor is in, perhaps he is a little tired and did not understand the rule correctly? Perhaps a 7 hour block may help? Phearson (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If he acknowledged understanding it.... Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. However, since multiple editors feel this is vandalism, I felt a wider review of the situation was warranted, since since it was not handled in the usual fashion. I have been editing these articles for years, and have developed a sense of the usual consensus. For example, most of the Caribbean medical school articles have an accreditation and licensing section similar to the one presented here. There have been multiple discussions (at ArbCom, deletion discussions, etc), but in the end the consensus is that they stay. Unfortunately, the noteworthy/encyclopedic fact is that the school is not listed (i.e. in lack of approvals/accreditation), not that it is explicitly mentioned. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin Qwyrxian already determined that my edits did not constitute vandalism, so please stop referring to it as vandalism. All my edits abide by the good faith rule. Secondly, you indicate that you "have been editing these articles for years" despite the fact that you attended a competing medical school to Windsor which is a significant conflict of interest. This is evidenced on your Talk page with multiple complaints (including from an admin) about your edits to the pages for various medical schools which lack the required neutrality and verifiability. SGMD1 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I take offense to the claims that I am an SPA, or SOCK. I have been registered for four years and have edited multiple unrelated articles.

Per the edit counter, 35 edits, most of which revolves around this topic. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of those edits involve reverting your changes. SGMD1 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, Windsor University is accredited. Period. It is an accredited educational institution by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and my version cites this clearly. Leuko’s version states that Windsor University is unaccredited, which is patently false.

The Government of St. Kitts and Nevis does not accredit anything. They recognize, but they do not accredit. In fact, they utilize ACCM (http://www.accredmed.org) to accredit their medical schools (which Windsor is not, hence unaccredited). Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This link from the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis website disagrees with you: http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1 SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thirdly, Leuko’s version deletes the Tuition, Student Life, and part of the Curriculum sections. These sections are present in WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions, are not in any way “advertising” as Leuko claims, and are basic facts that belong in a WP article for an educational institution.

As per the consensus on the talk page - most editors don't feel this is noteworthy information for an encyclopedia. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

False. The consensus is with respect to the length of the Curriculum section, not the inclusion of those sections altogether. Those sections are present on WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the “student loan scandal” subsection, my claim is that the incident has a biased, non-credible source, is two years old, and does not meet the standards for large or long-term impact to/on the university for it to be included in a short encyclopedic WP article. Leuko had an almost identical conversation with admin User:Orlady on his talk page, and this particular administrator came to a similar conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMD1 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, the St. Petersburg Times is "biased" and "non-credible?" Really? I would argue that the administration of the school scamming the US Govt out of $500,000 is relevant. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the claim that "the administration of the school" is responsible for "scamming the US Govt out of $500,000" is not verifiable in the cited article. The article states explicitly that students at the Midwest Institute of Massage Therapy received $500,000 in loans, not Windsor students, and makes no claim - verifiable or otherwise - that the 26 MIMT students who received loans were students of Windsor. And as the admin User:Orlady indicated to you previously, such an incident (especially when inaccurate) doesn't meet the requirements for scope in an article about an educational institution.note, this unsigned paragraph isn't mine, so separating from mine below, but I don't know who added it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Local standards can't override core policy. If those sources do not mention Windsor medical school (or any of other schools mentioned), they must be removed. Noteworthy/encyclopedic information by definition means information that is covered in reliable sources. If it is important information that the schools are accredited, I'm sure some newspaper article, medical education journal, or other source must have mentioned the fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Most of these operations are under the radar, and that's how they exist as unaccredited institutions. It is the lack of inclusion in WP:RS (for example California's approved school list - the CA med board goes out and does site visits before approving a medical school for licensure.) Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This post of yours exhibits a clear lack of neutrality. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. The St. Kitts and Nevis government website has a list of "accredited educational institutions": http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1. Doesn't this make the accreditation argument moot? SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation does not recognize St. Kitts and Nevis' accreditation, because they do not feel it is comparable to the standards for US schools. Only schools accredited by the ACCM are felt to be comparable and actually accredited by a recognized agency. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant; the NCFMEA does not accredit individual foreign medical schools at all. You can't pick an arbitrary accrediting body and say that because that particular body hasn't accredited the school, that it isn't accredited at all. SGMD1 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the debate on what constitutes a valid accrediting agency, if reliable sources haven't mentioned the issue, then I don't see how it can appear in Wikipedia. Yes, Leuko, I understand how it seems "important", but Wikipedia doesn't make judgments based on what seems important or true--we rely on reliable sources to do that for us. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This also applies to the state-specific/country-specific licensing. Licensing in the United Kingdom/specific US states is beyond the scope of an article for a non UK/US medical school. None of the citations for state-specific licensing indicate that Windsor is an unapproved/unlicensed/unaccredited school in that particular jurisdiction; rather, the ABSENCE of Windsor's name in the referenced lists are being treated as evidence that the school is unapproved/unlicensed/unaccredited - which as you say is not allowed. Many of these states do case-by-case approvals for graduates of medical schools not on their particular list (i.e. Texas, which Leuko has inaccurately listed.) SGMD1 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, in response to Leuko's repeated accusations of vandalism, admin User:Qwyrxian made the determination that both of our edits are not vandalism, and yet Leuko has continued to make that claim. I am concerned as to whether Leuko is abiding by a NPOV; in addition to his having attended a competing medical institution to Windsor, Leuko has a history of editing WP articles for several off-shore medical schools with negative (and by removing information about valid accreditation - inaccurate) information and giving them undue weight. As described in the NPOV wiki, topics are required to be given "due and undue weight" but by blanking basic sections about various aspects of the school, and creating a subsection instead for a single two year old unverifiable implication, I would argue that he is blatantly violating NPOV, and certainly has no grounds to accuse me of such (as he has repeatedly done.) The pattern of giving undue weight to negative/inaccurate information for various schools appears to violate the NPOV rule, and I feel that should be noted. SGMD1 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you especially since LEUKO violates the core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. Each med school in the Caribbean operate based on the recognitions/accreditations given by local governments. Some states like CA or FL have strict rules on the FMG and don't approve foreign medical schools, however this doesn't mean that the schools are unaccredited. There are dozens of accreditations agencies around the world and just by stating that a school is not accredited by one of them doesn't mean that they are not accredited at all. His action is like accusing someone of a crime and requesting a proof of not being guilty. There should be a consensus reached about the default layout of the Caribbean medical schools wikipages, which applies to all of them where there is a section of proven lack of licensing ability of its graduates.Rlewkowski (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are multiple WP:RS that state Caribbean Medical University is unaccredited. Let's take this to the article talk pages, as I am getting tired of repeating myself over and over on separate pages, and we aren't getting any useful input here that isn't on the article talk pages. Thanks. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion pertains to Windsor University School of Medicine, not Caribbean Medical University. SGMD1 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. Exactly what are you asking the denizens of ANI to do? ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. There's some problematic editing on all sides, though I think that a fair amount of it is from simple misunderstandings/disagreements, not actual malfeasance. There's an RfC open on Talk:Windsor University School of Medicine, which I think should be sufficient to resolve this. Should anyone actually get out of line behavior-wise during or after the RfC, we can return here or another appropriate forum. Anyone uninvolved is welcome to close this at your leisure. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 6 August 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.

Mind control

I am very uncomfortable about this edit to the mind control article. (Note: the edit has been rev-del'ed at my request, so only admins will be able to view it.) The IP, 90.6.199.85 (talk · contribs), made a series of edits on August 3 that to me are indicative of persecutory delusions; the cited edit names specific individuals (living in France, where the IP geolocates) as the source of persecution. It is not unheard of for things like this to be a prelude to more serious types of unpleasantness. (I am not going to notify the IP of this report.) Looie496 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit has been removed it seems, but oddly, there's no log of it being removed. Or am I missing something. Plus, Its a set-in-stone rule that all editors must be informed of any discussion going on about them here. I am most certainly not wishing to get involved, just being a parrot. Thanks --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR seems to apply here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Feeds Τασουλα a cracker.

It was reverted and the original edit oversighted. That diff. no longer shows anything. CycloneGU (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the wikimedia foundation aware of the edit. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh good! Someone is having trouble with mind control so, what do we do? We 'disappear" what he wrote. I am not suggesting it was a bad call, for the reasons given, but it may be a very disturbing call for IP 90.6 . Bielle (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That is really not our fault or problem, as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Heiro 01:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading one of the edits the IP made on August 3 -- any one, they are all the same. Looie496 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was...odd. CycloneGU (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is from here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalartech12.htm. I didn't see the deleted post, but I think it is just someone messing around. Wonder if the other thing was copied from somewhere also.  snaphat ► 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of people with schizophrenia who experience similar symptoms and have developed shared beliefs about what causes them -- not necessarily the NSA, but some vast conspiracy with access to super-advanced technology. If you want to get a feel for the picture, you could take a look through this web site -- there's a lot more out there though. Looie496 (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does it sound like this theory was written by the same guy who was promoting putting pants on animals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a Temporary block of Luis1791

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours by Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned three times about removing AfD and BLPPROD tags on Mar Contreras, Fabián Robles and Lisardo Guarinos. User removed BLPPROD tags again after third warning. I requested a temporary block for the same reason on the same pages for 74.177.46.240 on August 1. I believe the IP address and Luis1791 are the same person, but I have not taken it sockpuppet investigations to verify.

btw... The last requested wasn't archived. Are some ANI requests deleted and other archived? Bgwhite (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. Your last request on the subject, with response, was archived in archive 713, here. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC).

OK, he's had plenty of warnings, so I've blocked for 48 hours to get his attention. Bgwhite, you should not have restored his talkpage when he deleted it - users are entitled to delete most things from their talkpages, it is taken as an indication that it has been read. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

There is a disagreement at User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 (permanent link) about whether Timeshift9 (talk · contribs)'s recreation of User:Timeshift9 with blog-like material is in violation of the closes of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. I asked Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), the MfD closer, to review the situation. He wrote:

I'm on my semi-annual one-month admin tools break due to travel. That said, it does look pretty bad to me, and even if he didn't quite cross the line he's definitely deliberately pushing its limit, which isn't good. A "drama board" posting, as Spartaz put it, looks like a good idea before another MfD if needed.

Spartaz (talk · contribs), the DRV closer, wrote:

I think this is probably more Tim's field then mine. I tend not to involve myself too closely in editor behaviour issues because I really suck at that side of the admin role but thanks for the heads up. I'll watch what happens closely. I'd be tempted to blank and protect but that's quite an extreme action for a user talk page so I'm inclined to this going to a drama board for a discussion. Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else.

Would uninvolved admins and users review the user page and determine whether {{db-repost}} is applicable to the page or whether, as suggested by Spartaz, the page should be blanked and protected as an alternative? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The only substantive difference I see in the old and new versions is that the new one is "better written", and a little less polemical. But it's still an extended diatribe on a specific political point of view, which both the MfD and the DRV confirmed are not appropriate for a user page. This doesn't technically fall withing db-repost, as the text is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Nonetheless, Timeshift9 can't just keep recreating this political speech until xe manages to get a version past MfD. In other words, this could be taken to MfD, but it the community shouldn't have to argue the same basic point over and over again. For a userpage, some userboxes with xyr political positions, a few selected quotes...heck, even a paragraph of argumentation, I could handle...but this is far beyond that and clearly within the same general realm which caused and sustained deletion last time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm...wouldn't this fall under WP:NOTBLOG? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the MfD and DRV were both somewhat ambiguous, and that the user has waited some time and made some effort to address concerns, I think it should be sent to MfD. A not very dissimilar case currently at MfD is here. I think this is a matter of uncertain boundaries, for a contributing Wikipedian’s self-introductions tending to bloggy soapboxing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe another MfD is desirable. The community, in both the MfD and DRV, has rejected the content which violates WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Repeated recreations and repeated MfDs to exhaust the community's patience are unacceptable. The admin who initiated the first MfD was unfairly accused of "harassment and wikihounding", as well as "harang[uing]" User:Timeshift9. The admin was then threatened with an arbitration case.

User:Surturz/AdminWatch (WebCite) was created for admins involved in the MfD who initiated, participated, and closed the deletion discussion. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) were both asked whether they were open for recall. Support for defending the user page was requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics.

Owing to the sustained campaign to allow the repeated recreation of this inappropriate content and threats against those who have supported deletion, I ask that the page is dealt with without another contentious MfD. The page undoubtedly meets the spirit, if not the letter, of {{db-repost}}. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cunard, thank you for bringing this here, especially seeing as Gorilla is gone for a few days. First, the userpage is really unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor; Timeshift probably needs to move to a de minimus userpage. Second, Gorilla has been accused of "harrassment" and being a sockpuppet (or purposely colluding with sockpuppets) along with a threat of being dragged to Arbcom, all of which are plainly ridiculous. User:Orderinchaos, who is an admin, needs to cool it down. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just deleted that AdminWatch page under WP:ATP. It was only there as a threat, or at the least, intimidation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So any attempt to defend Timeshift9's user page is seen as contravening rules? why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position, but if I simply ask for involvement of editors at WT:AUSPOL I get hammered? How is it intimidation to ask whether admins are open to recall? An admin can block me with the click of a button, but for me to get an admin recalled would require WP:CONS and assent by the recalled admin - I think the assertion that I as an editor can in any way intimidate admins grossly misrepresents the power relationship here. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked, and except the wall-of-text feel to it, the actual content was much better than the version that was MfD'd. Granted, I -think- this is better suited for a sub-page that Timeshift can link to (instead of having it on his main user page), but that can be discussed. If you don't like it, Cunard, MfD is the way to go. {{db-repost}} won't work, as the material is vastly different than what was deleted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition... if this gets worse, then the community (or ArbCom) would need to look at related user conduct. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk p. if I'd open an MfD as a relatively uninvolved ed., but I think the improvement in this version is a good sign, and we should simply suggest he move it to a subpage , /Politics, and let the matter rest whether he does or does not. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection to User:Timeshift9 is primarily because the page contains the similar blog material and BLP-violating content rejected in the previous MfD. Save for this page being much shorter, I do not see an improvement. Moving the content to a user subpage would not resolve that. I have had no prior involvement with Timeshift9. In response to DGG's comment here, GorillaWarfare, not I, was accused of wikihounding Timeshift9. I became involved to notify Spartaz and Timotheus Canens to enforce the community's decision in the MfD. They have deferred it to the community, where all the uninvolved users save for yourself support initiating an MfD. Because I contacted the MfD and DRV closer, and because of the accusation by Surturz ("why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position"), I considered you to be a better MfD nominator. Instead of irrelevant discussion about editor behaviors, participants could focus on the applicable user page policies. I maintain that this inappropriate content must be dealt with. Would Qwyrxian, N5iln, SmokeyJoe, Penwhale, or The ed17, who support initiating an MfD, start one? You five are relatively uninvolved and a nomination by one of you will ensure that the debate is not tainted by discussion about users' conduct. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see an MfD initiated mostly because this discussion here, and on the user's talk page, would be better focused in an MfD. My general position is that if there is any reasonable dispute of the applicability of a speedy criterion (with exceptions), then the matter should go to XfD. (See the current discussion at WT:CSD). I think cunard is probably, but not certainly, right. The community may decide that the less bloggy userpage is within reasonable leeway. Years ago, it would. Over the years, Wikipedia has matured/hardened. Personally, I'd prefer to ignore non-effensive transgressions unless it causes trouble. However, I'd rather participate in a debate about policy and whether the page is OK than debate behaviours such as wikihounding. My ideal outcome? As per Surturz (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) paraphrased, "Shifty should [...] move the commentary to an off-WP blog site" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the people who want to discuss it will decide. I just add this to the list of examples that if you ask my advice or help, you will get what I think appropriate, which may not be just what was expected. And I think thats pretty true generally, at least at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that each user has his or her own perspective about a topic and interpretations of policies. As Spartaz wrote in his reply to me: "Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else." Cunard (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Timeshift is using his userpage as a blog. This is not encyclopedic content, it is only a microscopic fragment of Timeshift's ideological stance and thus give us little insight into any prejudices or biases he may have as an editor; it is a weak substitute for starting a real blog, and is in pretty blatant violation of the community consensus about his prior pseudo-blog. Like the previous version, my concern is not BLP but rather WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you want to opinionate about politics in Oz, do so in a real blog, not on our servers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'm back and happy to see I haven't been desysopped yet! :D Though it seems some may have it on the mind... Anyway, I'm glad Cunard brought this here. I was planning to do so once I returned, and this saves me the trouble. When I first posted about the recreation on Timeshift's user talk, I was hoping to avoid even bringing the issue to MfD, not to mention escalating to ANI, SPI, DRV, or... ArbCom? Anyway, as for where I stand on the userpage issue: though the content on the recreated page is not as grossly inappropriate as the BLP-violation-filled tirade I originally brought to MfD, I still view it as a violation of WP:NOTBLOG. I recognize that it is Timeshift's prerogative to state any beliefs and/or biases that would influence xyr Wikipedia editing. I think that declaring bias in that fashion should be encouraged. However, I agree with Orange Mike that the content on Timeshift's userpage is extremely specific, to the point where it could only be used to state bias as it pertains to the subjects of the userpage. I understand that the line between acceptable and unacceptable amounts of opinion and bloggy content is fuzzy, but I think we need to find a way to decide clearly what is acceptable for Timeshift so xe is not forced to keep toeing the line until xe finds a version that the community can accept. Furthermore, repeated MfDs will do nothing but frustrate Timeshift and the community, so I think a preemptive decision should be made so that myself, Timeshift, and the rest of the people involved here can return to productively editing. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who supports initiating an MfD and as someone who has had minimal involvement, would you, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), initiate an MfD nomination for User:Timeshift9 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)? After several days of discussion, it is unlikely that the problematic user page will be resolved at ANI. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the plan here? To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with GorillaWarfare on this. If we're going to enforce boundaries, we need to start by deciding where they are and writing them down. If an editor has strong opinions about an area in which they edit, I want them to disclose those opinions in their userspace. And there's also a discussion to be had about who will be in the userspace police. Will this be yet another sysop's job?—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the plan should be that either you hash it out with Shifty on his talkpage to get the page acceptable, or you raise an MfD and get consensus to delete. Real consensus, not merely a simple majority like last time. Shifty has shown that he is willing to address concerns that are raised with him. he has been very patient and polite and I suggest you extend the same courtesy, rather than trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. FWIW Shifty and I are polar opposites politically and have had many heated, spiteful content disputes over the years. I think it is the lesser of two evils that he air his political views on his userpage and get it out of his system, than him try and POV push those views into article space, as has happened in the past. --11:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Surturz, I am certainly not trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. If I was, I'd have taken this to MfD already. However, I don't think it's possible at this time for Timeshift and I to "get the page acceptable", because the current guidelines on the issue are extremely vague. What I'm trying to do right now is figure out the simplest and most effective way to establish what is and is not acceptable on the page. An MfD seems like a poor choice, since the process is designed to decide deletion discussions according to existing guidelines and policies, not create new ones. ANI isn't really a good place, either. Perhaps an RfC is needed? Any other ideas? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I think we really should look at what the purpose of WP:NOTBLOG actually _is_. I think it is to stop people creating WP accounts just to host content on their user page as if it were GeoCities. It's not really there to stop genuine editors from expressing their views. People comment on current events on talkpages all the time. I think genuine editors should be allowed to put bloggy stuff on their userspace if other editors are the target audience. Shifty is a prolific articlespace editor and I get the impression that he writes the bloggy stuff primarily for his own and WT:AUSPOL's amusement. personally, I think that is tolerable. --Surturz (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an established precedent (not a rule you can point to) that productive editors are given a little leeway with their user space. People who actively improve Wikipedia are given a pass somewhat if they use their user space for frivolous purposes, such as to express opinions, write humorous info, play word games, etc. Within reason. An editor who is only doing those things is usually warned and those pages deleted. So I don't support your suggestion just because it's reasonable, but because that's usually how we handle such things anyway. -- Atama頭 16:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 and WP:NOTBLOG questions

