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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

User check : RobertRosen

It all started with our differing views on the reliability of a source here. I resorted to WP:RSN to seek expert advice. User:TheBlueCanoe intervened and opined that the source concerned is reliable, wikipedia per se. On reflection, I found that clauses such as WP:SPS too would apply if at all RobertRosen's views were taken seriously and I stated the same to him. RobertRosen kept spouting Wikipedia lingo such as WP:AGF and WP:RS and refused to give in to any of my points. He further went on defacing the article with edits such as this. That worried me and made me look up RobertRosen's history to check his intentions. I found instances such as this, thisand this which smeared my assumed good faith on RobertRosen. Sneakily removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries, removing sourced content falsely stating that it is unsupported : his edit history revealed such tendencies. Further check on Aruna Roy's history brought to light his other edits([1] 2 & 3) which have removed relevant and sourced material such as Aruna's featuring in Time's list of influential people. Maybe a pattern would emerge if all his contributions are scrutinized. The user keeps asking me to take it to his talk page, but I doubt if that would be worth my time and energy. Need administrator intervention. _morelMW^illiam 09:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI please. GiantSnowman 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should be a reliable encyclopedia sourced from authentic and non-POV sources in so far as BLP articles are concerned. So yes, I do "tend" to remove information on BLPs till they are properly sourced and re-written by editors interested in the subject. I am primarily a Wikipedia reader/user and not a Wikipedia editor. The present dispute is about personal biographical information about a living person Aruna Roy. I had repeatedly asked the complainant to take it to the ARTICLE TALK PAGE since there were only 2 editors involved. I also advised him that WP:3 is the place to go if he wanted a third opinion. Instead he has brought a content dispute to WP:ANI within the space of a few hours and without any independent editors being allowed to participate. For instance, User:TheBlueCanoe gave his opinion before I had even properly stated my case. If insisting on strict adherence to WP policies is a crime, then please dub me a SP and throw me out of WP. RobertRosen (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any socks. I had to take it to ANI as the problem is not with this one instance, but many, as supported by the disturbing instances cited in my first post. User:TheBlueCanoe did respond after RobertRosen's reply, which still wasn't a favourable one for RobertRosen. This user has a flawed understanding of WP policies and his editing should be monitored closely to prevent him from defacing further articles. _morelMW^illiam 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad - your talk of "user check" and "patterns" threw me, I thought you were talking about socking. I'll try and have a proper look if I find time. GiantSnowman 10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is another instance that makes me question his sound knowledge of WP policies. Controversies should be removed from a BLP article only when they form the main content, if I am not wrong. Or am I wrong? _morelMW^illiam 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you (MorelMWilliam) are. You're edit warring, not using the article talk page, not responding to a good faith notice place on your talk page, and running off to noticeboards. You're escalating the situation very quickly, and posting to ANI concurrently with RSN. Digging through an editor's history to find "evidence" of past misdeeds isn't really helpful, especially when at some of the links you provide don't really hold up. For example, RobertRosen made some edits to Arindam Chaudhuri with reasonable edit summaries, which were reverted by another editor; RR did not edit war (a third editor repeated some of the trimming). This discussion should be taken to the talk page. Going to RSN to get additional viewpoints is fine, but it's more helpful to give it time to allow other editors to comment rather than going back and forth with another editor. I don't see any need for admin action here. Nobody Ent 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@MorelMWilliam, Just FYI, what I removed on Salman Khurshid was clearly within the scope of WP:LBL. Let me also say that while I respect CONTRIBUTORS like you who add information ("WP is not a paper encyclopedia"), WP also needs those few remaining EDITORS like me who clean up afterwards. So chill and have mutual respect. RobertRosen (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

@Nobody WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM support the addition of well sourced contentious material against Salman Khurshid as they don't garner undue weight in his article. As regards the Arindham Chaudhuri link, RobertRosen deleted the entire content rather than changing it to the way supported by the source. I chose not to take things on my own hands and took it to notice boards for outsider opinion. Besides, all your concerns are that I took it to ANI and not go by talk page disputes, then a 3rd party intervention and then an another step before I get here. Look at the amount of junk that is there on WP:RSN for addition of simple and non contentious facts in an article! Most of his edits, other than today's, have something to do with people/ organisations involved in India Against Corruption movement, and I see a pattern there. His edits are usually content removal, a lot of them of a not so sound judgement. When contacted, he comes forward with wikipedia rules that don't apply. A rollback of some sort for his edits is what I see necessary, and that needs an administrator! _morelMW^illiam 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Roy bio cited is SPS originally from [2] and the rmaf site is simply copying material as a copyright violation of the SPS material <g>. Pretty clear and convincing copyvio in fact, thus unuable for two separate and distinct absolute rules of Wikipedia. I did not check other issues, but that particular one should be laid to rest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All American Speakers website which has her 'bio' cited lists no author. This website sources content that are on public domain. Such as Jesse Jackson's bio copied from here. So it is not an SPS, but rather RMAF's content mirrored by All American Speakers. _morelMW^illiam 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In the ongoing WP:RSN discussion, RobertRosen has veered off to conspiracy theorists' territories. His key points include

• Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation is biased to further American Interests as it is administered by Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.

• Vigil Online, a non notable think tank, authors books that are more reliable than most of the sources here that meet WP:RS.

• He is a self-styled 'door-keeper' who claims that it is because of him "that text from books from "their" side NOR "your" side get through WP's policies and into BLPs".

• He thinks because he knows many books that go "pornographic" when talking about personal details of Aruna Roy, Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation's biography by an experienced filipino journalist Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is unreliable.

• He asks editors to read his Indian conspiracy theorists like Arundhati Roy sending me links to her criticism pieces such as this to become more 'informed'.

• He claims that the personal details of Aruna Roy supported by RMAF is contentious citing a few blogs.

It is now very clear that he subscribes to such ideologues and defaces articles with his wikilawyering. _morelMW^illiam 05:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MorelMWilliam, if you describe another editor as 'defacing' an article one more time, when what you mean is 'editing it in a way I don't like' I will block you under WP:NPA. This appears to be nothing but a content dispute, and I recommend it be closed before such an outcome occurs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the roads, did you read my entire post? It is not a content dispute; this user uses his personal research and unreliable/ shifty sources to support his wikilawyering. This RobertRosen has taken over Aruna Roy and many other wiki articles related to India Against Corruption and removes well referenced content citing their differences with his own knowledge supported by unreliable sources. Here are a few instances.

• He believes(1 & 2) that Aruna Roy and Sanjit Roy were never married. However, it is supported by multiple sources such as this and this.
• I found that a different version of the text under dispute was added by an administrator Ekabhishek in 2009. The same was removed by RobertRosen in 2011 stating that version to be copied in entirety from the source.

I am tired citing instances showing his bad judgement and I wonder if the above is not defacing, then what is! _morelMW^illiam 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't use my personal knowledge, my personal research or dubious sources to add (or delete) material to WP article space. That would be WP:NOR. My Indian BLP niche edits are usually of the "delete immediately without waiting for discussion" variety and strictly in terms of WP:BLP, WP:V etc.

Secondly, in 22.02.2011 I removed (as a COPYVIO) article text [3] from Aruna Roy which stated that she and Sanjit/Bunker Roy "are not separated". Today User:MWilliam tried to rope the editor/admin "Ekabhishek" whose text I deleted into this dispute to support him at WP:ANI. However, 1 of MorelWilliam's own 2 new sources which he relies on to show they were married ALSO says that they "are separated".

Thirdly, I would ask User:MWilliams to understand Sanjit Roy's carefully nuanced statement (in the 2nd reference he provided) "In India I'm always Aruna Roy's husband."

Fourthly MWilliams is not even allowed to post such an ANI because he did not discuss this incident on my talk page and considering that I had immediately posted a courtesy message on his talk page asking him to do so after I (once) reverted his edits for purely technical reasons.

This is a content dispute and nothing else. The complainant is insistent on inserting a poorly sourced, copyrightvio'ed and controversial text into a BLP and is stalking me to achieve it. Can somebody please close this discussion, and/or get User:MWilliams to stop stalking me, repeatedly examining and maligning my editing style (and despite being advised not to do so by 4 neutral admins), calling for a WP:CU for me without any basis, and dismissively bypassing each and every conventional WP dispute resolution process so as to malign me. RobertRosen (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly(sic), this is NOT A CONTENT DISPUTE.
• Secondly(sic), this IS A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOUR EDITING STYLE and nothing else.
• Thirdly(sic), I am NOT STALKING YOU. I am just not that into you, okay? By the way, did you happen to land on Ekabhishek's talk page just like that?
• Sanjit Roy's statement implies that he is relatively unknown in India, other than for the fact that he is Aruna's husband. What did you understand? You have now come to believe that they are separated from your earlier stand that they were never married.
• You should seek advice from WP:RSN before you remove a source from a page. If it is you who regards a source dubious, then it is your personal knowledge / personal research. I didn't come up lived in sin because of their brehman - low life unconventional mixed marriage. Do you have a reliable source for that? _morelMW^illiam 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the editing at Aruna Roy for the past 2 years, I find that an anon IP band 117.xxx.xxx.xxx geo-resolving to BSNL in Rajasthan State in India, has been persistently trying to include personal biographic details of her to the article. I am not the only editor to have reverted this text/anon User:Materialscientist(an Admin) also did so on 22.Feb.2012 and so did User:Jargon777 on 25.May.2012. Curiously MWilliams is going to extraordinary lengths to reinsert much of the same (now seemingly self published) material which was removed by Materialscientist and by me (twice) as say on 10.Oct.2011 much after the text was added by MWilliams on 30.Aug.2011. So its not the first time this very text was added by Mwilliams and removed by me about 2 months later. So the sequence goes like this --> On 22.feb.2011 I remove the disputed text which I noticed after removing a patently COPYVIO image from flickr (which image also repeatedly gets reinserted back on this page), MWilliams adds the text back on 30.Aug.2011. I remove it 2 months later, then the anon IP replaces it and MaterialScientist removes it immediately. Then Mwilliams puts it back and I revert it immediately. It may also be relevant that Aruna Roy's organisation the "MKSS" is based in Rajasthan and she was also involved with a "Barefoot University" there. RobertRosen (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What's happening is a slow-moving edit-war, and just because it's 2 months apart doesn't make it any better, or any less of an edit-war...WP:BRD still applies. However, if you're suggesting some form of "undercover" or covert operations going on, then you'd better take a very quick re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and realign your manner of thinking as the hints, suggestions, and almost accusations above are inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins, I respectfully beg to state it differently. Somebody is repeatedly attempting to violate WP:NPOV on this WP:BLP by inserting a specific set of controversial text including concerning the subject's marital status and parentage. The article subject herself is a controversial personality much in the news. Several independent and neutral editors (including an Indian WP:Admin and a WP:Rollbacker from Toronto) have stopped him/them on technical grounds. None of us (incl. me) have problems with the content per se, we had always removed/rollbacked it for technical reasons. None of us rollbackers (as far as I can make out) have added any significant material to the article. Because of the glacial pace (and the anon IP), we could not see the pattern earlier.

WP:DR I have not contacted those other 2 editors or involved them. I had put a message on MWilliam's talk page asking him to discuss it, either on my talk page or the article talk page but he unilaterally chose to bring it to WP:RSN without any discussion saying "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy." and also "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". He then came to WP:ANI to escape from the ongoing WP:RSN discussion which later went against him. RobertRosen (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've also just discovered that "MWilliams" has also complained about this/me to the BLP notice board [4] and neglected to inform me or place the "blp-dispute" tag on the article's talk page. RobertRosen (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, I also find that MWilliams has moved all his controversial talk page content to archives, and in the period when this slow "edit-warring" first began ie. Feb-July 2011 he had been indulging in massive copyvios and was "blocked" for disruptive editing. It also seems from his archive he had another user name, ... which I've now discovered resolves to former SockPuppeteer "Manorathan" [5]. [6]. RobertRosen (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In view of the above. I would like to try and resolve this "one-on-one" with User:MonelMWilliams, and see if he promises to reform and be a "good boy" at Wikipedia in future. I'm not a vindictive person and believe there is good in everyone and ultimately we are working towards the same goal. RobertRosen (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap ... and now you'll only resolve it if he "promises to reform and be a 'good boy'"? Can you be any more condescending? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@RobertRosen : You are delusional and are distorting the facts.

• The WP:RSN didn't turn against me. It was in fact the opposite.
• User MaterialScientist removed ([7]2) unsourced content.
• User Jargon777 removed unsourced text in unrecognised script.
• The anon IP DID NOT replace my text. It was unsourced and possibly of original research.
• How do their edits build the case in your favour? You have forgotten that the sourced text that you removed (first instannce) was added by an administrator Ekabhishek. So the correct sequence : an administrator adds well sourced text, you remove it with a dubious accusation stating that it violates some copyright, I reword it and add it back with the supporting source, then you remove it again which I discover only a year later and then I add it back only to be blanked again by you, which lead us here.
• You claim the well referenced text removed by you to be controversial. Which notable source supports you other than your personal research? You claim the subject to be controversial. What do you mean by that? Where are the sources to support that?
• Don't try to link yourself with those independent and neutral editors. Their technical grounds were different; while yours is a plain abuse of WP:BLP to remove contents without discussion the text that one personally finds poorly sourced, theirs was removing unsourced content. So, stop using us!

