Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article

Hello All,

I'd like to inform you about whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29

Recently the following paragraph has been added to the article:

In 2000 Klebnikov published a book "Boris Berezovsky: Godfather of Kremlin or looting of Russia" which was a very extended version of the above mentioned article. Berezovsky did not contest the book in court.

which was blatantly immediately erased by user Collect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Collect). First he claimed the paragraph had not been properly sourced. After the source was provided, Collect erased it again claiming that such phrase cannot be in the article, because of "implying that that fact means it was not the subject of legal action or that Berezovsky does not dispute the contents". Where as the sentences actually only said that the book was published, and that it has not been contested in court, nothing else. I'm not much into Wikipedia regulation and not sure which policies Collect has violated, but think that most likely he violated Vandalism and Deletion policies, by deleting absolutely neutral in point of view and well sourced material. He also engaged in edit warring on Berezovsky page (including discussion page, you can check both. despite multiple warnings on his talkpage, which he repeatedly deleted as well). Please will administrators action this somehow, the justice should be restored in the article.

Just in case, a discussion has started already on BLPN page, which hasn't led to anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Boris_Berezovsky_.28businessman.29

Thank you very much anyway! 170.148.198.157 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that justice has been restored already, with the removal of this obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. Collect was absolutely right to delete this, according to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please advise how two above sentences violate BLP? 170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They violate WP:BLP policy as an obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. This has already been explained to you on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't "explain" anything. As two above sentences do not "skew" anything in the article. I would like some other people to comment as well on this. And, in any case, the 1st sentence (that the book was published which was a very extended version of the article) cannot be accused of anything at all, and is just a mere statement of fact.170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, a 'statement of fact' can be made in such a way as to insinuate things not borne out by the 'fact', and secondly, the sentence isn't 'factual': it gets the title of the book wrong. And come to that, there is nothing to indicate that this book has been seen as in any way significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

a 'statement of fact' can be made in such a way as to insinuate things not borne out by the 'fact' - indeed, but it doesn't have anything to do with the paragraph in question. it does not insinuate anything, it just states a fact. it could have been phrased much stronger to insinuate something against Berezovsky, but it hasn't. if the book's name isn't correct in the sentence, then it could have been corrected instead of erasing the whole paragraph. and, again, there were several titles of the book in publishing, and i think the version provided in the article was actually correct, i.e. one of those 170.148.198.157 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, but your particular use of grammar has my spideysense tingling (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 the indefinitely blocked user was fixated on these exact same issues. Youreallycan (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement of fact is not made in such was as to insinuate anything in this case. The book actually had several versions and titles in the publishing. If the title isn't correct, then please correct it, instead of removing the whole sentence. And the book actually is significant enough to be present in that section of the article. At least it does deserve so. As the fact, that Berezovsky did not contest it in court 170.148.215.157 (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is very interesting to see how people completely ignore addressing the reported violations, but instead prefer to accuse the person who reported the violations of wrongdoing. Will please some administrator have a look at the violations in question at last instead of accusing the whistle-blower? There has been a blatant violation of Delete policy. Is anybody at all going to do something about it? 170.148.215.157 (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am currently having a sabbatical for a few days, however, I will post more in this thread in the next 24-48 hours, because both the IP editor and Collect are being disruptive to some extent, and this article needs to be dealt with for once and for all. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if the title is correct, the second sentence violates WP:BLP unless it appears in a highly reliable source. (If the title were in Russian, we'd need a reliable source for the translation, as well....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What is a "highly reliable source"??? Source used for the 2nd sentence is reliable indeed. If anyone has proof of Berezovsky having sued Klebnikov for his book, please provide it. But he clearly did not sure him, that's what the truth is.170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly a policy violation using leading synth. I called him a murderer and he didn't sue me, so.... (add your own uncited conclusion here) Youreallycan (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing is to call someone a murderer, another to publish a detailed book. And the phrasing is brief and short. There's no allegation Berezovsky didn't sue Klebnikov because he was afraid. It's just said that he didn't contest the book in court, that's all. It does not violate any policy 170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I and others do, for the reasons posted above. Also as User:Deepdish7 is blocked and you appear to be him please consider requesting to be unblocked prior to returning to editing. Youreallycan (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)+

So far you have not provided any explanation on how BLP is being violated. You simply do not like any negative information posted against Berezovsky. But it doesn't mean BLP is violated in any way170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation around Boris Berezovsky (businessman) article is indeed quite tense. The subject is a very controversial figure who is currently involved into the enormous Berezovsky-Abramovich lawsuit in London High Court that is referred as the most expensive litigation in the history of Great Britain (BTW I am surprised by the lack of info about this case in the article as well as by the timing of the hike of interest to the article coinciding with the beginning of the hearings). Either side of the litigation could easily try to sway public opinion using Wikipedia. Berezovsky is also a very controversial figure that is often additionally demonized by Russian government. He is quite alive and very litigious, so every requirement of our BLP policy should be obeyed by 100%, still we want to provide objective sourced information without neither demonizing nor whitewashing. I think it will be very good if more neutral admins put the article on their watchlists.

The current editorial problem regarding Klebnikov's books seems to be a trivial NPOV of wordings, I have restated the phrase to be more objective. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, a least one unbiased admin out there 170.148.198.157 (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Some phrases has been removed from Alex's change. It's very interesting to see how some people continue to whitewash this page. Someone please revert changes again80.5.0.28 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Off wiki harrasment

• - User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Academy of Achievement Contact Information and User:Ebikeguy

It's getting a little messy on Jimmy's talk page. A user is now posting the email one of the employers of User:WWB Too and requesting wikipedia editors to contact them and complain about them using User:WBB Too as a paid editor - I think this has clearly over stepped the mark and is encouraging off wiki WP:HARRASMENT of a wikipedia user. Paid editing is not against policy no matter how much he Ebikerguy or anyone else doesn't like it and encouraging wiki editors to contact the real life, real time, employer of one of our editors is totally out of line imo.User talk:Ebikeguy#your request for_off wiki action I have asked him to retract it but he has refused. Youreallycan (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am putting together a schedule of visits and calls to major PR firms and to people who I can identify as paying for inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia. I think I need not be alone in this. I think members of the general public, including Wikipedians, have every right to enter the public debate by letting people who are funding the subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia know that their actions are not appreciated and will be exposed, to their likely embarrassment. I would appreciate anyone interested in this issue helping me to identify the worst violators or potential violators so that we can begin to take more systematic action on this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy... As a PR professional who has tried to discuss this issue with you via email and, this week, publicly on my blog, I'm struggling here with the nature of your approach. I understand your frustrations and certainly don't condone the bad behavior that has been well-publicized and documented. The thing is, most PR people want to do the right thing by Wikipedia. That said, they are frustrated by the fact that 1) many entries suffer from benign (and not-so-benign) neglect, 2) activism more or less gets a free pass, and 3) there's every possibility that even a minor edit by a PR person could blow up into a unnecessarily reputation-damaging kerfuffle (e.g., "ACME edited it's Wikipedia page!" even if the edit was to update the annual financials or whatever). With respect, you should take a step back and focus on working constructively with people in my line of work (and encourage others to do the same) rather than lecture to them. Here's a Facebook group of people, many quite well-known in the trade and generally in business, who are trying to help you. --Philgomes (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, if some WTC truther published your home contact details demanding other conspiracy theorists contact you about how wikipedia is !!!!SURPRESSING THE TRUTH1! about 9/11 would you appreciate it? Of course wikipedians have every right to enter the debate on paid editing, and so do the WTC nuts have every right to enter the debate about the 9/11 article. And for that matter, wikipedia has the right to encourage this. Rights have nothing to do with it. The merits of the idea are all that matter, and such encouragement has very lmiited merit imo. Egg Centric 10:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What do "home contact details" have to do with anything? My email address is jwales@wikia.com and I welcome emails about Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because home contact details aren't used in this case doesn't mean that they are different in principle. The example I gave is more extreme, but that is deliberate as it is to illustrate the principle. Egg Centric 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely visits to PR firms will result in them ceasing doing what they are paid to do. Given the limited number of volunteers to scrutinize edits -- I've come across months old "sneaky vandalism" -- it's better to encourage the type of declared interest edit via talk page behavior WWB Too has demonstrated. Volunteer editors' skepticism towards paid editors will go a long way towards ensuring NPOV. Demonizing paid editing will drive it underground into a cat and mouse game; instead of merely having to scrutinize paid editing, Wikipedians will have to first expend time finding it. Nobody Ent 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is all well and good, except that "subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia" is a very subjective matter. Some folks seem to think that paid editing is per se against our basic principles, while many others do not. I would hope that such popular uprising is targeted against those who 1) do their edits themselves, 2) fail to disclose their COI, and 3) violate NPOV, and 4) receive financial gain based those NPOV violations. I think that anyone who violates all 4 is clearly over the line... but the community is far from unanimous about lesser degrees of paid editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Under our current guidelines a company is allowed to advertise for someone to improve their article and to pay them for doing so. The company is doing nothing wrong by doing that. The person that improves the article for a payment is also not doing anything wrong according to our current guidelines. The issue is in the details of the "improvement" - is it NPOV and covers all points. Whats a company going to say. We looked at our article and it was rubbish and we saw people advertising to improve wikipedia articles and the guy said it's allowed and that he would follow all wikipedia guidelines. Youreallycan (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Improvement" from a company's point of view inevitably means something different from the way improvement is understood at Wikipedia. A profit-seeking company has no interest in NPOV. We should expect that a paid editor is not interested in NPOV and that his/her edits will be problematic. That expectation is certainly borne out in the case of the editor discussed here (WWB); that Cracker Barrel article was turned into a real piece of shit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree that the Cracker Barrel article was, following my involvement, "a real piece of shit". The article draft I contributed for review on the article's Talk page and at WikiProject Food and drink was much more complete and was far better sourced, particularly following WikiProject Companies' article composition guidelines. A simple side-by-side comparison of the version before my involvement and the version following my involvement I think shows this well. And please note, I did not move it into the mainspace myself. That said, I am respectful that other editors believe the newer version was too favorable, although I may soon comment on some changes I think are unwarranted. WWB Too (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