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site, to which WP:NOTBLOG links, states inter alia:

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.

Does User:Timeshift9—in this version on 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)—violate WP:NOTBLOG? If it violates your interpretation of WP:NOTBLOG, how should it be dealt with (e.g. page blanking or trimming or MfD)? A medium should be achieved between disclosing personal biases and using userspace as a blog. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cunard, this question has been discussed in detail above. If you think Shifty's page should go to MfD, then propose the MfD yourself. I will note that the previously MfD only just got up, and Shifty's new page does not have any BLP VIP stuff, so the case for deletion is weaker this time around. --Surturz (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, Surturz, they're trying to find a middle ground with Timeshift without an MfD. Let up. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Vikingman69

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 week by Tnxman307 --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

VIkingnab69 said, "THIS PERSON IS A PATHETIC FICKLE NARROWMINDED WORM & SHOULD BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA", "Brainless fuckwit who hasn't got a clue. Should devote his time to shagging sheep", and moved my user page to User talk:I'm a crap wikipedian. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User already appears to have been blocked a week by Tnxman. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That was quick. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quicker. CycloneGU (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory that's what she said. N^oformation ^Talk 22:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

He should have been indefinitely blocked, especially after this. This person has displayed zero willingness to work with others and egregiously displays an article ownership attitude. Not to mention the disruptive pagemoves. –MuZemike 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well time will tell. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the worst of the edit summaries that included the personal attacks from the logs and history. I was also surprised it wasn't an indef block, but I suppose time will indeed tell. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Request block for damiens.rf incivilty

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.

---

Short version, Damiens and I do not see eye-to-eye on things. That's fine by me; we all have different points of view, but I find it completely beyond the pale to make the comments that damiens has made about me solely because I disagree.

Background: I've found that Fastily has made some closures in which I strongly disagree with him (as have others). While those discussions have not yet proven fruitful, damiens decided to make a pointy, bad-faith complaint which was intended as satire of my actions; moreover, his comments were about a straight up lie in which Damiens tried to get someone's image deleted from their user page because it is "just sitting in a page where the uploader organizes his contributions". At Fastily's request, I responded factually to the claim and pointed out that he was in error. Instead of just saying "whoops" he goes off on a tirade and gets personal. I requested that he stay away from personal attacks and he responded with a slew of snide/uncivil personal comments:

"Wikipedia is full of these opportunities for ones like you to compensate for real life frustrations and shortcomings."

"You're a winner... here. [and a loser IRL]"

This is not my first interaction with Damiens.rf, but this is typical of the interaction. He's had warnings, he's had ample opportunity to back off; he's chosen to instead make it personal. I request the removal of said comments as a mea culpa and a 24 hour block to as emphasis that this kind of behavior isn't tolerated on WP. Buffs (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• On brief review of the conversation I see you both getting heated and snarky. Block declined and I suggest you and Damiens.rf stay away from each other in future. Any urgent concerns you continue to have once you have avoided him for a week may be considered around 13 August. Any future concerns with wikiquette may best be addressed in the first instance to WP:WQA. --John (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  This is by far not a "first instance"... Buffs (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I think Damiens.rf went further but at worst this would be a "...and please don't do it again" informal warning, possibly with minnow attached. Not block sanctionable. Please avoid each other.

Damiens, if you have an anchovy convenient, you might swipe it across your forehead. The ABF and insults were uncalled for. Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

He already had a "please don't do it again warning". So now we are up to "pretty please don't do it again"? (oh wait, that's already been done too!...) What are we going to do after that? "Pretty please with sugar on top?" He knows better and has done this many times previous:

Restores insults of banned users continuing to stalk me: [133][134]

nominates a template I created solely because stops him from getting an image he wanted deleted because he didn't like it

Note the last two pointy nominations

In any case, WP response on the matter is "you can say whatever you want and be as mean/snarky as you want (all direct violations of WP:CIVIL), as long as they don't do it too often. Civility is a requirement, not an option. He's been blocked repeatedly in the past and knows better. He should be treated as such. Buffs (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect -

Deleting third parties' comments on someone else's talk page, when they aren't vandalism or attacks on the user whose talk page it is, is not good at all. You could have been blocked for that.

The OTRS template you created could have been construed as attempting to impersonate OTRS staff, who are working as agents of the Wikimedia Foundation. You could have been indefinitely blocked for that.

I understand why he nominated the two logos. I also understand why they were kept, but trademark and copyright law and Wikipedia's handling thereof are complex. You can't blame him for his interpretation.

Damiens is not behaving "well" here, but you aren't either. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:47, 6 August 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.

Hippychick94

Resolved

Hippychick94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hippychick94 edits capitals into section headers: 16 minor edits that also contain a capping of the band name and the addition three words; one section edit each: [135] [136] [137]. All of these edits came after being told by three different editors not to do it: [138] and [139] after these edits, and [140] after these edits, which also included over-capping and -bolding inside sections.

It is minor, but also disruptive, and shows a repeated pattern of improper editing. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked this editor for 24 hours and left them a link to the relevant part of the MOS. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cdccyber

User:Cdccyber created the article Desktop Cyber in 2008 which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desktop Cyber. The user !voted in the AfD saying that after two established editors edited the article, the notability was removed when there was no notability to begin with in the first version of the article. The member said, "No notability left after editing by Yworo, Orangemike. The article has been sufficiently crippled that it no longer has any value. The link to the GPL sources of the emulator and the link to the Usenet article announcing the release have been repeatedly removed. This article describes only an emulator of the first supercomputer developed by Seymour Cray. It fails on the following criteria: it provides no significant coverage; is not reliable as the original author has a conflict of interest and is obviously not independent of the subject; the article is self promoting and has no verifiable content." on AfD. He then went on to give me a mocking barnstar on my talk page that says "Joe is the greatest advocate of article deletions. He really knows what is notable for Wikipedia and what should be purged. He currently advocates 11 pages to be deleted. Go on Joe - delete it all, just leave all the porn in place." Joe Chill (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action are you looking for? Have you notified the other editor of this thread? Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User notified--Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what administrative action I want. That is for an actual admin to decide. He insulted me and has a single purpose account that was only started to promote his product. Joe Chill (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've run across cdccyber myself recently, with less-than-amiable interaction. See the discussion at WP:COIN#Desktop CYBER. I'd say there are definite WP:COI and WP:OWN problems with both the article and the editor, the combination of which has led to this discussion instead of limiting the examination to just the article Discussion page or COIN. And while I don't usually have a problem with sarcasm, his message to Joe Chill borders on WP:NPA. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on Cdccyber (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)due to his single-mindedness over the "proper" WP:ALLCAPS rendition of Cyber and associated interactions. He was resistant to the ideas that discussion was warranted for changing Cyber to CYBER and that Wikipedia community standards have more relevance than CDC's (the manufacturer's) marketing department.

I anticipate that he will soon cool down and see the light, but bringing this to ANI does not help, IMO. —EncMstr (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been more issues and discussions than I thought there was. If nothing else worked, how does this not help? I've seen members banned just because their account was created to promote their product. This drama is outrageous when members like him would have normally been banned by now. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Desktop Cyber has been overlooked for 3.6 years and now, even its author is on record agreeing with its deletion and, indirectly, with recent edits (even if sarcastically). That is a big improvement in attitude. The ANI process is easily seen as an even bigger hammer than the efforts several editors have made to try to bring the editor to more productive efforts. —EncMstr (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Suicide threat Trolling with mass suicide threats

Here. I'm not notifying the user. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 03:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

They're just trolling, see [141]. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I sorta suspected it. Needs admin intervention anyway I guess. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 04:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor?

User:JordoCo (talk) (contributions) seems to carry our very large numbers of edits, roughly one every two minutes, in daily sessions lasting several hours. A few of these edits improve the articles but most do not. Typically the edits introduce excessive and inappropriate wikilinks. He has been asked by myself and another user to slow down and be more careful, which he hasn't done despite saying he will. His pattern of behaviour isn't quite vandalism but it's certainly disruptive. I would be grateful for administrator assistance here. --Harumphy (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And here I was about to award him some kind of barnstar for his incremental improvements making lasting contributions to professional audio articles. Can you post a diff showing at least one edit that you thought unhelpful? Binksternet (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's a diff of his in the article Professional audio: [[142]]. The sentence draws a distinction between professional audio and consumer audio. The latter term relates to almost any consumer use of audio, e.g. sitting at home listening to a CD. In his first attempt to edit this he put in a link to home studio. I reverted this and pointed out in my edit summary that the term relates to all home listening. The term 'home studio' is entirely irrelevant here. He ignores the clue and sticks in a link to project studio instead, which is just as irrelevant as the one I weeded out earlier. Just look at the number of ill-considered rapid-fire edits he's making across countless articles and you will see that a barnstar is the last thing he deserves.--Harumphy (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page and his diffs, you'll see that we've reverted almost everything he has done. A few edits may be incremental improvement, but most are overlinking, insertion of grammatical errors, mangling of meaning, etc. We can AGF, but if he won't slow down and read what he has written, he will remain a disruptive pain. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with Binksternet by stating that the majority of edits that have been performed link wikis back to one another, which wiki sorely needs. For instance, [[Digital-S] picked at random, as an example, is a digital recording format and no where does digital recording appear in the enter into the wiki. I find that many wikis are incomplete and discuss details from other wikis that are not even liked to one another. In the case of consumer audio vs. professional audio, there is quite a distinction. Home studio redirects to Home recording which without the advent of the price reduction of Professional audio, would be no Home studio. As far as "home listening" goes, where is it in the article? Harumphy, I do appreciate your concern.--JordoCo (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2011 (EST)

That sentence is there to convey a single idea: the difference between professional audio and consumer audio. If you want to add something to the article about home studios, fine, but don't just throw links over the wall into the article and expect someone else to tidy them up for you.--Harumphy (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User repeatedly deleting speedy deletion templates on autobiography

Amithasurendar (talk · contribs) is repeatedly deleting speedy deletion templates from his autobiographical article Surendar Bhookya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grateful for administrator intervention with this. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion" is something which should not be re-added -- use AfD if speedy deletion is contested. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't being contested, the template was simply being removed without any discussion, which an article creator isn't allowed to do. Prioryman (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've speedied it; it was an extremely obvious case indeed. And somebody else seems to have blocked the editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you thinking of proposed deletions? It was my understanding that only admins should be removing speedy tags. Яehevkor ✉ 12:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, any editor besides the original author can contest and remove a speedy tag, though it's good form to explain why in the edit summary or on the talk page. — Satori Son 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to leave a message here an hour ago, but I guess I forgot to click save before I went off to dinner. I blocked Amithasurendar for 3 hours, and left the deletion decision to another admin (though I would also have deleted it). To clarify to the people above, the author of the article was the one removing the template, which is specifically not allowed. Any other editor may do so if they think the tag is in error. And just to be clear what we were talking about, the article was one sentence, that said something like "Surendar Bhookya is a student at School Y", with three "references" that all linked to social networking sites. I did, however, let the author know that if there was some form of notability, I would be happy to help them after the block is done. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: while the template has a space for a creator to explain his demurral, it is not intuitively obvious that this is "official procedure" and it is also clear that removal of a tag is, ipso facto, a demurral about the tag. IMO, it is better to allow an AfD (which might well have a "snow delete") than to expect editors to know the vagaries of the rules which allow everyone else to remove the tag. I rather suspect this would have been the case, although the entire article and edit history was gone before I could look at it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

An AfD would have been a colossal waste of time in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The current template says "If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page, and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, clicking the button below will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place to explain why you believe this template should not be deleted." That's hardly leaving the rules vague. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Experience here seems to confirm the general rule that people often do not read past the first sentence, even with bold face. What I think the tendency is to do with a notice about something unpleasant is to look at enough to see the general import, and then get angry (or upset, depending on the person) The template was recently rewritten to make it clearer, but it also made it more complicated. The real advantage of getting people to post their objections on the talk page is that they can give a reason, not just object. Then, if the article must be deleted anyway, as is usually the case, the deleting admin can explain to them more precisely what they misunderstood. (or, sometimes, realize there's no point in trying). DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WoodMuncher (talk · contribs) : Sockpuppet

archive top|Should be at WP:SPI. Non-Admin Closure (Non-administrator comment) ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place but I was reluctant to open a sockpuppety case as it could be one of several well known blocked users. Same behaviour as the recently blocked TheBlackGumper (talk · contribs), same as Caiboshtank (talk · contribs). Looks like duck to me. --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This should be at WP:SPI I am closing this. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Undo non-admin closure which I'm sure was done in good faith. ebe123, to open an SPI you need to know who the sockmaster is. HighKing is posting here to see if anyone can figure who the underlying socker is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI case, I suspect it's probably Caiboshtank. --HighKing (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tragically, another of many socks to come, until the British Isles is left alone. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit warring to insert personal opinions at 2011 Tottenham riots

Resolved

 – Blocked

IP user User:98.28.172.69 is continually editing 2011 Tottenham riots to add the same racially charged personal opinions to a very newsworthy and sensitive article. He has done this eight times now and shows now signs of stopping despite warnings from multiple editors. Although his addition includes a reference, the cited article does not come close to supporting his original research. Would appreciate an admin taking a look. Thanks, Palltrast (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see User:OwenX has already blocked the IP. Thanks for the swift work. Palltrast (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, let me re-open this request. I misread the block log - OwenX's block was from May of this year. The IP is not blocked and is continuing to post their personal opinions to 2011 Tottenham riots. This is now 9 times, I think, so at the least has exceeded WP:3RR. Would appreciate a further opinion. Thanks, Palltrast (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV would be more suitable for action against vandalism. GiantSnowman 15:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not vandalism, its WP:POV-pushing. Which is why I reported it here. WP:AIV is clear that it should only be used for reports of vandalism. Thanks, Palltrast (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 72h for clear edit-warring/3RR. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Privacy policy

With regards to this warning I moved and centred to the igloo page... WP:IGLOO is a scripting anti vandal program that connects to an outside non WMF server. It is not well documented what this connection does. I'm not too comfortable. Also after reading the privacy policy, with this script hosted on a WMF server, it may fall out of bounds on that privacy policy. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 19:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as it clearly advises the potential user that they are logging in to a non WMF server which may collect their IP address, there is no problem. The WMF privacy policy deals with how WMF will handle the IP data it receives from the Mediawiki interface. If the user chooses to give the information to a third party, that is not a breach of the policy. It does need to be made really clear though, as users may prefer not to use IGLOO on that basis. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about this one...