And dearie, stop showering this much love on me. You would make my doggie jealous. Stay content with my blown kiss. _morelMW^illiam 04:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are not prepared to reform despite being given a 2nd chance. You have continued to indulge in uncivil disruptive editing such as here [8] with former admin "BoingSaidZebedee, and [9] where you abused another editor in the following terms "You don't get it. What I have been asking from the beginning is to add their claims to be Kshatriyas, for which there are many sources. You should perhaps tune up your ability to comprehend. Go back and read my posts on the article talk page". I'm very sorry to say that you were found to be a socker and you continued to behave in a disruptive fashion thereafter with editors other than me. In the past 5 months the only 2 article pages you have worked on were those on which I had removed CONTROVERSIAL POORLY SOURCED AND COPYRIGHTED BLP material. So you are stalking me. Insofar as WP:REFORMED is concerned, charges of further disruptive behaviour can be leveled on the Admin Notice Boards. RobertRosen (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, they are all in my archives for everyone to see. But where is your homework on what this discussion is about, especially the points raised in my previous post? I don't see anything further about Aruna's marriage or her alleged marriage as you like calling it. _morelMW^illiam 06:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Now why would one reword a threat? _morelMW^illiam 08:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, calling another editor "delusional" should be an immediate NPA block. That's simply uncalled for. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of the post to see why I call him delusional? Distorting the facts and spinning his own version abusing the tendency here to not verify anything, what else is that? Here is an ADMINISTRATOR that finds hidden personal motives behind his disruptive editing. And he uses the word defacing when referring to RobertRosen's contributions. _morelMW^illiam 02:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why you called him that, it's a flat insult. Trying to excuse it doesn't change the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is continuous harassment and trolling. THAT was what Ekabhishek said BEFORE I commented on his talk page, THIS is what he says now [10] RobertRosen (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, this is not harassment/ trolling. This is a genuine concern on your editing style and the motives(such as (this) that are driving you to commit these acts. Are you still over me? Shall we get back to what this discussion is about, because that is not helping you in any way. For starters, what do you think now about Aruna Roy's marriage? And about Ekabhishek's diplomatic statement, he didn't reclaim his remark on your acts or personal motives, did he?_morelMW^illiam 05:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, drop it for now. Arguing back and forth is helping neither of your cases. Either an admin will weigh in or (more likely) this will fall into the archives because no one feels it ecessary to intercede. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and User:IBobi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:IBobi continues to edits to support the goals of his employer Internet Brands after Internet Brands has launched lawsuits against members of the Wikimedia Movement [11]. Wondering if he should be banned under the WP:NLT guideline? I would count this as an on Wiki threat [12] but it is more the real life actions that are a problem. He states his affiliation here [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a block on that basis. Additionally, based on his edits today, it's not the last we're going to be hearing about IBobi. If the account isn't blocked now, we need to keep an eye it. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indef'd, given the NLT aspect. Feel free to revert me without input from me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

edit-conflictedNot sure that we should be banning any employee of a company in conflict with us per-se, even if their employer's actions off-wiki are quite despicable and they certainly are. The reference to consulting the WMF laywer might be simply a reference to their complaint that the trademark has been misused in the past by X and Y and whoever, see their lawsuit. But maybe I'm trying to AGF a little bit too much. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable too. 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IBobi also supported the legal threats against 8 admins on WT by a user called IBLegal. Thus he has a history of making legal threats. Can dig up the diffs if people wish to see them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Philippe has unblocked the account, in staff capacity. --Rschen7754 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Philippe clarified that this is not an office action, but a personal decision. He wants us to de-escalate the situation. The way I see it, IBobi hasn't done any actual harm yet. He can bitch all he wants that we're planning to remove the links to his website – just ignore him. If he does anything truly disruptive we can block him again. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Three admins had declined unblock requests, including you. I think the situation was well in hand. Tiderolls 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much not a fan of Philippe's unblock, but for the moment, I'm willing to take a "what's done is done" attitude. IBobi (and the admin corps) have been advised that because this was an IAR unblock, not an OFFICE one, if he continues his disruptive behavior he can be reblocked without fear of (much) WMF wrath. While I wouldn't encourage any admin to do that re-blocking unilaterally if he continues (as it would technically be a violation of WP:WHEEL), I rather think that if the POV pushing/COI editing continues, the issue can be dealt with by a noticeboard thread and the block reinstated then. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With Philippe conceding in a consensus-finding-discussion that he would not oppose anyone reblocking on any ground (albeit he doesn't recommend it, of course ;-) , I figure that a block would definitely not constitute WP:WHEEL warring by any sane interpretation of that text. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

See also: #Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT

IBobi (talk · contribs) is an employee of Internet Brands, a company presently suing several Wikimedia volunteers over their efforts in creating the new WMF project Wikivoyage, and countersued by the WMF as well (see [14]). However, he is still actively participating on Wikipedia discussions, arguing the company line. This seems like a clear violation of WP:NLT, and I think it would be in Wikimedia's best interest to preventively block him until the conclusion of the lawsuits. Jpatokal (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Just realized there is already a discussion on IBobi's talk page about being blocked for WP:NLT (and another discussion right here on WP:ANI), including a determination by WMF legal counsel that "we do not consider iBobi to be the threatening party in the NLT situation" and a reversal of a previously imposed block. However, this does not equate to the WMF saying he should not blocked, so I would still like to see a wider discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: This edit by IBobi sounds rather a lot like a veiled legal threat. Jpatokal (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, Jani, give it a rest. We just went through this. Admins, please check my Talk page for current discussions and results prior to taking action on this spurious request. Thank you.--IBobi (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing spurious about it, idle threats are a dime a dozen but frivolous litigation that gets noted by the New York Times is crossing the line a wee bit here when it comes to WP:NLT. I have no idea why any WMF project has any templates, interwikis or outbound links of any kind to a company who does this sort of thing, but as far as your editing here the policy is clear: don't do it. K7L (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should catch up on my Talk page.

The reasons for the links and templates are pretty clear: Wikitravel is by all measures the premier travel wiki in the world, and has been for nearly a decade. There's been historical cooperation between our communities. We helped Wikipedia grow through links, and vice-versa. Fair enough?--IBobi (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This "historical cooperation" consists of you blocking any user attempting to mention Wikivoyage anywhere on your site, as well as directing frivolous litigation against volunteers here. You are also clearly operating a single-purpose account and acting with a conflict of interest which suggests you're not here to write an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not our communities IBobi. You do not represent the (original) Wikitravel community who cooperated with us. The people one would consider representative of the Wikitravel community (to wit, the (ex-) WT Admins) are no longer working with you.

Despite the above, I do note that [User:IBobi|IBobi]]'s contributions list is very very short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IBobi . I submit that it would be a stretch to find anything there that violates Wikipedia policy.

IBobi: User:Fluffernutter gave you the standard sage advice: you're welcome to edit on en.wikipedia. However, do note that it is recommended for people stay away from topics to do with their employer or passion, as it is hard to remain neutral on those topics. In your case that means you would be wise to stay away from things to do with Internet Brands or Wikitravel.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, my primary concern is WP:NLT and any possible legal repercussions of discussions with people who are engaged in lawsuits against the WMF and its users, and my secondary concern is WP:COI. If IBobi was merely a random Wikitravel fan boy (a beast almost as mythical as the Caonima), his edits would not be bannable; but, of course, he isn't. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RTFL(inks) would show that WMF Legal Counsel states that IBobi has made no legal threats. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) (But we do get that via Hearsay, I'd love to actually read a statement by WMF legal counsel themselves)

If it wouldn't constitute wheel warring, I'd definitely block here. IBobi claims to be the Community Manager of Internet Brands — that definitely sounds like a high-up position in the company. While individual officials presumably aren't parties to this case (without having looked at it, I'd guess that the main plaintiff is Internet Brands, and any other plaintiffs are presumably other corporations, not individuals), their place as company officials means that they're too close to the suit to be immune from the spirit of WP:NLT. Whether the account named IBobi has made any legal threats on-wiki isn't particularly relevant here. Of course, my argument will break down if the Community Manager be a Dilbert-type job; I'll happily retract my willingness to block if I see evidence that the Community Manager isn't a high-up official. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about a slippery slope! If IBobi is contributing , and as long as he/she doesn't reference the legal aspects of the issue, then I don't see how we can block him/her from editing for NLT. Ibobi should just be aware that making any mention of the legal on-goings, or even the litigating company in general, puts him/her in a vulnerable situation with a very short rope. Standard WP:COI principles should apply, nothing more. Ditch ∝ 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem... he is not contributing in any meaningful sense and is not here to write an encyclopaedia. He is here for the single purpose of advocating for the interests of IB, a commercial for-profit, therefore WP:COI and WP:SPA. That he's here as an IB employee to advocate over three thousand {{wikitravel}} links be retained (instead of being replaced en masse by a 'bot, as everything on that site is already on Wikivoyage) indicates that his aim is to advertise his site here, a WP:ADV and WP:SPAM issue. He seems to endlessly claim to have some number of page hits, as if that in and of itself justifies a link which offers no new info to the encyclopaedia's users that isn't already available elsewhere. As such, he's editing for IB's interests, not Wikipedia's interests. WP:NLT is only part of the problem, although I won't downplay that as this is a clear violation there too. K7L (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely different discussion however. And one that frankly the WMF has brought on itself by endorsing the whole sordid WV/WT shenanigans. You do realise why that given that IB's case hinges on interference with their business, removing all the Wikitravel links would be a bad thing to do at this point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IB doesn't have a case. The content is the property of its authors. Read the license. The original contributors have every right to walk away and take their content elsewhere. That's the way it works. And no, Wikipedia is under no obligation to retain links promoting any external, for-profit website. What you call "interfering with their business" is called "fair competition" in the rest of the world. Deal with it instead of crying that WMF owes some random for-profit commercial site a few thousand links of free advertising (which it does not, per WP:ADV and WP:SPAM). K7L (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

At the present time the best option is probably to leave him enough rope to hang himself with. No need to be hasty. If current trends continue he'll provide plenty of justification for a block shorty.©Geni 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if WMF were doing exactly that... or letting this run until the opportunity arises to invoke Godwin's Law. So be it... K7L (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It is not really common to find a user who knows where the drama boards are but has zero contributions in the article space. At this point, Wikipedia would not lose anything if User:IBobi gets indeffed again. (It probably will not win anything, either).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This odd editing pattern isn't just on en: - a glance at meta:user talk:IBobi shows at least one complaint about this user editing other people's comments in meta: discussions on WMF taking on the Wikivoyage project - an issue in which IB has a financial stake as owner of WT's domain. Edits like this (which autonumber comments made in reponse to "oppose" votes as if they were themselves votes against the proposal) are a bit dodgy. I'm not sure how closely we watch this sort of cross-wiki activity (for instance, the question of whether policies like NLT apply there has come up) but it is worth noting. K7L (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel existed first. There has been historical cooperation between Wikitravel and Wikipedia. Both sites have benefited from the other. If anyone would like to deny that the reason these links are being proposed for deletion is out of sheer malice against a 9 year old wiki that serves 250,000 travelers per day, let him or her step forward and make a case. The idea that the "new" WMF travel wiki is not a mirror but a fork is salient here; once the fork is up and running and receiving editorial contributions from WP editors, it becomes a different site, with different resources for travelers than Wikitravel. This has in fact already begun, as the (for the time being) independent site Wikivoyage has forked Wikitravel's original content and that content is being changed in situ. So, what is the justification for denying Wikipedians, and the general public they are supposed to serve, links to *both* of these unique travel sites -- one of which has built and retained said links for *years* with no mention of removing them, until its content was forked? Look to the people proposing this change for your answer. They have left a wiki they helped build; that's all well and good. But they harbor resentments about their former site and now that they have a new sandbox to play in, they want to take a shit in the old one -- no matter how many users they harm in the process. If you're supporting removing those links, that is who you're throwing your lot in with.

But I'm apparently not supposed to talk about any of this.

Whether you agree with my points or not isn't even relevant to this page. This is about an account block that was proposed by Doc James, a guy who simply does not want this *discussion* to take place, because he prefers one site over the other, for whatever his personal reasons are. If this community is going to allow stifling of *discussion* on a technicality (one that is only being taken advantage of by a very dubious interpretation of WP policies), where is the openness? Where is the philosophy of sharing? Does that go out the window because some people don't like the idea of an independent wiki that's supported by advertising? We get it. Ad-supported and donation-supported are different. Does that make a wiki's resources less beneficial to those who come there?

How many ad-supported wikis has the WMF forked lately? Ever? How many WT/WV/WMF/WP situations like this have you dealt with before? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess zero. This is new ground for all of us. It perhaps requires a new point of view. Believe me, nobody came out of this smelling like a rose. The only thing I have proposed, as respectfully as I could, is for the WP community to be able to *hear* all points of view, and decide on a course of action after being well-informed. Those who supported the formation of this fork site have consistently tried to suppress that. And they're doing it again, by suggesting this ludicrous block, and threatening to reinstate it if I have the temerity to continue the discussion anywhere on a WP talk page. Support them if you will. But I don't think it's in the best longterm interests of Wikipedia, Wikitravel, or the public they both serve.--IBobi (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia was founded in 2001, wikitravel in 2003. So your claim that "wikitravel was first" is erroneous.

I'm referring to WT vs the new (or old, for that matter) WV site; please familiarize yourself with background before spouting off on who is wrong about what.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• There has been historical cooperation between wikipedia and wikitravel communities. Note, however, that those who could be considered representative of the wikitravel community no longer reside at the wikitravel website. I do not believe you represent the wikitravel community. Instead of you leaving, everyone else did.

Those who speak of "the WT community" frequently make the mistake you're making -- thinking that the community and the admins are the same thing. They are not. The community consists of all readers and editors of Wikitravel. There are dozens of admins; there are tens of thousands of registered users; there are hundreds of thousands of editors; there are millions and millions of readers. That's the Wikitravel community. Your view is hopelessly myopic, but representative of that perspecitve of the former admin community who believe that they = the project. The project is doing just fine, thank you.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The links in question are being shifted to point to the new location of the previously-known-as-wikitravel community. It would be unfair to point those links elsewhere.

The links had *nothing* to do with the admins. They were and are there to serve the public, both of WT and WP, who may make user of them in their research on both sites.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• AFAICT we recognize only one (previously-known-as-)*travel community.
• The people who built the-wiki-previously-known-as-wikitravel hold their own copyrights. They are merely moving their content to a different location, after which the community continues as before. This is despite efforts by yourself to damage the community.

The wiki previously known as Wikitravel is called Wikitravel. It's found at www.wikitravel.org. Honestly, what in the world are you talking about?--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have been granted every chance to talk about this in appropriate forums, you were granted as much space as you wanted to put forward your position. You had time and communications capacity on your side, and you blew it spectacularly. I know this full well, I watched you do it. If you would like to request another chance, feel free, but do so in an appropriate forum. En.wikipedia is NOT an appropriate forum (or -in fact- a forum at all)

Past discussions took place elsewhere because they dealt with discussions taking place there; this discussion is about WP and is taking place on WP.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care to figure out what you're talking about wrt ad-supported or donation-supported or whatever your story of the day is. You are now typing on en.wikipedia. At large, the en.wp community couldn't care less what kinds of squabbles have been going on some insignificant little sites outside this community. Here you are required to adhere to en.wikipedia policy. No more, no less.

Take your own advice and see my previous comment.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think Doc James has some very valid issues with you. I believe it would be unwise to mention those issues on this wiki, as that might lead to a block.

Nope. Talk to WMF legal.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• On this noticeboard, the actual policies that apply here are discussed daily, sometimes hourly.
• You might think no-one came out smelling like a rose, but that is your personal reality, not the reality of hundreds of community members across wikimedia and wikitravel. What I saw was one obstinate person in particular auger in an otherwise perfectly salvageable situation, even while ignoring viable advice by many many experienced admins on their own home wiki, as well as even advice from the wikimedia community.

My advice to you is to talk to some of your own WP people who are not so firmly embedded in your own little thought bubble.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The en.wp community in particular doesn't care what you have to say unless it has something to do with writing an encyclopedia on a wiki. I have personally never seen you do that before, but I'm willing to wait and see. :-)
• I support the wikipedia and previously-known-as wikitravel communities. You have (unwisely) positioned yourself as an opponent to the (now ex-)wikitravel community. The reason they are (ex-) is because you made it that way, by your own choices. I'm not sure you can reverse that choice now; but either way, it's not my problem anymore.