break

• Reply from Accused Editor - This accusation is utterly without merit. I did publish an email address for a company using paid Wikipedia editors, which I found on their website. I encouraged editors to contact the company and let the company know how they felt about paid Wikipedia editors, but I did not mention any editor by name in my note. Note that Wikipedia defines harrassment as "as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior." While I do not feel my behavior was, in any way, offensive, that is a judgment call. However, my accuser refers to one, isolated event/edit, so it would be nonsensical to associate my edit with a sustained pattern of repeated behavior. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ebikeguy's request was to "tell them how you feel". Possibly some editors might love paid editing and be inspired to write to this organization lauding them for their efforts to pay someone to write their wikipedia page. Just sayin'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The section has been collapsed from view by an administrator with a notice of - "Calls for real life harrassment of a Wikipedian's employer do not belong here" - which I totally agree with and which is an acceptable administrative action to resolve this report. Youreallycan (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, Youreallycan, it isn't. I doubt an admin will leave him unblocked, since off-wiki harassment of this sort has a powerful chilling effect on other editors. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have shown above, nothing I have done constitutes harassment in any form. If any editor, sysop or otherwise, can show me how my post violates any Wikipedia editing rule, I will gladly retract it. Also, your post seems to suggest that a sysop should use a block to punish me. Blocks are not punitive; they are a tool to stop disruptive editing. I certainly do not intend to repost this email address anywhere else, and am avoiding any potentially contentious editing until this matter is resolved, so no disruptive editing on my part is threatened. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - @Jéské - I was just looking for the least drama. I was disappointed the user refused to just retract it. Historically in my wiki experience, such off wiki actions or encouragement to others to take such action has been looked on extremely unfavorably. I notice User:Ebikeguy isn't accepting the collapsing of his off wiki request to other editors and is objecting to the Admin - User talk:TParis#Collapsing Section on_Jimbo's Talk Page - Youreallycan (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ebikeguy is singling out one editor, and it's me. As far as I can tell, Ebikeguy has followed me from one article's Talk page to Jimbo's Talk page and now to another article's Talk page. I hesitate to claim I'm being wikihounded but it's certainly heading in that direction (besides his attempt to take this off-wiki). It's worth noting that I've disclosed my COI relationships on every one of these pages, that I have limited my interactions almost entirely to Talk pages, where I have sought to obtain consensus for changes based on reliable sources. What Ebikeguy calls "whitewashing" is my attempt to bring these articles closer into line with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's always my goal is to follow the rules, and it's more than a little dismaying to receive this kind of treatment. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another accusation, this time by an editor that makes his living editing Wikipedia articles for paying clients, that is entirely without merit. Note that all the articles he lists have been wikilinked together, and several editors have gone from one to another, following the diverging threads involved in this discussion. To call my participation in these related discussions "Wikihounding" is entirely unreasonable. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like hounding to me. Stop this hounding and outing now. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with your assessment and point out that several different editors have posted at many or all of the pages WWB Too lists, above (as they followed the discussion thread in the same way I did), I have noted above that I will not be making any potentially contentious edits until this matter is resolved. So, in that sense, I am stopping the editing with which you disagree now, and I will not repeat this type of edit if it is shown to be in violation of Wikipedia rules.Ebikeguy (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ebikeguy's effort has resulted in at least one angry letter received by the Academy today. WWB Too (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what type of response my reasonable, neutrally-worded post inspired. Please feel free to post the letter here, expunging any personal information. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Ebikeguy as the main protagonist needs to clarify if that email was sent by him. It seems quite reasonable assumption that he would email them, considering he was the one that searched for the company email ( which was as he stated, "difficult to find contact information" ) and he was the one that posted in on wiki asking editors to post to that email address that he would post them himself. Youreallycan (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No admin here: Just my 2 pence: I recall a while back it came to light a professor had assigned his students to purposefully insert inaccuracies (i.e. vandalize) Wikipedia. At first their was a lot of support to contact the school's administration to complain, and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But then it all just kind of spiraled out of control. Anyway, I know this isn't the same thing, but Ebikeguy is walking a fine line here, and I'd suggest if he has info that an outside entity was abusing Wikipedia's core mission for profit, he should have simply contacted the WM Foundation and let them handle it. Likewise, if WWB Too is violating policies, then Ebikeguy (or me or any other editor) can take action through the proper WP channels. In short, I'm sure he was well intentioned, but probably just collapsing the section and dropping the stick at this point would be the best course forward. Quinn ^➳WINDY 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I interpreting correctly, that a company's website is or was soliciting paid editing of wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor openly declared that he was paid to improve a companies article. This is the backlash of that good faith declaration. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Did that editor identify which company he was editing for? If so, I'm unclear where the "outing" charge comes from. At the very least, identifiable paid edits need to be closely scrutinized. The average company isn't likely paying editors to be "objective". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no outing. - Scrutiny of editors, yes, but that does not involve posting emails details on wiki and encouraging other wiki editors to write to the address you have posted to complain to their employers about it. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The user Bobrayner, above, accuses the editor in question of "outing" someone. Canvassing by posting external e-mails does not strike me as being appropriate. However, IF there is a pattern of bias in paid editing, it does strike me that that should be brought to wikipedia's attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yes, bob was mistaken in his outing comment. Youreallycan (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger, Roger Rabbit - Youreallycan (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What's your vector, Victor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment struck through. I had thought at first glance that pushing the email address counted as outing. Obviously, wiser folk than me have disagreed, so I stand corrected. I still think the behaviour is inappropriate but I put the wrong label on it. bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I hesitate to comment again (I'm also upthread) because all of this has been quite unpleasant, but I'm the COI editor in question. I'm always very open about my efforts, and I look for consensus before going beyond non-controversial edits. I also understand editors' understandable skepticism, hence my cautious approach. I suppose I am not the "average" COI editor. A couple of my articles are a matter of current debate—not all of the criticisms fair in my estimation, but I don't get to make that call—and I think my work will hold up over time. Happy to discuss more. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You walk a delicate tightrope. The company I work for is not even on my watchlist. Editing with a potential conflict of interest is risky business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That rabbit is working for Warner Bros. Animation and you is a major contributor to the Bugs Bunny biography. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dat's right, Doc - dey pay me in carrots. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you is stealing dem carrots from Elmer Fudd - Youreallycan (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ebikeguy: I don't care if you retract it, but I do want you to stop doing it. This kind of activity will do nothing but encourage people with conflicts of interest to hide their affiliations rather than being open and up-front about it. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and considering the reaction my edit caused, I am highly inclined to agree with you at this point! Ebikeguy (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's clear we need a better policy regarding paid editing than "This guy was a jerk, so he can't do paid editing, but these other guys are nice, so they can!" There are many bright line rules, there are other shade of grey rules, but then theres WP:COI, and that's neither. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing is a threat to Wikipedia's standards. No editor who is paid to work on an article by the subject of the article can be assumed to be editing with a neutral point of view, period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad policy makes questionable decision. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction, go to the root and fix the problem so we don't have to waste so much time on debating who should be sanctioned when we should be improving Wikipedia. And for the record, I'm also against paid editing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There are paid editors who do edit stealthily, under the radar, with no disclosure and little accountability, and those who announce their COI and accept the scrutiny that comes with full disclosure. The stealthy ones will be with us no matter what. The only thing "cracking down" would do is encourage the "full disclosure" paid editors to stop disclosing their COI. I can't imagine we'd want that. 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't pretend that it's okay in the hope that paid flacks will "do the right thing" and declare their COI. What should be happening is that paid flacks should be pursued and banned from the site. This is a fundamental threat to the content of the encyclopedia, every bit as repulsive as political staffers whitewashing their boss and throwing mud at the opposition. Paid editing should be severely dealt with. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet if you prohibit it, you will just drive it under ground. As long as people are going to edit with a conflict of interest they should be encouraged to disclose it, not punished for disclosing it. causa sui (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. For anyone who considers paid editors to be, essentially, an enemy of Wikipedia's core principles, there's an old saying worth considering. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So: "if we enforce the law, nobody will admit to breaking it, so we won't enforce it?" That's not something I can get behind, no, sorry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point is there is no such law that's being broken, and I think before we add more laws we'd be well-served to consider the practical effect of them. We don't need "tough on paid editors" posturing if the net effect is to make paid editing less detectable, and thus more likely to effectively degrade our content. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You should. The rule is unenforceable, and trying to enforce it leads to Wikipedia being worse, not better. Draw parallels to the American War on Drugs if you like. You might want to ban it, but enforcement causes more harm than good, and in many cases, enforcement causes even more harm than what you're trying to ban. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Was there something actually wrong with the paid edits? Were they factually incorrect, pov-pushing, or whatever? If so, then those edits might deserve a harsh response, just as they would with an editor who made some bad edits for some other motive. If the edits are OK, then the editor was just getting paid for what most of us do for free, and I don't think that is - or should be - punishable. We can't see who is and isn't getting paid for their edits, but we can see the content changes they make, which is just as well, since the content changes should be what we care about. bobrayner (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Talk:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store gives a good sample of views about at least one such article. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Good paid editing is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, just as is all good editing. Promotional or other improper paid editing is not a positive contribution, just as is all improper non-paid editing. Like everyone here, I tend to look very carefully and the quality of declared paid editing, but no more than I am about blatantly promotional undeclared editing. I'm certainly not happy with the article in question overall, both in its state as a promotional article and in the attempt to turn it into an attack article, but I appreciate candidness. I do suggest though, that paid editors might do well to make their edits, but not too aggressively defend them against criticism, but rather see the criticism an attempt to show how to be mote effective. (Certainly they should properly and calmly defend themselves against unjustified criticism, like anyone else.) Attacking a paid editor personally on wiki is like attacking any other editor personally, and cannot be tolerated. Attacking them off-wiki or promoting such attacks is using the encyclopedia for harassment, and justifies a block to stop it. Promotion is bad enough, but harassment is much worse. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I absolutely comdemn any harassment. But I also hold, absolutely, that a paid editor can not have a neutral point of view, full stop. They might well have the very best of intentions, but we all know the saying about good intentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Your position fails to take to consideration the masses of users whose upaid and undeclared POV violates beyond comparison anything that this user is claimed to have done - Youreallycan (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The aim is to create NPOV articles. This does not preclude having a point of view - only editing articles to make them display it. Someone can have a COI or a POV and still edit in a way that improves the project. If they don't, the issue isn't whether or not they have a POV, but the quality of their edits. - Bilby (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have not attacked, harassed, or encouraged any harassment of any editor, on or off wiki. None of my edits have violated any Wikipedia rules, in this matter or in any other matter. All of my edits in this matter have been both civil and limited, and I have encouraged other editors to express their thoughts in a civil manner as well. While I now appreciate and understand that many editors feel that publishing off-wiki contact information for companies with Wikipedia articles should be discouraged, and I have no intention of doing so again, I reiterate that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, violated any rules. Note that the contact information I posted was available on the main page of the organization's website and that the URL of the website is published in their article on Wikipedia. If someone can point to a specific rule that I demonstrably violated, I will immediately undo the edit in question and apologize to the community as a whole. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• It's supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Articles are supposed to be NPOV, it doesn't mean the individuals writing them are. I owned a Morgan sailboat and created the Charley Morgan article. Does that make the article NPOV? We don't do job interviews for letting writers in, we evaluate whether their edits follow Wikipedia practice. Nobody Ent 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Anybody who believes that paid editing isn't commonplace around here -- or that Wikipedia has any control over it -- is a complete idiot. At least this fellow owned up. Just evaluate the edits on their own merits and move along. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Amen, Nobody Ent and Boris; WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• As I've said the many times this has come up before: there is nothing in our policy that forbids paid editing, nor should there ever be. All of us are paid editors. Some of us get money. Some of us get a weird kind of fame. Some of us get the good feeling that we're making the world a better place. Some of us just get A Clean, Well-Lighted Place to fill our spare time. People who are here to edit company (etc.) pages in a promotional way are actually pretty easy to deal with--scrub the puffery, delete the page if there's nothing left. Sometimes, not at all surprisingly, they actually provide useful information and references. There was a great post from a PR person on Jimbo's talk page who pointed out that for a good public relations person, they don't even want a puff piece--they just want something neutral to occupy one or more of the top ten slots on a Google search. I don't see any logic whatsoever to our tendency to give nationalists, supporters of extreme political or religious positions, or "super-fans" of TV shows seven hundred and a twenty-nine chances before we finally decide their NPOV behavior isn't in line with community standards, but someone whose boss tells them to add info from a valid mainstream newspaper article to their company's page is facing an instant block. As I recall, we held an RfC on this last year, and there was absolutely no consensus to strengthen WP:COI or any other policy to prohibit paid editing. If the WMF wants to override the community on this issue, they need to do so explicitly--it is their right, even though the decision would be "wrong". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it's okay to smile at a cop but illegal to bribe one? There's a huge distinction between getting being paid to do someone's bidding, and doing so for social or intrinsic personal reasons. As for PR agencies funding purely neutral articles that's all lip service. A good PR agent is one who produces results for the client and is a rainmaker for the firm. I have yet to meet a PR firm or client that would write in plain English, much less present the facts fairly and neutrally. If they knew they would not be detected and suffer negative consequences for doing so they are under absolutely no professional obligation to spread information that runs counter to the purpose of boosting the client, and in fact doing so would be a disservice to their client. Have you ever seen a hard-hitting press release? That is not their purpose of being, it is not part of their ethical directive. The first rule of conflicts of interest is that if they're not prohibited, they need to be publicly disclosed. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is the line we should be taking. The rule should be that paid editing should be disclosed but not banned. This is for The Bushranger, too: NPOV is a requirement that Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view, but not that any of its editors must. If that were the requirement, hardly anybody would be allowed to edit in their particular areas of interest. And as I argued above, banning paid editing only drives it under ground. Since we can't know for sure if someone is a paid editor, and trying to figure it out will only lead to witch hunts, we should reward people for disclosing their conflicts of interest, not punish them for it. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Go all the way - declare that anyone with a COI needs to declare it up front and be treated under the same rules. Work for Greenpeace? Make sure you declare the COI for any page you edit that Greenpeace is protesting. Getting paid to edit a page? Declare it. Fan of a music group/actor/movie/(something)? Declare it if you want to edit the page. There are plenty of editors here that are on WP because they have a bone to pick about something or here to promote a favored cause. You cannot call them NPOV editors. They probably have more motivation than paid editors, to be honest. So make it policy that all editors with a COI must declare it and that paid editors inherently have a COI. Or isn't that about what we have now? Ravensfire (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You DO realize that "being a fan" =/= "conflict of interest"?, right? You DO realize conflating "direct financial benefit" with "personal taste" is really really unhelpful? --Calton | Talk 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Not speaking for Ravensfire, but I understand that while our rules make it different, it's not necessarily as different as it appears. We have had "X's number one fan" before be as if not more disruptive than many company employees I encounter (the ones who insist that they know what's "really" important, that their idol should never have any negative info written about them, etc.). And if company PR were such a problem, why are the majority of our Arbcom cases about nationalist, religious, ethical, or other such problems? Yes, I'll admit that COI has been a massive problem before, as with Scientology and Tree Shaping, but that, to me, is a far smaller problem. I've had far more people threaten me or my wiki-friends with off wiki-harassment, legal threats, and even death threats in one case over Indian caste articles than over any corporate article. In any event, no matter what people say here--policy does not prevent COI editing. If you want policy to say that, start an RfC and get consensus. Or get he Foundation to make policy by fiat. But until policy changes, COI editing is allowed, including paid editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Calrton, I think willful ignorance of COI from personal taste is the really, really unhelpful view here. Let's see, most people are afraid that paid editors will overstate the good aspects and understate the bad aspects of something. Or the reverse if they are supposed to go against something. Hmmm, who else would do something like that... Oh, wait, that's right, (if you'll pardon the slang) fanboi's. People angry about something. True believers spreading WP:THETRUTH. And since we're in the early stages of what promises to be such a lovely campaign season, let's not forget about the supporters for politicians. But that's right .. they just have personal taste and won't cause any problems. Yeah, bullshit. A conflict of interest is just that - I don't give a damn WHERE it comes from, it's just as hard to deal with. Pull off the blinders and look around at the crap that non-paid editors with strong POV's put into articles. I don't care what motivates an editor here - if they produce helpful work, great. If it's not helpful, revert and attempt to educate. A bad paid editor will end up failing their client when all their work is removed and probably lose the contract (and not get paid). A good paid editor will put the good with the bad in proper proportion AND, most importantly, make sure their client knows that ahead of time. Ravensfire (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, look

Well until the Foundation comes to its senses let's not just spin our wheels here. Let's make an organized effort to look at ways we can address this. Here's a draft:

• User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch

This is a draft; I ask all like-minded editors to take a look, join up if you have the time, and let's see what can be done. Herostratus (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest name change to Red Channels to more accurately describe potential effects on atmosphere of Wikipedia editing. →StaniStani  11:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a helpful remark, and an incredibly inapt (and insensitive) comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro Walk

User:Purplebackpack89 is attempting to merge this article without consensus to do so. He has himself admitted that it is notable. The article is well sources with multiple non trivial reliable sources in major media. This user has a pattern of nominating articles for deletion simply because they are related to the city of Richmond, California and nearly all of them are kept. This user claims there is a two to one consensus to do so. However the only other commenter simply stated he did not find this topic notable and did not comment on the merge. This user is also merging to a nearby subway station. However this is a neighborhood that is not part of that station, it is simply next to it. I offered examples of the San Francisco Shopping Centre being adjacent to and even connected to the Powell Street Station as being a similar illogical merge. The user ignored this and refused to dialogue on that matter. I mentioned a better target for a potential proposed merge would have been downtown Richmond, Richmond, California. However Metro Walk is in of itself notable. Notability is not shared, and you do not lose it. Therefore I ask that this user be stopped from merging without consensus as a 1-1 draw on the matter is not consensus. Also save us all from a potential edit war here please. What should we do?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFC Nobody Ent 7:50 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Merge the thing because it is not notable according to two of the three editors who commented. You need to remember that merging can be done BOLDly, and articles can be merged regardless of whether they are notable or not. Also, you need to stop dragging me off to AN whenever you don't like the edits I make, and stop treating marginally significant articles as sacred cows. Please, this edit is clearly CLUEless...we're past the point where he can skate by because he's new to WP. He needs to stop dragging me off to ANI every five minutes for the sole reason that he doesn't like my edits. This ain't an ANI issue. Furthermore, Lucifer clearly cannot tell the difference between a merge and a deletion...he has repeatedly tagged this article for rescue, and has also spammed edits about rescuing an article that isn't being deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am sick and tired of the bickering between these two editors. This is (I think without research) the fifth or sixth time that one of them has brought a complaint about the other to administrator attention. LuciferWildcat is passionate about everything related to Richmond, California; Purplebackback89 seeks out articles about Richmond and proposes deleting or merging them; every time it escalates into World War III. I think intervention is called for, which would include: they cannot speak to each other; they cannot comment on each other's edits; Purplebackpack cannot initiate action on anything related to Richmond; and neither of them can initiate ANI complaints (if they feel there is cause they should get another editor to make the complaint). --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should I not be allowed to edit Richmond articles, just because Lucifer doesn't like the content? None of my initiations have violated any policy whatsoever. What you're saying is "Lucifer doesn't like Purplebackpack's edits, therefore Purplebackpack can't make them". That's completely unfair, especially since other editors have both repeatedly agreed that Lucifer has been out of line on numerous occasions. And for the record, I've made one ANI thread, Lucifer has three here, plus a EW thread that was almost instantaneously closed. Melanie, to equate me and Lucifer is ridiculous; Lucifer's violated many policies, I have not. Frankly, people have been indef blocked for violating fewer policies than Lucifer has Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, I am sick and tired of it too. I really am trying to get along here. I am very frustrate that every article that I decide to work on, like clockwork this editor comes in basically starts ransacking, reverting, nominating, merging, removing content but never lend a hand to help improve anything and consistently makes false statements about me and makes seriously erroneous claims about policy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, removing content and improving articles aren't mutually exclusive. And you continue to violate policy after policy, guideline after guideline, adding bad content on questionable articles. Those articles needed cleaning up, merging and deletion; numerous editors have taken issue with the manner in which you oppose it. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, could you explain your decision to canvass EVERY single editor who worked on the page? That's clearly a non-neutral group (one that would most likely favor a keepist point of view), to say nothing of the fact that you forget to sign your name and you notified people who were indef blocked. And maybe perhaps explain these edits where you lambaste an editor for new editor for making a PROD that was perfectly permissible, even though it was declined? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, this edit suggests that Lucifer cannot differentiate between someone who's cleaning up a bad article. He also continues to berate anyone who so much as touches any sacred cow of his (despite being warned by multiple editors), essentially claiming that removing any content violates policy. I could keep them coming. But sure, sanction ME, because I'm the only one who's been cleaning up his mess Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with Metro Walk? Also no one is being sanctioned I simply would like to resolve the Metro Walk issue and not have to worry about any time I edit an article or link to one such as with Shattuck Avenue you don't nominate it for deletion or some other form of destruction, simply because it is related to me in some way.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack's Proposal for this whole thing