J Greb

J Greb is an admin that is reverting my edits on List of Batman television series characters#Henchmen because he doesn't believe my sources, despite the fact I'm a huge fan of the series. I corrected some factual errors, and he reverted them back to the edits with factually incorrect content. Somebody tell him to stop.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Choosing a random diff. I see this one. I'm not sure the changes in question are needed there. Is Napier the Joker? That's the only stark one I can see, but the two Wikilinks are fine as they were IMO.

I have a bigger concern over edit warring here, however. Asking us to "tell him to stop" suggests that you intend to keep putting it in as correct information. At this point, I'd go to the article talk page for the article in question in disputed cases and propose the change for comment. CycloneGU (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with J Greb. I only looked at one of your edits, but in that edit you changed many character names that have been in the article for quite some time. If you make such a big change, you should be prepared to provide sources that support those changes. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the individual edits, guys.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Guys"--this is not an all-male coterie, you know. I can't speak for myself, but there are plenty of ladies around here. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Geez, chill out dude, that's in no way sexist. Our very own article states that you guys "is the most common plural form of you in the U.S." Professor Fluffykins (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Napier is the Joker only in the 1989 Batman movie and nowhere else. Whoever put Jack Napier's name on that page put incorrect info on the page. Also, I've watched every single episode of the 1960s Batman TV series.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be incorrect. While I'm ordinarily loath to us ImDB as a reliable source, the character info for "Jack Napier" starts with the 1989 movie and progresses to include Batman Forever and several episodes of the '80s animated series. If there's another reliable source out there to either confirm or reject that, it should be brought forward. And as a final point, using one's exceptional appreciation of a given series (I'm putting it that way to avoid the connotations of the term "fan") as a source for an article on Wikipedia is one definition of original research. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had a look in The official Batman Batbook, Napier is never mentioned, only the Joker. Not a 100% proof as it is easier to proof that a name is used as to proof that a name hasn't been used in a series.Cst17 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The long and the short there is "It needs to be sourced". Eisner looks to be a good source which is already used on one of the pages in question. - J Greb (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, FDR's name is spelled incorrectly on that page.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You did not notify the other editor as you are required to do, so I have done it for you. Please also note that posting about this issue at multiple locations is considered forum shopping. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

76.236.0.168, this is not a matter that requires admin intervention. Read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for how Wikipedia works. You have been BOLD, he has reverted, now you have to discuss on the article talk page to reach a WP:Consensus. If you can't, use WP:Dispute resolution. Also, the fact that you have watched these episodes is not enough, that is called original research - you have to cite a reliable published source for changes like this. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to cite a film or episode as a primary source for something that happened in the film: "in Batman Forever it is revealed that...." kind of thing. What you can't do is say "I have watched all 160 episodes and Batman always turns left out of the Batcave" as evidence, because that is Original Research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nope, they didn't. And now they are starting to do what they should have been doing with the edit sumaries: explain the edits.

And that's the big issue here, the IP has gone on a run without bothering to indicate in any way, shape, or form why the changes were made. This includes removal of information. When they actually started to explain it it was "I've watched the shows", citing IMDb, and focusing on the credits. This doesn't cover anything else that was changed, even though they kept going back to their preferred last edit that covers more than changes to actor and character names.

JohnCD, FWIW, I'll take show and film credits as reliable if they are reasonable accessible and they link actor to character. In this case, the show isn't readily available for for a through vetting. If it were, or the position from the get go was "I'm working directly from a VHS home tape while updating the cast and credits", I'd see little issue with it. However, the explanation is resting on "from memory", which isn't reliable nor verifiable.

- J Greb (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the edits by 76.236.0.168 make more sense as one would expect. There were some typos, and Breeland Rice is credited under this name in the series, but sometimes credited as Breland Rice. I think it's good to discuss the Joker/Napier matter on Talk Pages and go through the edits to see what's correct and can be supported by independent references. Cst17 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If its being noted in the edit summary or backstopped with something like The Official Batman Batbook or Batman: The Complete History, all well and good. But just done, along with things that are removals, large changes, or apparent "to taste" edits its a problem.

As for the actor names... that presents a problem with correct linkings. If an article already exists and the actor has/had a tenancy for name variation, we should be using what we have. If its a red link and, again, the actor is know to have used multiple names, using 1 red link helps clarify if an article is really needed.

- J Greb (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am checking the edits by 76.236.0.168 with The Official Batman Batbook. Some are correct, some seem to originate from misreading credits. It think it was good to reverse the edits as they were not sourced, or sourced by not realible (imdb) sources. But on the other hand 76.236.0.168 has helped us to identify some misspellings. Cst17 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

True on the last part, but it is very hard reverse only some of what was being done due to the manner in which it was done. And flat reversals on their part with cries of "Don't revert me, I'm right." doesn't help. Also on the upside, this at least got the attention of editors willing to explain the changes they're making. - J Greb (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Pants onSquire

Pants onSquire (talk · contribs) Has declared themselves a vandal and has posted a blocked template on their User page, even though they are not blocked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I give up. I'm a vandal. Really hard to make obvious, dirty vandal edits on Wikipedia these days. Pants onSquire (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought putting a delete tag on an administrator that I like to mess with would be enough....all the edits I've made have been unconstructive. Go check out the history, dude. Pants onSquire (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How original... – ukexpat (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle Abuse to POV Push by User:Truthsort

I believe User:Truthsort twice abused the use of Twinkle [143], [144] by unfairly and inappropriately using it as a tool solely to further the editor's clear political bias, which even a cursory review of the user's talk page [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152] and edit history [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159] instantly reveals. This also provides evidence of a clear and persistent pattern with this editor.

It is also worth noting that while this editor expressed BLP concerns about the use of "Controversy" sections as related to this article [160]- the subject of which, the editor clearly supports - the same User:Truthsort also contributes to those very same sections, indeed "Criticisms & Controversy" sections, in other articles about subjects whom the editor clearly politically opposes [161]. The cynical hypocrisy and transparent double standard are indefensible.

Per the rules of ANI, I did attempt to rationally engage this editor in a discussion about the perceived misuse of Twinkle [162], but my efforts were rewarded with this [163], which simple demonstrates User:Truthsort's non-responsiveness, uncivility and failure to AGF, but also appears to bolster the core validity of the Twinkle abuse complaint.

Agenda pushers in this forum are a great enough problem, but when they are also given the advantage of tools not available to all users, the problems they present grow exponentially. Regardless of one's personal politics and/or biases, failing to adhere to the guidelines established by the policies here, ultimately threatens the very credibility of this project. Thanks for your review of this matter. The actions of this editor, coupled with the arrogance when approached regarding those actions, seem to very strongly suggest that because of this editor's continuous campaign of political POV pushing, User:Truthsort is a very poor candidate for, and poor representative of, a special privilege like Twinkle. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph does not prove any wrong doing or any POV pushing. As far as the second paragraph goes, you will see that I said they were generally not appropriate for BLP's. In the case of Lamborn it should not be added. I do not believe his opposition to NPR would qualify as a controversy. The voicemails he sent to the Barths, which happened in 2007, were not even added into the article until a few days ago and it appeared to receive a minimal amount of local coverage. The only thing that would be controversial is his recent comment. Now, compare that to Chris Matthews who has said some things that have received national controversy. It is more reasonable that a section like that would be in the Matthews article. Your talk page comment was reverted because it was nothing but a baseless rant. You did not bother to read my edit summaries citing that the info listed under the section was not all controversial. The info that was removed was undue weight. Simply put, the IP address did not give any valid argument for this ANI. Truthsort (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph certainly does prove POV pushing. You deliberately removed sourced quotes and materials that not only provided balance in explaining the other side, but also discussed why his actions were controversial. So for you to suggest there was no controversy is, once again, unsupported by the facts that were presented – and that you misused Twinkle to remove. What allows you to so arrogantly think that you are the final arbiter of what is and is not controversial? It frankly astounds me. One is rarely confronted with that degree of blatant hubris.

As to the second paragraph, once again, how dare you insert your “belief” (see:opinion) that opposition to NPR is not a controversy. Did you offer a source to substantiate that view? No, of course you didn't. Once again, your hubris is so off the charts that you don’t even see it when it’s presented to you. As for your attack on Chris Matthews, as a broadcaster with a show, that's pretty low hanging fruit. In these days of non-news broadcasters, people on both sides can easily be accused of that. But to suggest that a sitting legislator has never engaged in behavior or supported legislation that is controversial is so laughably ridiculous on it’s face that it doesn’t even merit a serious response, but I’ll give it the obvious one: if a sitting legislator has never voted on legislation that someone can find controversial – then that legislator has never voted. Nor ever taken a position. On anything.

As for your response regarding what I did and did not “bother to read”, your arrogance – and misinformation – only continues. To the contrary, of course I read your comment. It was simply more of you trying to peddle your POV and impose your narrow view as other editors were trying to impose balance. And your claim of undue weight is utter unsupportable drivel, as the section referenced was only a subsection – one of five – in an article that contains FIVE LARGER sections. So your explanations are clearly just weak excuses to attempt to cover and justify your behavior – which is already well-documented as nothing more than naked POV pushing.

Finally, your revert and comment on your talk page about the legitimate concerns I raised, speaks volumes about your character, in a far more damning way than anything anyone else could have written. You are clearly ill-suited for Twinkle privileges. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

IP, I looked at Truthsort's edits and find no evidence that they constitute Twinkle abuse. Reverting content disputes with twinkle's vandalism button is considered twinkle abuse, but reverting genuine content disputes using a unique and descriptive edit summary explaining the edit (which is the case here) is generally acceptable practice. I don't think there's anything for admins to do here, this is a content dispute with no actionable behavior from either party. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are correct that "reverting content disputes with Twinkle's vandalism button is considered twinkle abuse" and I believe you are, then you have ample evidence of twinkle abuse and actionable behavior. The content that was removed was reliably sourced - by more than one source, in fact - and provided much-needed balance, so it could not constitute vandalism under any circumstance, regardless of whatever equivocating or arbitrary excuse the editor listed in the edit summary as the "justification". But under no circumstance, did the material rise to the level of removal by Twinkle. That alone constitutes - and defines - Twinkle abuse. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the IP address has been blocked for edit warring. Truthsort (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Medboy1and User:Melissamohammed53 tag-team editing

Medboy1 (talk · contribs) and Melissamohammed53 (talk · contribs) are tag-teaming on several articles, removing sourced material and at least in one case, violating BLP. Meboy1 proclaims his purpose for being here on his User page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Medboy's stated purpose is "I am interested in correcting information that is biased and is unfair to people or businesses." I've suggested to him that he needs to use the talk page to explain his concerns with the articles such as Live blood analysis and wait for discussion and consensus before changing the articles.

I also agree that there is a lot of overlap between the two editors. I don't see a smoking gun of sockpuppetry; however, I wouldn't say that either of them have been faultless in their edits. I'm keeping an eye on the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if they're sock puppets, more likely meat puppets. I looked for a "Melissa Mohammed" on Google, but couldn't find anything informative concerning the issues they're both editing. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts are  Confirmed as the same person. I have indefinitely blocked Melissamohammed53 and gave a warning to Medboy1 not to do it again. –MuZemike 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparent 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.

Resolved

 – This has largely devolved into a back and forth series of accusations with few supporting diffs. There's really little likelihood of any administrative action being undertaken at this point, and the continued drama need not be played out here. That said, a RfC/U has been suggested, and that is likely the best venue for those wishing to continue this unseemly affair. Thank you all for your participation and time. — Ched :  ?  08:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor continues to use abrasive language when addressing other editors and discussing sources. I believe that he should be warned to avoid personal attacks. Below are examples, which are representative of his general communication with other editors.

• To myself:
  • If you are dyslexic or poor vision or have another disability, it may help for you to identify yourself so that people cut you more slack when you (without fault) make mistakes....17:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[164]
  • [I asked him not to make personal attacks.][165]
  • ...for persons with similar vision without a large screen, the rate of error must be much higher. I admire the King of Sweden for his public poise and good humor about his dyslexia. I certainly meant you no insult. Is it not possible that I am seriously concerned? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[166]

• At User talk:Peter G Werner:
  • ...For everything else, you were plagiarizing the SPUSA pamphlet and duplicitously citing Drucker.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[167]

• About Donald Busky, author of Democratic Socialism: A global survey (Praeger Publishing, 2000)
  • It's time for T4D to recognize that the UFO did not arrive as Busky predicted.
  • ...is no need to cite Busky. Busky was a partisan hack and incompetent academic, who had difficulty writing English. Unfortunately, T4D followed Busky and wrote a wildly inaccurate and partisan history of the American left, one wishes naively. WP does not require that bullshit from herbalists or phrenologists be reported in its medical articles, balanced with other views. WP should remove bullshit from its political articles, also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[168]

• He was brought to WP:WQA previously[169] but sees the fact that no action was taken against him to be a vindication.

TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD is apparently using AN/I to be disruptive and waste peoples time. It's not the first time. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the quotes above. Maybe I'm missing context? -- Atama頭 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD omited my introduction, where I identified myself as a person with poor vision who has a large screen. I have previously complained about having trouble reading on the talk page of the economics sidebar, also, to explaiin why I could not write edit summaries (after long section headings)

At times, I write more bluntly than others, usually after AGF and my patience have been exhausted.

In this case, TFD and I have had many interactions, where I have objected to a section he has written (using Busky) which I have replaced with an accurate and properly referenced (with inline citations with page references to highest quality, most reliable sources. You can see that my sections have remained, with minor copyright editing by others, where TFD's is gone. This fact, visible on American Left and other articles speaks for itself.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "notice that I got my own way!" is not automatically a justification for whatever behaviour achieved that. This whole set of issues has been dragged round various noticeboards for quite some time now, which is not an ideal way of handling it. I don't think there's any one single incident that is egregious enough to require administrator intervention. It's more an ongoing pattern of low level disruption; a case of "doesn't play well with others". Kiefer seems to be stepping up his use of accusations of plagiarism and copyvio - I'm unsure if he understands the difference between the two - when he disagrees with content on political grounds. Another example of this has been raised on Kiefer's talk page by Rd232 recently. Kiefer is not above a bit of edit warring to get his way, and added to the snide personal remarks, it's not a pretty picture - there's also been disruption related to several RfAs. I've asked Worm That Turned to have a look at this section and comment, as he has a fair bit of experience dealing with problem users, and has had to give Kiefer a warning over some of this before. Some firm advice on this sort of behaviour - and perhaps mentoring - might very well solve the problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've bumped into Keifer a few times, at least twice when he was in disagreement with one of my mentees. During my interactions, I've found that he certainly has the ability to be reasonable and was relatively surprised at this notice. Indeed, I don't see anything that requires immediate administrator attention in TFDs comments above. However, having reviewed Kiefer's contributions in depth, I have seen a pattern that does cause me some concern. A couple of examples, general incivility and significantly changing comments long after the original comment with an edit summary of "ce".

When I couple this pattern with the fact I've had to warn Kiefer recently, which he did not take kindly to, I would personally recommend than an RFC/U is more appropriate, where concerned parties could deal with their issues, rather than causing unnecessary drama here at AN/I. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 has been harassing other editors for some time, with personal attacks. This time, he is repeating an attack on my good faith with an unsubstantiated charge about my political views. His behavior is well known, and this noticeboard's acquiescence to his harassment and condoning of his personal attacks suggests a double standard for administrators.

TFD has made similar attacks on my good faith and unsubstantiated charges about my political views also. You can look at the history of the articles to see that he wrote egregiously biased histories (I believe because of good faith use of an unreliable source and lack of knowledge of this rather specialized history). Look at what I have written and check my sources, and find one error of scholarship or misrepresentation.

Worm, deal with Demiurge1000's repeated personal attacks on me and Malleus, if you want me to care about your opinion. Would you please quote also the revised text regarding Tim's personal attack, which was kinder.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kiefer, because everyone who dares to even disagree with you is making a personal attack against you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange Passerby, perhaps you missed Demiurge1000's saying that I was tagging copyright violations because of my politics? AGFing,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange Passerby made similar personal attacks on me last month, but his hypocritical AGF violations were condoned by the administrator-rich "community".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the revised text, you did indeed update it, 4 days later, again with the edit summary "ce". It was unclear that the comment had been edited, as you didn't use the community standard <del> and <ins>, which again I have issue with. The thread was also close to being archived, meaning that your edit kept it open longer. I see you've posted a long explanation of your improvements below and I should point out that my delving into your edits was regarding your interactions with other editors, not your content contributions.

I feel I should re-iterate. Having investigated, my opinion is that there is some cause for concern, but nothing actionable. An RfC/U would be more appropriate than hashing things out on AN/I. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You are upset that I edited my comment to be more civil (with a lazy edit summary). However, you were participating in that discussion which contained personal attacks against me, and failed to stop others from personal attacks or to notify me. And you complain that the RfA discussion-club stayed open for business? And you haven't yet apologized for your failure to notify me, or your failure to enforce NPA/AGF when your buddies are attacking me behind my back.

Here again, you have condoned or acquiesced to personal attacks, above all by Demiurge1000, and BLP violations by The_Four_Deuces, and you soliloquize about the best way to handle me?