Short version: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are here for any other reason other than to edit a wiki-encyclopedia, please leave. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia, you are most welcome to stay. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a debating society. Are you here to contribute? I mean, we have lots of articles needing references, lots of dead links that need fixing. Maybe write a WP:DYK... —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if he's looking for an article in need of maintenance, en:'s article on Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español has been flagged {{outdated}} for a year now. EL is a fork of the Spanish-language Wikipedia which originally split in 2002 (before any version of WT existed) over concerns that Wikipedia was going to take the commercial route and plaster ads onto content (which didn't happen, we instead ended up with the Wikimedia Foundation non-profit structure). This article does need to be brought up to date, so maybe a self-proclaimed expert on travel and forks would be able to understand enough español to take a peek? K7L (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to own employers website as spam?

Just noticed this... IBobi's only mainspace edit [15] modifying the page on Mordor to add a link to a joke page on his employer's website, WT. The edit was promptly reverted, but inserting external links to some web site into articles while employed by the owners of that very web site looks a bit WP:COI and WP:SPAM to me. K7L (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Given IBobi's responses in this thread, it's becoming increasingly clear that he is here on Wikipedia solely to plug Wikitravel and pursue a vendetta - a paid vendetta, even - against the community that left Wikitravel. He's shown no interest in editing on any topic other than pushing Internet Brands' POV on discussions related to Wikitravel, even when asked point-blank to do so, and he just keeps telling us that he's here to make sure The Truth (tm) gets told. I'm really not seeing any benefit to the community by letting him continue to push his job's POV (or his own, for that matter). I propose that he be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia until such time as he can commit to editing here in a non-COI/POV-pushing manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Really the only downside of this is that we run the risk of IBobi claiming that he's being persecuted by the community for being a dissident. Well, that would put him in the same category as plenty of other agenda-pushing timewasters. So, yeah, support plonking him on indef until he actually wants to contribute to Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not Yet. He hasn't really *done* much of anything at all yet on this wiki, let alone something wrong: Special:Contributions/IBobi . That's kind of a requirement for a block, imo. (blocks are not preventative or preemptive) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Blocks are not meant to be meted out as punishment, but they certainly are meant to be preventative.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Teach me to type while sleepy: I meant that blocks should be handed out for existing, current, ongoing disruptive behavior, as opposed to potential future behavior. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ADV and WP:SPA. He's operating a single-purpose account to advertise his (or his employer's) commercial business, while contributing nothing worthwhile to the objective of writing an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support doesn't do anything to benefit Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also support making a request to the stewards to lock the account. --Rschen7754 23:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  That is not what locking is for and such a request would be declined. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  meta:Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock does list "Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects, such as making repeated legal threats..." among the valid grounds. So far, he's only hit two wikis (en: and meta:) but he might just qualify on WP:NLT grounds. K7L (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  ...and you run afoul of the "grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects" prong. IBobi's only other project, as you note, is Meta and he's done nothing which would earn him an indefinite block there - indeed, his presence there has been rather explicitly accepted (see here) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Where do you see "explicit acceptance" there? His "contributions" there have been equally useless and distracting. Jpatokal (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. IBobi's sole purpose here is to promote the inclusion of links to his employer's website. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and so he should not be permitted to edit any page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:SPA. –sumone10154^(talk) 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• steady now Less than 50 edits on this project. Lets leave it a bit longer.©Geni 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not yet - as per Kim Bruning. If he does end up doing something that clearly merits a block, it will be easily enough done at that point. Enough rope, etc. polarscribe (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kim Bruning and my own inclination after reviewing the circumstances. My76Strat (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, NOTTHERE and lots of drama. Max Semenik (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of the passions of those opposed, there isn't currently a policy against paid editing, and users should be blocked for violation of policies, not essays such as NOTTHERE. Until a pattern of disruptive editing has been shown and lesser sanctions have not been effective in alterating such a pattern, indef block discussion is way premature. Nobody Ent 13:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PROMOTION is a policy, not a guideline. WP:NLT is also policy. K7L (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He might not have done any one specific edit that is worthy of a block, but it is clear that it is a one-purpose account, there is a conflict of interest and his corporation is making legal threats against Wikimedians. There is no opportunity for good faith editing. JamesA ^>talk 06:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:NLT. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I completely agree that being an SPI is not grounds for blocking, nor is having a COI (we all have conflicts in one area or another), when looking at the totality, I see an editor that is defiant against criticism and has no intention of contributing in a neutral fashion. Because the editor has made it clear by their words and deeds that they will pursue a conflicted agenda, then the only way to prevent the disruption is via a block for an unknowable period of time. I've worked with a lot of COI editors (I was one when I started in 2006) and support paid editors having the right to edit here if they can follow the guidelines and policies. This is not that situation. This is an editor who is afoul of WP:DE in more than one way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should AGF and be more welcoming to all at the site "anyone can edit". - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Couple of points here: COI/SPA/ADV/PROMOTION/etc. are designed to prevent people from putting information into the *public-facing editorial space* of Wikipedia -- not for participating in *discussions* on neutral pages. I have NOT done that (while it can perhaps be argued that the single Mordor edit falls into that category, that is a completely different matter from what is being discussed here -- that is also an edit that is directly relevant to that page and supportable; a link from WP Mordor to WT Mordor is valuable to the public, and should not be reverted simply because it comes from a representative of WT; if it's opposed by editors of that page on other grounds, so be it; that single edit is also not grounds for blocking). What is being touted as a reason for blocking is the discussions I've participated in to *preserve* (not add to) legacy links that have existed for *years* between WP and WT, which are being proposed for removal out of malice toward WT by a small group former admins and others, who not only want their changes done, they want them done without full disclosure to this community why they are being requested, and the harm that is being done to the public served by WP by enacting them. All I'm doing is providing background, and opposing their request with reasoned, polite argument. That is worthy of a block? That's just completely misguided. The NLT facet has already been debunked by the WMF legal team and is off the table.--IBobi (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • First of all, those guidelines/policies apply anywhere on Wikipedia. While you have not been editing the article space much, what's concerned is that you are opposing removals and participating in these discussions in favor of Internet Brands' interests; tell me, are you here to improve our articles in a personal, individual capacity?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you find that suddenly and spitefully removing links to a long-established and unique resource that serves 250,000 users per day is not detrimental to the mission of Wikipedia? Again, while I appreciate the "letter of the law" approach when it is being used generally, applying it to this specific case is shortsighted. There are extenuating circumstances.--IBobi (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the project was forked and the contributors moved their content elsewhere, it doesn't appear to be all that unique. - SudoGhost 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the content was that good, why are the links being removed? Please don't dodge my original question, because I do not believe you are doing this other than to promote your organization's interests. The fact that it might be helpful to Wikipedia changes nothing about that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you find it renders that question moot, Jasper?

Honestly, we can all "support" and "oppose" this til we're blue in the face. This community is, with notable exceptions, as hopelessly biased in this issue as I am being accused of being. This will ultimately be resolved through non-community channels.

Meantime, it would be depressing if WP compromised itself merely to score points among its own inner circle. Look into your heart! Search your feelings: you know it to be true. That'll do, pig. That'll do.--IBobi (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying Darth Vader is Babe's father??? Definitely gonna need a rs for that. NE Ent 23:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not supporting a block merely because there is a conflict of interest. It is however true that when an editor is here for the sole purpose of promoting their company, it does raise a few questions. I have no doubt that this editor is here for that sole purpose; judging by their edits they are not here to improve Wikipedia, they are here solely to promote their company. I don't think that by itself warrants any action if it results in a benefit to Wikipedia. I have no doubt that many well-written and neutral articles have been written by editors that have a conflict of interest in some manner, and that benefits Wikipedia. However, when that editor is representative of a company that is effectively creating a chilling effect by suing Wikipedia editors, I see no benefit in that. When an editor's sole purpose is not to improve article content, but to ensure that Wikipedia articles contain their links in order to drive traffic to their website, I see no benefit in that. Since the editor has demonstrated a singular purpose on Wikipedia, and the improvement of Wikipedia does not appear to be a side-effect of this purpose, I'd have to support an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:NOTHERE and WP:PROMOTION. The editor has amply demonstrated beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that his sole purpose here is and always will be to promote their employer' commercial interests, and has not or has indicated that they have the slightest intention of contributing positively to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English language proficiency of User:B767-500

User:B767-500 has a long history of warnings about their english language proficiency. I am not sure if there are any other serious issues with this editor. is there a way to politely let them know that contributing to WP requires a language proficiency that matches the tasks selected? i have edited foreign language WP's, but usually adding images, or links, but no sentences, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look over their talk page, it's apparent that their language proficiency is well below the par that we expect for editing of any level on this 'pedia. I'm sure they're trying hard to contribute but unfortunately their competence is seriously lacking and it's been a bone of contention over the last several years. Blackmane (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the other party when you post at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at messages to this user, it appears that they have been sufficiently informed about their limited proficiency in English but have done nothing to address or even acknowledge the need. A sample of their edits shows a lack of English skill that significantly diminishes any possible benefit to their contributions. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This indicates that the problem isn't just their ability to speak English (they dumped a load of printers pie onto the talkpage). Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that was joke after too many of beverages and I already removing the junk text. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any clue, and I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, where the editor is from/what their native language is? I agree, this is an issue; directing them to the appropriate language encyclopedia, I think, is going to be the best solution. Go Phightins! 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On their talk page, it was suggested that Thai may have been their first language but a reply implied that Thai may be a second language. At at guess, their first language could be south asian or I could be completely way off. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a CU to find the underlying IP used, then Geolocate the IP, find out the location/language - and then we know where to begin. GiantSnowman 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I already living in U.S. (California) due to asylum. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are you originally from? Go Phightins! 03:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We have some bad government which they going to mess up my family, so identity of country cannot be talk about it. My people got no home country. --B767-500 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GS, horrible idea, we don't use CU to reveal private information about editors (even if done in good faith). NE Ent 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The political situation, or anything else other than his issue of language ability, is moot. No matter how badly he may want to (and that is still in question) contribute to the encyclopedia, his lack of skills with English keep him from doing that. No matter how much a man may want to work at Deja Vu, he lacks the basic qualification. The same goes for this editor. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban by User:DeknMike

User:DeknMike was banned on 22 May 2012 from all content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics for one year on as per here. With this edit, he clearly violated that ban. It is a comparatively minor matter, admittedly, but it does violate the ban. To my eyes, personally, the fact that he was even watching the pages he has been banned from to make the edit at all is as troubling as the edit itself. I believe a block is called for under the circumstances, but am not sure that, as the person who requested the ban in the first place, I am myself necessarily in a position to determine the appropriate length. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? First asking for a ban and now trying to hammer him for an small layout matter? This looks like harrassing and following around. The Banner _talk 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, a block is not called for. The ban was for POV pushing, and the edit was a column tweak. Prudent? No. A technical violation? Yes. A bad faith edit? Don't see how. NE Ent 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this was rather hastily shut down, perhaps because John Carter slightly mis-stated the issue in question. but the issue wasn't dealt with. DeknMike's topic ban was quite clear: "User:DeknMike is topic banned from Messianic Judaism and related pages for one year. He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles". The ban was not for "content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics" - rather it was editing those articles. DeknMike is quite well aware that this applies to any edits he makes; in the past, when he's tried this kind of thing before, he's been notified and reverted himself. He's engaging in breaching experiments: trying to see exactly what he can get away with. The question here is whether to give a final warning, or to sanction. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted my closure, I'll restate what I said there: de minimis non curat praetor. To block someone over such an edit is process wonkery at its finest. Call it IAR, call it commonsense, this thread should be closed now. By the way, if DeknMike (talk · contribs) were to be blocked over that edit, I would immediately unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to start a wheel war? That doesn't seem like prudent administrative behavior. Rather than escalating this, why not step back for a bit and look at the bigger picture: Wikipedia is filled with people who receive topic bans, and a certain percentage of them engage in breaching experiments, trying to see just how far they can break the terms of their ban before people are willing to take action. This, of course, wastes the time of others who then have to wade through these edits, trying to decide exactly how far the person has violated his ban, and whether it is worth pursuing - which is, of course, the whole intent of the breacher. DeknMike has been banned from all edits - not just "good" edits or "harmless" edits, but from all edits, and for good reason. He has been given a protocol for getting "harmless" changes made to the article; he has been explicitly told, in the terms of his ban, to propose such changes on the article's talk page. Instead, he has chosen to thumb his nose at all those who spent (or in reality, wasted) a good deal of time dealing with his inappropriate behavior in the first place. Claiming that these obvious provocations should be ignored could itself be seen as "process wonkery at its finest". Again, the question here is whether he is simply warned not to do this again, or is actually sanctioned, so he realizes this time-wasting isn't appreciated. Which will it be? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, your comment is completely out of line. Topic bans are bright-line situations: they say "don't touch this, or you will be blocked". There's no reason for a topic-banned editor to so much as adjust the width of a space within the scope of his topic ban. Actual editing blocks are the natural progression for someone that doesn't understand that concept.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the edit is a violation of the letter of the topic ban, correct? And the edit clearly can be seen as a breaching experiment. If the edit is allowed to go unremarked, the message being sent is formatting changes in violation of the letter of the topic ban are allowed. The problem is that formatting changes can change the message conveyed by the article. Simple "formatting changes" such as applying a different way of quoting something, or greying something out, or using a larger font, etc. can have a significant change in the emphasis an article gives to certain content, without stepping outside "formatting changes." Besides, the original intent of the topic ban was to have DeknMike gain experience editing in other areas with different editors from the ones he was working with in this topic area. Allowing "formatting changes" is in invitation to allow further, possibly disruptive edits in this topic area, undermining the therapeutic intent of the original topic ban. I don't really have an answer as to whether this is block-able or not, but DeknMike has already made two previous MJ-related article content edits in violation of his topic ban. If those two previous incidents didn't happen, a simple warning here might be sufficient, but I think we're beyond that now. Zad68 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous topic-ban violation problems:

1. List of Messianic Jewish organizations, 22 June, handled by AniMate (original topic-ban closer) here, with a warning and clarifying instructions, "Your topic ban was very specific about what kinds of edits were acceptable. You should not edit the articles, but you may participate in discussion on article talk pages."
2. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, 17 August, instead of reporting I asked him to self-revert here and he did.