1. Interaction ban between Purplebackpack89 and Luciferwildcat
2. Two week block for Luciferwildcat for CLUElessness/disruption since his first block, including several disruptive threads on EW and elsewhere
3. Luciferwildcat must be forced to accept mentorship until he displays more CLUE

That's what I'd do about this whole thing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

MelanieN's proposal

• Support - User:Melanie's suggestion. Youreallycan (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But that proposal punishes me more than Lucifer, even though Lucifer has done more things wrong. Also, why should I be banned from tagging Richmond articles if my tags haven't violated policy? That's just nonsensical Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop editing Richmond articles for three months then, that would solve everything. Do you have any special interest in Richmond to be tagging it? Youreallycan (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's essentially the same thing as Melanie's proposal. You still haven't explained why it's fair to ban me (who hasn't violated policy) from editing certain articles, while Lucifer (who has) isn't banned from editing anything, nor is blocked nor forced into mentorship. Your proposals are far too punitive, when I'm not the one violating the policy. And Richmond happens to be an area with a lot of poorly source articles of questionable notability. It has 30-40 articles (many of inferior quality and questionable notability) whereas most cities of its size have less than ten Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So you have no special interest in Richmond and your relations with Lucifer have broken down , it's a big project, there are others that can look at Richmond articles, there is an opportunity for you as the more experienced contributor to simply back off and not edit Richmond articles for a few months. It's not a judgment against you or Lucifer, it just seems to be a mature, drama reducing simple solution. Youreallycan (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Melanie's approach is pretty common sense, you and I simply cannot get along. I do keep trying but you do keep nominating articles (for slicing and dicing them or overtagging them) that I am involved with which to me is clearly just a provocation to keep arguing with me about mundane details. This would allow us to avoid each other and would make it so that you stop feeling the need to watchlist me and everything about me. We should not keep commenting back and forth so much on AfDs and this would let us both say our peace and then allow the consensus to formLuciferWildCat (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Melanie attempting to ban me from creating deletion discussions related to Richmond goes too far. Also, you essentially get off scot-free for multiple serious breaches of policy. Melanie's proposal is far too one-sided against me. And I don't nominate article to provoke you, I nominate them because they're crappy, and have often been crappy for years Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

PBP, I agree a ban is extreme, maybe more extreme than what I am requesting. I would really just like to ask you to voluntarily back off. How about this: if you find an article (a) about Richmond or (b) recently worked on by Lucifer, that you feel needs to be deleted, merged, tagged for references, or otherwise objected to, would you be willing to notify a neutral third party and let them do the nomination or whatever they feel is appropriate? or to let it slide if they feel action is not necessary? I am willing to be that neutral third party, if you wish. We have participated in enough of the same discussions that I think you realize I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist, but simply someone who tries to follow Wikipedia policies in a professional manner. Unlike either of you, I do know the difference between a discussion and a diatribe, and I am able to make a proposal and simply let it run its course. I do not relish the idea of becoming the target for both of you to fire at, but if that would help keep you away from each others' throats I would give it a try. Or you could use any other neutral third party of your choosing. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. (second thoughts) If you both agree to this "neutral third party" idea, there would have to be some conditions. You would both need to agree to some limits on your right to argue your point with me. And if it didn't work out, I would need to have an administrator I can go to and say "I quit, this isn't working," without coming back to ANI and taking up the community's time yet again. I think the same conditions should apply to any other neutral third party willing to take on the intermediary role. --MelanieN (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A week or so ago, after a series of Richmond City Council articles that you nominated for deletion and were largely kept I edited the article for St. David School and you nominated it for deletion. A few days ago I edited the article for Metro Walk to add some references, then you initiated a serious of edits to remove the article. Today I edited La Pena Cultural Center including a link to Shattuck Avenue now that article is up for deletion. How else would you explain this pattern as anything other than following my edits and provocation? You have not nominated any Richmond related articles that I have not edited so far. You also followed me the the AfD for Ocean County Sherrif's Department. Also most of them are kept and you don't improve them in any way. So your participation just wastes time and effort. This includes yours. These constant and targetted deletions don't benefit anyone even you. Both of us should be banned from nominating articles simply based on the other's involvement and that would be quite fair. I have no serious policy violations as you claim and those false statements are a good reason we should not talk and you should not continue making any comments to or about me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support for four weeks  First of all, I note that LWC was blocked, and not without cause, within the past month.  LWC has shown a corrected behavior since then.  PBP meanwhile shows no behavior change.  I brought PBP to ANI a couple of weeks ago, as PBP has been unresponsive to editorial feedback.  The admins at the time declined to issue a warning, and now we see that PBP has used the grace period to WP:HARASS LWC.  I think that MelanieN's proposal is excessive toward LWC, but given that LWC supports it, it is worth a try.  However, I don't think there is any cause for a permanent ban, so I suggest a restriction to four weeks.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see how it would be unfair toward me, but if he is not allowed to talk to me, there is no reason whatsoever I would feel compelled to post his messages in my edits. Furthermore it would force me to continue to focus on speaking about content only and would be easy to follow, and I am already attempting to follow that as my own personal rule. PBP's comments tend to be somewhat infuriating and confusing and I do feel compelled to respond for instance he recently stated Seeing as my statements are based in policy, I very much doubt that. I could point out that saying I know nothing about history, as you did above, is a personal attack., however the content present in that thread clearly shows I never stated that I said that to him and him making such a statement could bias other editors toward me thinking that I am making personal attacks. I do continue to feel in my personal opinion that his behavior is annoying and that as stated above regarding WP:HARASS, I would agree with that editor, however I have been banned from making such allegations, although I am perplexed as to why because to me, personally, as I see the policy, and compare it with my memory banks for what the words mean, cross references with PBP's edits, the glove fits the hand. In any case, I just believe a forced mutual disengagement would be very helpful and also a blocking of this user for about a month for him to cool down and let this vendetta go.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains that you have violated policy left and right. That's why I suggested mentorship Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proof?LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with MelanieN's suggestion: No one needs to be blocked, you just need to leave each other alone. Nobody Ent 04:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify why I am suggesting a limit (imposed or voluntary) on PurpleBackPack's activities in particular: It's not a "punishment". It is simply because battles between the two editors always begin with some action on the part of PBP. Lucifer never seeks out PBP and initiates a battle; the battles are always in response to something PBP has done. (In childish terms, "you started it!" In grown-up terms, you could stop it.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's inaccurate, Melanie. I don't "start" everything...for example, I didn't start this thread. You hold a grudge against me and it is leading you to be overly punitive against the wrong editor. LWC continues to not understand policy, why is that never mentioned or resolved? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Melanie's comment above this one. I have seen this action displayed by PBP on other occasions. It is an ongoing trend. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support can we please hand a WP:whale out to each of them too? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sectioning

Just for the record, PBP has taken to e-mailing me directly and sent me the following: "You're not supposed to be commenting on threads I started anymore. You've commented on four different ones this afternoon alone. And for the record, not all schools are notable and Shattuck Avenue DOESN'T have enough references, even though it's survived deletion" - He clearly does not understand that the proposal is that we not speak with one another or comment on one another, and secondly that it is just that a proposal that has not yet been decided. He also decided to keep bashing me with his personal POV and wont let anything go or dialogue on the appropriate talk pages.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Emailing you?!?! That's really beyond the pale. Also, it's hard to see why he insists that you are "supposed to" be following the suggestions here, when he has argued vociferously against some of the suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and while holding my tongue, its utter bs that he thought I was supposed to be adhering to a "proposal" when obviously he has not been topic banned nor has his "proposal" lead to me being blocked. Its too obvious. Here is a screenshot to prove it. I redacted my name because I don't want him searching for my facebook or anything else. I also did not reply to him through e-mail so he does not have my address. I warned him on his talk page not to send me any e-mail especially harassment but he just took that down..LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note...he said that after I e-mailed him, and commented on my talk page when it was pretty darn clear he shouldn't, and the screenshot here is unnecessary and should be uncermoniously deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(Yawn) Nothing to see here. Nobody cares. No violation of policy. Note that I'm the one not dialoguing, even though I gave a detailed reason as to why it needed references on the Shattuck Avenue talk page. And an interaction ban is essentially not speaking with one another or commenting on one another. I thought the thing had already gone into effect...but apparently not. Just give it a rest, both Mel and Lucifer. Oh, and e-mail's perfectly acceptable, Mel. You hold a grudge against me because you didn't like a talk page edit I made that was also perfectly acceptable. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please just stop.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The five pillars of Wikipedia have to be applied in a balanced way. PBP is just too agressive in interacting with LWC. Civility is a pillar, and consensus is a pillar, and every editor other than PBP -- Melanie, Youreallycan, Unscintillating and Cullen (on PBP talk page) and myself -- are telling PBP just to leave LWC and the Richmond articles alone. There is lots of unsourced bad writing and Wikipedia will be better served if PBP finds other areas to improve than continuing try to ensure LWC edit's maintain encyclopedia quality; while they undoubtedly started in good faith they've become disruptive. Nobody Ent 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

...and LWC needs to stay away from PBP on other pages he attempts to edit, his talk page in particular? Again, you're blaming me only, when LWC also had made many errors, including violating and ignoring policies. That's why LWC's edits need to be continued to monitored by you and Cullen and others. "A balanced way" doesn't mean restricting the editor who's erred less and letting the other editor slide Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I give up. And I withdraw my offer to be a "neutral third party" in this conflict. Somebody else - some administrator - will have to deal with Purplebackback's rudeness (for example, continuing to call me "Mel" after I have told him that is not my name), and his insistence on his absolute right to irritate Lucifer and anyone else who has asked him not to bother them (for example, e-mailing Lucifer, and posting his arguments on my talk page after I and others have told him repeatedly to restrict his comments to the public discussion where they belong), and his firm conviction that HE is always right and HIS interpretation of policy is always correct, while other people are always wrong and their interpretation of policy is in violation - I could go on. I have tried to work with him in good faith, but I've come to the conclusion that it is a lost cause. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Melanie, you're offering too one-sided a view of this...it's always "PBP did this" or "PBP did that"...you are laying all the blame at my feet which is completely inaccurate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant diffs: [1], [2], [3] .--MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You being incivil to me? That's what I'm seeing here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It takes a lot to get me to shout. In fact, you are the only person on Wikipedia who has ever managed to push me to that extreme. But your repeated insistence on carrying your unwanted arguments to my talk page, after multiple requests from me and other people not to do that, seemed to warrant a stronger than usual reaction. Still, it had no effect; you did it again tonight. That's why I am washing my hands of you. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Re "imposed or voluntary" restrictions: I agree readily to your interaction ban, and even to the request that I stay off Richmond articles for three months. But you gotta meet me at least a quarter of the way here. I can't be banned from nominating school-related articles in SoCal and Texas in perfect accordance with WP policy just because LWC follows me to them and repeats the same thing that several people have told him not to. He needs to be restricted from commenting on pretty much any thread whatsoever I start. And he needs to learn a little more about policy. I still maintain that restrictions for me only isn't the way to go. There are two editors here. Both need to be sanctioned in some way Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Gentlemen (PBP, LWC), I'm not an administrator and I don't play one on TV, but your bullshit is getting to be disruptive and it's not going to end well. That's not a threat, it's a prediction — and one that I would gamble on heavily. ANI doesn't want to deal with your junior high school dick-measuring one-upsmanship or they would have interaction banned you and issued appropriate warnings by now. But I tell you this in all seriousness: the block monster IS going to get both of you if this stuff doesn't stop pretty fast here. (more)

1. PBP - Do not stalk Lucifer Wildcat's actions on WP. That means DO NOT snort around his "User Contributions" log AT ALL. Stop proposing Northern California/Bay Area stuff for deletion. There's plenty of crap to eliminate, leave the NoCal stuff alone. You are proposing Bay Area stuff just to get a rise out of him at this point, quite clearly. If you do make a deletion nomination, make your case and get the hell out of the way and don't comment in that particular thread again unless someone challenges some aspect of the nomination itself. If somebody tries to improve an article that is up for deletion, do not gut out their work in an effort to "re-weaken" the piece. Stop running to mommy whenever something LWC does annoys you. Instead of deletions, try WRITING an article on something and leave the deletions alone altogether, perhaps. Do not post on LWC's talk page AT ALL.

2. LWC - Stop being contrarian to everything PBP does. If he makes a nomination, and you disagree with it, make sure you have authentic policy reasons behind your objection. Do not stalk PBP's actions on WP. That means DO NOT snort around his "User Contributions" log AT ALL. Do not try to round up a posse whenever PBP does something that annoys you. Find a topic that interests you and write an article on it, perhaps. Do not post on PBP's talk page AT ALL.