Either grow a spine, Worm, and deal with Demiurge1000 and TFD, or slither away.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, who added the "Discussion of K.W." heading into that WT:RFA section you link to above? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I'm trying to reduce the unnecessary escalation of the situation here and suggesting a less "drama" inducing venue, where any issues can be properly discussed. You were indeed editting the comment to be more civil, but you were doing it in a manner that was against community norms by going further than just retraction, to suppression. I'm astounded that you are demanding apologies for anything (per WP:Apology) let alone for me failing to do things that I have done to a level I thought sufficient (I told the participents to drop it, which they then did) or was not required to do.

I would like to see these personal attacks that I am condoning or acquiescing to at this venue - as far as I'm concerned the conversation has been polite, do you happen to have diffs? I'm also delighted to hear I have buddies here on Wikipedia, I must remember to extend my Christmas card list. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I labelled violations of AGF and NPA at the discussion, as you (having cited it at your last posting here) should know. I am waiting for your actions about NPA/AGF/BLP violations noted above, Worm.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, I misinterpreted that there were personal attacks at this forum. I'm afraid you will be waiting a while Kiefer, I'm about to sign off, but I will investigate further in the morning. However, I refuse to be goaded into an action that I do not see as necessary. As you should know, I'm not obliged to take any action on anything that I do not see a requirement to take action on - I do not intend to start handing out blocks just because I'm an admin - if I think a quiet word will have the same effect, then that's what I do. You should know that, I spoke to you about going past 3RR rather than blocking, which some admins would have done on sight. In the case referenced, I felt a simple "drop it" would be sufficient, and as far as I'm concerned it was.

By the way Kiefer, I notice that you've tried to make this into a content dispute, a BLP issue, an interaction issue with Demiurge, a political issue (even rallying the troops stating it was a political issue [170][171]) and an issue with me being "spineless" because I have not lived up to a non-existent duty of care. This does not change what I've said, I see enough of a pattern that I'd endorse an RfC/U, should anyone feel strongly enough to raise one. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm, it is a content dispute and it is a dispute about standards. The two histories presented are incompatible, so at most one can be correct. I ask that you take American Left seriously, as I tried to help you take your bacon festival article seriously, at least so you would improve as an editor. Cannot you see similar problems with your bacon-festival article and TFD's American Left article?

TFD made repeated BLP violations in stating that Elliot Abrams is a member of SDUSA (leaving aside the Iran-Contra smear by TFD); ditto with Chavez. Perhaps the smear against SDUSA is lost on you and other other editors? Is there anybody here who read a newspaper in the 1980s, who could help?

There has been an interaction problem with Demiurge, with me and more severely and one-sidedly with Malleus. You all have failed to deal with it, despite a serious of personal attacks at RfAs. True or false? All of you have just watched as Malleus was baited by an administrator, many times.

Carrite and Lihaas have experience dealing with contentious political issues. Carrite originally made similar complaints about my politics, which he has since withdrawn. Carrite knows the most about the content (of all the editors on Wikipedia), so you should rely on him for guidance.

Lihaas and I previously were attacked as "neo-Nazis" and "fascists" by a disruptive editor, and as "writing a propaganda piece for Sweden Democrats" last year by another administrator. He has some perspective on being attacked for alleged political motivations, and he has done more political editing than any editor known to me on WP. So yes, I value Lihaas's input just as I value Carrite's input.

You came at the beck and call of Demiurge1000, who violated AGF and NPA by alleging political motivation. You have done nothing: You are shirking from your duty of enforcing the rules fairly, firmly and impartially, so as to command respect. And you complain that I alerted Carrite and Lihaas about this discussion? *LOL*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, having slept on the matter and woken up with fresh eyes, I've looked back through the conversation at WT:RFA as requested, and I see nothing wrong with my behaviour there. You were indeed being discussed, by a candidate who had just had a failed RfA and an unproductive encounter with you. I do not see that he violated AGF nor NPA. Strange Passerby did violate AGF, but I'm certain he'd comment that AGF is not a suicide pact (or something similar), and since I have no idea of the history between you, I again do not see it as actionable. Since you are accusing these editors of violating AGF and NPA at the related discussion, did you happen to notify them? Here, on ANI and unlike WT:RFA, that IS a requirement. My comment to "let it go" ended the conversation completely and I am happy that I acted correctly in this matter. I welcome review by uninvolved parties, and can provide diffs on request.

As for this ANI notice, it is labelled "Apparent personal attacks" and I have commented specifically on behavioural issues. I have made no comment regarding political issues, nor content issues. Feel free to read back and confirm. I have not investigated any of the articles you have pointed to, because I do not wish to be sidetracked from the issue raised here, which is your behaviour. For example, as a Brit born in the 1980s, I am unlikely to know or care who Elliot Abrams is and why being a member of SDUSA is a smear. As a wikipedia editor, I am interested, but only to the point that it affects my work at wikipedia. Again, I fail to see how this smear is related to your behavioural issues - and as such it appears to me that you are attempting to deflect a comment regarding your behaviour into a content issue.

I'm going to re-iterate my main point. This is the wrong venue for this discussion, an RfC/U is more appropriate. You have not addressed this point, more heat than light is occuring - and I strongly urge any uninvolved editor who happens to agree with this point of view to shut this thread down as there is nothing requiring administrator attention.

Finally, regarding Demiurge - I am willing to investigate further, but considering the fact that he has helped me with adoptees and the fact that you appear unable to assume good faith regarding my opinions, I feel that anything I do will be assigned motivations that do not exist. Do remember that I have not editted any of the political articles you are discussing, nor their talk pages. If you have seen something at any of these venues which requires my attention, then pass me a diff and I will investigate further, but just because others act inappropriately does not give you free reign to do act inappropriately. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You came at the beck and call of your master, and did his bidding. You overlook and refuse to criticize your master's misbehavior, particularly his allegations of bad-faith and political bias. Despite your having come when he range your bell (as he rang for others), you criticized me for asking a handful of people to look at this.

At the RfA discussion, I was accused of opposing the candidate and criticizing the article because I didn't like the book covered by his article. That is an AGF violation, which I've spelled out before.

You don't know enough to understand the issues, and you lack the curiosity to deal with BLP and NPOV violations by TFD, who proposed dropping Elliot Abrams and Iran-Contra in the paragraph on SDUSA.

You have not edited political articles would be an understatement. You have written about bacon, and I tried to help you write better there, because I had overestimated you and considered this a good investment of time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have lost all good faith regarding my involvement. I understand that an ANI must be very stressful and I hope that after this has finished and you've had a little time to reflect on what I've said you'll see that this comment was out of line. Either way, my position remains the same and I hope this thread can be brought to a close soon. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I never questioned your faithfulness, only your behavior. I agree that this discussion is best ended now.17:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. - I've bumped heads with both of these editors from time to time, since all of us write a fair amount on matters relating to the socialist movement. I think that both are good editors that have the best interests of the Wikipedia project at heart. This is actually more or less a manifestation of factional social democratic politics being played out here here — K. Wolf dove into a contentious party history and revamped it. He did outstanding work but he was a bit of the proverbial bull in china shop while he was doing it and that rubbed a couple people wrong. TFD has had his ox gored by the bull in the china shop a couple times now, I'm guessing... K. Wolf is extremely talented but he needs to run up CONSTRUCTION banners when he dives in with a jackhammer and to work on his people skills and to work at achieving consensus.

As I understand it, this current tiff relates to use of a particular book by TFD and K. Wolf's dismissal of its content as biased and erroneous. K. Wolf is not shy about telling a person what he thinks about something, and the fur flies. I don't own the Don Busky book so I'm not going to opine on whether it is or is not a suitable source. He is or was both a political science professor and a political activist. K. Wolf thinks the book a polemic, TFD a reliable source. Under official WP policy, if it's published by a so-called "reliable" publisher things are supposed to be in, even if they are erroneous. This is one of the single worst pieces of original WP doctrine on sources and it is (fortunately) not followed by anyone — editors do decide whether information is erroneous and don't feel obligated to pump published error onto WP pages. This is as it should be. In the case of a disagreement, the official doctrine should triumph. Nobody here cares much about that, wrong forum and so on. This is my advice for Deuces and K. Wolf.

As for the incivility complaint — yes, K. Wolf was a bit out of line. No, it was not so far beyond the pale that it should be actionable. No, it never should have been brought to ANI. Yes, K. Wolf should apologize, if he hasn't already. Going forward, I would advise the two to self-impose an interaction ban. Do not communicate with one another and if there is dialog on a talk page, keep it focused and civil. Do not work on the same pieces simultaneously. Do not "stalk" the ongoing work of the other. I'd further advise both of them to concern themselves less with party history and more with writing biographies, which are less contentious. Anyway, that's my two cents. Carry on. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite! About Busky, I believe that it is a terrible book about the history of American socialism, on many levels, including basic scholarship. It may well be a bad (but not disgraceful) popular history of other socialist movements, for all I know. Judith was unimpressed when she examined its treatment of Mitterand, but she did not throw the book across the room in horror. In general, Sassoon's book is the standard work on social democracy/socialism worldwide.

An interaction ban would be possible if you would become editor of American Left and act upon proposals between TFD and myself. I would consider your making such a proposal

However, it seems to me to set a bad precedent, both encouraging the rushing to noticeboards and failure to deal with problems like adults. Are we trying to write an honest, truthful encyclopedia or not? Nobody seems yet to have noticed the severity of the disagreement between the old version of the article and the current one---and this nonchalance may reflect nonchalance about the whole purpose of the encyclopedia. I have yet to hear one admission that Busky has a lot of errors.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

K. Wolf, this is wrong venue so I'm going to be brief. You need to retreat here, Wikipedia rules are pretty clear that the "reliable publisher" trumps the "reasonable critique of content." The correct procedure is to find another reliable source that contradicts the first source and then balance those two. If Deuces wants Busky, you can't be hacking it away because you disagree with him, no matter how shitty Busky's scholarship. It needs to stay in until there is some sort of consensus that it needs to go. You've also got a couple people that you need to apologize to, in my opinion. Take the rhetoric down a few pegs, we're all friends here. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Carrite, Let us work rather for honest and intelligent consensus, as we have done on other articles.

I don't apologize cravenly. I apologize when I have done wrong. In this case I have been insulted by and attacked by persons who haven't bothered even to read the articles or the sources.

We are not all friends here. In particular, my friends and my colleagues care about the truth. I count you as a friend.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

SPA

Comment: I also want to add my voice to this complaint. User:Kiefer Wolfowitz has been way out of line in his interactions with me, making numerous unfounded accusations of plagiarism toward me, both on my Talk page and at Talk:Socialist Party of America. In fact, I am hereby requesting that I be allowed to remove (or have admins remove) any and all accusations of plagiarism against me. These attacks on my reputation as an editor are unfounded and should not be on the record. In general, his interactions with me have been exceedingly uncivil, and began about a month ago with his leaving a high-level block warning calling me out for "disruptive editing" for additions I made to the Socialist Party of America article in 2006! Peter G Werner (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I have previously stated that you of course should remove whatever you want at your own user page, of course, as is your right. There is a problem with your 4 edits using the SPUSA's history. If somebody can delete the history using those edits, lifted phrasing "democratic centralism", then I would bless the removal of my then moot comments.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the "bot" you were running did not demonstrate "plagiarism" at all, unless you define paraphrasing a source as "plagiarism". You have used this accusation as an excuse to remove edits that disagreed with your interpretation of Socialist Party history and cited sources that you did not approve of. I think your edits were uncalled for, but more than anything, your attacks on my reputation are way out of line and something I will not allow to stand. I will not consider this case closed until these attacks are removed. I will give several days for third parties to respond, after which point, if there are no rules-based objections from other editors, I will remove all mention of "plagiarism" in connection with my name. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

your AGF violations and personal attacks alleging (without substantiation or evidence) a political bias must stop. If you remove these latest attacks, I would accept that implicit apology.

I suggest that we ask SandyGeorgia whether she thinks that the extensive paraphrasing is a problem. She seemed to be concerned about such paraphrasing at RfAs lately.

Sincerely,

Hi Kiefer. I request that you formally withdraw all of your accusations about Peter, without requiring any conditions upon him or anyone else. Only your unreserved agreement is required; you need take no other steps. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke? "I need take no other steps" indeed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Error and Correction

collapsing insertion of most of the content of an article - please discuss content disputes elsewhere, this board is for requests for administrator action

This is the state of American Left when I started my clean-up: Main article: Social Democrats, USA The Shachtmanites, called the Realignment Caucus, in the SP-SDF argued that since organized labor supported the Democratic Party, they should join the Democratic Party and transform it into a left-wing party, with the Republicans becoming a right-wing party. Further, they argued that they should support the War in Vietnam to stop Communist expansion. In 1972, they supported Senator Henry Jackson for the Democratic presidential nomination, and re-named the party Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), dropping the term "socialist". While they retained membership in the Socialist International, they supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election and had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration. Main article: Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee Although Michael Harrington, who came to lead the Coalition Caucus, agreed to work within the Democratic Party, he broke with the Shachtmanites over support of the War in Vietnam, urging peace negotiations, although not an immediate withdrawal. He led his caucus out of the SD-SDF to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which became a member of the Socialist International. Here is what I have written, which has also been edited by Judith and by Carrite (the latter more at the SPA article) and perhaps by TFD: In 1972, the Socialist Party of America voted to rename itself as Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) by a vote of 73 to 34 at its December Convention; its National Chairmen were Bayard Rustin, a peace and civil-rights leader, and Charles S. Zimmerman, an officer of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU). In 1973, Michael Harrington resigned from SDUSA and founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which attracted many of his followers from the former Socialist Party. The same year, David McReynolds and others from the pacifist and immediate-withdrawal wing of the former Socialist Party formed the Socialist Party, USA. When the SPA became SDUSA, the majority had 22 of 33 votes on the (January 1973) national committee of SDUSA. Two minority caucuses of SDUSA became associated with two other socialist organizations, each of which was founded later in 1973. Many members of Michael Harrington's ("Coalition") caucus, with 8 of 33 seats on the 1973 SDUSA national committee, joined Harrington's DSOC. Many members of the Debs caucus, with 2 of 33 seats on SDUSA's 1973 national committee, joined the Socialist Party of the United States (SPUSA). The Socialist Party of America changed its name to Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) in 1972. In electoral politics, SDUSA's National Co-Chairman Bayard Rustin stated that its goal was to transform the Democratic Party into a social-democratic party. SDUSA sponsored a conferences that featured discussions and debates over proposed resolutions, some of which were adopted as organizational statements. For these conferences, SDUSA invited a range of academic, political, and labor-union leaders. These meetings also functioned as reunions for political activists and intellectuals, some of whom worked together for decades. Many SDUSA members served as organizational leaders, especially in labor unions. Rustin served as President of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, and was succeeded by Norman Hill. Tom Kahn served as Director of International Affairs for the AFL–CIO. Sandra Feldman served as President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Rachelle Horowitz served as Political Director for the AFT and serves on the board for the National Democratic Institute. Other members of SDUSA specialized in international politics. Penn Kemble served as the Acting Director of the U.S. Information Agency in the Presidency of Bill Clinton. After having served as the U.S. Representative to the U.N.'s Committee on human rights during the first Reagan Administration, Carl Gershman has served as the President of the National Endowment for Democracy. Bruce McColm served as Freedom House's executive director. Main article: Democratic Socialists of America Michael Harrington resigned from Social Democrats, USA early in 1973. He rejected the SDUSA (majority Socialist Party) position on the Vietnam War, which demanded an end to bombings and a negotiated peace settlement. Harrington called rather for an immediate cease fire and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. Even before the December 1972 convention, Michael Harrington had resigned as an Honorary Chairperson of the Socialist Party. In the early spring of 1973, he resigned his membership in SDUSA. That same year, Harrington and his supporters formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). At its start, DSOC had 840 members, of which 2 percent served on its national board; approximately 200 had been members of Social Democrats, USA or its predecessors whose membership was then 1,800, according to a 1973 profile of Harrington. DSOC became a member of the Socialist International. DSOC supported progressive Democrats, including DSOC member Congressman Ron Dellums, and worked to help network activists in the Democratic Party and in labor unions. With roughly six thousand members, it is the largest contemporary democratic-socialist or social-democratic organization in the United States. In 1982 DSOC established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) upon merging with the New American Movement, an organization of democratic socialists mostly from the New Left. Its high-profile members included Congressman Major Owens and William Winpisinger, President of the International Association of Machinists.

Discussion at ANI

I worked hard (with the help of Carrite and others) to find reliable sources, to respond to the just concerns of TFD, and to writing a NPOV description of the two larger organizations, DSOC/DSA and SDUSA. I don't deserve the personal attacks and questions of my good faith and allegations about my politics, particularly about those who apparently are clueless about this history and haven't made any attempts to educate themselves or contribute to this set of articles.