Zad68 20:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked DeknMike until he agrees to follow the terms of his topic ban. Might be a 10 minute block, might be forever ... his choice.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a false dichotomy that anything which is not blocked for is permitted. The ban statement provided by AniMate did not specify a sanction, and WP:BAN does not specify how topic bans are to be enforced. John Carter could have simply reverted the edit, or raised the discussion on the editor's talk and asked them to self revert, or have contacted AniMate. Instead -- speaking of technical policy violations -- they appear to have started an ANI thread (contrary to the discuss with editor first guidance at the top of this page) and canvassed Jayig [16] NE Ent 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They've tried those approaches twice before, and the problem continues. This seems to be a reasonable escalation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguable, as the nature of the edits was different (content vs. format), but not unreasonable. Any comment on the canvassing selection notification of other editors? NE Ent 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Corrected NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few, actually. First, I would very much appreciate a clear explanation of exactly how my comment to Jayjg qualifes as canvassing as per WP:CANVASS. I do not believe telling an individual who had been significantly involved in the matters which had led to the ban being placed who is also one of our most respected editors and an admin that a discussion regarding the matter he had been involved in is canvassing. Otherwise, I myself believe that there might perhaps be a rather prejudicial rush to judgment on the part of one of those commenting here, and I believe that it is not unreasonable to request that others not raise apparently unfounded allegations in prejudicial terms, such as have been rather clearly done above. And I believe it is worth noting that I only did this action after having received more than one e-mail regarding this matter from different parties. Also, I should note that I had myself basically stopped watching the discussion after Salvio closed it earlier until I saw DeknMike had been blocked indefinitely. Although I did not myself say this earlier, for fear of prejudicing the outcome, I myself thought that maybe a sanction of one week might be the longest I myself would support given the nature of the edit, and I wouldn't have objected if it were even shorter than that. I am sorry if I sound irritated, but I honestly thought people who commented here might actually be capable of using loaded language would actually be able to use it in a way which indicated they were familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines. Evidently, I may have been wrong in drawing that conclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, Zad68, ThatPeskyCommoner, In incti occuli, Secretlondon, Malleus Fatorum, A sniper, Avi, Plot Spoiler, Evanh2008, brewcrewer, Wikid77d, and MastCell commented on the ANI discussion and AniMate closed it and placed the ban. Of that group, JohnCarter only notified Jayjg. As ANI has 5628 watchers, it's hard to see a justification for notifying one specific administrator. NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Informing individuals who have been involved in issues previously is not WP:CANVASS, by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it is recommended practice. Feel free to notify any others you feel were left out. In any event, this is not relevant to what sanction is appropriate for DeknMike. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) FWIW, I was going to clean up some grammatical problems in earlier comments before others commented further. But it is also worth noting that Jayjg had been involved in the previous discussion on the article talk pages, which the others were not. I think that would have been obvious to anyone who might have made an effort to look that far into the history of the matter, and it is also acceptable as per WP:CANVASS to notify some of those who had been significantly involved in those discussions which led to the postings here. I otherwise agree that this line of discussion is in no way relevant to the topic of this thread, and honestly, think it really only serves to demonstrate the lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines of some individuals who have commented. If they believe that there is a serious reason to raise allegations of canvassing, I believe that it is reasonable to ask them to demonstrate exactly how the actions involved qualify under WP:CANVASS, and probably to raise that discussion in a separate thread. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." NE Ent 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has been shown that Jayjg was chosen based on his opinions, but rather based on his prior knowledge of the discussion from the article talk pages. The comment above is in no way demonstrably relevant to this discussion. More than one editor has commented above that these accusations, which are as of yet still not clearly founded and seem to border on personal attacks, have any clear relevance to this discussion. If you think you have a basis for a complaint, as has already been said, please start a separate section for it. Otherwise, these dubiously supported which have no direct relevance to the subject of this thread really should stop. If you wish to file a formal complaint, it is pretty much standard practice to start a separate subthread at least. But, really, the above seems to me to be grasping at straws. Should this continue, I think that it would not be unreasonable for me to start a separate subthread regarding the abusive use of this page by the above editor. John Carter (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• An indefinite block for a technical change which had no impact on the content of the article? One which was made on the seventh and where the author hasn't edited since the eighth? And when an uninvolved admin has already reviewed the situation and declined to take action in no uncertain terms? This is definitely one of the poorest blocks I have ever seen and I fully intend to overturn it. While it's true that topic bans do certainly mean "do not edit a given page", we are not bots and we can apply commonsense and don't have to mechanically apply the rules, which is what WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO are all about. That edit warranted a warning at most, but certainly not a block. Much less an indefinite one. To an uninvolved observer, this looks like a mere show of force. That's why I'll give Kww time to self-revert, but if he chooses not to do so, I will. And, before someone goes around saying I'll be wheel warring: per WP:WHEEL, to undo a fellow administrator's action is not wheel warring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's only indefinite in time, Salvio. As I said above, it will last precisely as long as DeknMike chooses: all he has to do to get unblocked is agree to abide his topic ban. You are right that it wouldn't be wheel-warring, but it would still be wrong of you to undo a perfectly sound block with such a reasonable unblock condition. If DeknMike won't agree to conform to his topic ban, why should he be permitted to edit?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, sorry, but I didn't see you respond to the points being raised. A block requiring DeknMike to agree by writing in his own words that he understands the topic-ban--"He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles." (copied verbatim off of his User Talk page, emphasis mine)--seems a reasonable step, based on

1. DeknMike's previous two topic-ban violations
2. The danger that sending the message that 'technical changes are allowed' could result in changes in the meaning conveyed by an article (as discussed above)
3. The intent of the original topic ban--to get DeknMike to start working collaboratively with editors in other areas so that he better understands WP:V. (Why couldn't he have accomplished his change through an edit request to the article Talk page?)

Could you please address these points? Cheers... Zad68 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is an overreaction. What should (ideally) have happened was a user talk page message along the lines of What the heck are you doing? You know you're under a topic ban. I know you weren't changing content but just editing the page means someone is going to have to check the diff. You can't make any edits to the article, okay? That said, I think Kww's block, while unnecessary, was well-done: They specifically disavowed "ownership" of it, allowing any admin to unblock, and clearly laid out what DeknMike needs to say in an unblock request to resume editing. As an unblock at this point would not send a clear, consistent message to DeknMike, I think it would be counterproductive. NE Ent 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

May I point out:

1. AniMate was the closer of the original topic ban
2. DeknMike's first topic-ban violation (diff) was to the article List of Messianic Jewish organizations
3. AniMate's response to this included "the next time you violate your topic ban will result in a block"
4. This topic-ban violation was at this same article, List of Messianic Jewish organizations: diff

Wouldn't not blocking or undoing the block be undermining AniMate's previous actions on this without discussion? I will invite AniMate to this discussion. Zad68 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm away from keyboard for the next 8 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the block was justifiably preventative but DeknMike should be unblocked if he agrees to completely stay away from the topic. Unlike the incident from June, this wasn't a major violation. Kww summarized the incident well in his block message. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• I note that BWilkins has declined DeknMike's unblock request. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• With the reasoning "A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets." NE Ent 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy appears to be violating a topic ban

Per community consensus Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Alternative_Proposal_by_IRWolfie-, User:IjonTichyIjonTichy is topic banned "from the Zeitgeist movement, broadly construed", including "everything he does on Wikipedia, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in". [17]. As can be seen, IjonTichyIjonTichy has chosen to flout this ban on his talk page, and is now soapboxing regarding the article on movement and on his ban, while engaging in personal attacks on me (thinly disguised). [18]. Can I ask that appropriate action be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not violated the ban. I have not even viewed (not to mention edit) the TZM article or its talk page or related articles. Instead, I focused on editing other WP articles and contributing to developing the encyclopedia. However I recently noticed that the user above has attacked me repeatedly prior to my topic ban (just search for the many the many times 'IjonTichyIjonTichy' appears on the above user's talk page) and post-ban [19] [20] [21]. And I did not identify the user above, or the TZM article, by user name or article title, and I did not mention the TZM article on my user page, user talk page or any WP page since the topic ban. And I refuse to interact in any way, shape or form in the future with a user who vandalized a WP article and who has repeatedly engaged in other offensive, uncivil, abusive behavior, including, but not limited to personal attacks on me, both before my topic ban and after. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The material on your talk page clearly relates to TZM. You have violated your topic ban. And if you don't wish to interact with me, don't post personal attacks on me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Note that in this edit [22] (material added to an old talk-page post), is accusing multiple editors of 'bias' against him, and of them - and seems to be arguing that the topic ban was unjustified, and that he'd been 'railroaded'. Given that it was made absolutely clear that any discussions regarding the ban would need to be done with an admin via e-mail, rather than in public, this seems to be further evidence that IjonTichyIjonTichy is failing to abide by the topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not, and will not interact with this vandal in any way, shape or form, even after my topic ban is lifted. The material on my talk page or user page does not identify TZM or anything remotely resembling TZM (I have now removed the direct copy-paste of the user's vulgar, offensive statement that he used to deface the WP article in his act of vandalism). I am entitled to revise material that I've posted immediately after the topic ban was posted, and in which I directly communicate with the admin who has administred the ban, and I made it very clear the new material is an addition and revision of my original posting from Aug. 23 in which I'm trying to express my thoughts and feelings; as these thoughts and feelings continue to evolve in light of my new understanding of how WP works, I have inserted new material which expresses new insights I gained which help me articulate the (old) feelings I've felt when the topic ban was originally implemented. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Posting personal attacks is 'interaction'. The material you posted unequivocally relates to TZM, and in this edit of yours (dated 6 November) [23] you explicitly refer to "TZM". You have violated your ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked anyone in my revision to my conversation with the administrator. I'm only describing material that is well-known on WP (although regretfully it was not well-known to me up until very recently), and that appears in various forms on various user's pages, WP essays, etc. (Please see my recent revisions to my own user page in which I list some of the things I've learned recently about how WP works). I'm entitled to modify the original way I've expressed my original thoughts and feelings to clarify and to better-articulate my original observations and personal feelings in light of new information that has come to my knowledge and new understandings(s) I've developed. (For example, one of the many sources that I discovered recently that helped me develop new insights is WP:Disruptive_sanctions.) I've made many contributions to WP since my topic ban and none of them come anywhere close to being related to TZM. And I intend to continue to make many more contributions to WP articles in upcoming weeks and months (for example, I have plans to continue my efforts to develop articles on various areas in high technology, especially AI, robotics, etc., and their many subfields, based on citations from IEEE peer-reviewed journal articles), and eventually appeal my topic ban. (I've already written some portions (but not all) of my appeal and will submit it in a few days or weeks when I'm fully ready.) I wish I was aware of the many resources (some of which I recently listed on my own user page) before the topic ban, as they would have prevented, or at least helped resolve, many of the conflicts I've been involved in on the TZM article; in fact if I were aware of this info I would have left the TZM article months before the topic ban and focused instead on contributing to non-TZM-related articles. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is clearly gaming, and a poor attempt at that: [24]. I'm going to presume "UVWXYZ" is meant to be Andy and the protected article is for TZM. I see more hints about andy being a nasty contributor here: User:IjonTichyIjonTichy#Some_insights_on_editing_Wikipedia in this rather long soapbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is based on direct diffs -- except I did not list the diffs, and don't intend to list the diffs in the near future, and thus my post does not identify any particular, specific user. Everything I wrote is based on hard evidence. It is all hard data/ evidence/ diffs. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section from my talk page and pasted it to my user page, but it did not fit there so I removed it, although I intend to re-post it in the near future after I develop it more fully and I will not re-post it. By the way, I'm curious. IRWolfie- has quickly revised the original uncivil comment I posted on the user's talk page (although I realize now, based on what I've learned in recent months, that all IRWolfie- - or any editor - needed to do was to encourage me to revise or delete my uncivil comment, and I would have deleted my comment), and quickly proceeded to open an AN/I on me. My question: why has IRWolfie- not revised, or deleted, the many attacks on me by the same user, on the same user's talk page, in the weeks preceding the AN/I? And why has IRWolfie- not revised the two additional attacks on me by the same same vandal post my topic ban -- specifically, the comment on the user's page, [25] and on my own user talk page [26], in both of which the same vandal again attacked me? (The numerous attacks in the first diff are obvious; in the second he disparages, belittles and mocks my contributions as "while you do nothing else remotely useful".) Does this (among other things which I'll more fully discuss in my appeal) not appear to justify my revision to my communication on my own talk page with the topic-banning administrator? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite block based on the violation of the topic ban. Ijon's responses are nonsensical. His attempts to deflect this discussion to other editors' alleged misconduct or alleged failures are a transparent distraction. Similarly, his attempts to wikilawyer his way around the ban by thinly disguising the name of the article and the name of the editor are offensive. Having been involved with Ijon and the TZM article in the past, I cannot block him. Otherwise, I would.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I also support an indefinite block. It's a clear violation of the topic ban and a blatant attempt at gaming the system, despite Ijon's pathetic attempts to disguise it. His responses here just destroy any credibility he might have had. Sorry, but I can't see this user contributing more good to WP than bad. He clearly has no intention of improving the behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not initiate the discussion on revising my original comment to the administrator. And I'm not wikilawyering anything. I firmly believe everything I've written. Although I admit I am relatively inexperienced in many aspects of Wikipedia and thus I may be (and probably am, based on the response here) wrong in my assumptions and my understandings and my approach, and it seems I probably should have waited until after my topic ban is lifted to try to more properly and civilly address the issue of the uncivil behavior by the vandal. As far as I know I have not violated the topic ban in any way, shape or form in recent months as I've continued to make many contributions to the encyclopedia, despite the fact that an editor continued to attack me on his user talk page post the topic ban. I'm continuing to learn and develop and probably will learn from this exchange too to help me continue to develop to become a better WP contributor. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this diff [27] is clearly and unequivocally about TZM. The topic ban was violated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights on gaming the system by all the editors above. I thought about what the editors wrote and I now understand that your concerns regarding appearing to game the system are valid, and even though I did not intend to game, it may well appear that I have, given that I'm still on a topic ban. Good intentions alone are insufficient -- actions, and all possible consequences including all possible appearances and interpretations of my actions by all involved actors are also very important and I should have thought more carefully about these issues before clicking the 'save page' button. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks for the insights on being much more careful not only about being motivated by the right intentions but also about taking into consideration all possible appearances and interpretations, among the other useful feedback provided above. I realize now that starting the section on my talk page was an error on my part, and does not fit-in at all with my contributions and good behavior in the months since after the topic ban. (By the way I also had strong personal doubts before I started the section, I should have listened to my own inner voice more carefully.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ROPE. — raekyt 23:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please more fully support your accusation of WP:COMPETENCE? Can you please explain how making a single mistake in two and half months of making many contributions post my topic ban (a mistake I quickly corrected after receiving useful feedback above from editors more experienced than me) constitutes incompetence? Is it not true that mistakes are supposed to be an inevitable part of the wiki process? Is anybody on Wikipedia perfect in every way? I certainly admit that my development as an editor has not always been linear. It has been marked by forward progression overall, but with many temporary bumps and detours and dead-ends and misguided efforts. In some cases (such as above), I've taken two steps back for every three steps forward. But I believe the overall trajectory of my development as an editor, compared to my efforts as a newbie about six months ago, has been one of positive growth and progress. Do you have specific data (in addition to the mistake I made above) to prove otherwise? Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. In response to the question regarding WP:COMPETENCE, I think it need only be pointed out that IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be continuing with his soapboxing and personal attacks: [28]. If this isn't a demonstration of a clear lack of clue, it is trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. In fact, in response to the helpful feedback from the editors above, I'm in the process of making the material on my own user page even more neutral in tone, and trying to remove any hints of anything that might be mistakenly perceived as relating to the TZM article (or any particular article) or to any particular user. And by the way, since we are on the topic of WP:COMPETENCE, why did the vandal willfully ignore the warning by the admin on my own user talk page to leave me alone? I agree with the admin that there are two sides to every story and I fully admit that my own behavior is the sole cause of my topic ban; but my behavior is not at all the sole cause of the dispute between me and everyone involved, including the vandal. I'm not the sole problem and my topic ban does not vindicate everyone else, including the vandal. I have plenty to say about everyone's behavior that I cannot now. The admin specifically wrote on Aug. 23: Just back off. What you are doing is grave dancing. Please go away. Then why did the vandal continue to attack me about full 10 days after the above notice by the admin [29] [30]? When an uninvolved editor (Dennis Brown) discussed the vandalism, the vandal admitted he should not have done it [31], but in the same breath the vandal [32], instead of taking full personal responsibility for his own actions, appears to be Wikilawyering in an apparent attempt to dodge responsibility and blame others for his own actions, including: blaming what he calls "TZM supporters" and "POV-pushing sockpuppets"; blaming me ("drive(s) everyone insane with walls of text"); accusing me of using a sock puppet; accusing me of POV-pushing and spinning; misrepresenting and twisting what I said earlier about AOTE (ATG, OpenFuture, Tom harrison and Earl King Jr.) (ATG falsely claims I habitually ("at the drop of a hat") accused editors of a conspiracy against TZM where in fact I explicitly and clearly said they were not part of a conspiracy or cabal); attempting to paint a picture of me as a confused, incoherent, inconsistent, incompetent and incapable editor; blaming user: Zgoutreach; conflating me with user Zgoutreach; accusing Zgoutreach of being "the latest TZM-pusher" and implying I was a (previous) TZM-pusher; accusing me and Zgoutreach of exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior and paranoia; accusing me of being coached by TZM ("TZM supporters all get lessons"); calling me a 'contributor' in single quotes to denigrate, disparage and belittle my work; insulting user Zgoutreach by characterizing him as having a "tiny little head" to imply Zgoutreach's intellectual abilities are inferior and implying the vandal is his intellectual superior; etc. ( By the way, the vandal seems to be repeatedly implying that Zgoutreach and myself belong to a POV-pushing cult, conspiracy or cabal, but these are the same exact labels which the vandal himself appears to denigrate, ridicule and belittle when others accuse him of ... Editors have been warned by the topic-ban admin to leave me alone and stop attacking me, as this can easily be seen as an attempt to provoke me to initiate my block; the vandal has in the past, post the topic ban, and is continuing now, to ignore this warning. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that, contrary to IjonTichyIjonTichy's allegations of 'gravedancing', I had made no postings whatsoever to his talk page prior to his recent personal attacks on me - this is my first post, dated yesterday: [33]. AndyTheGrump (talk)