This is pretty simple stuff. KEEP THE HELL AWAY FROM EACH OTHER AND STOP TRYING TO PROVOKE REACTIONS OUT OF EACH OTHER. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Tangential Request for Administrative Action - Will someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 6#Shattuck_Avenue and re-close it coherently. Purple Backpack made a nomination, withdrew the nomination, and then wrote an incoherent and unsigned summary. I'd like it to be closed appropriately. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

PBP has now signed his own closure of his own withdrawn nomination. Which is better than leaving it unsigned, but it is still unacceptable, in my opinion. Will an administrator please take care of this. I'd suggest wording something along these lines: "Nomination withdrawn." Carrite (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It does say "Withdrawn"...also you can't demand an AfD nominator change his rationale and even an admin can't refactor another user's comments. Furthermore, the rationale is acceptable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the mess this has become, draconian measures may need to be brought to play. For these two headbutters to avoid being stomped on by Blockzilla, not only should the interaction ban, which Purplebackpack has already agreed to, be enacted but a topic ban for both of them from Richmond related articls and AFDs for at least 6 months. Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Six months from AfD articles period for both of us? That ain't draconian, that's frankly redonkulous and overly punitive Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, in fact it's preventative. Given the amount of crap going on here, I'd say frankly that's generous. Blackmane (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

More sectioning

• Comment  What PBP says:

“ ...Article has no sources ATM, so notability cannot be established Purplebackpack89???? 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Article has no sources and won't be notable until there are some That's actually what NRVE says...Purplebackpack89???? 03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

”

What WP:N says

“ Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. ”

What WP:NRVE says

“ Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. ”

What is to be done about an editor that has recently made possibly hundreds of posts in AfD discussions after which the editor is unable or unwilling to reflect the most basic understanding of our notability guideline?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is to be done, Unscintillating. You don't like my nominations and votes. You're entitled to you opinion; so vote against me. This is, by my count, at least the third thread you've attempted to start where you said "something should be done" (really, it's amounting to forum-shopping now). There wasn't any consensus for doing anything in the first two and there won't be in this one. So stop it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Wikipedia is incoherent. If an editor comes across a totally unsourced (not BLP) article, especially one that has been static for a while.

• WP:V, WP:BURDEN section says it's up to the editor adding the material to support it. "Unsourced material may be removed."
• Blanking the entire page will probably the editor WP:VANDAL accusations.
• Taking the article to Afd gets the editor chided for not following WP:N.
• Merging is likely the preferable way of dealing with the issue, but there's no central merger noticeboard. Simply tagging the relevant articles with merger discussion is only likely to been seen by advocates with the page(s) watchlisted, not an unbiased cross section of the community. Of course, soliciting other editor's opinions violates WP:CANVASSING.
• That leaves WP:RFC, which often doesn't attract a whole lot of discussion either.
• That leaves going the Afd route and taking your lumps, or
• Playing WP:ANI roulette, which will gets the editor

• sufficient attention on the issue to get resolution, or
• the WP:PITCHFORKS for bringing a content issue here.

While PBP has been engaging LWC inappropriately, they are not responsible for Wikipedia's incoherence. Nobody Ent 14:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that. And remember the articles were nominated for deletion and merger because they were un- or undersourced and outdated (often not being significantly edited in four years), and often were declined PRODs. Tags on the articles would've been ignored; articles that already had them sure were. Sometimes the only way to get people to notice articles like that is to delete them. They weren't nominated to engage Lucifer. Saying that they were nominated to engage Lucifer is assuming bad faith. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, it seems pretty clear to me that had they not been nominated, they wouldn't have been fixed. So the result of my tagging of them was better content. You're complaining why? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As Jack McCoy would say: "Asked and answered." Because your approach to interacting with other editors is overly agressive WP:BATTLEGROUND; you appear to be using policy to avoid serious reflection on what we are trying to tell you. Nobody Ent 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not just WP:BATTLEGROUND, it is also WP:CONSENSUS.  A consensus-building approach to my last post would have been, "Yes, I was wrong about my reading of WP:NRVE, I won't make that mistake again.  As WP:N says, notability does not affect the content of articles."  Unscintillating (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody, I've agreed to stay off any Richmond-related articles, regardless of whether or not Lucifer happens to be editing them. In return, I'd like any other interactions with Lucifer to be prevented by he staying off my talk page and not comment on threads I start at the 99.99% of articles that AREN'T Richmond-related. He can still edit any article he wants, provided he doesn't undo or comment on my actions. Unscintillating, drop the issue. Nobody explained where I'm coming from; you keep bringing up the issue when it's been irrelevant for ages Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Limiting PBP's restriction to 'Richmond" (part of the metro San Francisco bay area) is not broad enough. He recently threw another quart of lighter fluid on the fire nominating Shattuck Avenue, arguably the single most important street of neighboring Berkeley, CA. The idea of 6 months interaction ban should have happened the last time these two ended up at ANI. It really must happen now. Additionally, PBP should be restricted from editing, tagging, or nominating for deletion any article relating to the San Francisco bay area. It would be nice if he could step back voluntarily, but at this late date in this process I don't see that coming. What I do see coming is a very lengthy block for him. Anyway, that's the fix that should be happening — an increase of what would have needed to happen last time these two crossed swords at ANI a couple weeks ago, had you all not declined to act then. Stop letting this fester, administrators, it's screwing up the dynamics of AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, Shattuck had no attestation of notability when it was AfDed, and Berekley doesn't border Richmond. Your restrictions are far too punitive against me, far too lenient against Lucifer, and clouded by the fact that you and I disagree on WP:N and AfD policy (you're a keepist, I'm not). I voluntarily did what I think was necessary; no additional problems have been reported since I voluntarily stood down from Richmond and asked for an interaction ban elsewhere. A ban on anything outside of Richmond is overkill (and banning me only is one-sided; two editors were involved, so something should happen to both of them). Have you noticed that 90% of this thread is you, me, LWC, Unscintillating or Melanie? That's because there never will be a consensus from non-involved people that anything outside of Richmond is necessary Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Shattuck Avenue: It's true that this street is not part of Richmond. But I note that it is linked from the lead paragraph of an article Lucifer recently began editing, namely La Peña Cultural Center, which is located on Shattuck. The timing: Lucifer first edited La Peña Cultural Center at 16:48 on 1/5/12; less than half an hour later (17:15 on 1/5/12) PurpleBackpack nominated the related article Shattuck Avenue for deletion. I find this impossible to accept as a coincidence. It sounds more like PBP was tracking Lucifer's edits and looking for opportunities to (as Carrite said) throw lighter fluid on the situation. I agree with Carrite that PBP should be banned from working on articles about the SF Bay Area. Since PBP (according to his userpage) lives in Southern California, it should not be burdensome to ask him to focus his energies there instead. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And for technicalities sake, I believe Richmond and Berkeley might actually border each other in Wilcat Canyon Regional Park.

Oh, and since PBP wants to see "balance", we could also ban Lucifer from editing any article about southern California. Fair enough? --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that last part is fair, perhaps I could be banned from gutting any articles in SoCal but I happen to live in Hollywood and San Francisco and am very interested in everything related to California. I honestly don't see any problem with either one of us "improving" (not deleting, merging, tagging, removing content or references from, etc) [rather adding references, text, images, formatting layout] for any region.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a geographic region is arbitrary as well (meaning I agree with Lucifer). A better thing would be for each to not concern himself with articles the other is editing, tagging or whatever Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate, I will no longer comment on PBP's talk page, and will continue not returning his emails. I will delete his emails and messages. In any AfD I will only comment on content and sources as there is no need to engage another user to effectively argue a point based in policy. I would ask that the counter party do the same.LuciferWildCat (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, I already said I would...actually, all that stuff and more. Also, no additional e-mails have been sent. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Even more sectioning

The user in question is now making comments on my threads on wiktionary, here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, that diff is neither about an article you created, nor a thread you started. True, I commented on gardenburger, but I would've commented on it under any circumstances, as I have commented on dozens of other RfDs and RfVs on Wiktionary (which my Wiktionary contributions will attest to). You're still commenting on AfDs I start... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I, LWC have created the entry for gardenburger on wiktionary, which PBP commented on here, although PBP can be shown expressly lying about the fact that I created it on wiktionary here. It is also very misleading that this user claims to have commented many entries for verification on wiktionary, since the last edit he made at AfD was on December 9th, 2011 which makes the timing appear to be a recalcitrant provocation as it is the only edit in nearly a month. It seems as if the user is simply attempting to skirt the advice and compromise being attempted here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your original diff (1) isn't for gardenburger, bud. It's for something called "Unsupported titles/Left square bracket right square bracket". And what does me commenting in one of dozens of Wiktionary RfDs and RfVs I've commented on over a number of months on Wiktionary have to do with this? Nothing. And you forgot to notice that in the gardenburger diff, I completely agreed with you. Good day; stop throwing around the term "lying" and observe the interaction ban. I can't comment on threads you start in area not covered by the interaction ban, you can't comment on AfD threads I start here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and last prior to gardenburger was Dec 22 at RfD, next one following gardenburger (square bracket) was within a few minutes of gardenburger, so your timing's off. Your not supposed to be starting new allegations against me, BTW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that users are completely aware of what edits they have made and where. That user PBP had continued to make unwanted comments on AfD or similar venues on Wikipedia or related projects and unwarranted emails. User PBP as noted above and proven with diffs made a false statement. There is also no interaction ban currently in place although I have chosen not to engage user PBP in any form of direct communication as it only snowballs into tumult to say the least. It should also be noted that all users have supported MelanieN's proposal but not any comment ban for me, just on PBP. The fact remains that User PBP's most recent RFV entry was on the 9th of December 2011 until he commented on gardenburger. He made two other minor related edits as well but the timing shows them as the most recent example of hounding. Also the remark that "[I'm] not supposed to be starting new allegations against [User PBP]" is yet another example of this user's outrageous warping of the truth, attempting to pass his own opinion as policy or consensus when it is not.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Two things if I may....

1. Luciferwildcat's second diff shows me and he in the same thread; the original one he posted (1) doesn't
2. In the diff that is relevant, you'll notice that I agree 100% with what he said about gardenburger. (Apparently he hasn't)

Issue? No. "unwanted comments on AfD or similar venues on Wikipedia or related projects and unwarranted emails". No. And if there's no interaction ban, there certainly isn't one on Wiktionary, and certainly not for edits where he and I are on the same page. This subthread is a waste of time Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

evidence of distorted comments

• I discussed with PBP on my talk page the inappropriate use of the word "throwing" as being a figure of speech.  The use in the previous post by PBP is the third time that PBP has used the figure since my comment.  This is an example of the futility of discussing behavior change with PBP.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• An example of distortion that can be examined with rigor is the statement, "...not comment on threads I start at the 99.99% of articles that AREN'T Richmond-related."  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Rogers (politician) documents nine AfDs for Richmond City Council councilmembers.  So let's run the numbers,

(x-9)/99.99 = x/100

100x-900 = 99.99x

100x-99.99x = 900

.01x = 900

x = 90000

So PBP testifies to having edited at least 90,000 articles in the last few weeks.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that 99.99% of all the articles on the Wikipedia, not all the one's I've edited Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here is another statement, one that PBP says is "for the record",

“ And for the record, I've made one ANI thread,... Purplebackpack89???? 23:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) ”

This statement can be quantified.  I found two threads specifically for Purpleback89, and three started by PBP that resulted in discussion of PBPs behavior.  Those are:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:JBSupreme.27s_continued_inappropriateness
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User:Purplebackpack89
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Namiba
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#User:TeleComNasSprVen
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:Purplebackpack89

Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In reference to Lucifer...not total...geez Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread indicates that Unscintillating just won't let this go. He seems to be misinterpreting everything I say for no apparent reason. He clearly has some vendetta against me, or against what I represent. I will repeat it: stop dragging my name through the mud and let this go Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not about letting go, it is about working together and reducing differences.  Changing the topic to talk about other editors does not show that PBP understands the pattern of the evidence.  Discussing "mud" does not explain the evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another example, "...dragging me off to ANI every five minutes...... Purplebackpack89???? 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)"  Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating

Unscintillating (talk · contribs) ...is apparantly hounding me and attempting to embarrass me here. this pretty well sums it up...after he got the opinion he wanted on the Richmond City Council articles, he started an NN thread to berate my saying that some of the references were subpar. He also started the above thread where he takes everything I say out of context, and at least one other besides (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:Luciferwildcat, collapsed because it's pointless). Would someone please tell him to drop the matter and stop creating frivolous threads that are essentially TLDR? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn) thread was started because PBP and Sionk insist on removing general references based on notability guidelines.  Even though WP:N says, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles," this issue remains unresolved.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thread's dead. No comments in over a week; safe to say no consensus. Thread was also unnecessary; any questions of sourcing could (and should) have been discussed on the article's talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong suggestion - I'm sick of this shit. Somebody give PBP a one month vacation and let's figure this out when he gets back. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not again..

Frankly I am just sick to death of having to put up with this user's hostility so I'll just report this right away. User:Timbouctou (even after being warned and blocked for a week for exactly that sort of behavior) once again arrived on a perfectly amiable discussion between myself and a third user and immediately started intensely revert-warring, threatening [4], and insulting my intelligence by implying I do not know my own language ("perhaps your Croatian might not be perfect" [5], he of course knows full well I am a Croat). I mean this sort of stuff just ruins the discussion right then and there and you know there is no chance of an amicable agreement from that point on, its one-post instant disruption.

When I asked him to stop, he just replied with "yeah yeah, spare the usual rants". Bearing in mind the two previous ANI reports about this user's flaming [6][7], and my previous experience with him, I don't even want to wait for this to escalate to the point where I'm called a "psychopath". It seems the user "got over" his block and its just business as usual all over again. I honestly feel this person's "out to get me", attempting to provoke me into another one of his conflicts to then try and get me blocked in retaliation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in commenting your distortions and rants. The matter is explained quite clearly at Talk:Zoran Milanović#Atheism and I would have reported you here for editing against consensus and violating WP:3RR anyway ([8], [9], [10], [11]). And all this in the very same article where you had violated WP:3RR and started an entire drama involving half a dozen editors over which image should be used in the infobox ([12], [13], [14]) two months earlier (and were even accused of harassment over it by the image uploader, twice). Looks like getting blocked eight times for edit-warring did not do the trick. Hopefully a ninth one might send the message more clearly. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rants", right.. As I said twice before, Timbouctou only ever tries to attack me in response to being reported himself, trying to prove I really do deserve his treatment. This has happened time and time again, and here as well, a discussion is a "drama I started", some new user's uninformed accusation of "harassment" is brought out, as well as everything I might have done over six years on Wikipedia. (As far as I can see, those four edits took place over the course of several days. And while I am sure Timbouctou would not mind to get himself blocked as well only to get me blocked for a longer period, I will point out he neglects to mention he reverted three times [15] [16] [17].) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, DIREKTOR's first three reverts occurred at 13:23, Jan 3, 18:24, Jan 4 and 21:35 Jan 4. Following the third one I reverted warning him that he had no source for his insertion and that he would be reported for edit-warring if he continues. He then simply reverted again on 05:21, Jan 5. And as has been pointed out in the thread at article talk page by User:GregorB and then by me, DIREKTOR's insertion about the politician's beliefs is unsupported by the source provided. DIREKTOR hasn't got a source and he hasn't got consensus. His modus operandi consists of writing up essays on the nature of atheism, and then, not wasting time to wait for a reply, reverting the article back, citing "per talk" in the diff description. I guess that is his idea of a "perfectly amiable discussion". Timbouctou (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake. This type of WP:HOUNDING and poor interaction between DIREKTOR and Timbouctou has already been going on for a very long time, and we need somebody to stop this current useless conversation. They have both been involved in several bad situations and now they going out harrassing one another once again. How unnecessary. Minima© (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake. This is not a case of WP:HOUNDING at all. User:DIREKTOR has problems with pretty much anyone editing any article he is involved in because of his editing practices and regularly gets into conflicts all over the place. I believe User:Nuujinn is currently drafting a RFC/U about his behaviour. User:Joy also had something to say about his "amiable discussions" last time DIREKTOR dragged me here in mid-December, but was ignored. User:Fainites had topic-banned him back in April but it seems it didn't work because Fainites' assessment of his behaviour is true today as it was back then. Timbouctou (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Minima. Excuse me, but I do not think the harassment can possibly be characterized as mutual. I believe you'll find I've been going well out of my way to avoid having any contact with Timbouctou whatsoever. I do not find him pleasant company. On the other hand here's another recent example (in addition to the previous ones listed in past discussions) where I am having a normal amicable discussion with others only to have Timbouctou arrive to oppose me. Its like a weird reverse of "if you have nothing good to say say nothing at all": he basically "reviews" what I do, and if he feels my reign of terror needs to be curbed, he joins in to oppose my position, and, often enough, to attack me. If I'm not seeing Timbouctou appear in a discussion, its likely because he can't think of a way to oppose me.