None of you have yet dealt with the BLP violation of stating that Elliot Abrams and Linda Chavez be members of SDUSA, which again is not a random charge but a partisan lie.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Lil confused as to who posted the original complaint but it seems KW's accuser is indulging in NPA himself. WP:BOOMERANG,\ no?? The actual content of dispute is not relevant here, thats more for the talk page. the key being the accuser blackens/libels someone with the tag that the pot calling the kettle black has just shown. Best case to dismiss, otherwise BOOMERANG on the accuser.

and pol accusation for KW dont hold much water as he was well-reserved at Sweden elections last year (and that was HIGHLY political)Lihaas (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples of NPA and unsubstantiated allegations of political bias by User:The_Four_Deuces: "K.F wants to focus the article on the 1960s and present the article from the point of view of the Social Democrats USA".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of interaction bans

I would accept a joint interaction ban with Demiurge1000.

This noticeboard and the administrator cadre has tolerated Demiurge1000's personal attacks and baiting of Malleus for too long also: Demiurge1000 should be cautioned that further harassment of Malleus, particularly insulting and baiting him at RfAs and his user page, must end, and he should be urged to accept a one-sided interaction ban.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Insulting and baiting Malleus at RfAs? The last time I responded to Malleus at an RfA was nearly two weeks ago, where I asked him this. Does that constitute "insulting and baiting"?

I haven't posted on Malleus' talk page since I was informed that this was a request for me not to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000,

I have acknowledged some of your good works several times (for example with a clear and NPOV posting at the RS-noticeboard); thus, I do accept that you have often and usually been constructive. However, we have had enough negative interactions, that distract others and serve little purpose, and so I do think that we would be better off with a voluntary ban. Perhaps you would just consider it and I shall do the same, and hope that we avoid negative exchanges. We don't need a formal agreement. I won't be the first to comment on you.

Regarding your interaction with Malleus, I do remember your mocking his Latin formulation of his previous user name and your mentioning several times the folllowing: his unsuccessful RfAs, your analysis of why they were unsuccessful, and further your commenting on his psychology to explain some behavior. If you can admit that such behaviors have occurred at least twice, then I trust that you can agree that more restraint is needed and I would wish you to voluntarily (and perhaps silently) agreeing to refrain from commenting on Malleus (under usual circumstances, and if WP policy require a comment, that you do so with the greatest restraint).

I may be biased in remembering your annoying MF, obviously, but I of course would urge similar restraint on him if I witnessed your being mistreated. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Distraction; belong elsewhere. WP:NOTTHEM.  Chzz  ►  22:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, you are quoting a blocking guideline at ANI? Consider WP:Boomerang, which does not suggest servility.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've not done so thus far, therefore I would have little cause for optimism about that. Malleus seems to have a robust attitude towards interactions with other editors, so I'm not sure that a quip about mis-spelling his user name would cause him much angst. (You must have a very good memory - I dimly recall making some such comment, but I imagine it would've been months and months ago.) He regularly makes assertions about other editors' aims and maturity and excessive focus on adminship, so I don't think it inappropriate to mention his own repeated attempts in that direction, and the community's concensus on them (certainly no analysis needed there.) However, it's possible I've misinterpreted his apparent eagerness for forthright exchange of opinions, perhaps encouraged by his willingness to follow an outburst like this only half an hour later with an apparently good-humoured comment like this. Anyway, it seems he doesn't want me posting on his talk page, so that should calm things a little.

Regarding yourself, I don't see that requesting an interaction ban with every editor that has concerns about your behaviour, is an acceptable approach to editing. I have concerns about your posting more than fifty times on someone's RfA and then edit-warring over their userpage to remove information they chose to put on it, while firing off warning templates at anyone that got in your way. I have concerns about your refusal to withdraw your very serious accusations against Peter, especially when the initial motivation behind the accusations seemed to be a particular political phrase to which you had a personal objection. I have concerns that you subsequently made a similar accusation against another editor; a very longstanding and experienced editor who believes that your accusation of copyvio against him was the result of your POV - again on a political article. I think it's entirely reasonable for me to raise such concerns when they arise; a number of other editors agree with me. However, I will defer to Worm's (and Chzz's) greater wisdom on this, and do so in a more appropriate forum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000,

You are the first person whom I've asked for a voluntary interaction ban. Your defensiveness that I ask for a ban for everybody I disagree with is bizarre.

Peter has asked that my criticisms be removed, and I have asked that his 4 edits be removed at the same time. He did lift phrases from the SPUSA pamphlet which introduced severe POV/RS and probable BLP problems. I recognized his extensive borrowing because of "democratic centralism" slander---"a particular phrase" about which you still seem ignorant.

You are hardly in a position to judge my intentions when you cannot remember your own insults of MF from even a few months ago. You would do better to examine copyvio/paraphrasing/etc. problems that I identified than to speculate, sputter, and fatuously cluck about my political motivations.

You can read the longstanding and respected editor's account of his cut-and-paste operation on my talk page. His edits then are not now compliant with contemporary WP policy, and so they should be either removed or rewritten if WP wishes to avoid liability. I have done my share.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be me. And try as I might to not care post-retirement, I can't entirely find it amusing that you continue to try to use allegations of copyright abuse to achieve your editing goals. Skipping over your initial attempt to speedy delete an entire article because a section of it which you don't like supposedly has copyright issues, you posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 4 about my sourced quotations from an academic article at Freedom in the World *after* the conversation on your user talk page where I objected to this nonsense and where another editor also said he saw no copyright issues. And 2 days later you have the ineffable to cheek to add, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 4, the claim "The problem is revealed by WP's standard software for investigating copyright-violation" (i.e. toolserver duplicate detector). Yes, quotes from a source appear in both the Wikipedia article and in the source in identical form... shocking, just shocking, good thing you ran it through the duplicate detector... Frankly, this nonsense is disruptive enough, and prima facie bad faith enough, that it might well be blockable in itself, even if there aren't other issues like it. PS Kiefer also canvassed two editors to join this ANI thread (Lihaas and another, at c 3pm 6 Aug). Rd232 ^talk 01:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the WP policies on paraphrasing, plagiarism, and extensive copying. You cannot just quote paragraphs of a copyrighted text, roughly a page, into your short article. It is too extensive, and lacks the reworking and independent thought needed to avoid copyright infringement.

We have already discussed my invited Lihaas & Carrite to join us, as we have discussed Demiurge1000's inviting you, Peter, and Worm.

I placed the first tag in the section that you had cut and paste, and my understanding has been that only that section would be deleted.

My editing goal was to reduce the damage you did to Wikipedia. I know enough statistics and politics to recognize nonsense, even parroted nonsense.

RD232 objected to my tagging and accused me of bad-faith, politically motivated tagging on my talk page, earlier. Speaking of blocking: The plebes can get blocked for violating AGF and NPA, RD232, but what about you? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Freedom in the World issue has been resolved by User:Moonriddengirl (and the background of how the mess came about is noted at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Question, if anyone cares). For the rest, AGF is not a suicide pact, and I don't think I made any personal attacks. If your concern about a copyright problem was indeed genuine, then you made just about every mistake I can think of to make it look like bad faith. Either way, learn from the experience, and don't do it again. (I've learned something BTW; if you do something messy and provisional with the intention of sorting it out soon... don't forget about sorting it out.) cheers, Rd232 ^talk 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good will and kind words. Regarding copyright problems, you certainly underestimate me, Sir: There are more errors waiting to be made. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I just note at this point, I am not at all attached to the phrase "democratic centralism" being used anywhere in that article. However, I am very resolute that no "plagiarism" took place in my additions to this article and I want these accusations off of the Talk page. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Friend, remove your recent AGF violations and recent aspersions on my politics, about which you know epsilon, on this page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be reassured, the phrase "democratic centralism" is only important to Kiefer, and most of the rest of us have absolutely no idea what political viewpoint he may or may not be pushing. Nor do we want to know! That two-word phrasing apparently being notable enough for its own Wikipedia article gives any uninterested bystander a very quick insight as to whether a passage utilising only those two words in common, is a "copyright violation". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an important concept in Leninism, but in a democratic socialist context would be a harsh charge against an organization. My only usage of the term was to report that during the late 1960s breakup of the organization, the Harrington faction accused the Shachtman faction of "democratic centralism". That is the extent of what I added, and was not trying to push any kind of POV that any faction actually is or was "democratic centralist". But KW here has flown off of the handle that 5 years ago I made mention of it in this article. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Was anybody listening?

It was "a harsh charge", to say the least, and it was also false.

Besides the "democratic centralism" slander, there were a half-dozen more partisan falsehoods, which were taken out of the SPUSA "history", which are conveniently listed on the talk page of the article for all to see.

And Peter, to get this straight, did you learn about democratic centralism recently (in which case you were paraphrasing and parroting things outside your understanding) or was your error intentional?

Peter,

To get this straight, somehow you knew enough to remove "Stalinist" from "Stalinist democratic-centralism" from the SPUSA "history", but you went ahead and parroted "democratic centralism" and a half dozen other biased falsehoods, despite knowing that the your "reliable" source described Michael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, etc. as Stalinist? Is that your explanation?

All of you "Wikipedians", do you begin to have a clue why I was concerned about this editor? Involved editorsWorm, Demiurge1000, Strangepasserby (who cares), do you begin to understand why you should have read something before shooting off your mouths here?

Shall we go through each of the other parroted falsehoods or grossly partisan mischaracterizations that Peter introduced? There are about 5 more.

Similarly, Peter, please explain what you were doing citing Drucker's biography of Shachtman as your only other source for all these biased falsehoods.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rd232's comments iright above this already seem like not being AGF. comment on editor not on content, everyone

Now lets hold hands and sing kumbaya. World Peace!Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 violated AGF and made another personal attack based on unsubstantiated allegations about my politics at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Question,

• "the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think."

ignoring repeated requests to stop his misbehavior by me and other editors.

Shall policy be enforced even against a seraph (the highest in the angelic hierarchy) for once, or will again an administrator enable him, by serving another a dish of peaches and sweet cream, which I understand is traditional when ruling class enjoys itself.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I'm not the one who keeps mixing up POV issues with copyright; even in your recent remarks elsewhere, you commingle these two issues. Not once in our discussions have I addressed the issue of POV because, being retired, at this point I don't care. Your insistence on intertwining these issues is one of the factors which raised doubts about AGF (which lest we forget is an Assumption of Good Faith, not a Blind Belief in Good Faith).

Your aggressive and persistent accusations of copyright infringement already forced me into more post-retirement engagement than I wanted. If I were not retired, I would pursue the question of whether you make a habit of using copyright accusations in this manner (a manner which, good faith or not, is certainly not conducive to collaboration). However, I am retired, so whatever statements I made that bothered you, consider them withdrawn. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a statement that whatever appearance of bad faith there was, was just an appearance. (This is not that far from what I said above, before Lihaas piped up.) Rd232 ^talk 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing some remarks.

You wrote that my commingling NPOV and source-usage (copyright/paraphrase) concerns reduced the credibility of my good faith. Please consider the possiblity that some articles on Wikipedia have 2 or more errors, and that some articles have both NPOV and source-usage problems. If such articles exist, please consider that I may have found some.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just noted the edit summaries you've used for some of your recent edits (sample: "Rd232 violated AGF and made personal attacks based on unsubstantiated allegations about my politics at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Question, ignoring repeated requests to stop his misbehavior by me and other editors." [172]). This is certainly misleading, and quite possibly a personal attack, in an edit summary. Don't do that. Rd232 ^talk 23:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was a personal attack but rather an accurate description of behavior. You haven't removed your previous personal attacks and AGF violations. Nevertheless, I am sorry for using your user name in the edit summary.

Moonriddengirl's clean-up of the possible copyright problem(s), which she judged to be minor, I have reduced some of the damage of using the unreliable POV-pushing article by Giannone, by using reliable high quality sources cited and cherry picked by Giannone.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of this would be easily solved if an admin just grew a pair and blocked KW; in the words of ArbCom in a very recently closed case,

Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting. The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

• KW repeatedly refuses to accept he may even be wrong, and has repeatedly accused others of violating AGF and NPA when he himself engages in the exact same behaviour while making these claims. It is, to me, absolutely astounding that someone who is so – for want of a better term – "disruptive and hostile" as he is should be allowed to continue editing, article contributions aside. Now watch, because I am 100% certain this comment will be characterised as in bad faith and a personal attack. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange Passerby,

Please review how much influence your complaints about me have had!

If your past complaints and calls for blocking have been ignored, it may be time to reassess your standing in the community.

Would you explain where I have been wrong? Where is one article I tagged that has not been extensively rewritten (e.g. by me) or deleted? Where is the NPOV violation in one article I've written? I agree that I have trouble understanding what goes through your mind, and should redouble my efforts to be patient and return kindness for malice.

Finally, avoid sexist terminology like "grow a pair", particularly when addressing editors sporting the Livestrong user box.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 04:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• removed user box that was interfering with close braces. — Ched :  ?  09:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm castings

Kiefer, there are five principles on which Wikipedia is founded. Pointing to the second pillar (NPOV) where you have repeatedly violated the fourth (Civility) is a distraction. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm, you have not said a word about all the attacks against me, and you certainly have done a thing to enforce your precious civility to stop your buddies from attacking me.

Can you focus on undoing such partisanship without distraction?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs Kiefer! I've asked you above for diffs of these attacks, and then I will investigate. I refuse to investigate "generally" because almost any outcome will be regarded by you as biased. I'm tired of your accusations of me acting on behalf of other people. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not made accusations, Worm. You already acknowledged that you came when Demiurge1000 asked you.

His and others' attacks on me have gone all the while, during which time you did nothing.

You accused me of canvassing despite your having been summoned, by Demiurge1000, along with Peter G Werner, Rd232, etc.

In short, your behavior here has been hypocritical. And it has not just been one bad decision, but partisanship carried on, despite warnings, for days. Such sustained behavior is revealing.

You should be tired and have a lot of other ill feelings as a results of such behavior. It's only natural.

Evolution has evolved humans, who are social beings, to feel bad when they been caught helping their clique by hurting the tribe.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well Kiefer. I wanted to leave this thread alone and have made that quite clear. But if you're demanding apologies from me, then I will spell out the problems for you. Perhaps the reason that other administrators have not commented is the way you have turned on everyone who does comment.

• There is a difference between how Demiurge contacted me and how you contacted other people. Firstly, I was already aware of this thread, as I have your page watchlisted. Secondly, Demiurge came to me as an admin that he trusted, I do not see that as unreasonable. Thirdly, he declared immediately that he had contacted me within this thread. On the other hand, you contacted two people, alledging the thread was politically motivated, and did not declare that on this thread, nor why you contacted those people in particular.
• You accused me of WP:MEATPUPPETry. Specifically here. I don't know if you realise, but that is a personal attack, and within this community quite an unpleasant one. I note that you had even been told by your "buddy" (a term I only use because he did in the title) that the comment was not a good one.
• I have not seen these personal attacks by Demiurge, nor by any one else who you seem to think is my "buddy". I have already explained myself regarding the incident at WT:RFA, and if you want to take that further then find a neutral admin to review my actions. Stop repeatedly accusing me of "not doing anything" in situations that I am unaware of.
• Every comment I wrote above was dealing solely with your behaviour and you have attempted to deflect this issue with political issues, copyright issues, other content issues and other people's behaviour. Yet you refuse to accept any responsibility yourself. Under dispute resolution, the best way to deal with a person acting in this way is through an RfC/U.
• Your unwillingness to provide diffs means that your vague handwavy comments about violations of AGF, NPA and civility are in themselves unpleasant and unhelpful.
• There are other issues, which I have not dealt with here, because I am focussing on your behaviour.

Only this week, I explained to another user that I would speak up if I saw editors looking down on other editors. In that case, I was talking about admins acting as other user's betters, yet the disdain I've seen from you in the past 24 hours has disgusted me. We are a community here, one that is working to build an encyclopedia together. I am exceptionally proud to be a member of said community, just as I am exceptionally proud of my good articles, and my hard work with many more problematic members of the community. Just because political articles about the USA are important to you does not mean they are important to everyone. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Venue & Motion to close

I have said this a few times above, but there is no administrator action required here and this thread should be closed. I said previously that issues should be dealt with at an RfC/U, should any parties wish to take that route - after the disdain Kiefer has treated me with and the accusations of WP:MEATPUPPETry, I will be writing up an RfC/U myself. As such I see no point in this thread remaining open and propose that it is closed by an uninvolved administrator. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've wasted enough time responding to your complaints.

Demiurge1000's asked you to intervene, as you have acknowledged before. Since your arrival, you have just criticized me and spinelessly failed to enforce your precious policies against your caller or your other buddies.

You can see that this page has been monitored during the last days by some of the most distinguished administrators on Wikipedia, and none of them have applauded you. In fact, this idiotic ANI has only attracted the people with whom I've already had conflicts or some of my fellow editors.

Your complaints have turned into threats and harassment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support closure as proposer. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Peter G Werner has some questions to answer and Worm/Demiurge1000/Strange_Passerby have some apologies to make.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:12, 8 August 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.