The vandal has not commented on my own talk page, but he appears to have danced on my grave on his own user talk page. The vandal's posting on his own talk page is a serious personal attack on me post my topic ban. The admin's warning to leave me alone and not provoke me applies to all editors, not only to the one (not ATG) who appeared to maybe grave dance. The right course of action for ATG was to leave my name out of his response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about ATG's vandalism. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Yet more Wikilawyering to evade discussing the obvious issues - the violation of the ban, and the continuing personal attacks on multiple contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that the vandal has commented on my own talk page. But he appears to have danced on my grave on his own user talk page. The vandal's posting on his own talk page is a serious, multi-faceted personal attack on me full 10 days post my topic ban. The admin's warning to leave me alone and not provoke me applies to all editors, not only to the one (not ATG) who appeared to maybe grave dance. We are talking about competence here, and if ATG would insist on continuing to attack my competence, I can bring many more examples. The right course of action for ATG was to leave my name out of his response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about ATG's vandalism, and to realize that his own action has directly contributed to my recent mistake (although he is not responsible for my own mistake which I take responsibility for), and to accept my admission of my recent innocent mistake, and leave me alone and stop appearing to attempt to provoke me. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Are you actually trying to get yourself blocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm interested in continuing to contribute to the project. I have not even viewed (not to mention edit) the TZM article since the topic ban, and instead focused on learning how WP really works (although I'm open to considering my new understanding is probably flawed -- hopefully not fatally flawed ...) and on contributing to non-TZM articles. I suggest we both stop attacking each other's competence (or attacking anything else) because it's a waste of everyone's time because I'll attack you back, you will respond in kind, I'll respond and we'll get nowhere. Instead of exclusively focusing on my actions, please also consider your own (without reducing your focus on my actions). Please consider the possibility that the best course of action for you was to leave my name out of your response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about your vandalism, and to realize that your own attack on me, which may appear to some editors to be a direct violation of at least the spirit and the principle, if not the letter, of the admin's prohibition on attacking me, may have directly contributed to my recent (mistaken and misguided) attempt to list the diffs to your attacks (although I'm not sure if my posting the diffs-without-real-diffs was a direct response to your attacks on me). (I admit you are not responsible for my own recent mistake which I take responsibility for.)

Let's declare peace; I'm asking that editors, chiefly (but not exclusively) yourself, accept my admission of my recent innocent mistake, and leave me alone to continue to contribute to non-TZM articles. Persistent, continued accusations may increasingly appear to be an attempt on your part to provoke me into personally attacking you in order to initiate my block. Please accept my admission of mistake, and consider going away, and fully leaving me alone, as the admin requested almost 3 months ago; please consider doing as I did: I've left you alone, and I've left all editors on the TZM topic-ban AN/I alone, and I've left all TZM-related articles alone over the last almost three months (until my mistake a few hours ago). I hope this solution is agreeable to you. Peace and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

So now, after the multiple personal attacks you have posted yesterday and today (hardly 'leaving me alone'), and the clear violation of your topic ban, you want everyone to pretend nothing has happened? It doesn't work that way. (and BTW, no admin ever informed me of any prohibitions on me commenting on you - you are making that up). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying to post one final post before I get some sleep. ( By the way after my topic ban is lifted I will restrict all long posts to my own user talk page, and only post short, concise and relevant posts to the article talk page.)

With all due respect, please refrain from putting words in my mouth and speaking for me. I have not said nor implied I want anyone to pretend anything. I respect all editors here, including yourself, as mature, smart, highly capable adults and I did not request them to pretend anything. Instead, I am proposing a resolution to this issue, (an issue which frankly is becoming increasingly tiresome, cumbersome and nonsensical by the minute), so that we can stop wasting everybody's time here in endless, fruitless discussions and instead redirect our energies to what we are passionate about - developing the encyclopedia.

What I tried to say is that I feel I fully abided by the spirit and principles of the topic ban over the last almost three months, although I fully admit I appear to have broken the letter of the ban in my misguided, mistaken, erroneous, stupid attempt to list the diffs of your vandalism and your many vicious personal attacks on me pre- and post-topic-ban. Thus, your persistent, insistent, repetitive mention of my recent, and only, violation may appear increasingly suspicious (at least to me), as if you may be appearing to have some ulterior motive -- are you hinting that perhaps I should be faulted on a technicality? Can you please explain why it is so important to you that I be infinitely blocked? What good would come to the encyclopedia if I would be blocked as you seem to insist, considering that I made many contributions over the last 3 months since my topic ban, while exhibiting exemplary editorial and personal behavior (until my mistake a few hours ago which may have damaged the high credibility I worked so hard to re-build)? I repeat my suggestion we both stop attacking each other because it's a waste of everyone's time; it's a vicious circle -- you'll continue to attack me, I'll respond, you'll respond and we'll get nowhere.

With all respect to you, please don't pretend you were not aware editors were explicitly prohibited from attacking me. And don't pretend you only 'commented' on me as you write; I can only hope that you may someday realize that what you did was infinitely worse than 'commenting'. You yourself sought the extremely punitive, very harsh sanctions which were eventually agreed by the community against me on the topic-ban AN/I, and common sense combined with a basic sense of fairness and fair-play on your part would have amply dictated that you refrain from attacking me (because you yourself explicitly requested, and the community agreed, that I be forbidden from responding to any potential attacks on me post-ban). Not to mention that you violated WP policies that explicitly prohibit editors from attacking banned or blocked editors. The admin ban on commenting or attacking me or engaging me, the harsh conditions you sought to attach to the ban, the spirit and language of WP policies, common sense, and reasonable levels of awareness and careful consideration of others' feelings would have have all combined to strictly and amply dictate that you should have left me completely alone post my topic-ban. And some awareness would also have revealed to you that (as far as I know) nobody else, except you, appears to have initiated 'comments' on me post-ban. (Although I may be mistaken on the last item as I don't know what has been said about me, if anything, post-ban on the TZM article talk page.)

May I request something of you. Instead of exclusively focusing on my actions, please also take some time to consider your own (without risking reducing your focus on my actions). Please consider the possibility that the best course of action for you was to leave my name out of your response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about your vandalism, and to realize that your own lengthy, massive, multi-faceted, brutal, injurious attack on me post-ban, which appears to have been an attempt to deflect all blame of your vandalism onto me, an attack which may appear to be a direct violation of at least the spirit and the principle, if not the letter, of the admin's prohibition on attacking me as well as common sense and a violation of WP policies, --- I am asking that you reflect on your own actions (in addition to mine), and consider that your own actions may have, directly or directly, contributed (to whatever extent) to my recent (mistaken and misguided) attempt to list the diffs to your numerous personal attacks on me and to your vandalism. And please note that I admit you are not responsible for my own recent brain-dead mistake which I take responsibility for.

Let's declare peace (or, at least, a truce). I'm asking that editors, chiefly yourself, accept my admission and explanation of my recent innocent, inexperience-motivated, foolish mistake, and leave me alone to continue to contribute to non-TZM articles. Persistently continuing to accuse me may increasingly appear to be an attempt on your part to provoke me into personally attacking you in order to initiate my block. Consider admitting that we've both made mistakes: you've made a big mistake in viciously, broadly and deeply attacking and injuring the innate humanity, intelligence, abilities, personality and editing skills of a banned editor (you've shown no compassion or mercy when you've 'hit a person when he's down') on your user talk page, as well as fully deleting and vandalizing a valid WP article; and I'll admit I've made a big mistake as I amply discussed above. Consider accepting the fact that both of our mistakes (as almost all serious mistakes on WP) have unintended consequences, and consider the fact that nobody is perfect on WP and everyone is entitled to make mistakes on WP. Furthermore, consider accepting that the best thing to do right now may be for both of us to go our separate ways, declare a continuation of our 3-month-old divorce, keep a wide distance from each other in the future, and leave each other alone, as the topic-ban admin originally requested almost 3 months ago. Consider following my example: with the single, isolated exception of my recent mistake, I've left all TZM-related articles alone over the last almost three months, I've left you alone for almost three months, and I've left all editors on the TZM topic-ban AN/I alone over the same period of time (and, as far as I know, they've all blissfully left me alone too). I hope this proposed solution is agreeable. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely a violation of the topic ban, a purposeful gaming of the system. I support an indefinite block or ban. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained above, there was no purposeful gaming, although, in hindsight, based on the helpful feedback from editors above who are more experienced than me, I now understand why and how my actions may have appeared to be gaming the system. I now understand my mistake, and have taken action to correct it. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• IjonTichyIjonTichy blocked for 1 month by me for "WP:DE and violating topic ban". The thinly veiled attempt on the talk page and insistence on referring to Andy as "the vandal" in this discussion show a serious lack of clue. While there are many editors here that support an indef block, I'm going to give a small amount of rope and use the least amount of block I think will work to prevent disruption, which is a month. This is in part because they have shown willingness to back off (which may be simply trying to avoid being indef blocked) and some of the rhetoric may be in the heat of the moment. They have never been blocked before and have stayed off the article as well. It is my hope that they will take this month and reflect a bit and try to understand that gaming the system will not work and will not be overlooked, as the next block will likely be for an indefinite period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you took action, Dennis, but I think you're being unduly optimistic. Ijon's behavior here is consistent with his violation of the ban and his previous passive-aggressive behavior. Your parenthetical ("which may be simply trying to avoid being indef blocked") is spot on. That's exactly what he's doing. You should also note in the wall of text (why he has to subject this board to that as he's done elsewhere is beyond me) that not only does he "assume" he is he not going to be blocked but even that the ban will be lifted. Such chutzpah. And it's intentional. There's very little Ijon does that isn't thought out. His problem is he underestimates his audience. The idea that any of this was a "mistake" is implausible. Thus, a one-month block is only delaying the inevitable. But it's your call, and erring on the side of leniency and assuming some good faith is rarely a bad thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it costs us nothing to try. If he is tries to bypass the block, or comes back with the same attitude, I will be happy to revisit it. He is a newish user, and hopefully this "shot across the bow" will cause him to take notice. I prefer giving everyone one extra chance to conform to community standards when there is any hope. If he fails to have an epiphany during this break, well, blocks are cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor still has a lot of soapboxing on his page: "My research is based on being on the receiving end of many personal attacks and other uncivil behavior from several editors, and from browsing various user and article talk pages, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) archives, WP:ANI archives and other archives, and various additional boards (e.g. civility board, administrators' boards, dispute resolution, arbitration etc). There, I observed the behavior of several editors with an specially long history of extremely nasty, hostile and disruptive behavior, including: lack of respect for other editors, personal attacks, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, casting aspersions on others and using offensive language (including, but not limited to, abusive, rude, insulting, derogatory or sarcastic language), gaming the system, stonewalling, creating and spreading Wikidrama and World Wrestling Federation-style melodrama, using wordplay formulated to mock other users, and other various forms of disruptive editing and disruptive behavior -- some very sophisticated, some more crude.". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That is all from before the block, and he hasn't commented since being blocked. I'm inclined to leave well enough alone and let him make the first move, hoping it will be one in the right direction. If any of it is genuinely personal attacks, then redacting it would be fine. Otherwise, I prefer to not antagonize the situation and offer a fair chance for him to see the error in his methods. No need to poke a bear once you have confined him to the talk page cage, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing, IP-hopping editor