As I said in the previous two discussions [18], and even after being told by others to focus on his own actions, all this user does is try to paint me as a menace and a troublemaker whenever he is reported. This is my perception, but I see this not only as irrelevant in justifying his actions (along the lines of "he deserves it"), but as personal attacks. And yet again in this thread as well, he's justifying his harassment - with more harassment here on ANI. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To be quite fair, DIREKTOR is not only edit warring with Timbouctou, but also with GregorB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And in terms of edit warring, it seems to me that DIREKTOR's hands are less clean, with as many reverts as he has (not that Timbouctou is at all guiltless). I'd be inclined to block DIREKTOR over this, especially given his already extensive block log, but would also consider a block of Timbouctou, since he's also got a history of this offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And to be even fairer, I am, as usual, only restoring the status quo. Gregor was bold, I reverted him and we had a standard, amicable discussion on the talkpage. Then Timbouctou arrives and we basically end up here. My problem is that I carefully avoid edit-warring to push new edits (per WP:BRD I discuss when my new edit is reverted), and so I can't stand it when people try to push new edits through edit-warring. "Force over reason" is how I perceive it. My block log is extensive because I edited a lot less appropriately years and years ago (when I was really just a kid :)). My point is, why block anyone over edit-warring? The edit-war is over, WP:3RR has not been violated, and to do so is just punitive.

Also, as I said, I strongly believe it was (and is) Timbouctou's intention to provoke edit-wars and then report me with my longer (ancient) block log, banking on me getting a much longer block. I mean the guy dislikes me that much. Its likely his idea of "retaliation" for being blocked for a week after a string of personal attacks, and that strategy appeals to his perception of me as a "troublemaker" ("you're a menace and now you'll pay for it"). It wouldn't be the first time either. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The status quo enjoys no protected status at Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the status quo sometimes contains factual errors, POV etc. Therefore such reverts have no exemption. And as for your block log being ancient, I wouldn't call 8 October 2011 ancient by anyone's definition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a partial response isn't it? :) No, the most recent one isn't of course. Look I'm not saying I am blameless with regard to the tiny edit-war (and its about as tiny as they get), I'm saying that 3RR was not really violated by either party, that its over, and that it would be punitive to block anyone. But I'll say it once more: this is Timbouctou switching the subject away from himself over to the user he is harassing (as he does every time, edit war or no edit war). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking both of you to stop you both from engaging in your silly bickering war would be certainly not qualify as punitive, it would be palliative.--Adam in MO Talk 09:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, except that it's already stopped.. Sigh. If you guys want to block, fine, block me for posting four reverts, not over 24 hours, but since January 3. But what annoys me is how this thread has departed off topic, and how my behavior is being equated with that of Timbouctou - which indicates a lack of understanding of the wider context. Is anyone reading through the two older cases? This is not a "silly", minor issue, at least not where I'm standing. I posted this to report a continuation of the same behavior that Timbouctou was warned for, and then blocked for a week [19][20]. This user won't leave me alone, I'm asking for help and a review of the user's behavior, and all anyone can do is focus on the four reverts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If by "it's already stopped" you mean you won't revert that most recent edit, sure, I won't block. Are you indeed saying you won't? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah. Didn't I stop edit-warring and post this thread? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• How many times has one of these chaps dragged the other to ANI? Isn't it time for an interaction ban? Whenever they bump into each other things start exploding. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Basalisk: I never dragged anyone to ANI in my 6+ years here. On the other hand, DIREKTOR is what some call "a visitor" at ANI. I was never reported for anything by anyone other than him and all my previous three blocks came after interactions with him. On the other hand he seems to have a problem with someone somewhere on at least a weekly basis. All I ask is for him to accept consensus and stop owning articles. That is pretty much it. But it seems too much for him. Dozens of people asked him to stop it over the past two years to no avail. In the end it is always him who reports others because he considers ANI to be an editing tool. Once here, he gets a short block at most or a millionth warning to play nice and everything is back to business after that. I find it astonishing how a guy who chased away so many people from this project still manages to get so much sympathy around here by gaming the system. Timbouctou (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't have a lot of sympathy for either of you; I rarely remember all the details of ANI discussions from weeks and months previous, but I remember your names cropping up many times in the past and therefore feel that when the two of you together it causes nothing but trouble. I know you're not the only person to have had a problem with Direktor, but I'm just making the suggestion that you will, naturally, have less trouble with him if you just avoid him. What do you think? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

...all that being said, direktor has got to stop attributing religious beliefs to BLPs when he has absolutely no sources to back up the claims. He seems to have a compulsion of going around tagging BLPs as atheists, regardless of what sources actually say. I also suggest that the use of non-English sources is unhelpful when used in relation to a highly-contentious issue. This is the en-WP after all. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Basilisk: Everybody knows that he owns a few dozen articles and normal editors avoid them like the plague by default. That is the status quo, that is, most people avoid him already. The line where he gets intolerable is when he appears in articles which are actually edited by other people and goes against consensus and/or bites newcomers. Notice that in this particular instance I reacted only after he chose to ignore disagreement expressed by User:GregoB, a long-time user in perfectly good standing. I know that GregorB would have probably just walked away not wanting to waste time on DIREKTOR, but I don't think we content editors need to put up with it any longer. I don't enjoy being dragged over here every now and then, but to be honest I'm sick of everybody editing Croatia-related articles just shrugging it off and accepting it as fact of life. But I see what you meant - I do not have any intention of following him around and my interests are wider than his so there are areas where I can be useful without bumping into him. Of course I can do that and my life would be a whole lot easier. But I doubt it would solve the problem long-term. Timbouctou (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Direktor blocked I've blocked Direktor for 1 week. Direktor knows what the WP:3RR is and stopping at exactly 3 reverts is not a change in his behavior, it's trying to game the system to avoid a block. Escalating the block to 1 week per previous blocks will be a deterrent to future edit warring. The issue isn't just a WP:3RR issue but also a WP:BLP issue. In this case, I think User:Timbouctou is exempted from WP:3RR because of the BLP issue of whether or not to label a living person as a specific belief or non-belief. --v/r - TP 14:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for temporarily unblocking me TParis. I appreciate it, and will not edit anything other than ANI.

Regarding my block, I won't challenge it, even though I feel like a week-long sanction might be somewhat excessive for 4 reverts/3 days, but once again, in all objectivity, I feel like the matter was not treated fairly. I'm not going to discuss the issue here, but, as I pointed out on my talkpage, the WP:BLP exemption does not apply to User:Timbouctou any more than it applies to myself, and I believe the opposite is a mistaken assumption. WP:BLP would apply, for example, if I was adding unsourced information and Timbouctou was removing it, while this dispute (and this is evident from the relevant thread) concerns precisely whether the information was directly sourced or not. We even went into the dictionaries. Timbouctou challenges this, but from my point of view, Timbouctou was removing directly supported, sourced information and I was restoring it.

To say WP:BLP apllies to him especially is to "rule" in his favor in the dispute about what the source supports ("yes Timbouctou, the disputed content was not sourced as you said and you were right in removing it, so now you don't get blocked for a week"). And that is anything but fair in any context, and especially considering the discussion and a review of the sources was cut short. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

User:DIREKTOR and User:Timbouctou should be banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support as proposer.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – always trouble; iBan will help both to move on to more constructive editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalisk (talk • contribs)

Comment I agree with everything except the "replying to each other in any discussion" bit. Can that be dropped? (Btw I had to correct TP's post above - it's User:DIREKTOR, not User:Direktor) Timbouctou (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I lurk around ANI every now and then and have noticed these two butting heads a lot, regardless of who started it or who did what to whom. I heartily support an interaction ban. Timbuctou, dropping the "replying to each other in any discussion" bit as you put it rather renders an "interaction" ban pointless, don't you think? Blackmane (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if everything else was kept it would still be an interaction ban since we'd be banned from undoing each other's edits. But if it comes with the standard package I'm fine with it. Timbouctou (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Appears to be the logical next step. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that a variation of Timbouctou's amendment makes sense. An interaction ban, with the very specific exception of discussing article content on an article talk pages, would enable third parties to more easily ascertain whether an edit to an article is good or bad, where one makes an edit and the other disagrees with it. If it doesn't work, the exemption is easily removed. —WFC— 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Setting the edit-war aside, I would like to ask the question whether it is fair that, in addition to being the only one who is blocked, I am also now to be forced to restrict my edits? The tendency on WP:ANI is always to "equate the guilt", as it were. And its a strong tendency, because I have to point out again: the harassment is not mutual, and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. I don't WP:STALK Timbouctou around, its vice versa.

To be perfectly blunt, what I am saying is: why should I have to stay away from Timbouctou? I don't hate him like he despises me, I tried my absolute best to have us reconciled five separate times (5:0 as far as that's concerned), but he just plain thinks I'm some sort of "menace" he's called-upon to protect Wikipedia from. You saw above he doesn't even like the fact that I use capital letters in my username (likely the font annoys him as well to no end).

This thread is about just the latest manifestation of a long-time pattern of harassment ("perhaps you don't know your own language?"). How does it make sense that my editing should now be in any way restricted thanks to this harassment? I avoid the user like the plague anyway, to be sure, but why should I, for example, be sanctioned if I happen to respond politely and appropriately to something he writes? I'm not the one harassing him - its the other way around. Please put yourself in my shoes for a moment: you get harassed for months, the user harassing you is warned and blocked, continues to harass you - and now you're supposed to restrict your activities on the project because of this guy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interaction ban, not an interaction blame. It's in everyone's interests, yours included, if this particular bear doesn't get poked. Maybe the cause of that is that this particular bear is especially growly, but it's still a reasonable restriction that you should stop poking it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, for the love of god, yes. Swarm ^X 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It seems hardly a week goes by without a report here concerning at least one of these two, and usually both - and there really are more important things for people to be doing than constantly dragging them apart -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Discussion between these two does not work; ever. This means the attempted amendment is a farce - the time for polite discussion is long past. As such, the only way to protect this project from the massive timesink is to implement a full-bore interaction ban ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm sure we are all quite tired of scrolling past this stuff every time we come to AN/I. They clearly just do not work well together and everyone will be better off if they can just steer clear. causa sui (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I can't remember a time when there hasn't been an active thread involving some conflict Direktor has been involved in. This would be a good start. --Jayron32 01:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. However i don't get, with all due respect, why here on en.wiki (i write mainly on it.wiki) you allow such a recedive editor to continue editing on the encyclopedia. How many times one has to be blocked for the same things before being undefinitely banned? DIREKTOR has been blocked 10 times and restriced many times. And surely Timbouctou behaviour is problematic too and needs, in my opinion, a temporary ban. Being too fair lead the same things happeing times and times again... AndreaFox (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and tolerating Timbouctou's stalking and harassment has led to it "happeing times and times again". AndreaFox, forgive me for asking, but what are you doing here? Yes I know you would absolutely love to have me indeffed or something, I'm sure, but isn't this survey supposed to be for admins? And aren't you the guy with whom I've had a few disputes over Italian/Yugoslav issues? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • First, i suggested blocking Timbouctou too ("needs, in my opinion, a temporary ban"). Second, it doesn't seem so to me (Basalisk and Blackmane aren't admins from what I see). Third and last, yes, 2 whole years ago i wrote on one article (and it was the one on Yugoslavian dictator Tito, so I don' get why you talk about "Italian/Yugoslav issues") on which you wrote too (but after that we never meet each other again and, as anyone can see by my contributions, I mainly edit on wrestling articles, so you're wrong) and there were the same problems that have emerged here and partially emerge again from your last comment (presumpion of bad faith, constant attemp to misrapresentate situations by changing the subject form you to other editors'supposed problems, edit warring, personal attacks and so on). So i can see you are engaging again in the same behaviour that has been stigmatised so many times (read the comment above mine, which is from an admin, because it is expressive of the situation). And I'm questioning if it is usefull to close eyes again on your behaviour after 10 blocks and countless ANI or if it is more appropriate to try and solve this problems you cause permanently. AndreaFox (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you look at the introduction at the top of the page, it says "any editor may post here". Sometimes there are non-admins who have helpful suggestions too. Such as, IMHO, this ban, which was suggested by me. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Break it up, you two. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Europe by Andriabenia

• Andriabenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2
• ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polgraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am one of the regular watchers of Europe, an anodyne and neutral article in a stable state. The first user listed here created their account on December 20 and has already been blocked 48 hours for edit warring.[21] They have stated that they come from Mingrelia in Georgia. They have made several anti-Armenian remarks, and were given a warning of a second block on their talk page as a result.[22] They have now arrived on the Europe page and proceeded to dispute the status of transcontinental countries (Azerbaijan, Georgia) and the disputed territories South Ossetia and Abkhazia, The three accounts listed after Andriabenia are all the same user and have engaged in identical disputes. As ComtesseDeMingelie, Satt 2 (the puppetmaster) stated that they come from Mingrelia. It appears, on the basis of their edits so far particularly their tendentious editing on Talk:Europe, that Andriabenia is a sockpuppet of the same person. I have filed a checkuser request, but despite having repsonded to WilliamH's request for more information, the case has not been examined so far, while disruption continues on the articles. At present Andriabenia is just repeating what the banned user Satt 2 and his other socks argued. He is disputing the ambiguity of transcontinental countries and the statements already sourced to the CIA Factbook and United Nations, that geographically Azerbaijan and Georgia are in Western Asia, with some portions in Europe. Many other sources list one or other of the countries as politically in Europe (e.g. the BBC, European Union, etc). These statements occur in footnotes and extensive footnotes of footnotes in the article. These matters have already been discussed and resolved on multiple previous occasions, with every previous return of Satt 2 and his drawerfuls of socks. The "Definition" section of the article has been written with careful sources, most notably the book "The Myth of Continents", published by the University of California Press, which carefully explains the history of the boundaries and th inherent ambiguity. These sources are not enough for Andriabenia, who apparently wants some kind of statement that Georgia and Azerbaijan lie geographically mostly in Europe, for which there is no source. Andriabenia's edit-warring on footnotes of footnotes is identical to the nationalist POV-pushing of Satt 2 and his various reincarnations. My understanding is that, because of the anti-Armenian remarks, this user could be subject to editing sanctions under WP:ARBAA / WP:ARBAA2. Another alternative is to lock Europe until the SPI report is resolved, but that seems an extreme measure. As I have written in the SPI report, the familiarity with wikipedia processes (SPI, RPP, AN3, page moves) indicate that this is not a new user and is in all probability Satt 2. Please could an administrator help or jog the SPI report into action. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• User mathsci refuses to dignify me with a specific page in a specific book that support his assertion that certain transcontinental countries are "mostly" in Asia or Europe. He assumes that just because he is an established user he can get away with citing an entire book for an unsubstantiated claim with the hopes that we'll be simply too reluctant to verify the whole thing.