Soapboxing, disruptive comments at ITN

Resolved

• Lihaas (talk · contribs)

Lihaas is a regular contributor to WP:ITN/C. I've never noticed an issue with soapboxing there before. However, they recently seem to have begun leaving disruptive comments, for some reason. I first noticed a comment where they essentially suggested that 30 US soldiers killed in a helicopter crash 'got what was coming to them' because they killed Bin Laden.[173] The comment was removed by an administrator, but they later re-added it.[174] They also left a comment calling the UK a "police state [that] is always killing and perpetrating sanctioned terrorism."[175] They've suggested that myself,[176] Jaguar,[177] and HJ Mitchell[178] (we had all addressed his comments in some way) of opposing them only because we personally don't agree with them. This has continued after multiple requests that they stop soapboxing, so I can only assume that they're trying to make a point. In any case, I feel that Lihaas's behavior of inflammatory soapboxing is disruptive enough to warrant administrator intervention. Thank you, Swarm ^{u | t} 22:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the latest comments, but that's unquestionably disruptive editing, and it's certainly not tolerable at ITN, which is usually relatively peaceful. I think a ban from ITN is in order, but I will wait for the block to expire before proposing it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your actions concerning Lihass. Jaguar (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Herp Derp

User:Snakeboyhiss IS User:Kagome 85

How do I know this?

1: At the end of the Plot she impersonates me by saying Thank you. Sean

2: For what she said to User:Katieh5584 I'm 23 years old (which is my age) by the way. e-mail me, Blackmagic1234@gmail.com (which is a old dead email I gave up using because of User:Kagome 85 constant stalking.)

--142.163.114.153 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• This was already blocked at least 1 month ago. (And we need possible RevDel/Oversight here.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

George SJ XXI (talk · contribs) is engaged in disruptive editing. He has had his IP blacked today Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George SJ XXI and I have tried to deal with it via his talk page, but he ignores all talk and attempts to game the system. All his sources are being subject to his own interpretation, and are point pushing edits. The article being disrupted is: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington which was also semi-pp to prevent him doing this further.. but he is. Please investigate.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish is engaged in disruptive editing. He is editing being subject to his own interpretation. He has not engaged in discussion on the relevant talk page of the article : Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Please investigate. George SJ XXI (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, and now this guy is abusing this board. The discussion is quite clearly on his talk page, and he will be aware of this from the "new message" banner. There are no new discussions on the article Talk page he is disrupting, also - another falsehood noted. The edits he makes have been WP:CHALLENGED as well as appear as WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTHESIS entires - as proved by my typing the entire sections he cited, but bore no relation to the edits he made. He has failed to explain this discrepancy, but keeps adding the edits or reverting others. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

George SJ XXI blocked 48 hours for edit warring. Subsequent blocks, if they are needed, will be longer. EyeSerene^talk 09:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that I also requested User talk:George SJ XXI to go to the article talk page in my edit summary, after reverting his disruptive POV editing, here:- [179]. Also note his suspected sock puppet contributions to the articleCategory:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of George SJ XXI. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring w/ Sockpuppets

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

User2005 has been banned for using two sockpuppets to undo my edits on Shirley Rosario, Steve Badger, Tiffany Michelle and many other poker articles. These accounts have also been used to give the appearance of consensus in a previous ANI about poker articles.

I ask that user2005 either be permanently blocked, permanently blocked from editing poker articles or permanently blocked from reverting my edits. DegenFarang (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for three days, not banned. There is a difference.

For any observers, HelloAnnyong has issued the block in question. This discussion seems to be for the period following this block. It seems kind of harsh to not give the user a chance to comment, however. CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake i see 'banned' and 'blocked' used interchangeably. Yes he is blocked for three days and I would like action taken to prevent him from causing problems like this in the future. At the very least I think he should be blocked from reverting my edits. He created two sockpuppets and cultivated the accounts over more than 18 months simply to undo my edits.

I'll tell you right now what he is going to say. He's going to deny the sockpuppets were his and spew multiple paragraphs of ad hominem attacks about me and try to change the subject. DegenFarang (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be unwise. Right now the editor is facing a 3 day block for behavior that often leads to indefinite blocks. I'll leave a reminder of this on their user talk page. -- Atama頭 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as I predicted, he has gone straight back to edit warring the same articles he was blocked for creating sock puppets to edit. He needs to be, at the very least, blocked from reverting my edits. DegenFarang (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CycloneGU on this matter, we should wait with making conclusions until we hear 2005's side of the story. From my point of view, all this drama evolved from DegenFarang deciding to remove references to poker-babes.com from pages about poker, which seems to be his biggest involvement in poker articles, actually his biggest involvement in editing whatsoever, while 2005 has been writing and maintaining poker articles for years. I edit articles about poker a lot as well, so I cannot and won't pretend to be impartial on this matter, but I'd hate to lose a prolific editor over an escalated WP:RS dispute. Rymatz (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another way to say that is that it all started when me and 2005 had a disagreement about content. However only one of us created two sockpuppets and cultivated them over 18+ months in an attempt to win the dispute. DegenFarang (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from one of the three admins who denied the unblock request of one of the sockpuppets: "The claim that the three accounts are operated by three independent people is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent a couple of minutes looking at their editing histories. In my six years on Wikipedia I have never heard a WP:DUCK quack anything like so loudly. Probable sockpuppets, but certainly either that or meatpuppets, and it doesn't matter which. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)"

I hope somebody will make the decision to permanently block him. He is denying everything and will not change his ways upon returning. He should be indefinitely blocked until he takes responsibility for what he has done and agrees not to do it again. DegenFarang (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that I have lifted all three blocks since they were not supported by technical evidence.
  I cannot rule out that the editors have communicated off-wiki, maybe coordinated to get an upper hand in the dispute. However, seeing that the alleged sock accounts have edited before and were not created to help in an edit war, and were never notified or warned about our editing standards, an indefinite block was excessive and not constructive.
  Amalthea 19:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Five other administrators disagreed with you. Don't you guys care about consensus when making decisions? DegenFarang (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Amalthea is a checkuser and therefore has a greater insight into this than the administrators who declined to reverse the questionable decision of the attending administrator at WP:SPI/2005. FYI, I was the one asked Amalthea to investigate this situation and take any steps they felt appropriate; and after reviewing the technical evidence, endorse these unblocks. –xeno^talk 03:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this 'technical evidence'? IP addresses? That is laughably easy to get around. And as stated by two administrators even if these aren't the same people they are certainly meatpuppets. The edit summaries for the three accounts included identical wording, punctuation and syntax on multiple occasions. I don't see how much more obvious it can be. As one admin stated, 'The claim that the three accounts are operated by three independent people is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent a couple of minutes looking at their editing histories." DegenFarang (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples of "identical wording, punctuation and syntax" in edit summaries? –xeno^talk 04:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the examples I had before but just take a look at this and this. How much more obvious can it be? Accounts were opened during an edit war in early 2010. Have been almost entirely inactive since then. Then out of nowhere in late July of this year they tag team each other on opposite days reverting my edits on a small group of really obscure articles DegenFarang (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please provide specific evidence or strike your claims. I am no fan of User:2005 or his approach to editing, but these are clearly not sockpuppets. There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. Not from what I can see, anyway. –xeno^talk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets? Those two accounts clearly work together they already admitted they 'know each other'. According to the other administrators sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are treated the same way and it doesn't matter which one it is. DegenFarang (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK - Concrete evidence should not be needed in this instance. DegenFarang (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference. Working from the premise that this is not sockpuppetry, then indefinitely blocking Paige and Takeover is a disproportionate response. (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings). I concur with Amalthea that the next step here should be for all involved to stop edit warring and seek a resolution of the underlying dispute; I understand there is a discussion ongoing at the Poker project talk page. –xeno^talk 14:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, the sock block of me and those other accounts was not appropriate. While assuming good faith on the part of the blocking admin, this waste of everyone's time was due to DegenFarang's ongoing stalking of me, which part of his enormous history of spamming, BLP vandalism, talk page threats/abuse, insulting administrators, and in general deliberately stating falsehoods and mischaracterizing events. It is a breakdown in the admin level of the Wikipedia that he and his IP have not been banned permanently. Maybe I should start a new section to finally address this, but I'm going to make a subsection for transparency sake. If an admin wants to make it a section unto itself, fine by me. 2005 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Um, as the blocking admin I guess I'll comment. As I stated on the SPI case page, I blocked those accounts on behavioral grounds. I thought the evidence here was fairly strong, but if the CU shows that they're entirely unrelated, then that's fine, and I'll apologize for the error. I remain fairly convinced, however, that the accounts are at least working together in some capacity, but I suppose meatpuppetry here is another issue altogether. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the sockpuppets first said in his unblock request that he didn't know who the other sockpuppet was. When I challenged him about the accounts being created within a day of each other he changed his edit summary and admitted he lied about not knowing the other sock - and said they are friends with very similar views and interests. Those two accounts working in tandem here is not a possibility, it is guaranteed. He admitted "they know each other" and they tag-teamed me reverting my edits on multiple articles over an extended period of time. DegenFarang (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Also at a previous ANI where I was complaining about one of the socks, the other sock came into the discussion and said "i happened upon this page after seeing good references removed from another article' - no attempt was made to back up 'her' friend whom I was complaining about, no acknowledgement was made that they know each other and my specific complaints were not addressed by this sock. It was worded as an attempt to add neutral and passing support to the validity of the reference in question. This makes is blatantly obvious the accounts were being used together to create a false consensus and were sock or meatpupets. If you review the edit histories and the things the accounts go crazy about (poker-babes.com references and the Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger articles) there is really nobody else it could be than user2005 as 95% of the edits on those articles and about that reference were done by 2005 - and 2005 is the 3rd editor who is warring with me on those articles. As another administrator said, I've never seen a WP:DUCK quack so loud. DegenFarang (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Permanently banning User:DegenFarang

I had the misfortune of picking up User:DegenFarang when as part of my regular editing dutues in the gambling/poker section of the Wikipedia I removed some spam he added from this anonymous, poor quality site. In specific, in January 2009 he repeatedly removed a link to the Hollywood Reporter and added a link to the poor quality site, alleged that the canceled movie about the poker player Amarillo Slim would be released that year. Long story short, there were never any plans to release a movie that year, no movie was released, and the poor quality site was wrong. But DegenFarang would not let it go, and sad to say, I didn't let him have his way soon enough. He then removed an external link on that page to Poker-babes.com, which was added by User:Jhortman four years earlier. He somehow transfered his anger to that link and me somehow and was off to the races. Since switching from an IP to DegenFarang, his edit history is 95% BLP vandalism, contentious editing, stating deliberate untruths that mischaracterize events, stalking (including "admin shopping" nuisance ANI threads), making threats against a variety of users, and asserting repeatedly that he would ignore all rules at any point he wanted to. He has been given at least four literal "final warnings" from administarors, plus at least two more that are essentially final warnings. The process however has broken down, and he just takes his one day bannings and returns not only to his exact same behavoir, but he accelerates it. The time has come to final ban him and his IP permanently. This should occur for any one of the follow actions:

BLP Vandalism -- he should have been instantly permanently banned for changing the college major of a BLP from electrical engineering to thieving scumbaggery. he should have been banned for his repeated vandalism of the John Roberts article in January/February 2009, where he calls the Supreme Court Justice an "asshat" and labeling that edit as reverting vandalism. The four days going back from here reveal DegenFarang's first one day block for tendatious editing, and his wasting many editors time with his fanatical refusal to accept that other editors have the right to their opinions too. More recently he was blocked for similar behavoir on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article. Even though DegenFarang edits only rarely in article space there are other examples but these are all egregious examples of disruption that should not be tolerated and at least the first two should have lead to a permanent ban.

Spamming -- is noted above, but relatively minor since he gave up trying to spam that site after no one at a reliable sources noticeboard thread found any merit in it. I believe all the current links to this site are dead and should be removed, but I don't want to do it as it would surely lead to another flurry of retalion of some sort from him.

Ignore all rules always -- He refuses to learn policies and guidelines, no matter if three people think one way, he can ignore all rules, he even repeatedly he only recognizes ignore all rules, again here, including insisting he can ignore policy, and a rant ridiculing everything. There is more of this including a recent restatement around the last time he was banned for a day.

Ridicule of administrators -- "administrator of any intelligence" and refers to an admin as twice incompetent. Here he refers to one of his many admin warnings as fearmongering.

Making up things -- he has frequently made untrue statements regarding consensus, agreements and facts. He has repeatedly asserted that I have added hundreds of links to a website. He repeats this falsehood in every ANI-type thread he starts. I have added some links to this site, but so have a dozen other editors, including several admins with 50,000+ edits between them, and the total number at its peak was 60 links to this site. His assertion of consensus favoring him when there is no such thing is also inolerable.

His final warnings -- One, two, three, and a fourth "final warning". Is that a recod for "final" warnings? I don't know but there are many more warnings. After a recent two day block, he was warned threatening posts on talk pages is not tolerated... but if you look at his history since then he has made many such abusive, threatening posts.

I could go on, but I feel like I need a bath after this much. I've wasted a huge amount of time on this nonsense that could have went into productive editing, so have other editors, admins and otherwise. I've cut down my editing 90% because I don't want this stalker folwing me around to any new articles to mess with them too. The bottom line is he has gotten several final warnings, and was warned recently to not be abusive in talk pages and he has made many such abusive posts in the past two weeks. No more one day blocks where he pretends to be reasonable to be reinstated. He needs to be banned now, permanently. 2005 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit much anymore, but I was surprised when I logged in the other night to see that DegenFarang is still allowed to edit here. I had several run-ins with him a couple of years ago where he tried to threaten and intimidate me when I disagreed with his edits, but I just thought that eventually his behavior would pay off with a permanent block. Given the list of misbehavior above, I'm left wondering just what exactly does someone have to do here before they get permanently blocked anyway? Rray (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It happened on one of your edits.[180] I suspect that pesky bug. Doc talk 04:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• 90% of that is more than 18 months old and I've done nothing wrong at present. Your anger stems from me just having you blocked for using sock/meat puppets to revert my edits. You on the other hand, just received an explicit warning from an administrator not to revert my edits without consensus. Yet the first then you did upon being unblocked, after removing the warning from your talk page, was roll back all of the edits I made while you were blocked.
  I ask that 2005 be given instructions never again to revert my edits and that he be indefinitely blocked if he ignores the instructions. I think a temporary block is also in order for ignoring the warning that was just posted on his talk page. DegenFarang (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And I'd like a pizza. Pepperoni and mushroom with bacon. Chop-chop, I ain't got all night. HalfShadow 05:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I did not warn 2005 to stop revert you. I asked you both to stop edit warring. You both ignored me. Amalthea 13:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm delurking after 18+ months of not editing as I heard there was pizza and I still keep a curious eye on my watchlists and have watched this clusterf unfold over the past two weeks-ish. A cursory look at Special:Contributions/DegenFarang show that this user has been very focused (and is indeed the instigator of edit wars) on removing the same ELs from multiple poker articles, claiming that they are spam when they have been reaffirmed as recently as last week on this noticeboard to be not spam [181], especially for the main articles that he is edit warring about, Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger. The links he advocate to remove are the very blogs that the article subjects either have contributed several articles or owned the site, or both. This has been going on for years and is the reason why I have these articles and his talkpage on my watchlist. He also has recently stripped down the Shirley Rosario article and CSD'd it [182] (though he knows it survived DRV in 2010 -- he submitted that DRV.) The SPI case he filed a day or two after he returned from an indef which was lifted after he promised to not threaten and escalate [183], a promise he immediately broke: [184], [185]. After getting newbie users (who should've just been minnowed) blocked, he dances on their user page: [186], [187], even after being told to not post there twice [188] [189]. Far far beyond the pale is editing a user's unblock request: [190]. best, --guyzero | talk 10:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL if there was any doubt about the meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, let this be your answer: all one needs to do is look at this post (I've only ever seen 2005 post like that in my life) and the fact that the account hasn't been used since March of 2010 - then suddenly it reverts me on Shirley Rosario after 2005 was warned not to revert my edits w/out consensus and did it anyway, then I reported it here and the most obvious sock/meatpuppet in the history of obvious sock/meatpuppets comes and rolls me back and posts this here. I can't believe he has the audacity to do this when his sockpuppetry is already under the microscope. I think this is deserving of a lifetime ban on all accounts. DegenFarang (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll just point out that it does seem mildly suspicious that an account (guyzero) comes back after sixteen months of inactivity, and their first edit is to continue an edit war, and their third is to post this stuff above. *cough* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The one follows from the other, but yes, I tend to think that he was alerted to the situation by someone.
Nonetheless, the heart of the conflict is the appropriateness of the external links and references, and the approach to editing by the editors involved. That's what needs to be resolved.
There's now a discussion at WT:POKER about the usage these links, and I am hopeful that this will help resolve the dispute here, without needing to block anyone.
Amalthea 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the appropriateness of the external links and references is something that can and should be discussed, but that doesn't address User:DegenFarang's disruptive editing. Both can and should be addressed. Rray (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Will this madness never end? Amalthea, do you know he has falsely claimed I am "familiar with" you? He has asserted several editors are my sockpuppets, without any evidence (which there is none because it is absolutely false), I'd have to stay up 24 hours a day to accomplish all the editing these other editors have done... in areas that I have never shown the slightest interest in. Please don't focus on the minor incident. That is why there has been this breakdown in the admin process. Degenfarang's individual behavoir is a part of longterm abusiveness where he has shown contempt for all wikipedia policies and editors. He accussed the many editors reverting him in the John Roberts article of being conspiring Republicans, and so on. Abusive activity is 95% of his edits. While he is out admin shopping all over the place now, the real issue is simple: will someone stand up and say that it is acceptable to call the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court an "asshat" in his article, or to say another man majored in "thieving scumbaggery" in college? Anyone want to say a person who does that is welcome ignore all rules and do whatever the hell he pleases on the Wikipedia? Ban him, permanently, as he should have been long before now. Those two edits alone bring shame on the Wikipedia, and make a joke of its good citizen policies. 2005 (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not connected to or in touch with any editor from this site, the article subjects, the poker industry, etc. and did not receive an "alert" to come and make my post above. Prior to my hiatus, I editing across a wide spectrum of subjects including vand patrol, etc. I stated truthfully what brought me here and while I can understand that me delurking after an extended time is "curious", I ask that you assume good faith in my explanation that I was hoping to aid this conversation by giving another view (along with links) on DegenFarang's years-long behavior issue around these specific links and article subjects. I've interacted with DegenFarang in the past on these very articles [191]. I'll repeat that I was not alerted to come here. Does it not fail the common sense test that someone would dig my name out of the distant past and contact me? I agree that my hitting undo last night on one of the problem articles was not a good decision and apologize for contributing to the escalation, my perception at the time was that I was restoring this article to the sourced consensus version, but I should not have done it.