In the past few days I have encountered an editor whose clear agenda is to remove all references to "China" or the "Republic of China" in Taiwan-related matters, often against discussion consensus or inappropriately changing the title field of a template away from its actual name. See this non-exhaustive list of diffs: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] Where appropriate, range-blocks should be enacted to prevent playing of "pop the weasel". GotR ^Talk 20:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• It might be better to request page protection. This is larger than a single IP range, so I don't think a range block is going to work and will have too much collateral damage. I agree that it looks like clear POV editing, however. WP:RFPP can protect pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if this activist moves on to even more pages, the better option would be to seal the ranges rather than mass-protect pages and prevent all non-confirmed from editing those pages. GotR ^Talk 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Republic of China is commonly known as Taiwan. Changing ROC to Taiwan makes it less confusing because readers not familiar with Taiwan strait issues might confuse ROC with the People`s Republic of China. In wikipedia ,the page "Republic of China" has been redirected to "Taiwan". Most pages about the state use the name "Taiwan". In my opinion,the editor`s changes are reasonable as it maintains consistency of the name and reduces confusion. 111.82.204.221 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the OP here is one who often creates problems for the Taiwan page, and others using that name, with extremely cryptic Edit summaries and a clear agenda to maintain the word China in connection to Taiwan. It's part of a very old political (and initially military) conflict from the first half of last century. This goes against the result of a massive effort at the page some months ago where consensus was reached to rename the article from Republic of China to Taiwan. The IP hopping editor is not really being helpful, but I see his behaviour as at least partly a reaction to out OP's obsession with pushing the POV of the article in the opposite direction, against consensus. Actions to bring our IP hopping editor properly on board, with registration, etc., would be good, but our OP needs to to be watched too. His POV goals to continually fight the consensus recently achieved, and reintroduce confusion over the use of the name China, are not good for Wikipedia. The goals of the IP hopping editor are probably more in line with consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Without touching on the far more numerous problems of HiLo, I have let this particular IP editor some leeway when his (her) changes are not completely unreasonable. For instance, I have chosen to ignore the most recent edits to Keelung River, which I have chosen to ignore, and Template:List of Asian capitals by region, the latter which is more questionable. I am not, as HiLo falsely accuses, a robot that automatically inserts "China" in every usage of ROC/Taiwan; however, this IP editor is the robot that performs the inverse function. I must remind all that the decision reached in March pertained only to the title of the main article, and specifically instructed those in HiLo's faction not to immediately alter other content in favour of their unequivocally nevertheless hidden political motives: to eradicate every last modern reference to the first non-dynastic Chinese state. GotR ^Talk 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, your colours are now fully on display. That you see everyone with an interest in the subject as being part of a "faction" is your main problem. You may be. I have no idea. And I wouldn't accuse. I'll just stick to describing your actions. I just want a better encyclopaedia. Oh, and I DID NOT accuse you of being "a robot that automatically inserts "China" in every usage of ROC/Taiwan". Thank you for proving my point about your style and attitude. GoTR, the IP hopping editor may be a small problem, but you're probably the cause. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the intent of those who wish to (essentially) eradicate usage of "ROC" and whether they support independence, they agree to such eradication; this makes you as much part of a faction as I am. "the OP here is...a clear agenda to maintain the word China in connection to Taiwan."—not explicit, but falls not at all short of accusing me of being a robot. Remember that I have already provided (i.e. debunked) a few counterexamples, A → not B, to your claim of A → B. Your attempts at diverting the focus away from the IP editor have shown to be a ridicule-and-parade-HiLo48-in-a-dunce-hat fun fest. GotR ^Talk 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Your disruptive, accusatory approach is now obvious. I feel no need to say any more here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IPs edits are making changes from Republic of China to Taiwan. The article of the place-in-question is at Taiwan. I don't understand the problem here. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the closing remarks of the requested move of Republic of China to Taiwan that stated the move closure decision was only made with respect to that page's title, see remarks made by Jiang in Talk:Taiwan#"Mainland". In particular, many of the changes {{ROC-TW}} or {{ROC}} to {{TWN}}, where all three templates link to the current title. GotR ^Talk 05:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To emphasise what GotR said (noting that I neither participated in the requested move nor AFAIK have I ever left a particularly comment on this issue), a consensus for one article does not normally equate to a consensus for another article. Only with a wider RFC where what other articles will be called is specifically considered (likely one advertised in all relevent articles) would this generally be the case. And in this particular case, the closing admins explicitly noted the move did not include any other articles Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. Note that this does not mean that the other articles can't be moved, simply that since it's likely to be disputed and any move should be discussed first and given we rarely require interarticle consistency, what the 'main' article is called is a fairly weak argument. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kollyfan

Hello. Over the past few days, the mentioned user Kollyfan (talk · contribs) has been making large-scale edits to a number of articles, which usually pertain to removing large amounts of factual content along with sources with usually misleading edit summaries from articles related to Tamil cinema (a branch of Indian cinema). It is evident from his contributions that the account is primarily used only to edit/remove box office data pertaining to the specific branch of articles I mentioned above, bordering on WP:SPA. Indeed, it is over a year old, and has gone through a couple of blocks due to personal attacks and edit-warring which arose due to heated disagreement over the same topic.

The user has rarely touched a talk page over the recent past, even though one can be pretty sure that he knows the level of subjectivity his edits carry and that he must get consensus first, as he has had a lifetime experience of disagreements over the same topic over the Enthiran article (that incident took place a year ago, he took a break for one year and returned a few days back, but without any change of attitude). It is high time he was given a topic ban or a further block (it is also worth noting that his past blocks were solely about disruptive behavior, whereas his editing part has failed to receive any actionable notice despite the frustration caused) since he has been told several times in the past not to remove sourced data or perform any controversial edit for that matter without consensus but still failed to abide by the advice. Please share your thoughts over this matter so that further disruption can be prevented. Thank you. Secret of success · talk 09:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that you have approached the editor on their talk page before coming here. If you have talked extensively somewhere else, please link it. The reason we require that you try to solve the problem before coming here is because most problems can be solved outside of ANI, and ANI can often make problems worse. I see the person has been blocked before for removing this type of information, but you still must try to work it out on some talk page before filing, preferably on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe Kollyfan has been sufficiently enlightened on what is right and what is wrong here, and trying to explain things to him will not produce any result, as a great effort has been put by editors in the past on it. Explaining his edits has only lead him to lawyer his way through. Examples are available in User talk:Kollyfan and in the archives of Talk:Enthiran, where not only me, but a number of editors—including admins—have attempted to settle things right. This issue had temporarily stopped because he took a one-year wikibreak and has risen again as he has come back with his usual standards. Secret of success · talk 13:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive IP editor resorting to personal attacks...

User:68.200.28.150 has routinely removed the same factually correct piece of information from Ancient and Primitive Rite. When warned about it, user assumed a battleground/ownership mentality (basically "you're not one of us, so what's in the article is none of your business"). When further informed as to the fact that that was irrelevant, user engaged in a personal attack. Normally I wouldn't care, but this is definite intent to disrupt and continue to do so because of a personal agenda, so some action is needed to nip this in the bud. MSJapan (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest ceasing to edit war, using the article talk page and ceasing to call a content dispute vandalism NE Ent 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly I'm an idiot, then, because I thought that repeatedly removing factual information without discussion was vandalism, whereas a content dispute was something else. Clearly, I must know nothing about Wikipedia, and should therefore consider retirement on COMPETENCE grounds. MSJapan (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours. I think the repeated removal of material probably does come under the WP:VAND definition, though to be fair to the IP the sentence being repeatedly removed is not cited in any way. However edits like this one are not the right way to progress a content dispute and I've blocked to prevent them reverting once again and to stop the disruption at source. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing it in WP:VANDTYPES, seems like like the converse of Wikipedia:VANDAL#Misinformation.2C_accidental. (Block is fine, of course, for the PA) NE Ent 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw it as illegitimate, repeated and unexplained blanking. But on its own that wouldn't have been enough for a block (a final warning, maybe.) The PA of course is the clincher. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

[45] or removal of unsourced content -- there's no reference to UGLE in the rest of the article to support its inclusion. NE Ent 22:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I've sourced the statement, and the reason it doesn't appear elsewhere in the article is because A&PR never really took hold historically because of the prohibition (and several other reasons as well). So it's important to the context of the whole Rite. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:ByCMY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user's page and their edits to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects might require someone with more experience than me in these issues to look at them. --86.40.97.160 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hate speech at The New Normal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The SPA Cellus registered strictly to post the following hate speech [46] on the page for the U.S. television show The New Normal. This editor needs an immediate and permanent block, and the edit permanently removed; such vile behavior cannot and should not be tolerated. --Drmargi (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User keeps making unnecessary deletions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm Slurpy. I was adding information to the article Separation of powers to add the true fundamental information for the article that Montesquiu was also inspired by the Roman Constitution through Polybius and you can see this for yourself in the source but for some reason, User (talk) unnecessarily keeps interfering and deleting my statements and sources for no reason. He and or She said that the source i provided contradicted my statement when it actually supports it. I'm not sure if he just didn't read the whole thing in the source and misunderstood it or he just does it because he just doesn't like to embrace this truth. I would like to avoid an argument and the same time that my statement would be supported and be kept on the article not because i put it there, but because the statement is true and i want to contribute by adding historical background information. sincerely --(talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge has been attempting to discuss the matter with you at Talk:Separation of powers. You should join him in that discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The deletion is good faith: it's based on the principles of WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. It looks like Demiurge1000 is questioning whether a high school research paper meets the definition of a reliable source. I'd suggest discussing the situation at Talk:Separation of powers to see if you can alleviate the concerns of the other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, Slurpy121 has persisted in edit warring and is now blocked for 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits by 75.51.172.205

An admin is needed to look at 75.51.172.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now disrupting Armenian history related articles by incessantly edit warring with other editors over whether a template should be expanded or hidden. Gave 3RR warning on talk, will notify him of this thread. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If he's been 3RR-warned, why isn't this reported at WP:ANEW? —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth the time to fill out a doggone 3RR report, and I thought it needed to be stopped more urgently. He has also been accused of being the sock of a blocked user:Frost778 blocked 3 days ago by DrMies for the very same thing, and it's ongoing at the rate of several rvvs per minute. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He has ignored the 3RR warning and continues to edit war with no discussion. Kentronhayastan (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that because the template itself is protected, he is instead edit-warring the layout of the template on all of its transcluded articles, which means he is breaking 3,4,5,6,7 RR all over the place. So the disruption seems to rise to the level of a more wide scale "incident", and it is still ongoing throughout this whole past half hour. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Swarm got him a few minutes ago:

00:39 (Block log) . . Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked 75.51.172.205 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(Disruptive editing: Modification of templates on an immense number of articles and edit warring over said changes)

You can close this case now. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I spoke too soon. He's back already doing the same with a new IP:75.51.171.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And now yet again doing the same as 75.51.164.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, typed this a while ago but got a conflict and never resent it: I've just blocked the IP for 31 hours, but upon further review, it's does appear that this IP is indeed a sock of Frost, as suggested above. Both seem to have the same mildly flawed English, write blatant run-on sentences, use the word "sir" in edit summaries, and of course edit war over Armenian history templates. Even as I'm writing this, another IP sock has sprung up making the same edits. All things considered, I think this is a duck situation. I'm going to indef Frost and block the IPs for a week, but I'll leave this open for any other admins to weigh in or modify my actions. Swarm ^X 06:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IPs individually but I'm not remotely familiar with range blocks. Any admins who are familiar with them around (I don't know whether one's necessary)? Swarm ^X 06:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It continues. [47]. Page protection might work if there weren't so many options for Frost to work his puppetry on Jonathanfu (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And again. I should probably stop wasting my time undoing all his edits, and just leave them until someone can rangeblock him. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

another oneJonathanfu (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC).

It's a pity more admins beside Swarm don't seem to be here atm. He could be shut down. I have seriously never seen anything like this, it's just as if it were an automated revert-bot... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

All blocked, but still waiting on a rangeblock-familiar admin. Tried to drop in on the admins IRC channel, but I don't have access. Damn. Sadly I can't sit around and babysit this thread, nor wait for IRC access, so it appears we're going to have to keep playing whack-a-mole for awhile. Anyone else around who can keep an eye on this for awhile? Swarm ^X 06:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

75.51.165.128 (talk · contribs). Doc talk 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I put a 31 hour rangeblock on 75.51.160.0/20 (no anonymous editing, no account creation). Hopefully that's all it takes. It's a fairly small range (~4000 IP addresses). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Profanity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sitush has called my edits testicles[48] and flatulence.[49] I shared my discomfort with him, he however retorted with more of it.[50] Is it fine to do so? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a complete misrepresentation of what he said; I'm sure even you know that bollocks is a common British expression (I know that as an American myself) and "farting around" is not calling your edits "flatulence" (what on earth that's even supposed to mean escapes me). However, seeing your edits to the first article, I'm wondering if some sanctions are warranted for you; I'm not going to make that decision at midnight, but a preliminary look would seem to back up Sitush's thoughts about your edits there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• First off, you can't tell another editor to "refrain from using slang/profanity", and you really shouldn't act surprised that that wasn't received well. Besides, "bollocks" and "fart around" are such mild slang that there's absolutely no way any administrator is going to sanction a user for it. I'm not going to address whether your edits are or aren't bollocks, but if they aren't the best way to show that is to provide rock-solid reliable sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, that is 'bollocks', not 'bullocks' - and the two words have entirely different meanings. AS for whether it is always appropriate to use such words, I'll not comment - but I'd suggest that there are more important things to concern us all than the odd mild British English obscenity - how about going back to improving the article in question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