• As for this sock puppetry claims, my responses are on this page and I am puzzled as to why he feels duplicating all of this useless text on two pages at once. This must be another way of distracting from the real issue: his cited book, The Myth of Continents, does not support his insistence on saying which transcontinental country belong "mostly" where.

Lastly, if mathsci bothered reading what I write, he would know that I am not "disputing the ambiguity" of placement of transcontinental countries,as he argues here, quite the opposite. That is part of the reason why I'm against using word "mostly", because once you use that word, I no longer see any ambiguity.--Andriabenia (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrianbenia, despite their protestations, is evidently not a new user. The CIA Factbook and National geographic adopt the von Strahlenberg definitions of the boundaries of Europe, described in "The Myth of Continents". These are sources which Andriabenia is not happy with. Andriabenia seems to have no awareness that nationalist POV-pushing on a neutral and anodyne article like Europe, amongst the 200 most consulted on wikipedia, is not a very good idea. Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Handpicked sources do not prove anything. Wikipedia is a combination of sources, and wikipedia does not simply count sources and annouce the winner. It must incorporate every viewpoint. Your insistence that certain countries belong "mostly" on one continent or another may well be true for one group of border definitions but not the others. You have no right to take only your definition, just as I have no right to push only mine. That is why I am against using descriptive words like "mostly", as they threaten the ambiguity wikipedia needs to maintain neutrality.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

These sources have been in the articles for years and each year the same user, with Georgian origins, comes back to make the same type of tendentious and completely unreasonable POV-pushing edits. I do not "insist" on anything as an individual editor. This is a much watched article. The consensus has been there for years. You are editing the article tendentiously without citing any proper WP:RS, The CIA Factbook is fine as representing one of the most widely accepted geographical points of view. Other points of view are clearly explained in the article. But it is your anti-Armenian edits which are perhaps a more serious problem. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Explaining other points of view in the article are not enough, the footnotes must also reflect this. And my edits against an indefinitely blocked Armenian nationalist,rast5, have nothing to do with your edits on Europe; they have been discussed extensively on this page in their own right. Again, this is a distraction from your own falsehoods and POV pushing."CIA Factbook is...one of the most widely accepted geographical points of view" is a POV.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no sources which place Georgia and Azerbaijan geographically mostly in Europe and several reliable sources which place them geographically mostly in Asia. Things are different politically or culturally. Your aggressive conduct on Talk:Europe is indistinguishable from that of Satt 2. So far you have cited only one source which did not qualify as WP:RS. The last statement you made about the CIA Factbook again is problematic. If you wish to dispute it, you can present your case at WP:RSN. However, you are just disputing the von Stahlenberg boundary. What precisely is the interest in doing that, considering the highly nuanced text in the main body of the article? You will make no headway here describing me as a POV-pusher. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, you may hide behind any kind of wikipedia acronyms you like, the bottom line is that despite your editorial experience you are nothing more than an entitled, common bully who cannot get over not having something his way on his OWN article.

Furthermore, may I inform you that the Central Intelligence Agency is not a geographic authority of any kind so I don't see why you insist on this source so much. Neither is the United Nations, statistics department of which groups countries into various regions based on "statistical convenience", not geographic definitions.

That being said, this is not a page for sockpuppet investigations and I will not let you dilute my argument by baseless accusations.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you pushed for a definition of a geographical boundary along the Kura and Rioni rivers in Georgia that is not widely accepted. According to this map, it places more than half of Georgia in Europe. Isn't that POV-pushing? Satt 2 has wasted huge amounts of time in the past with exactly this kind of unconstructive argument. You are dismissing standard sources by wikilawyering and casting aspersions on experienced editors, which you started doing almost as soon as you appeared on talk:Europe. Mathsci (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not pushing any single definition, based on Kura or not; I merely used it as an example of an alternative definition. All I have ever done or asked for is to ensure that unsubstantiated measurements of where a particular country "mostly" belongs be removed. The standard, deliberately-ambiguous definition used on wikipedia articles is that the countries in question can be placed in Asia, Europe, or both. Not mostly here, not mostly there, that is not up to wikipedia to decide.--Andriabenia (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that both of you stop going over the same points here as you did on the Talk:Europe until admins have reviewed this. I've collapsed the argument above as it's basically the same back-and-forth on the talk page, but i've left Adriabenia's reply to Mathsci's initial report Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above intervention was not helpful. If Blackmane has no antennas for spotting obvious sockpuppets, he shouldn't be commenting here. This is a long term issue of continued disruption which goes back several years and unfortunately Blackmane, a relatively new editor, seems to show no awareness of this. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC

Please limit your accusations of sockpuppetry to a page created specifically for this purpose and stop distracting from the real issue: your unwillingness to provide precise citations to support a very specific body of text.--Andriabenia (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly after adding tags to footnotes of footnotes, you will quietly disappear for a little while. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future. Mathsci (talk)

You are not going to make me disappear and officially proclaim your "ownership" of the Europe page, or any other. I may some day get bored with all of this because probably unlike you, I have an actual life and I do not need to own a wikipedia article. This, however, is not happening just yet.--Andriabenia (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership? All I can see is an anti-Armenian, pro-Georgian POV-pusher who in all probability is not going to last very long on wikipedia (1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks?) . Hyperbolic postings on Talk:Europe are rare. You have now become one of those rare people, in all probability a returning visitor to that page. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your inability to provide specific sources for a specific claim has nothing to do with my or anyone else's POV. As for my "anti-Armenian" edits, I think an indefinitely blocked Armenian nationalist,rast5, is no longer needing your moral support. But of course sockpuppetry of this kind does not annoy you. You only use accusations of sockpuppetry when your infallibility is questioned.--Andriabenia (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I'm a relatively newly registered user, but a long time time studier of the madness which are the various drama infested articles. I do not have antennae for sockpuppets because I refrain from descending into those realms where sockpuppets infest. Whether Andriabenia is or is not a sock puppet is not my realm of expertise. However, I 'am' able to spot when a conflict is moving around and this one certainly is. However, this will be my final comment here as I had been hoping that by hatting off the continued bitching some extra comments from admins could be added before this became yet another arena for the shitfight, which it has certainly become. As such, I will leave you two to the pleasantries of the cage. Blackmane (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential blocking of Johnsith and Geoff9115

I'm writing in because of an article currently up for delete, Never shout Nevermind. It was uploaded by what appears to be the game's creators ([23], [24]), whose sole purpose for coming onto the wikipedia was to submit an article for their game. Their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to advertise for their game. They have even created their own sources by submitting articles to news sites that allow users to create their own content, then listing them as reliable sources. They are trying to pass them off as reliable sources that show notability, although they have been called by multiple users (including myself) on the origin of the two blog/news sources. They have also posted a question to Yahoo Answers asking for people to come and vote for them, which isn't a blockable thing in itself but is just further proof of them attempting to game the system to keep their promotional article on the page.

I do want to assume good faith, but this is pretty blatant and obvious attempted advertising and manipulation of the system.16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

They're promotional single purpose accountss. At least block Johnsith as a sockpuppet of Geoff9115, as one of the "sources" "they" provide has the username "John9115." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's a sockpuppet, to be honest. I think that John is a meat puppet and one of the friends of Geoff that was asked to come on and contribute to the article and most importantly, to remove the PROD from the article. That's what really gets me about these two users: that do little things like this that show that they're aware of some of the protocol on Wikipedia, such as the original article creator not being supposed to remove the PROD from the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Either way, Johnsith should be blocked for puppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

They should at least be topic banned from promoting their 'thang. Oh, and last I checked, you could decline a PROD on an article you yourself created... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban would be useful if they ever bothered contributing anywhere else. As it is, they're single purpose accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything is needed right now. Once that article is deleted, I suspect they'll disappear - and if they recreate it, we have G4 at our disposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it as speedy G11 and A7. I am not protecting because , who knows, it might become notable when it gets released. If reinserted before that, I urge whoever deletes it to protect. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

Possible legal threat: editor threatening to contact police and report cyber harassment of minor [25]Nobody Ent 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed? Why?!? Seems ridiculously harsh to me. 2.123.152.86 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing the encyclopedia while a legal threat is extant is not a compatible situation. Please see WP:NLT. Considering you are under a personal attack warning yourself I don't think you quite have a grasp of Wikipedia policies. Syrthiss (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) That's the normal process - read the WP:NLT page for the reasoning and the extremely simple remedy. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This one was a particularly bad legal threat; I've told them they need to show a thorough understanding of why what they did was bad, not just retract it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 ... possibly one of the most brutal attempts at "chilling discussion" I have seen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it's an attempt. But to me, an uninvolved party, it's blatantly transparent to the point of hilarity. Assuming the below IP is related to same, this self declared minor will be retaining the services of one John Phillips (jurist), who has been retired from legal service now these six years. No, what I see here is a teenager who's gone off on an emotional bender. Got involved in a dispute, grabbed his keyboard, and jumped into the deep end of an empty pool. This is routine stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's kinda funny to read through, despite the LT because it was made apparently with a fair amount of sincerity and in reality would probably get any lawyer involved with it a request from a judge as to why they shouldn't be sanctioned. Ravensfire (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was sorely tempted to leave them a message telling them their grasp of cyberbullying laws was nonexistent, but I decided to let him figure it out himself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to learn something: in a similar case, should I report here at ANI or through some silent overview? -DePiep (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is good, or alternatively you can leave a message for an admin if you see they're editing; either way works. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Waddle, "QUACK!", (smile for the camera)...

(probably related to the above thread)

This IP is in need of blocking...

94.8.118.132 (talk · contribs)

Quack quack quack...

The legal threats of are of course a joke, but it's obvious there's block evading going on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to a CU to modify the block as needed, but I already had blocked them for 24 hours for obviousness. Syrthiss (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've extended the block to a week; check the ANI archives for a Mr. L Phillips, QC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#Administrator's Noticeboard?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Notice of Intent to Sue
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Legal Threat (including a £10,000,000,000 lawsuit)

Couldn't tell you whether or not it's the same person, though. --MuZemike 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein

We've got a major case of whitewashing going on in the Jeffrey Epstein article - complete with SPAs acting on behalf of the biographical subject. This is a LOT more than one admin can handle without support. The short story is that this guy is a convicted sex offender and friend of Prince Andrew. The case and relationship were all over the news last year. The edit summary here and the SPAs pretty well sum up the problem. As much as I'd like to, I don't think it's appropriate for a single admin to go in and single-handedly block and revert all the SPAs involved. Rklawton (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This could very easily be someone out to discredit him (yeah, I know, discredit him ) - I doubt that a professional reputational management firm would act like this - it's just begging for news coverage. Don't see why one admin can't handle it unless there's a lot of oversighted edits. Egg Centric 22:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm requesting help because there are several SPA's involved (or socks) and because it involves significant BLP issues. Unless we have a "blocked due to whitewashing" option (which we don't) the whole thing will look more like an edit war where the SPAs quibble over details and then complain here about a "rogue" admin. By requesting help here, we can hopefully prevent a lot of wasted time. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok dokey. Oh, and watchlisted it. Egg Centric 01:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As time permits, I'll go back over previous edits and see if anything that was removed requires restoration. Some stuff, like putting the "negative" information at the bottom of the article (a standard whitewashing practice), can wait. I'll probably start restoring reliably sourced information about his relationship with Prince Andrew - as it's all been removed. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done a bit of "whitewashing" of my own, however - I think the speculation by IPs that he is a paedophile (and involved in child porn and the white slave trade in one case!) on the article talkpage is a BLP violation. Removal is here and I wonder if it is appropriate to revdel them? Fortunately, not being an admin, it isn't my call to make Egg Centric 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a discussion about improving article content and making a statement as if it's fact. To wit, "Should we list him as a pedophile because of the accusations that he engaged in sexual activities with underage girls?" is OK to put in a discussion page. Saying "XYZ is a pedophile", unless he has been convicted, is not OK anywhere - even on a talk page. Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think by that standard the second section I removed is probably ok; the first section on the other hand is accusing him of being into child porn and people trafficking. Worth doing anything about? Egg Centric 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It continues Egg Centric 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Final warning given, per that edit. A misleading edit summary used to disguise the removal of content is not ok, period. The next time he does it, he will be blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's especially amusing because the change he made (aside from the stuff he hoped no one would notice) was actually incorrect; the IAS isn't part of Princeton University, so far as I can see. Egg Centric 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Checkuser  confirms abuse of multiple accounts here. Blocked, and the article put on semi for a while. Courcelles 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely this is trolling

The more I look at this the more I'm convinced this is trolling, or at least editing by opponents of his (and I should imagine he has a lot of them). Could you imagine an edit like this seriously having come from anyone on Epstein's side? Only if he is so charitable he provides employment for those whose central nervous system is nothing more than a spinal cord. If that is the case, perhaps it explains the gushing... Egg Centric 23:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic insults and revert warring by Balkan editor

Edvini (talk · contribs) is revert warring and making ethnic insults in his talkpage posts and edit summaries [26] [27] [28] [29]. He is pushing a clear ethno-nationalist agenda [30] using outdated, unreliable or highly partisan sources such as these [31]. I have tried to reason with him [32] [33] [34], but he is extremely hostile and seems impossible to reason with. He is revert-warring across multiple articles [35] and is rapidly becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Edvini is indeed making assumptions based on nationality, and that is unacceptable. Their sources are indeed doubtful--you don't enter into the Balkan articles with the Lonely Planet under your arm. The personal insults/accusations are blockable already. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be the case you say, but I was only citing sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, and that citation was repeatedly deleted by Athenean, on the grounds that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source. (Edvin (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

Excessive deletion of sources and parts of articles by User:Athenean

I have been editing the article Albania, by providing western reliable sources, especially in the parts History and Religion of Albania. But the User: Athenean keeps deleting them, and provides no sources or some dubious sources which are not in English. It seems that he has some personal issues with me, because he goes to every article that i edit, and keeps deleting my posts. Some of the deletions are: , and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Albania&diff=469980311&oldid=469785912. I demand that some measures to be taken against this member, as he keeps interfering with my work. (Edvin (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Slightly tangential, but I was wondering if anyone can advise me what the current consensus is on the use of non-English sources on articles relating to the Balkans and eastern Europe? It seems to me that sources used to substantiate claims about such contentious topics really should be English to maximise verifiability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NONENG Nobody Ent 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

English-language sources are preferred where available, but if we only used evidence published in one language we'd hardly be fulfilling our potential as an encyclopædia.