I believe I've provided links above that describe an unacceptably disruptive battleground mentality from DegenFarang, including links to offenses that I believe to be blockable (such as editing a users unblock request.) My suggestion for the battleground issues is for this user to permanently, voluntarily steer clear from his dispute locus, which are Shirley Rosario, Steve Badger and the ELs of their poker blogs. I respectfully ask that administrators check my note and links above, that I felt strong enough about to delurk and write, and please review this situation in whole. thank you and kind regards, --guyzero | talk 21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This drama-fest needs at one thing clarified in the sub-title: if this is a ban discussion of DenenFarang, that's one thing (I have no opinion on either of the warring editors). But unless something fundamental has changed, WP does not "permanently ban" any IP addresses. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 03:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User2005 continues use of sock and meat puppets

All of the associated accounts are back and attempting to create the impression they are different people and trying to build the impression of consensus in multiple discussions. Here, here, here and here. Something really needs to be done. It is obvious this user has not learned from this experience. He continues to make claims such as 'you are the only one who disagrees' when in fact he is the only one who disagrees with me, I just have the integrity to only use one account. DegenFarang (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They are multiple people. Amalthea 11:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Action

I'm afraid I've been off wiki for the last while due to sickness and haven't been able to follow-up on my unblocking of DegenFarang. While I agree with Amalthea's unblocking of User:2005 et al as regards socks there is a tag-teaming issue that these users need to address.
That said there is a long running issue of DegenFarang editwarring over a series of articles about this external links issue. he claims these links are spam - I cannot see where in WP:EL or WP:BLP these removals are mandated. Furthermore it is clear that DegenFarang has a partisan opinion about the sites he is removing.
In short the question for the rest of us is whether the project can sustain this kind of behaviour from DegenFarang and those editwarring with him. My block of DegenFarang was for breaching WP:OUT a few days later I unblocked him conditional on his agreement to abide by site policy in full. I cannot see his actions in the last few days as fullfilling that agreement, however I don't see his actions as waranting an indef block. Thus I would suggest a topc ban from all poker related BLPs for DegenFarang.
I will not be available onwiki for a few days so I submit this to my fellow sysops as a suggestion--Cailil ^talk 13:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough already

I have blocked DegenFarang indefinitely for continuing to insist that every single editor who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. The final straws are accusing editors here on no basis, (and Amalthea has subsequently confirmed are all different people), this and this edit to TheTakeover on Amalthea's talkpage, and this edit to Rray on Amalthea's talkpage. There is clear evidence that this user is unwilling to engage collegially with anyone who disagrees with him, and given his previous block record, I have acted accordingly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 8 August 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.

ClaudioSantos, socks, eugenics, and euthanasia.

I'm not keen to start a thread on the drama-board, but this is probably the best place for it as it's not purely 3RR or purely socky...
ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a long history [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] of editwarring on subjects related to euthanasia, eugenics &c. Unfortunately, several blocks seem to have caused only one change to editing patterns; they now appear to be using an IP address in order to get around 3RR. For instance, compare these two edits to these two. And on talkpages, including the RfC on Talk:Planned Parenthood, 192.172.14.99 has turned up to provide one of the few voices in support of ClaudioSantos' mission to emphasise ties between Planned Parenthood and eugenics - right on the boundary of ClaudioSantos' topic ban from "Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". There are many more examples in Special:Contributions/192.172.14.99. This kind of socking, editwarring, and votestacking is very unhelpful. ClaudioSantos has surely been reminded of the rules many times, and been given many extra chances. What's the best way to deal with this? I fear that another week's block would merely allows other editors to be productive for a week before the disruption resumes again. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Right on the boundary" is generous. The lead of Planned Parenthood notes their use of abortion, and here's an opinionated source that says, "Abortion is merely prenatal euthanasia, as euthanasia is postnatal abortion". Jesanj (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this put him afoul of the community-placed 1RR general sanction on abortion? Between that and the apparent attempt at end-running the topic ban, it looks to me like ClaudioSantos is earning the heavy end of the hammer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is harassment and false accusations of bad faith on alleged use of a sockpuppet. I am not editing warring as I have constrained me to discuss the thing in the talk page about the inclution/exclution of a see-also link at Planned Parenthood linking to Eugenics in the United States. I was also commenting as a RfC was called. This is an abusive use of the ANI in order to force a point of view through excluding an user. It is proverbial the Jesanj efforts to imply that abortion is euthanasia, a point of view that surely he will not include at those articles, but solely in order to extend the ban for me. -- ClaudioSantos¿?

As I pointed out on my talk page, the only mention of abortion in our euthanasia article mentions that one definition of euthanasia "specifically discounts fetuses in order to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia". The mainstream doesn't equate the two, our articles don't either at this moment, and until ClaudioSantos expresses the same view or tries to modify our articles in an attempt to equate the two, I don't see that the topic ban is being violated. (Other admins can feel free to disagree with me on that point.) Eugenics has an even shakier tie to euthanasia, I see almost no connection between the two topics. On the other hand, if there is actual socking that is going on, regardless of any topic bans that shouldn't be allowed, though that should be proven before action is taken. As to the violation of 1RR, I haven't looked into that yet, that might also be sanctionable. -- Atama頭 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the RfC and underlying content dispute (I think both parties have made at least some valid points), but the edit warring on Eugenics in the United States in not tolerable. I have fully-protected the article for 3 days. I have also blocked 192.172.14.99 (talk · contribs · block log) for edit warring (they were very specifically warned by me here). — Satori Son 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe that ClaudioSantos has edited using that 192.172.14.99 anon account. That address geolocates to Farmington, Michigan, US, whereas ClaudioSantos appears to be editing from South America. — Satori Son 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I already explicity sais that I am not that IP. And I am not using any sockpuppet to votestacking. Those are solely bad faith assumptions. And I also have to notice here that I am not involved in the claimed edit warring on Eugenics in the United States where I have not edited since days ago. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Planned Parenthood, I only see 1 revert in 24 hours, which is not a violation of the general sanction. -- Atama頭 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, 192.172.14.99 (talk) is a U.S. Army IP address, registered to the USAISC. It's likely shared by a number of users, although recent activity seems to focus on attacking Planned Parenthood. I suspect that blocks of this IP will involve collateral damage, as there are probably multiple users connecting through it, and so semiprotection of specific target pages might be a better approach if problems recur. Just my 2 cents, and to be clear, I am involved in the dispute at Planned Parenthood. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur that semi-protection of the article is likely the best approach. And I retract my earlier comments regarding ClaudioSantos; it appears that the episode is still too fresh in too many people's minds, mine included. I'll put the RFPP in now, unless someone else already has. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with semi-protection, and support the 72 hour block on the IP. The only active disruption caused by anonymous editors is from this single IP. I'm not worried about collateral damage because this IP has been consistent for the past 3 days, so I wouldn't be too concerned if it is blocked for the next 3 days. If another IP appears to continue where this last one left off, then semi-protection would be warranted, but we normally don't protect an article because of disruption from a single account. -- Atama頭 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, just block the disruptive user and move on. causa sui (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP-block, but a warning to ClaudioSantos to keep a bit more distance from his topic block seems appropriate to me. Just play it on the safe side, Claudio. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the admin's talk page who enacted the community sanction, in which he judged that abortion was not a related topic. I concur with that, and I was the author of the community sanction.

If he's being disruptive by article standards, that's actionable, but the sanction only covers so much. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos (talk) has been blocked for edit warring and is asking for a review of that block on their talk page. — Satori Son 18:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Could we get some eyes on Talk:Planned_Parenthood#Emphasis_on_eugenics? It's a big mess and has exhibited some questionable behavior e.g. accusing other editors of white washing the article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to caution ClaudioSantos about his behavior, through dialog on my user talk page, but it hasn't been working very well. He continues to antagonize anyone who disagrees with him. -- Atama頭 16:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Two days ago they were blocked for seven days for violating 1RR restrictions at Planned Parenthood. (Though they are asking for a review of that block on their talk page.) Once that block expires (or is lifted), their behavior will need to be monitored. — Satori Son 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Siouxsherat

This user's user page looks like a clear violation of wp:user pages. However, I don't have experience dealing with user page issues, so I thought I'd bring this to the group's attention for further instruction. The user in question went so far as to add his user page to the "External links" section of the Sarcoidosis article. It's been removed, so it's not an issue, but it does help illustrate that the user is using his user page as a personal blog rather than to further the project. Rklawton (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed it looks like WP:UP#Excessive unrelated content, particularly WP:UP#PROMO. I'm paring it down and will inform the user of what I've done and why. I've already blanked the phone numbers and email addresses; I doubt it's worth oversighting them as the user put them there herself. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Rklawton: No offense, but your first edit to his her talk page was about this ANI thread; it should have been a note regarding WP:UPNOT and then wait for his her response. Sends a better "welcome to WP" vibe rather than what ANI offers. --64.85.217.47 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

::: Given that the user calls themselves "Susan Elizabeth" that's more than likely "her" talkpage and response Tonywalton ^Talk 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor, here... Perhaps a kind note explaining that their userpage might just fall afoul of WP:UP or even a templated message (we have {{uw-userpage}}) would have been better courses of action. However, now it's done; let's see how and if Siouxsherat responds. The extrema ratio, in these cases, is WP:MFD... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now boldly removed most of it, with a fairly long and hopefully kind note on their talkpage explaining about WP:UP#PROMO and WP:UP#USERBIO and inviting them to become a contributor with due regard to WP:OR and WP:NPOV particularly with regard to their own medical condition. Please don't flag as resolved yet until we either hear nothing at all or get some feedback from User:Siouxsherat. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll add the uw-userpage template suggestion to wp:user pages where it would be most useful. Rklawton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It was I who removed the link to User:Siouxsherat from both Sarcoidosis and Sarcoid. In both cases my edit summary read "rv: that is an internal link pretending to be external, and articles should never link to any userspace pages". I did want to add a template to User talk:Siouxsherat, but didn't, because I couldn't find a suitable one at WP:TUSER. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Communication is essential in situations like this. If there is no suitable template, write an appropriate message using your own words. If you can't think of how to explain your actions before you start acting, then it is probably best to either leave the action to someone else or (preferably) to seek assistance from a more experienced user before acting. That way everyone has an opportunity to learn. However, do not depend on templates for communication; think of how most people feel when receiving form letters and no actual specific personal message. Risker (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends what the infraction is, of course. If this had simply been the 17th attempt to use a userpage to promote Vic's Viagra Shack a simple "you have been blocked for spamming" would probably have sufficed. This wasn't... Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

When I revert edits of other users, I don't always template them; often I consider that the edit summary is enough, especially if there were only one or two instances. If they then repeat the behaviour, or have done it several times already, then I'll reach for the template box. In my experience, templating a user may provoke them, see WP:DNIV. In this case, there were 13 edits, but I considered it to be two instances because the user was clearly working out the link syntax on a trial-and-error basis (three of the 13 edits were self-reverts, which are always permitted, AFAIK). I suppose that I could have issued a {{subst:uw-test1}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

New users don't always know to look for the edit summaries. If there's been other intervening edits, it won't show up on a watchlist. If you need to say something, I find using the talkpage is mor reliable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the more general discussion Siouxsherat has asked for the original page to be provided to her as she's put a lot of work into it and it may be useful elsewhere within the Sarc community.

I've done so at User:Siouxsherat/Old User Page, effectively a sandbox. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure user page rules apply to sandboxes, too. What Siouxsherat‎ created has nothing to do with Wikipedia and shouldn't be hosted by Wikipedia even if it's useful to some other group for some other reason - no matter how much work as put into it. I suggest giving Siouxsherat‎ time to copy her work and removing the sandbox page, too). Rklawton (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here I would agree with you. Since this user has 16 article edits in 2 years, and appears to be a (good intentioned) SPA, no leeway is available to her. WP:User pages#On others' user pages states "Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given a little more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits or promotional-style activity," so that would not apply here. Also, she has stated the page is of use to people with similar disabilities; this suggests she may be using WP as a webhost. Since an admin has reinstated her userpage on a subpage, I would suggest giving her a week or so to transfer it to a Word document (or something) and then delete it. Ideally, the same admin would do this (Tonywalton), as is usually par for the course. That's just how I see it. (Same IP user as 64.85.xxx.xx above) --64.85.215.50 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I propose deleting that in a day week or so, when she's had chance to copy it offline. Sorry, I should have said that I've applied a trout to myself already). Tonywalton ^Talk 15:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Peridon - speedy deletions

Resolved

 – WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Peridon seems to annoy several people, see e.g. User talk:Peridon/Archives/2010/January. He deleted a WP:SIA page that I created, claiming WP:CSD#A10 and "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Bahara" - but this was not met at all, "Bahara" is about one place, while Bahara, India was a WP:SIA, I asked him to revert

• User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2011/July#Bahara.2C_India
• User_talk:Peridon#2nd_request_Bahara.2C_India

But he is not reverting. He should revert and put it into a regular deletion process. He even dives into "As it stood, it was a list of places" contradicting the summary that he left when deleting. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRV is that way. T. Canens (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've notified Peridon. If he doesn't restore the material and list it at AfD, then you should open a deletion review, but I hope this will not be necessary.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I put it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 8. But I think there should be taken action against Peridon's improper deletions. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

People here should be aware of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi; it's "likely" that this is another one. FWIW, my experience with his socks is leaving me with the sound of quacking ringing in my ears. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update; user now indeffed as a sock by ErrantX. Marking resolved, though an uninvolved admin should take a look at the DRV to figure out what to do with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Though frivolous DRVs by banned editors might be closed, this DRV looks to have substance, so I suggest it be allowed to run its course. There is already a lengthy comment there by DGG of a profound nature so, anyone who thinks they understand the issue can go and contribute. An objection by any editor (now DGG is the proponent) is enough reason to take a speedy to DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalking by User:JaGa

Resolved

 – boomerang --Errant ^(chat!) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see [198], [199] [200], [201] ... and then he started a SPI case [202]. This looks like he wants to kick me out of the project. Maybe also because I pointed out bias regarding Indian topics and now it is a revenge or something like this. The non-consensus claims have also been brought up by SpacemanSpiff, so maybe he formed an alliance with him. See the links I provided on the SPI case that show that there was consensus. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

He even programmed a stalking tool: http://toolserver.org/~jason/mv/move_stats.php - that lets him view page moves and then attack users that move several pages. And note: He does distinguish moves of "normal" users from moves made by admins. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that tool; in fact, it seems very useful.  Chzz  ►  14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's primarily used to nail Tobias Conradi socks; in this case, it seems to have achieved exactly what it was intended to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeedy - blocked the socks based on the SPI. Although it occurs to me I have earlier participated in an AFD with this person yesterday (I knew the name rang a bell). So might not have been the best person to do it - fairly uncontroversial matter though. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring w/ Sockpuppets

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

User2005 has been banned for using two sockpuppets to undo my edits on Shirley Rosario, Steve Badger, Tiffany Michelle and many other poker articles. These accounts have also been used to give the appearance of consensus in a previous ANI about poker articles.

I ask that user2005 either be permanently blocked, permanently blocked from editing poker articles or permanently blocked from reverting my edits. DegenFarang (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for three days, not banned. There is a difference.

For any observers, HelloAnnyong has issued the block in question. This discussion seems to be for the period following this block. It seems kind of harsh to not give the user a chance to comment, however. CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake i see 'banned' and 'blocked' used interchangeably. Yes he is blocked for three days and I would like action taken to prevent him from causing problems like this in the future. At the very least I think he should be blocked from reverting my edits. He created two sockpuppets and cultivated the accounts over more than 18 months simply to undo my edits.