StillStanding, again

I've been caught in a near-edit war over whether to blank the page and put a {{blocked user}} tag on User:StillStanding-247. Given that he made a death threat and was blocked with a wide consensus, I didn't think this would be contentious... but evidently, it is, and it's considered 'grave dancing'. I'd appreciate constructive comments on my actions here (and not a new battle about StillStanding's actions). Thanks to everyone in advance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears what's being viewed as contentious is not the placing of the {{blocked user}} tag, but rather the page blanking. Perhaps just place the block tag at the top of the page, and leave it at that? Mojoworker (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What's your reasons for blanking his page? He's not banned. Caden ^cool 08:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good call, ed. Page should be blanked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Horrible, childish call. As I told Ed, if his need to gravedance is truly that overwhelming, he should seek a formal community ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bad call. But grave dancing over it is just plain wrong, especially by an admin. Caden ^cool 09:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Especially an admin who claims "it's no big deal", yet will stop at nothing to ensure his precious badge of shame stays in place. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure you got enough bad faith between the two of you? This sort of nonsense, this terminology, is precisely why I think this should be a page for administrators, like the title suggests--not a page where everyone gets to spew their venom. Childish indeed. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Ed's initial post is quite misleading. While there was wide consensus for the block, there was also wide consensus that there was no credible death-threat. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup Ed's post is very misleading. Unacceptable from an admin. Caden ^cool 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed asserts "he made a death threat", and then goes on to say he doesn't want "a new battle about [Still*'s] actions". Then stop making accusations! (Still* made no such threat. He told a joke. His joke became twisted & manufactured into something else by others.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this tag should be controversial. StillStanding-247 was indef blocked for a good reason and has had their talk page locked for abusing it following the block. As far as I'm aware it's a common practice (though not compulsory) to mark the user pages of editors in this situation with this tag. Unless there are some issues with StillStanding-247's talk page I'm not aware of, I'd suggest that it be unblanked as it provides useful evidence of why the block was imposed and then broadened. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Ed17's post. I can't see any reference in the "edit war" to the blocked user tag. Ed17 deleted the whole page with the edit summary "unneeded". His other edit is again to delete the whole page with the edit summary "I've explained my actions, and there is still no compelling reason to restore the page. Please feel free to bring it up on my talk page or request wider input if you disagree." The edit summaries are about page blanking not the blocked user tag, which seems not to be referred to by anybody. I can't see any reason to blank the page - that would be unusual wouldn't it? DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit war is clearly visible in the user page's history [51] (it's also important to stress that Ed didn't 'delete' anything; he replaced the page's content with the tag. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit war is clearly visible. I saw it. Ok, he deleted the whole content of the page, not the page. Nice semantic spot there. But his edit summaries are about the page blanking. It's obvious from the edit summaries that the tag is not the issue, it's the page blanking. So why did he open this claiming it's about the tag? DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the issues as related, so my opening post was meant as a shortened form of 'blanking the page and putting a blocked user tag'. As this seems to be a point of confusion, I'll add that now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not gravedancing, and I support replacing the page's content with the tag. GiantSnowman 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally, never saw the point in sticking labels on pages -- anyone can add the label, the good information --including the reason for the block -- is in the block log, and I'm not aware of any policy requiring such labels -- it's certainly not in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, and strikes me as just Scarlet letter gravedancing. With regards to page blanking, a discussion regarding the similar situation of a banned user Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_6#User_pages resulted with the tag being added to the existing material on the page. The {{blocked user}} template instructions themselves suggest While everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't. So I'd say its acceptable for Ed17 to add the template. I really don't understand how that improves Wikipedia, and have yet to read an argument that's doesn't strike me some variant of this editor was bad so we have to punish them. NE Ent 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy reason, no is it common practice, for the redirection of the talk page to the user page -- that should be reverted. NE Ent 11:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. GiantSnowman 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The user in question egregiously violated Wikipedia policies, and is unlikely to return. Nonetheless, the block notice should remain on the talk page, and the main user page should be blanked (the reverse of the admin action). IIRC, removal of a block notice is against "da rules", and the current state of the user page appears to show that user in good standing with barnstars. IIRC also, a person blocked for threatening violence is an eensy weensy bit unlikely to be welcomed with open arms, so the distinction here bewteen "blocked" and "banned" is not very strong. Meanwhile "gravedancing" is not the issue here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Still* made no such threat. Please exercise better responsibility when comes to accusing others of something so serious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the text above, as it wasn't a direct threat, but it was the catalyst for his indefinite block. Context and links are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso: While not a threat, joking about my murder has the exact same chilling effect. If not, I have a whole lot of murders to joke about. Who should I start with?--v/r - TP 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're making the mistake, TParis, of assuming I'm in defence of Still*'s joke, that I approve of his telling it. (I'm not, and I don't.) But it's a whole other thing, to turn it into something it wasn't, as several have tried to do. (That kind of irresponsiblity, I guess, is okay by you? Because it isn't with me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never said it was a threat. In fact, when I created the original ANI thread, I had to think of how to say it because it wasn't a threat. But it was certainly chilling and it bothered me. I shrugged off a lot of things that were said about me that week that I could've taken to ANI. The joking about my murder bothered me. My question is: did StillStanding purposefully portray it as a joke to subvert WP:NPA? He was quite talented at getting around WP:NPOV and WP:EW when it didn't suit him. I'm not sure. But I've said several times it wasn't a threat, as far as threats go. So I'm not sure how I am turning it into something or supporting folks turning it into something. What likely happened is folks diverted to the word threat for the sake of ease of associating a thought with verbiage we already use often here. ie. they misspoke and never went back to correct it. That makes more sense to me. Whether there is a block notice or not doesn't matter to me. But to say that the 'joke' was not a threat and therefore acceptable (which you may or may not have said, but others have) doesn't leave me with the most comforting feeling about folks sensibilities.--v/r - TP 23:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I already said I didn't approve of Still*'s joke. (How does that turn into "to say that the 'joke' was [...] acceptable (which you may or may not have said [...]"? It doesn't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The block notice must stay there while he is blocked as does any relevant and directly related discussion about the block (explanation by the blocking admin,etc), any portion that appears to be the death-threat/joke/whateveryouwanttocallit should be hatted or deleted, but the rest of it the page should be able to stay unless there is some other reason to delete. He isn't banned, he is still a member of the community according to our own policies, so he enjoys the right to use his talk page, even if it is limited to Wikipedia related (and not just block related) discussions. If any part of a post need removing (attacks, etc.) then those individual parts can be redacted. If he uses the page for purely soapboxing, then access can be removed. No reason to treat the case any different than any other simple block case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified that blanking a page isn't grave dancing. Adding to it could easily be, but a simple blanking cannot logically be. Based on that, all the silliness can go away. The only other point is the template, which shouldn't be controversial to add, either. Where's the problem? --Nouniquenames 18:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's not really grave dancing, but there's no policy-based reason for blanking a blocked editor's page. Doing so has only stirred up more needless drama. Although I think it was blanked in good faith, it would be wise to leave it intact. I also think that the talk page should be restored, but protected if necessary. Dennis Brown's comments are spot-on. - MrX 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. Restore the pages, add the blocked templates and be done with it. Since SS is blocked from editing the talk page there is no problem. If this editor's off-wiki activities lead others to use this page inapproriately, then those editors can be dealt with if/when that occurs. The only thing this is doing is feeding the zombies who want to eat your brains and gain your knowledge.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  18:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page to its state and the time of the block and redacted the comments about terminating another human's life. I've also readded the {{blocked user}} template to the user page -- although I personally disagree with I believe current consensusiness tends towards its inclusion if the blocking admin wants to put it there. NE Ent 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider this, nor should anyone else, as supporting or endorsing StillStanding's actions. I just think we should follow a consistent protocol for altering the state of Wikipedia pages designated for reference to banned/likely defacto banned users, and fail to see either how blanking improves Wikipedia or is supported by any documented policy. NE Ent 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I just noticed his talk page access had been taken away, not sure why. Was there not a template to that effect explaining the additional block terms? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  Apparently he posted a private e-mail from another editor. Looks like that edit was deleted and talk page access removed at that time. Arkon (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • His talk page access was revoked for what I can only assume was soapboxing. He then resorted to socking via ip to avoid the block.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• I just found out about this topic. Before finding out, on the userpage, I reverted back to Ed's last version with a threat in my edit summary to leave the page alone. When I saw the changes to the talk page, I noticed NE Ent's helpful link in the edit summary to this topic. I haven't touched that page but came here. I don't see any consensus here for restoring any content to the userpage, so I don't see why people are screwing with it. As for the talk page, I agree that it shouldn't redirect to the userpage. The only thing that must be kept are any block notices. As for the rest of the garbage on the page, for those who think we can only remove material if he's banned, that seems to be his desire, anyway: "I am not ever going to apologize for the actions of others. Therefore, this indef block might as well be a community ban." That said, I'll leave the talk page alone pending a consensus as to what to do with it (if ever one is achieved).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason, grounded in policy, that you believe the user page should be blanked? Is there something on that page that is harmful to the community or the project? It seems that there may be a desire to make this block punitive. - MrX 01:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just the gravedancing argument put in a slightly different way. I agree with the others that there's no evidence of gravedancing or punitive. I also don't see why the fellow's barnstars (including one from you, btw) need to be visible. At the same time, I frankly don't care much as long as the material there isn't being used as an historical platform for the user, but I would defer to the discretion of the blocking admin absent some compelling reason not to. I note that all of the changes to the userpage after Ed made a determination came from non-admins. Why is that? I think this whole discussion is generally a waste of our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a grave dancing argument. It's a question about why you felt it necessary to blank the page, which you have artfully evaded with a dash of innuendo. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive; they're supposed to be preventative. It seems pretty simple to me: don't blank the page because there is no legitimate reason to do so. - MrX 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a misinterpretation re what Still* wrote to say he "seems to desire a ban". He felt the indef block was unjustified and refused to follow the current norm he perceived at WP of fabricating an admission of misdeed in trade for an unblock. (His statement attempted to draw attention to the predicament imposed on him, i.e. the implication of a process-gone-wrong. Nothing more.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guy was disruptive enough to be indefinitely blocked AND to have his talk page access revoked. Why anyone cares whether his userpage has barnstars (I would think they would be embarrassing to those who placed them there) or whether his talk page has historical discussion is truly beyond me. I don't think any of what Ed did was gravedancing. What I really think is there are editors who for unfathomable reasons want to defend him. IF there is a consensus on what to do, regardless of my views, I will defer to it, but at the moment there is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't particularly see the point of these user page block banners, but if Ed, as the blocking admin, wants to put one there, I'd be willing to defer to his admin discretion on that. It's certainly less obnoxious than some random shmoe slapping a banner on there against the wishes of the blocking admin, which occasionally happens. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Concisely put, and I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got Nick-D, DeCausa, myself, Giant Snowman, Dennis Brown, MrX, and little green rosetta disagreeing with the talk page blanking, and Nouniquenames (possibly) agreeing with it, and no one providing a policy reason for blanking. Bbb23, who has admitted reverting the last edit without grokking the edit summary, is the one acting against consensus. NE Ent 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I really shouldn't look at Wikipedia this late at night; all it ever does is rile me up. NE Ent, your little summation is way off the mark. I did not touch the talk page. I reverted the userpage. And your little deal about who is for what is misleading as some of those editors referred to the talk page, and some referred to to both the user and talk pages. But if you say that I acted against consensus, you have to find a consensus for the user page because that's all I did. My reversion occurred before I read this really stupid topic. I'm happy that the Blade locked the article, and I don't give a shit that it is not "my" version because there never was a "my" version. The only reason I reverted - at the time - was because of the ridiculous edit-war among non-admins and the lack of deference to Ed's actions. This is my last comment here, which I'll no doubt regret, because I'm fed up with the whole thing. I'm going off-wiki again, take a break from this drama-infested madhouse, and try to calm down. It really is true that anger sometimes is inversely proportional to the importance of the problem. I need to get upset about something that actually matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely screwed that up, -- confused your edit of user, and user talk page. Facepalm NE Ent 10:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lack of deference to Ed's actions"? Seriously? When I supported your RfA Bbb23, I really didn't think you were going to be one of the rank-and-file "admins can do no wrong" bunch. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any dispute at this point that this was a troll account? --Malerooster (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Malerooster is almost certainly someone's sockpuppet. That's a conversation for another page; I just wanted to make users here aware of it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the cock is the one trolling, as he has restored the gravedancing. I think I'm at 3RR (not going to count and not going to risk making some child's day); could someone please revert? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to Mr. X for reverting, and kudos to Blade for not reverting to the wrong version before protecting. There may be hope for this place yet! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the 'kid' isn't the one hitting the rollback button. No sir, definitely not.--v/r - TP 04:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record I absolutely don't care one way or another what this guy's userpage contains, I just wanted to put a lid on things before I had to hand out blocks. However this is ultimately resolved is fine by me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I support blanking. What is the point of having Still's thoughts when he is blocked from editing them himself and during his block there is no reason to show anything he posted on his user page. TFD (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is needed

There really needs to be a community consensus on this issue on whether we should or should not blank user pages after permanent blocking. Because, at this point, such things are applied haphazardly and, generally, well-liked users have people that defend them and stop the blanking of the page, while everyone else gets their pages blanked. Either we blank all of them or we blank none of them, but the current unequal treatment is discriminatory, one way or another. Silverseren^C 08:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• We already have consensus, I explained it above. It is based on the actual policy. Blocked isn't the same as banned. There was a banned discussion, and it was opposed so he is not banned. He is still a member of the community. He is not permanently blocked, he is indef blocked and he has the opportunity to get unblocked. Why people are seeking exceptions to the policy in this one case, I have no idea. We don't need a new consensus, we rely on the existing one, ie: policy. Sockpuppets and community banned users generally have their pages blanked, run-of-the-mill blocks do not except in extraordinary circumstances. As no one has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, the talk page was restored, then trimmed of offensive material that we would normally redact. Nothing more to see here, time to move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rian13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rian13 (talk · contribs). User indef blocked since 2010 for account violation appears to have emerged again as Rian2008 (talk · contribs). This account, which began editing on 6 November, appears to have a similar editing pattern to the sockmaster. Could someone take a quick look? Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific? Lay out a few diffs and explain what the interest/pattern is--thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rian13 was blocked for persistent image policy violations by Rodhullandemu back in 2010. So far, Rian2008 hasn't done the same, although their lack of edit summaries doesn't make looking easy. Overall, there's nothing about their edits that stand out as anything problematic. They're doing a fair number of tidying edits and corrections, both of others and themselves. Their edits seem to fall largely into British celebrities categories and although some of their insertions could do with sources and less crystal balling, I don't really see anything troubling. Blackmane (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Rian13 was blocked for image-related disruption, often adding them incorrectly to articles. So far I've found this from Rian2008. Also some unsourced material has been added (like this) though that's less of a problem. There are actually several accounts using this name, all of which have been blocked for disruptive editing. Examples include Rian2010 (talk · contribs), Rian2011 (talk · contribs), Rian117 (talk · contribs), Rian16 (talk · contribs) and Rian19 (talk · contribs). The common interest between them all seems to be UK celebrities, chart music and reality shows. Generally they seem to start off editing fine, then things go down hill. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there an SPI? That would be the easy way out. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've just found one here, so reopened the case. As I haven't done one of these for at least three years I hope it's correct. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

it does look excessively ducky (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for IP block exemption

Resolved

As noted and discussed at VPT#Avoiding IP address blocks, I deliver a lot of Wikipedia editor training, on large networks (universities, councils, libraries, etc. I hit a problem today, while training at a venue where there was an IP block in place; it badly disrupted the training, leaving me unable even to demonstrate editing from my account. I understand that it's possible for established accounts in good standing to be exempted from such blocks, but WP:IP block exemption seems to cater only for single instances where an editor is affected by an active block on their usual IP address. Is it possible for me to have such an exemption; and, if so, could someone enable it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be Ok. I've added it to your account. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Eyes requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just saw this userpage looks like it's being used only for chatter between Shadow Axis and another user. I see no other edits except to userspace for this user. I didn't want to outright MFD it. I have blanked it and left a note that this isn't myspace. It may need more, but I thought I'd get eyes on it first before I MFD it.