Sometimes if editor X disagrees with editor Y who uses foreign-language sources, it's tempting for X to assume that Y is misrepresenting what a source really says, but I've never actually seen it done directly (though I've seen people skirting round the edges of that on a couple of other Balkan topics) - best to assume good faith. Also, there should be other people around with sufficient knowledge of the language to identify any problems - a wikiproject page can often be a good place to ask for help understanding sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no excuse for using Scribd as a source though. If the content in question is actually true then surely there's a more reliable source which supports it - try browsing a few historical journals on Google Scholar. bobrayner (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica has been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source so please return my editing, in Here The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania, led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. I have checked many articles, and Britannica is accepted as reliable. It seems that we have a prejudiced decision stemming from nationalistic sentiments. (Edvin (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

There is a clear problematic pattern by Edvin: use of aggresive style language ([[36]] proclaming that Albanian related articles have been attacked by 'outsiders' and should be cleared from outside vandalism). Similar pro-national activity by edditing, like ([[37]][[insist on the term 'Albanian ethnic territory' referring to regions outside Albania). There is also use of aggresive edit summaries by adding fringe theories about ancient use of svastika in Albania [[38]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And? You deleted those posts. I am requesting that the post which i have cited from Britannica to be returned. It is the exact word used by Britannica and i request that to be returned. I have just added information, not edited what was already there. (Edvin (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

Are you saying that Books are not anymore a source for Wikipedia? Check this. (Edvin (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

The sources claim something completely diferrent: both Britannica (no word about Lebensraum and 'Albanian ethnic territory', or unjust invasions by other Balkan countries) and Stipcevic (use of Svastika by Illyrians in an article named 'Religion in Albania' is at least irrelevant)Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence deleted was "The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania,[4] led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912."

So i will have to return this sentence as duly cited from Britannica. Swastika represented the god Sun according to Stipcevic and other sources, that this is religion according to most of the people of this planet and it is connected to 'Religion in Albania'. (Edvin (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

74.197.89.32 needs a smack.

 Done Penyulap _talk

Penyulap _talk 06:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Warn them first, and if they don't respond, use WP:AIV instead of here. --Jayron32 06:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

mvd. Penyulap _talk 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

86.24.143.245 persistent personal link spam

The Giffgaff article regularly suffers from users who post their own giffgaff links onto the wikipedia page in the hope of getting a £5 referral fee if users sign up through their link. There is a section on the Talk page which describes the problem. The user 86.24.143.245 has been persistently posting his own links over the last couple of days. Can this IP be temporarily blocked for a while?

Note: giffgaff is a UK phone operator which allows existing members to earn money by recruiting new ones. This is why the wikipedia article suffers from this as users think it's a good way to advertise their own links. ChrisUK (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given them a 48hr rest ... but wouldn't blacklisting be more effective in the longrun? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLACKLIST says page protection is a preferable alternative; semi seems appropriate. Nobody Ent 13:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

However, I have seen some positive edits by IP's on that article - including reverting the inclusion of the spam. Semi would therefore inhibit those edits (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The current blacklist requests I'm seeing block the entire domain -- can the list to be used to block subpages (e.g. http://giffgaff.com/orders )? Nobody Ent 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The actual blacklist contains some subpages, e.g. x-fat.com/p90x-review and finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fil_Chi.  --Lambiam 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Urine Therapy - POV pushing - Islam section

Hi, there is persistent user (user:Inai09) on Urine Therapy that is going against a compromised consensus [39] with another administrator and I and keeps POV pushing [40] with the Islam section [41] [42] [43] [44]. For the past 3 hours I've tried to compromise with the user but he keeps reverting it back to the old version - a version that was not agreed on in consensus by both the admin and I. He's desperate to try to prove me wrong (I've placed in a lot of references whereas he's just relying on two or three) and has used personal attacks before to berate me [45] [46] having repeatedly going against the administrators advice of not making the Islam section too long [47]. After making the section as neutral as possible the said user then reverted to pre-consensus many times whilst I suggested for him to include his quote with in the NPOV written section that I wrote - but he's not listening. He seems like a relatively new user with no idea of any of the policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:OR [48]. He's including irrelvant sections into the article as well - of which has nothing to do with urine therapy per se by copying a statement from a book that has been refuted by the authors, and talks of the prophet Muhammad saying a mad, irrelevant thing that doesn't say anything about urine therapy. I just don't understand why he keeps trying to POV push, after the administrator agreed with me that the section was becoming more and more neutral [49] Could someone please check for neutrality sake? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check which one is more neutral:

version by NarSakSasLee - 5 references relevant (includes differing views and NPOV balanced) - 0 irrevelent

version by user:Inai09 - 4 references relevant (includes a single view POV not balanced) - 2 irrelevant

NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Kolins (again)

This is the third time I've brought it here. The first two discussions - November 2011 and December 2011 - as well as a number of discussions over at WT:FOOTBALL (links can be found in previous ANIs) speak for themselves i.e. Kolins (talk · contribs) should not be removing valid nationality categories from footballer articles. The consensus on that is pretty clear to me. However, he is still up to his old tricks, and I would like some proper admin intervention this time. GiantSnowman 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I considered that, but given the fact that it's been here where people have said his conduct was iffy, I thought this would be the right forum. Should I take it there then? GiantSnowman 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a recidivism issue, complicated by the fact that the user does not appear willing to talk about the issue. The ideal solution would be to leave him a message saying "You do this again, you're blocked for a week." That being said, this discussion, linked to in one of the above threads, dosen't really establish the community authority needed to make that statement. I'm sorry Snowman, it's clear to me that this user isn't acting in a constructive manner, but unless you can point to a discussion where there's clear consensus against this, or this becomes an edit war, I don't see blocks coming into this. That being said, I'm not an admin, you might find one who thinks that three ANI discussions on the same issue is enough for a block. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really going for a block to be honest - he is, this and his unwillingness to discuss aside, a normally decent editor - I'd rather an admin (i.e. someone with authority) to issue a formal, final warning, as was suggested in December's ANI. GiantSnowman 17:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WonderFulSoneElf

All uploads by User:WonderFulSoneElf appear to be copyvios. 92.40.33.151 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. All of the files have been placed up for deletion, as it is required that files have both sources and license tags. A passing admin could probably get away with nuking the edit history of the user and deleting the files. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I got everything, including a trio of Commons uploads. Now all that is left is to wait for the files to get deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Unjust deletion in Albania article

Encyclopedia Britannica has been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source so please return my editing, in Here The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania, led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. I have checked many articles, and Britannica is accepted as reliable. It seems that we have a prejudiced decision stemming from nationalistic sentiments.(Edvin (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

I would also request to revert the deletion of new facts i brought in the Religion in Albania article,here, where i duly cited the book on Illyrians from Aleksander Stipcevic, which can bee seen here. (Edvin (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

My understanding is that we can't source anything directly to Britannica since they're just a composition of various primary sources, in other words, they're an encyclopedia like us. I have found many errors in Britannica as well. I'd be surprised if Lonely Planet passes WP:RS either, but maybe I'm just out of touch. —Soap— 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we have two related sections open on what is essentially a dispute over sources? The reliable sources noticeboard is a more appropriate venue; no admin action is required here or at the thread above. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

More Douglas Youvan

Douglas Youvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous ANI disscussion

BLPN discussion

Drawit4u (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

I have been only tangentially involved in the issues associated with the Youvan article. However, after Drawit4u added some book refs back into the article, I removed them, mainly based on the BLPN discussion and the subsequent block of Noncanonical. Then Drawit4u added this section to my Talk page]. Frankly, I don't know what to make any of this, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of others here. In particular, I am troubled by this sentence: "So, I ask you to turn back the article to my most recent edit before your revert, protect the article, and let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly." It doesn't appear to rise to the level of a legal threat, but it's disturbing. I don't know whether he means the Youvan Foundation or WMF. He also accuses Crowsnest of a financial conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly, my financial conflicts and association with MIT were already discovered before: here, here :-) Coincidentally, Noncanonical is blocked, and directly User:Drawit4u shows up, trying to port problems of Douglas Youvan on Commons here (while at the same time commons:User:Doug youvan transfers his problems here to Commons: File:Secular Fascism.png). -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, this[50] qualifies as a legal threat. Basically trying to intimidate. Must be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And this edit includes "consider the Foundation and stop it!" in the edit summary. That is a very clear legal threat when read in conjunction with the link provided above by Baseball Bugs (that diff shows a comment including "...let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly." Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Crissy Moran - low-level edit war, block evasion

There appears to be a prolonged, low-level edit war on Crissy Moran, the biography of a former porn performer, replacing a rather tame upper-body portrait (file:Crissy_Moran.jpg) with a cropped version of the same (file:Crissy_Moran_cropped.jpg). I would not bother bringing this up here, but a new user, User:Dbiela1, has inserted a link to a Facebook page purported to belong to Moran. User:Dbiela8293 was previously indef blocked for repeatedly inserting unsourced information about the real name of Moran, which makes me wonder about the authenticity of the Facebook page. Note also the similarity of usernames. Perhaps semi-protection of the article is in order, if nothing else? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal

I believe a requested move (RM) discussion for John VI of Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that was still active was prematurely closed. The discussion was still active, and there were multiple replies going on the same day when an administrator (User:The ed17) abruptly closed and moved the page. I appealed to the closer for reversal, but to no avail (unfortunately, I was not very polite in the heat of that shock, but others should not have to pay for my thoughtlessness).

I would like to request an uninvolved administrator to reopen the discussion and reverse the premature move.

• Talk page shows the continued how active the disussion still is Talk:João VI of Portugal
• Talk page of the closer User talk:The ed17#Jo.C3.A3o_VI, with reactions to the closing.

This page has been subjected to the same requested move before (including earlier this year earlier RM), and the decision consistently has been to leave the page at the same stable, long-standing title. Although this renewed RM had fewer participatants, discussion still proceeded and strong opposition was expressed. But an administrator stepped in, interpreted it as "consensus", closed it and moved it, while active discussion was still going on (there were many replies on that same day).

Immediate disatisfaction with the change is evident on the talk page, and the discussion is obviously still active. You might also notice that this name change implicates other similarly-titled pages (John I, John II, John III, etc.), and the controversial move immediately resulted in a brief spate of move-warring across other pages. Clearly, this needs more discussion. The move was premature and should be reversed back to the stable, long-standing title it had before the move and discussion re-opened.

Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see, the requested move was opened 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC). Requested moves can be closed any time after full listing period (also seven days). Thus the close of this requested move wasn't premature. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There was Christmas lull. Discussion was very active again. There were seventeen (!) posts on the topic the very day it was closed. Indeed, I found abruptly closed while still in the course of composing a reply. Walrasiad (talk)

There was little chance of the consensus changing when only people who had already participated were arguing, in my view. There was no later move-warring, just typical WP:BRD. My view is that an RfC needs to be raised to decide what name the articles should be under. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're saying. People were in active discussion. If you admit consensus wasn't changing, then the page should have not been moved but left in its current state. I hate to bring this up here, but it has also been brought to my attention that you recently sought out the assistance of one of the more active participants in this debate on an unrelated matter (collaborating on each other's Featured Articles). While I am certain your closure was not elicited nor done as a favor, I can't help but wonder if your judgment of "consensus" was not inadvertently affected by your close familiarity with one of the more vocal editors for the move. Again, I mean no disrespect, and I am sure you endeavored to be fair, but we are all human and judgment is imperfect. It would put my mind at rest if another less-involved administrator at least looked at this RM closure with a fresh impartial set of eyes, and decided whether or not "consensus to move" had been reached and the closure and move warranted. I am all for opening RfC to the wider community and resolving this matter, but I think it fair that the page be first restored to prior state, so that people coming to comment are clearly aware what the long-standing, stable status of the article has been, and where the burden of proof lies. Walrasiad (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I felt my judgement was compromised, I wouldn't have closed it. I remain firmly convinced that my assessment of the consensus was correct. I'm going to back away, let this ANI run its course (read: let neutral editors weigh in), and then let's all open an RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

They should be in english, for english readers to understand. Afterall, English Wikipedia is for english readers. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User Blospa

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but Blospa (talk · contribs)'s contributions seem very odd. Could be normal vandalism, but I wonder if there is more to the user. Very confusing. (Had it been straight vandalism, AIV would have been the place, I think; but I wondered if this quacked.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:37 pm, Today (UTC−8)

I notice the user was blocked whilst reporting this (also, I don't have access to deleted contributions, but when I checked there were at least 6 nonsense pages of just Margaret Thatcher). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:38 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Time to blacklist that image and set up an edit filter.Jasper Deng (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−8)

User:La goutte de pluie and Singapore-related articles

• La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · logs)

Current context:

• Wikipedia:BLP/N#Grace Fu and User:La goutte de pluie : permalink
• User talk:La goutte de pluie#Your edits on Grace_Fu : permalink

Also see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie
• User talk:La goutte de pluie#You were wrong about something

This user has a history of tenacious editing on Singapore-related articles and has disregarded Wikipedia's policies on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in the process. I encountered La goutte the day before while editing a BLP on a Singaporean politician – Grace Fu, subsequently, I tried to reason with the user with regard to her inclination with putting undue weight on less prominent events, and later reported the incident on the BLP noticeboard. The issue is not resolved as of yet. An uninvolved admin and other users have asked La goutte to take a break from editing articles under this topic (Singapore politics), but the user has disregarded this suggestion. She does not appear to have an interest in increasing the quality of the content of these articles but only appears to insert critical commentary wherever she can. I stand opposed to this whole-scale corruption of our articles and the vilification campaign.

• I fear that Toddst doesn't appear to have much expertise in the subject, when he decides to accuse me of biased editing, when I am reflecting mainstream consensus on the subject. I am also very hurt that he thinks I do not have an interest in increasing the quality of the content of articles. I want readers to understand how Singapore came about, how it came to be, how it is governed, etc. etc. which is why I have been writing articles on Singapore since 2004. Unfortunately, Toddst has conveniently overlooked my contributions to those articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Grace Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — La guotte version 1, La goutte version 2, La goutte current version

Grace Fu has received media coverage recently for certain remarks she made on her facebook page. La goutte's style of selectively picking up phrases and quoting them on article pages is very disturbing. According to WP:BLP, Wikipedia is not a tabloid and biographical articles on living persons should be written conservatively and dispassionately. She later makes a POINTy addition to the article: [51]

• That's not pointy. That was a genuine attempt at compromise. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Young PAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [This article was created today.]