I'll tell you right now what he is going to say. He's going to deny the sockpuppets were his and spew multiple paragraphs of ad hominem attacks about me and try to change the subject. DegenFarang (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be unwise. Right now the editor is facing a 3 day block for behavior that often leads to indefinite blocks. I'll leave a reminder of this on their user talk page. -- Atama頭 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as I predicted, he has gone straight back to edit warring the same articles he was blocked for creating sock puppets to edit. He needs to be, at the very least, blocked from reverting my edits. DegenFarang (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CycloneGU on this matter, we should wait with making conclusions until we hear 2005's side of the story. From my point of view, all this drama evolved from DegenFarang deciding to remove references to poker-babes.com from pages about poker, which seems to be his biggest involvement in poker articles, actually his biggest involvement in editing whatsoever, while 2005 has been writing and maintaining poker articles for years. I edit articles about poker a lot as well, so I cannot and won't pretend to be impartial on this matter, but I'd hate to lose a prolific editor over an escalated WP:RS dispute. Rymatz (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another way to say that is that it all started when me and 2005 had a disagreement about content. However only one of us created two sockpuppets and cultivated them over 18+ months in an attempt to win the dispute. DegenFarang (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from one of the three admins who denied the unblock request of one of the sockpuppets: "The claim that the three accounts are operated by three independent people is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent a couple of minutes looking at their editing histories. In my six years on Wikipedia I have never heard a WP:DUCK quack anything like so loudly. Probable sockpuppets, but certainly either that or meatpuppets, and it doesn't matter which. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)"

I hope somebody will make the decision to permanently block him. He is denying everything and will not change his ways upon returning. He should be indefinitely blocked until he takes responsibility for what he has done and agrees not to do it again. DegenFarang (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that I have lifted all three blocks since they were not supported by technical evidence.
  I cannot rule out that the editors have communicated off-wiki, maybe coordinated to get an upper hand in the dispute. However, seeing that the alleged sock accounts have edited before and were not created to help in an edit war, and were never notified or warned about our editing standards, an indefinite block was excessive and not constructive.
  Amalthea 19:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Five other administrators disagreed with you. Don't you guys care about consensus when making decisions? DegenFarang (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Amalthea is a checkuser and therefore has a greater insight into this than the administrators who declined to reverse the questionable decision of the attending administrator at WP:SPI/2005. FYI, I was the one asked Amalthea to investigate this situation and take any steps they felt appropriate; and after reviewing the technical evidence, endorse these unblocks. –xeno^talk 03:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this 'technical evidence'? IP addresses? That is laughably easy to get around. And as stated by two administrators even if these aren't the same people they are certainly meatpuppets. The edit summaries for the three accounts included identical wording, punctuation and syntax on multiple occasions. I don't see how much more obvious it can be. As one admin stated, 'The claim that the three accounts are operated by three independent people is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent a couple of minutes looking at their editing histories." DegenFarang (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples of "identical wording, punctuation and syntax" in edit summaries? –xeno^talk 04:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the examples I had before but just take a look at this and this. How much more obvious can it be? Accounts were opened during an edit war in early 2010. Have been almost entirely inactive since then. Then out of nowhere in late July of this year they tag team each other on opposite days reverting my edits on a small group of really obscure articles DegenFarang (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please provide specific evidence or strike your claims. I am no fan of User:2005 or his approach to editing, but these are clearly not sockpuppets. There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. Not from what I can see, anyway. –xeno^talk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets? Those two accounts clearly work together they already admitted they 'know each other'. According to the other administrators sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are treated the same way and it doesn't matter which one it is. DegenFarang (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK - Concrete evidence should not be needed in this instance. DegenFarang (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference. Working from the premise that this is not sockpuppetry, then indefinitely blocking Paige and Takeover is a disproportionate response. (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings). I concur with Amalthea that the next step here should be for all involved to stop edit warring and seek a resolution of the underlying dispute; I understand there is a discussion ongoing at the Poker project talk page. –xeno^talk 14:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, the sock block of me and those other accounts was not appropriate. While assuming good faith on the part of the blocking admin, this waste of everyone's time was due to DegenFarang's ongoing stalking of me, which part of his enormous history of spamming, BLP vandalism, talk page threats/abuse, insulting administrators, and in general deliberately stating falsehoods and mischaracterizing events. It is a breakdown in the admin level of the Wikipedia that he and his IP have not been banned permanently. Maybe I should start a new section to finally address this, but I'm going to make a subsection for transparency sake. If an admin wants to make it a section unto itself, fine by me. 2005 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Um, as the blocking admin I guess I'll comment. As I stated on the SPI case page, I blocked those accounts on behavioral grounds. I thought the evidence here was fairly strong, but if the CU shows that they're entirely unrelated, then that's fine, and I'll apologize for the error. I remain fairly convinced, however, that the accounts are at least working together in some capacity, but I suppose meatpuppetry here is another issue altogether. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the sockpuppets first said in his unblock request that he didn't know who the other sockpuppet was. When I challenged him about the accounts being created within a day of each other he changed his edit summary and admitted he lied about not knowing the other sock - and said they are friends with very similar views and interests. Those two accounts working in tandem here is not a possibility, it is guaranteed. He admitted "they know each other" and they tag-teamed me reverting my edits on multiple articles over an extended period of time. DegenFarang (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Also at a previous ANI where I was complaining about one of the socks, the other sock came into the discussion and said "i happened upon this page after seeing good references removed from another article' - no attempt was made to back up 'her' friend whom I was complaining about, no acknowledgement was made that they know each other and my specific complaints were not addressed by this sock. It was worded as an attempt to add neutral and passing support to the validity of the reference in question. This makes is blatantly obvious the accounts were being used together to create a false consensus and were sock or meatpupets. If you review the edit histories and the things the accounts go crazy about (poker-babes.com references and the Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger articles) there is really nobody else it could be than user2005 as 95% of the edits on those articles and about that reference were done by 2005 - and 2005 is the 3rd editor who is warring with me on those articles. As another administrator said, I've never seen a WP:DUCK quack so loud. DegenFarang (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Permanently banning User:DegenFarang

I had the misfortune of picking up User:DegenFarang when as part of my regular editing dutues in the gambling/poker section of the Wikipedia I removed some spam he added from this anonymous, poor quality site. In specific, in January 2009 he repeatedly removed a link to the Hollywood Reporter and added a link to the poor quality site, alleged that the canceled movie about the poker player Amarillo Slim would be released that year. Long story short, there were never any plans to release a movie that year, no movie was released, and the poor quality site was wrong. But DegenFarang would not let it go, and sad to say, I didn't let him have his way soon enough. He then removed an external link on that page to Poker-babes.com, which was added by User:Jhortman four years earlier. He somehow transfered his anger to that link and me somehow and was off to the races. Since switching from an IP to DegenFarang, his edit history is 95% BLP vandalism, contentious editing, stating deliberate untruths that mischaracterize events, stalking (including "admin shopping" nuisance ANI threads), making threats against a variety of users, and asserting repeatedly that he would ignore all rules at any point he wanted to. He has been given at least four literal "final warnings" from administarors, plus at least two more that are essentially final warnings. The process however has broken down, and he just takes his one day bannings and returns not only to his exact same behavoir, but he accelerates it. The time has come to final ban him and his IP permanently. This should occur for any one of the follow actions:

BLP Vandalism -- he should have been instantly permanently banned for changing the college major of a BLP from electrical engineering to thieving scumbaggery. he should have been banned for his repeated vandalism of the John Roberts article in January/February 2009, where he calls the Supreme Court Justice an "asshat" and labeling that edit as reverting vandalism. The four days going back from here reveal DegenFarang's first one day block for tendatious editing, and his wasting many editors time with his fanatical refusal to accept that other editors have the right to their opinions too. More recently he was blocked for similar behavoir on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article. Even though DegenFarang edits only rarely in article space there are other examples but these are all egregious examples of disruption that should not be tolerated and at least the first two should have lead to a permanent ban.

Spamming -- is noted above, but relatively minor since he gave up trying to spam that site after no one at a reliable sources noticeboard thread found any merit in it. I believe all the current links to this site are dead and should be removed, but I don't want to do it as it would surely lead to another flurry of retalion of some sort from him.

Ignore all rules always -- He refuses to learn policies and guidelines, no matter if three people think one way, he can ignore all rules, he even repeatedly he only recognizes ignore all rules, again here, including insisting he can ignore policy, and a rant ridiculing everything. There is more of this including a recent restatement around the last time he was banned for a day.

Ridicule of administrators -- "administrator of any intelligence" and refers to an admin as twice incompetent. Here he refers to one of his many admin warnings as fearmongering.

Making up things -- he has frequently made untrue statements regarding consensus, agreements and facts. He has repeatedly asserted that I have added hundreds of links to a website. He repeats this falsehood in every ANI-type thread he starts. I have added some links to this site, but so have a dozen other editors, including several admins with 50,000+ edits between them, and the total number at its peak was 60 links to this site. His assertion of consensus favoring him when there is no such thing is also inolerable.

His final warnings -- One, two, three, and a fourth "final warning". Is that a recod for "final" warnings? I don't know but there are many more warnings. After a recent two day block, he was warned threatening posts on talk pages is not tolerated... but if you look at his history since then he has made many such abusive, threatening posts.

I could go on, but I feel like I need a bath after this much. I've wasted a huge amount of time on this nonsense that could have went into productive editing, so have other editors, admins and otherwise. I've cut down my editing 90% because I don't want this stalker folwing me around to any new articles to mess with them too. The bottom line is he has gotten several final warnings, and was warned recently to not be abusive in talk pages and he has made many such abusive posts in the past two weeks. No more one day blocks where he pretends to be reasonable to be reinstated. He needs to be banned now, permanently. 2005 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit much anymore, but I was surprised when I logged in the other night to see that DegenFarang is still allowed to edit here. I had several run-ins with him a couple of years ago where he tried to threaten and intimidate me when I disagreed with his edits, but I just thought that eventually his behavior would pay off with a permanent block. Given the list of misbehavior above, I'm left wondering just what exactly does someone have to do here before they get permanently blocked anyway? Rray (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It happened on one of your edits.[203] I suspect that pesky bug. Doc talk 04:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• 90% of that is more than 18 months old and I've done nothing wrong at present. Your anger stems from me just having you blocked for using sock/meat puppets to revert my edits. You on the other hand, just received an explicit warning from an administrator not to revert my edits without consensus. Yet the first then you did upon being unblocked, after removing the warning from your talk page, was roll back all of the edits I made while you were blocked.
  I ask that 2005 be given instructions never again to revert my edits and that he be indefinitely blocked if he ignores the instructions. I think a temporary block is also in order for ignoring the warning that was just posted on his talk page. DegenFarang (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And I'd like a pizza. Pepperoni and mushroom with bacon. Chop-chop, I ain't got all night. HalfShadow 05:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I did not warn 2005 to stop revert you. I asked you both to stop edit warring. You both ignored me. Amalthea 13:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm delurking after 18+ months of not editing as I heard there was pizza and I still keep a curious eye on my watchlists and have watched this clusterf unfold over the past two weeks-ish. A cursory look at Special:Contributions/DegenFarang show that this user has been very focused (and is indeed the instigator of edit wars) on removing the same ELs from multiple poker articles, claiming that they are spam when they have been reaffirmed as recently as last week on this noticeboard to be not spam [204], especially for the main articles that he is edit warring about, Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger. The links he advocate to remove are the very blogs that the article subjects either have contributed several articles or owned the site, or both. This has been going on for years and is the reason why I have these articles and his talkpage on my watchlist. He also has recently stripped down the Shirley Rosario article and CSD'd it [205] (though he knows it survived DRV in 2010 -- he submitted that DRV.) The SPI case he filed a day or two after he returned from an indef which was lifted after he promised to not threaten and escalate [206], a promise he immediately broke: [207], [208]. After getting newbie users (who should've just been minnowed) blocked, he dances on their user page: [209], [210], even after being told to not post there twice [211] [212]. Far far beyond the pale is editing a user's unblock request: [213]. best, --guyzero | talk 10:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL if there was any doubt about the meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, let this be your answer: all one needs to do is look at this post (I've only ever seen 2005 post like that in my life) and the fact that the account hasn't been used since March of 2010 - then suddenly it reverts me on Shirley Rosario after 2005 was warned not to revert my edits w/out consensus and did it anyway, then I reported it here and the most obvious sock/meatpuppet in the history of obvious sock/meatpuppets comes and rolls me back and posts this here. I can't believe he has the audacity to do this when his sockpuppetry is already under the microscope. I think this is deserving of a lifetime ban on all accounts. DegenFarang (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll just point out that it does seem mildly suspicious that an account (guyzero) comes back after sixteen months of inactivity, and their first edit is to continue an edit war, and their third is to post this stuff above. *cough* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The one follows from the other, but yes, I tend to think that he was alerted to the situation by someone.
Nonetheless, the heart of the conflict is the appropriateness of the external links and references, and the approach to editing by the editors involved. That's what needs to be resolved.
There's now a discussion at WT:POKER about the usage these links, and I am hopeful that this will help resolve the dispute here, without needing to block anyone.
Amalthea 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the appropriateness of the external links and references is something that can and should be discussed, but that doesn't address User:DegenFarang's disruptive editing. Both can and should be addressed. Rray (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Will this madness never end? Amalthea, do you know he has falsely claimed I am "familiar with" you? He has asserted several editors are my sockpuppets, without any evidence (which there is none because it is absolutely false), I'd have to stay up 24 hours a day to accomplish all the editing these other editors have done... in areas that I have never shown the slightest interest in. Please don't focus on the minor incident. That is why there has been this breakdown in the admin process. Degenfarang's individual behavoir is a part of longterm abusiveness where he has shown contempt for all wikipedia policies and editors. He accussed the many editors reverting him in the John Roberts article of being conspiring Republicans, and so on. Abusive activity is 95% of his edits. While he is out admin shopping all over the place now, the real issue is simple: will someone stand up and say that it is acceptable to call the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court an "asshat" in his article, or to say another man majored in "thieving scumbaggery" in college? Anyone want to say a person who does that is welcome ignore all rules and do whatever the hell he pleases on the Wikipedia? Ban him, permanently, as he should have been long before now. Those two edits alone bring shame on the Wikipedia, and make a joke of its good citizen policies. 2005 (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not connected to or in touch with any editor from this site, the article subjects, the poker industry, etc. and did not receive an "alert" to come and make my post above. Prior to my hiatus, I editing across a wide spectrum of subjects including vand patrol, etc. I stated truthfully what brought me here and while I can understand that me delurking after an extended time is "curious", I ask that you assume good faith in my explanation that I was hoping to aid this conversation by giving another view (along with links) on DegenFarang's years-long behavior issue around these specific links and article subjects. I've interacted with DegenFarang in the past on these very articles [214]. I'll repeat that I was not alerted to come here. Does it not fail the common sense test that someone would dig my name out of the distant past and contact me? I agree that my hitting undo last night on one of the problem articles was not a good decision and apologize for contributing to the escalation, my perception at the time was that I was restoring this article to the sourced consensus version, but I should not have done it.

I believe I've provided links above that describe an unacceptably disruptive battleground mentality from DegenFarang, including links to offenses that I believe to be blockable (such as editing a users unblock request.) My suggestion for the battleground issues is for this user to permanently, voluntarily steer clear from his dispute locus, which are Shirley Rosario, Steve Badger and the ELs of their poker blogs. I respectfully ask that administrators check my note and links above, that I felt strong enough about to delurk and write, and please review this situation in whole. thank you and kind regards, --guyzero | talk 21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This drama-fest needs at one thing clarified in the sub-title: if this is a ban discussion of DenenFarang, that's one thing (I have no opinion on either of the warring editors). But unless something fundamental has changed, WP does not "permanently ban" any IP addresses. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 03:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User2005 continues use of sock and meat puppets

All of the associated accounts are back and attempting to create the impression they are different people and trying to build the impression of consensus in multiple discussions. Here, here, here and here. Something really needs to be done. It is obvious this user has not learned from this experience. He continues to make claims such as 'you are the only one who disagrees' when in fact he is the only one who disagrees with me, I just have the integrity to only use one account. DegenFarang (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They are multiple people. Amalthea 11:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Action

I'm afraid I've been off wiki for the last while due to sickness and haven't been able to follow-up on my unblocking of DegenFarang. While I agree with Amalthea's unblocking of User:2005 et al as regards socks there is a tag-teaming issue that these users need to address.
That said there is a long running issue of DegenFarang editwarring over a series of articles about this external links issue. he claims these links are spam - I cannot see where in WP:EL or WP:BLP these removals are mandated. Furthermore it is clear that DegenFarang has a partisan opinion about the sites he is removing.
In short the question for the rest of us is whether the project can sustain this kind of behaviour from DegenFarang and those editwarring with him. My block of DegenFarang was for breaching WP:OUT a few days later I unblocked him conditional on his agreement to abide by site policy in full. I cannot see his actions in the last few days as fullfilling that agreement, however I don't see his actions as waranting an indef block. Thus I would suggest a topc ban from all poker related BLPs for DegenFarang.
I will not be available onwiki for a few days so I submit this to my fellow sysops as a suggestion--Cailil ^talk 13:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough already

I have blocked DegenFarang indefinitely for continuing to insist that every single editor who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. The final straws are accusing editors here on no basis, (and Amalthea has subsequently confirmed are all different people), this and this edit to TheTakeover on Amalthea's talkpage, and this edit to Rray on Amalthea's talkpage. There is clear evidence that this user is unwilling to engage collegially with anyone who disagrees with him, and given his previous block record, I have acted accordingly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 8 August 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.