Quote: Lee's goal was to "keep the PAP as the sole...only main political party in Singapore" such that "when the people think about the government of Singapore, if they think about the future of Singapore, then they will think about the PAP".

La goutte has paraphrased Lee Hsien Loong's comments and then linked "only main political party" to the article on Single-party state.

Um, most political scientists agree that Singapore is a single-party state; if it is not one now, it definitely was in 1980s. You can look this up. I did not think this was contentious. I merely summarised the essence of what the YPAP themselves said on their website. Again, I don't think this was contentious, and if it was so, I apologise. Tell me how to fix it. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote: Lee also said that the youth wing would be a channel in which the youth could communicate dissent, in which otherwise they might be "tempted" to vote for the Opposition and bring the PAP government down.

Again, I am disconcerted by the use of selective paraphrasing and quoting out of context. Quoting from the source:^[52]

The YPAP's own website bolded those comments. How is it quoting out of context to pick up on them? Can you explain what the context is? Lee is saying, the youth should be encouraged to join the PAP via the YPAP, otherwise dissent will be voiced through other means. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Indeed, BG Lee reflected the concerns of the leadership generally by pointing out the dangers that might lie in store if the Party did not work actively to involve the nation’s youth. Young people recruited into the new Youth Wing would find they had a tailor-made mechanism through which to voice dissenting opinions and be heard. Without such a mechanism, young citizens might grow frustrated with individual policies over the course of time; rather than working with the PAP to let their views be heard, they might be tempted to vote for opposition candidates instead, even though they might actually agree with the PAP fundamentals. And if enough young people felt that way, the PAP government could ultimately be brought down."

Under the section on "Internet presence", La goutte writes:

As part of the "dual strategy on the internet" in 1995, as usage of uncensored internet messageboards became more popular, the Young PAP began regularly commenting on the Usenet group soc.culture.singapore.^[53]

This constitutes original research, and though the material retrieved from Google Books mentions a "two-pronged strategy", it does not make a direct reference to the Young PAP, and therefore not relevant for the article; also "as usage of uncensored internet messageboards became more popular", is just another addition which La goutte has inserted all by herself.

I am summarising the narrative of the article. Did you read the whole chapter? It is rather slanderous of you to insist I am making up references because, the book does make a reference to the YPAP. Please read page 259. And FYI, you can start getting informed on the issue by reading Censorship in Singapore. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Central Executive Committee (PAP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Makes a reference to an "inner circle" in the lead paragraph, which is uncited. The rest of the article is pretty much unreferenced.

I planned to cite this soon. In any case, this is not a biography, so sourcing is less urgent. You can mark uncited statements if you want. I was planning to update that article later. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

One citation here (singaporewindow is a respected source). Another source here to the "three orbits of leadership". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• George Yeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - recent edits

Quote: As an enticement for joining the YPAP, he said people joining the YPAP could take positions different from central party leadership.

Uses the word "enticement" to describe the George Yeo's actions.

My language reflects the author's own wording. The author had said George Yeo had "offered the inducement of". (footnote 35) I don't think this is very contentious. To paraphrase the YPAP's worries if you read the source, the young have been shying away from the YPAP. Therefore, allowing dissent in the YPAP, will entice them. I think this is neutral wording. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lee Hsien Loong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – recent edits

This edit includes the same type of selective and out of context paraphrasing as demonstrated for the article on Young PAP.

What? I am simply reflecting his role as a government leader in the 1980s. Do you know the subject? Please read the Library of Congress countrystudies, which looked at his influence in 1989. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit is not only a grammatical change, but it changes the meaning of the subject's words when quoted out of context.

I don't see this. The extra "the" was redundant -- that's why I removed it.

Lee quickly rose through the civil bureaucracy as a brigadier-general in the 1980s and was one of the key leaders in the mid-1980s leadership transition. [54]

This assertion is unreferenced.

No it isn't; it's sourced through the Library of Congress references.

Lee was regarded as one of the next key leaders in the People's Action Party leadership transition that was taking place in the mid-1980s, as Lee Kuan Yew had declared that he would eventually step down as Prime Minister in 1984. Following the Singaporean general election, 1984, all the old Central Executive Committee members had resigned on 1 January 1985, except for Lee himself. ^[55]

This is entirely a false use of a JSTOR reference. The linked article does not contain these assertions.

Yes it does. Did you read the whole article? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Population control in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – recent edit

La goutte had initially created this article as – Eugenics in Singapore, it was later moved to Family planning in Singapore by some other user, and then moved to Population control in Singapore by La goutte. This article still bandies eugenics in Singapore prominently, frequently making references to "government eugenics policies" rather family planning or population control.

The Singapore Democratic Party and many other political analysts have referred these policies as eugenics policies. Even the Library of Congress has analysed these programmes like so. I am afraid that people have not been doing their research. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I request uninvolved administrators pay urgent attention to this issue, and recommend a topic ban for La goutte de pluime as it is clear that they cannot contribute to Singapore related articles in a constructive manner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been down this road so many times with LGDP. Many of us have observed and commented, but I'll only speak for myself: I've observed protracted, problematic edits and interactions over the past 6-7 months on Singapore-politics related articles and more recently, China-politicsrelated articles. I think this has to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please reformat the complaints and responses sections? Right now, the section above me is so irredeemably confused that I can't tell what's a complaint, what's a response, and what's a response to the response. Indentations and signatures with timestamps exist for a reason; please make use of them. No comment on the proposal until that's done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy moly, where does one start? I wish someone had hit rollback the first time LGDP started ping-ponging here--I think it's their responsibility to clean this up, or maybe competence is an issue here. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: La goutte de pluie is topic banned on Singapore politics related artices

• Support: as proposer. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - absolutely time for this. From my experience, the User is apparently unable to edit the BLP articles in Singapore related articles from a WP:NPOV compliant position. I have no experience of the China topic area but I fully suspect as per Todd's experience, that the same is true of the users contributions in that topic area. Youreallycan (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always sought to use appropriate sourcing. Can you please tell me how I have violated NPOV policy? I use the sources at my disposal, and I find my sources primarily through Google. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I go away for four months and still nothing's changed, I see. The previous efforts have failed and it is time to ratchet it up from a simple 1RR to a topic ban. Support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have used high-quality third party references and high-quality books. I am puzzled. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what?

And what did I do with China politics-related articles? The only thing I did was oppose the requested move from China to Chinese civilization. Since 2005, I have an interest in Chinese history. I am not out to push a POV. I did not selectively quote. Nick seems unhappy that political scientists online have not been entirely favourable to the Singaporean government. However, I am out to reflect mainstream consensus of the subject. I do not cherry pick and always seek a balanced view of the subject. I sought to thoroughly include many sources in my editing: a reader can read through population control in Singapore and note the diversity of viewpoints.

I am not sure what my crime is. I have thoroughly and painstakingly researched many of my articles, ever since I joined Wikipedia. I wrote PAP-UMNO relations, Battle of Singapore, much of History of Singapore (which still bears my language), many of the places for Singapore geography, and laid the foundation of many Singaporean articles. In these articles, I have sought references which explained and analysed historical events. Nick appears to be a newcomer who takes objection to any viewpoint unfavourable to the Singaporean government. Nick appears unfamiliar with much of my old work.

I would also like inquiry to Toddst's inappropriate use of admin tools to block me in a dispute, which was brought up earlier in an ANI thread. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction. I've struck the china articles from the proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, "slap a bunch of accusations and see what sticks". This is convenient. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lgdp, whatever content contributions you've made in the past is irrelevant to your current spate of editing behaviour on Singapore politics-related topics. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, those claims against Toddst were completely unfounded and the complaint was thrown out, just for clarity's sake. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

this is a real question. has an admin ever been mentioned here recently and people felt action should be taken against them? Bouket (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In both cases here, I see no plausible reason for blocking whatsoever."
• " In brief, Toddst1 was involved and the block was a disproportionate response to the conduct in question." [56] elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I note that Toddst is canvassing for votes to support his proposal, if you look at his contributions. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to notify with neutral wording possibly involved users or interested users of an ANI discussion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is if he is cherry picking users to notify. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking - my ass. I notified the admin that unblocked you.[57] Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

this admin was also involved with incident here [58] which i cant find in the archives can someone find it? because of this instance where i spoke up against hid friend i was ordered an interaction ban here[59] despite that other people found me helpful and i was just trying to help out like this person said [60] and he also changed his comments on my talk page when i said they werent helpful [61] and never AGF despite telling me i should AGF for him. he also was stalking me on wikipedia here [62] and here [63] and here [64] and ill probably be blocked for talking about him now. Bouket (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in a user conduct RFC. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bouket, your edits do not belong in this topic. Just because you have a complaint about an admin doesn't mean that you can complain about that admin in an unrelated topic. You're just adding unnecessary clutter here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

IP problem

129.133.127.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is being very unconstructive, to say the least. He made mass changes to Masonic bodies, and did not wish to discuss those changes when they were reverted. I'd note he claims on the talk page that he doesn't care about the article. He also is warring over terminology on List of Masonic Grand Lodges and again, "doesn't care" about the article, per the talk page. Nevertheless, he obviously isn't staying away from them. He is a lurker or sock, as his first reply to me indicated he already knew what my course of action was going to be (which an inexperienced user would not know), and he seems to be more interested in being POINTY with User:Blueboar than in actually making contributions to Wikipedia. most notably, I asked him to discuss changes, and he replied on my talk page that he "does not write with my permission", which wasn't at all what the point of the statement I made was. So he's creating a problem for some reason, and I think I know who this is, although I'm not going to feed the trolls - a CU, if needed, will serve the same purpose. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want a CU to look at this then try filing a report at WP:SPI, but I'm afraid you're going to need to disclose the other IP/account you think is controlled by the same person and supply diffs showing similarities in their behaviour. I don't think the CheckUsers are inclined to go fishing for possible socks in the way you're describing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it'll definitely need some work; I'm not planning a fishing expedition by any means. MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the IP's reaction when I reverted an edit he/she made was unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. That said, my interaction with him/her has been minimal... so I can not speak to potential puppetry. Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is for sure an IP hopper from within Wesleyan's network - 129.133.127.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked several times for PA, etc., with several edits to similar articles (Skull and Bones and Wesleyan itself, for example). I would therefore suggest that, rather than belaboring the issue, the problem be resolved with a schoolblock, which shouldn't adversely affect much, since universities (including this one) are on winter break. MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Christopher Bryden

Wow, I don't even know whats going on here. I took a look at the new editor contribs, and I saw this user creating articles on a bunch of different user spaces. It makes my head hurt and I don't know if any of the CSD criteria really stick, so can I get someone to come take a look?

• User:Christopher Bryden
• User:McSooty Web Vids
• User:McSooty & Friends
• User:McSooty & Friends Short's
• User:McSooty & Sweep's Talk Show
• User:McSooty & Friends Cast

I don't know how many more there are. Any help is appreciated! 132.3.33.68 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My first thought from your words was that these would be deleteable under speedy criterion U2, but that doesn't apply because (to my surprise) all of these usernames have been registered. It's quite obvious that these usernames are all the same person. These userpages don't really appear to be appropriate uses of userspace, so they should be deleted (but through WP:MFD, since they don't fall into any specific speedy criteria), but other than that I don't see any problematic editing. I guess the best thing to do is to mark all of the McSootys as alternate accounts of Christopher, since I don't see these actions as warranting a sockpuppetry block. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember speedying them earlier today (they were in article space at the time). I think it would be appropriate to MfD them with WP:FAKEARTICLE. →Στc. 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

possible hijacking of a retired/vanished user

Resolved

 – Katarighe indeffed by Salvio. 28bytes (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Katarighe (talk · contribs) claims on their userpage to be the re-incarnation of a "vanished" user. The two accounts dfo not share any interests, Katarighe shows an extremely poor understanding of the English language while the vanished account had no such problems, and when questioned about it his replies [65] [66] smelled strongly of WP:BALLS. Up until this point I hjad thought this user was just a bit misguided in that they seemed a little too focused on looking ready to be an admin, but this is different. I do not believe them to be te same user. And now, as I write this, he is trying to have all his talk archives deleted. Something is rotten in Denmark. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually related in computer discussions. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean, everybody? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Katarighe: it would be in your best interests to start speaking honestly right now. 28bytes (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beeb's assessment, here. Katarighe claims he lost the password to the old account and, yet, their very last edit on that account apparently falsifies this claim. I believe it's high time Katarighe (talk · contribs) were blocked for WP:CIR. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::My brother actually used this account before. Not mine. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) "Brother"? Wrong answer. Indef block for trolling and/or CIR, please. 28bytes (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I lied at this mistake. I'm not really trolling for this. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How could you not know if you lied or not? I agree, time for a competence block, combined with the manifest bad faith action of trying to take credit for someone else's work. Exactly what we do not need here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And now he's blocked. Thanks for the decisiv action Salvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeffed. If anyone thinks I was involved, you are welcome to undo. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with block. Thanks, Salvio. Goodvac (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This user did a lot of editing on the "Suspected copyright violations" page today [67]. It might be a good idea if anyone who knows the ins and outs of that page were to double check the items that K marked as resolved. Thanks ahead of time to the editor(s) who take this task on. MarnetteD | Talk 01:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block - should any of the faked user pages and faked talk archives be deleted? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'd say yes to that - by claiming them as his when they're not and re-using them, isn't he violating the licensing of that content? Or something along those lines? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Outright lying is enough of a reason to undo anything he did to suggest they are the same user. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• This apparent draft of an RfA made me chuckle. I think he was plotting to take over the wiki. I think all the subpages should be deleted, we should bare in mind that it is possible the previous user could someday return. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

After consulting Salvio, I've deleted a bunch of pages that Katarighe created: impersonators are meant to damage the encyclopedia by causing disruption, so I considered his creations G3-able. However, we've got a bit of a problem: K did some reviewing at WP:AFC, tagged a bunch of Bambifan socks, added wikiproject templates to talk pages, and even welcomed some new users. What do we do with the AFC reviews? I suppose that I could revert the other contributions as vandalism, but it would definitely go against WP:IAR, so I'm confidently going to leave them alone. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with this course of action. Those pages you deleted were all unhelpful to various degrees and it's a good thing they're gone, the other contributions you refer to can be safely left alone (with the exception of the one Katarighe made to the CCI page: there we need to make sure everything is correct, so I'd highlight them for review). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Moonriddengirl for help with the CCI; there may be a better person to ask or a better process to follow, but I'm not aware of it. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've relisted all the SCV days he's touched and slapped them with MRG's notice. There aren't that many of them (about 13 additional days). Please delete Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Katarighe as this is a malformed and out of process CCI. MER-C 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The AFC tags seem to have been good, as I just stumbled on this through his work there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Make_Featured_Article_leaders_elected_(RFC)

Admin attention is needed following the above attempt to disrupt process through a poorly framed, discouraged and preemptive RfC (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Tone_of_the_conversation). The editor concerned, User:TCO, has been disrupting the featured article process for some time now, as is well known. Has the community had enough of this yet? Geometry guy 06:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)