Thanks

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm one of two users who use this to communicate. It's a user's talk page and doesn't interfere with anything else. By the way, there is no WP:NOTMYSPACE, so I'm not sure why that was written in the edit description when you blanked another user's userpage. Using someone's personal talk page to communicate is not an issue. I was very surprised to find this on an administrator notice board at all. Thanks --♪ ChrisBkoolio ... (Talk) 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ironically enough, there is indeed WP:NOTMYSPACE, which is part of policy. Maybe you never actually thought to enter it into the search bar? Zad68 21:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for, Kosh? No offense, but this seems fairly ridiculous...a polite message explaining why this isn't allowed would have adequately sufficed, rather than blanking someone's talk page. That being said, WP:NOTMYSPACE is a real thing that actually exists. Using talk pages for your personal correspondence simply isn't the purpose of Wikipedia...and I'm not sure why you'd want to communicate with Wikipedia in the first place. You need to take your conversations elsewhere, but there's no admin intervention needed at this time, IMO. Swarm ^X 21:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I just sent it to MFD. Seems clear to me that this does not belong on Wikipedia, and since one user just reverted the blanking and continued chatting, deletion may be the only way to put an end to it. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin; image issues

Experienced image policy editors badly wanted at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin#Biases. In addition, the image File:Trayvon Martin.jpg which I removed from the article was loaded by a short term editor as "own work" but I have serious doubts about that. Not sure whether to take that to the NFCN or not, I have no experience with that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it as a copyvio.©Geni 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you; I removed it from the article as a probable copyvio. Would you be so kind as to voice your views at the article talk page? An editor is stating his belief that IAR covers violating the image use policy. I am involved and I am concerned this will become a problem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been working with images a lot lately so I have reviewed the current set of images and posted an opinion on the article's talk page. Hope this helps. -- Dianna (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope so too. I am deeply concerned when I see someone using IAR in a discussion about copyright and fair use images. Needless to say, I would appreciate anyone else who wishes to take a look and leave an opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Improper restoration by admin with RL consequences

Pardon me for interrupting the usual BS here on ANI, but I believe we have a real problem:

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few days, you've probably heard of the resignation of David Petraeus due to an affair with Paula Broadwell.

The article on Broadwell was first created on 20:13, 26 January 2012‎ by Vanobamo (talk · contribs). An IP added some info that looked like vandalism or libel and that was quickly removed. The article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by Peridon (talk · contribs) a couple of weeks later. The story about the affair broke and on November 9, a new article was started about Broadwell was created.

All was well so far until Y (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored the deleted edits "to preserve historical record" - which is not at all within policy. Access to deleted Pages clearly states "Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed."

Well, guess what - there were some very interesting edits that were restored out of policy that have now made the news media [52] [53].

Now, we could have a discussion about whether the world is better with those hidden edits being disclosed, but that's beside the point. When Y unilaterally restored these edits out-of-policy, he turned Wikipedia into news itself in one of the worst instances of administrator misconduct that has led to real-world consequences that I've come across.

We're not talking about the usual "I was wronged by this block" or "He's a big old meany." ANI discussion here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you try to discuss this with Y, or just drop the ANI notice on his talk page? --Malerooster (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I asked about the restoration at Talk:Paula_Broadwell#Prior_speedy_deletion_.2F_history, where it was reported that the restoration was proper.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• What exactly are the consequences? Gossip-type stories will always find excuses to use practically anything as source. We even had a case where as a joke a person was declared dead whom actually died about the same time. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Y/Accountability Recall him. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a gross violation of BLP. That should have been left deleted. --Rschen7754 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Amazingly, Jimbo was interviewed on Fox Business yesterday and they brought up the Broadwell edit, he didn't seem phased by it.[54]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

PR is different than governance. This is governance. His job in that interview was to promote Wikipedia (PR). Note that there was no discussion about policy, restoration and/or administrator misconduct in the interview. Toddst1 (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As of the moment I was told about this in the interview, it was the first I had heard about it at all. I had not seen any news stories discussing the edit, nor any internal discussion of it. I assumed (incorrectly, I believe) that it might have just been a random bit of vandalism, as in the case of the wrestler who died a few years ago. Milowent, I'm glad you think I didn't seem phased by it! One of the hardest things about my job is to continue smoothly when a journalist springs something on me, so I suppose I did all right this time. But there's no way to take this in any way as indicative of my views on policy.

In general, I think it always unwise to undelete old article history unless there is a specific need to do so. But it is a relatively minor issue. And I certainly don't think Y should be reproached for it now. I do think it is a good case to examine philosophically in an effort to clarify and strengthen policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Toddst, if you really regard this issue as one of "administrator misconduct", then it becomes doubly puzzling why you did not first discuss it with the admin in question. Seriously, why didn't you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't think there's much we can, or should, do now about it. Of course, when that edit was made in January, it was the right thing to treat it as vandalism and revert it, but the stub article back then was otherwise a good-faith contribution (even if it fell short on notability). The restoration of the old stub edits was not technically necessary for preservation of article history, but I don't assume the admin who did it was aware of those particular edits. Now that the cat is out of the bag and we know that the alleged rumour was essentially true, there is hardly any pressing need to keep the edits hidden. Of course, we could rev-del them again, but given the fact that they have already attracted media curiosity, that would likely end up looking to the outside world more like an attempt to whitewash or cover up things than like a legitimate act of protecting the article subject. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Toddst1 is right to raise this; it's a nice point. But the question surely is: Was the edit revision-deleted at the time of the AfD? And if not, would the edit probably have been revision-deleted if the article had been kept at its AfD a while back? If the answer to both of those is No (as I think it is), then Y cannot really be reproached for his actions. Andreas JN466 10:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted under A7 once upon a time. Obviously, A7 is no longer applicable, so I revived the historical revisions. The "conquest" edits were properly viewed as inappropriate at the time, but now they are of great interest and no longer a BLP issue. I would think, maybe even of interest to the FBI, who knows. Since we are a reflection of the national discourse on this topic, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to be transparent about the article history, so barring a policy reason against it, I undeleted the revisions. I see no problem with having done so. -- Y not? 13:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As I suspected, you knew what you were doing and deliberately outed the old edits, hence your edit summary. This is serious abuse of your access to deleted Pages. Yes, they are a BLP issue and your actions were highly inappropriate. Yes, they are libelous - they imply that there were a string of conquests. Toddst1 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Old article revisions are regularly un-deleted when subjects become notable and new articles are created on top. Back in January 2012, their deletion would have been appropriate since the content may have been deemed libelous, however, they are not so problematic given the recent revelations. Also, it's always polite and nice to leave a message as courtesy on the talk page of the user whose actions you wish to discuss. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

An underage user has outed themselves

Page deleted. 28bytes (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Mustafa_ejero has posted personally identifying information on their user page, including a photo, despite being under the age of 18. Worth looking into. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 05:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Why? Doc talk 05:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Simply announcing how old you are is not a big deal. If he gave his home phone number and address, I would be inclined to get rid of the page, but this is nothing serious. I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but that's my opinion anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I assumed Wikipedia had a policy on underage users giving out identifying information. That, and I originally thought this was a COPPA issue, but I misread the age cut-off for COPPA. Apologies. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 05:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC) For the record, if there was a <13 year old user who identified themselves, or a <18 year old user who gave out too much public info, that goes to oversight, not a highly-trafficed place like ANI. --Rschen7754 05:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, please. Contact your friendly local neighborhood admin before drawing attention to it here. Doc talk 05:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Not exactly, it goes to oversight: WP:RFO --Rschen7754 05:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What is going on?

I recently requested access to AWB which I had already acquired two months ago and unfortunately wasn't aware of that. So, admin Snowolf informed me of the situation. I am thankful to him for that. But then he - based on a calamitous misunderstanding - revoked my access to the tool I had never even got the chance to use. The sheer misunderstanding was that I don't hold the view that I am responsible for every way I use the tool. When actual reality is quite the contrary.

Now one might ask how can a veteran administrator be so mistaken. Actually it's not his fault, it's partly my own fault too. What happened is, once a novice editor had asked me to modify the "automated response" (automated warning messages that STiki leaves on user talk page, not to be confused with edit summary) in such a way that it mentions that it's automated every time (at least, that's the Idea I got from his comments that day). Note: He wasn't complaining about the fact that I warned him through STiki. Also he, not I, was unsatisfied about the contents of the default warning. In that context I merely responded, "I have not created those messages nor did I build that software, so I am really the wrong person to complain to." I was not using that statement as an excuse; I was simply trying to inform him about the nature of STiki. Just to make it clear, I like the default warning messages, and also like notifying users that I reverted their edit. This gives them a chance to get back to me or improve their edits or re-add the deleted data with sources.

I never said that I do not take responsibility. And to dispel any vestiges of doubt there might be in one's mind, I do hereby solemnly swear to take full responsibility for the tools I use on Wikipedia. And the thing is, I never said or meant that I do not take responsibility. However, if someone asks me to change/modify the coding of the tool itself, then that I cannot do as I don't know how. The correct procedure to modify the tools (e.g. STiki, Twinkle, Huggle, etc) themselves is just not within the purview of my knowledge. Hence I wrote that I am not the guy one should be complaining to about the automated/default wording of the warning messages. Again, I didn't say "go complain to him". I repeat, he didn't complain about the fact that I warned him. He, instead, asked me to change the automated warning itself. Had that editor clearly asked me to simply change that particular message on his talk page, I would have gladly helped. Please see that thread and note that I stated that I "take full responsibility" twice, even within that very thread.

One might say that I misread/misinterpreted his comments or that I had spoken out of turn. Yes, there is a slim possibility of these things being true and I regret it. But that is not really the problem we're dealing with here. The the heart of the issue is my views on the responsibility of the tools I use here, which I think I have clarified already. I, as a matter of fact, don't have any problems whatsoever with any tool I use. OTOH, if somebody else has problems with my editing they are invited to inform me (with diffs) and if that discussion fails they can report me. Please restore the access. Thank you all for your time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not responsible for granting access to AWB. This appears more to be a discussion you should be having with those who handle AWB requests. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

ARBMAC enforcement needed

Could an uninvolved administrator with a lot of time on their hands please investigate the latest incarnation of the Yugoslav Wars currently raging on half a dozen article, talk, and project pages? A WP:ARBMAC smackdown is sorely needed, preferably with topic bans liberally applied. (Some of the participants have already racked up ARBMAC warnings.)

To give the briefest possible summary, edit conflicts arose on the articles for Boris Malagurski and his films (The Weight of Chains, Kosovo: Can You Imagine?, etc.). There are two camps of editors involved, one of which has a very favourable opinion of Malagurski's films, and the other a very negative opinion. The anti-Malagurski camp accuses the pro-Malagurski camp of POV-pushing, bad faith, adding unreliable sources, removing reliable sources, copyright violations, conflicts of interest, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, block and ban evasion, etc. The pro-Malagurski camp accuses the anti-Malagurski camp of POV-pushing, bad faith, adding unreliable sources, removing reliable sources, copyright violations, abuse of process in the form of repeated AfDs, COIN and SPI reports, etc.

Regardless which of these accusations have any merit (and no doubt many of those made by both sides really do), the problem is that the disputes are spilling over everywhere and are spiralling out of control. As soon as any editor, whether or not they were previously involved in the discussion, attempts to separate out one single dispute for investigation by the community on the appropriate noticeboard, members from both camps flock to it and continue slagging it out over all the other accusations. AfD nominations, RSN reports, etc. end up in a mess of accusations of sockpuppetry, bad faith, etc. carried over from elsewhere. It is literally impossible to isolate and contain any one issue for a proper investigation.

Here is a list of currently affected pages, which probably isn't complete but can serve as a starting point:

• Talk:Boris Malagurski
• Talk:The Weight of Chains
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains
• Wikipedia:COIN#Boris_Malagurski
• Wikipedia:RSN#E-novine_on_Boris_Malagurski
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo: Can You Imagine? (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski
• user talk pages of pretty much everyone participating in the above

Apologies for posting this while logged out, but I really don't want my account to be drawn into this morass. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like an appropriate use of WP:SOCK#LEGIT (*->BWilkins<-*) 10:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - and it is hard to assume good faith for this request as a consequence. GiantSnowman 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please try; WP:SOCK#LEGIT isn't an exhaustive list of legitimate uses of anonymity. (Of course, neither is WP:SOCK#ILLEGIT, though I'm not in violation of any of those cases either, and have offered to prove this privately to User:BWilkins.) 149.255.57.233 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If the request were aimed at a specific party I might agree with you. This one is quite general however and is just looking for more eyes on EVERYONE. The benefit of the doubt here should be extended. At least until the articles have been looked at.Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I fail to see the need for anonymous reporting. GiantSnowman 10:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely if they have been involved with it, the returning-stick will hit them hard? Mdann52 (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it would. If I were actually a member of one of these factions it would be rather stupid of me to come here requesting greater scrutiny of my own role in the disruption. So my use of anonymity is either a means of isolating myself from the problem as much as possible, or else some twisted way of committing suicide by boomerang. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Anon, my recommendation to you would be to contact an administrator by private e-mail from your main account, so that we can verify you are not otherwise involved in the situation. Send me a note if you like, privacy ensured. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming from the opposite camp to the anonymous reporter I have to say that it is way beyond time for a thorough investigation of matters relating to Malagurski and the promotion of himself and his work in Wikipedia articles possibly involving his ongoing interaction with other editors who expand and defend unbalanced articles to him across a number of different national Wikipedias. While the real-world element is separate from the abuse of Wikipedia procedures, Wikipedia's failure to respond adequately to procedural irregularities when Malagurski's work is politically committed propaganda that denies recent war crimes of the most serious nature does have implications for how people perceive Wikipedia and its reliability. The fact that subject disputes over Balkans issues often seem impenetrable to outsiders is no reason to turn a blind eye when Wikipedia is being used as a vehicle for promoting non-scholarly politically-oriented questioning of legal findings at the highest level of international law. Opbeith (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, lost Edit summary in edit conflict: should have said something like "Thorough investigation overdue". Opbeith (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous posting in this circumstance is fine per not a bureaucracy -- 149's claims are neutral -- consisting mostly of "please review these pages" and can easily be checked by reviewing those pages. NE Ent 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ent, WP:ANI is not an "anonymous tip line". It's structured and labelled in a way that the accuser is required to advise the accused. A drive-by anonymous post - as valid as it may be - goes 180 degrees away from that tranparency. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to be picky about it - you would have to be of the opinion that 'Please review the situation' requires notifying EVERYONE who may possibly be in the topic area to be notified. Which really is bereaucratic overload.... Anyway the notice is 'You have to notify any user who is the subject of a discussion'. Not really applicable in a general plea for 'more eyes'. Need to be reasonable here. Anyway, suggest IP follows Fut.Perf's sensible suggestion above, although I am going to go have a gander anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous 149 did in fact notify me and I believe other people (I know of at least one). Opbeith (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been a lot of murky activity revealed in this Malagurski fiasco and this non-transparent report may be an extension of that. What possible repercussions could an uninvolved party possibly fear? This is the third time that UrbanVillager has posted the same exact message and this may have been an attempt to get a bigger audience. [55][56] The numerous and deliberate misrepresentations of editors' actions in his message is hilarious. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

After being notified that there is a discussion regarding this issue, I feel a little more hopeful that somebody will actually devote some attention to the issue at hand. On one hand, there are more than reasonable rules and regulations on article building, user conduct and dispute resolution, and on the other hand not many people seem to care about any of those things unless if the topic in question is very popular. I've tried following the rules, I made a few mistakes (some because of lack of knowledge, some because I was lazy), apologized for them and did my best to correct them. I've followed advice on how to resolve issues that pop up, and yet, the issues have gotten even more complicated. Regarding Boris Malagurski and his films, I follow information about that via Malagurski's Facebook page (together with 12,000 people who 'liked' the page) and his websites, and I added stuff on Wikipedia I found interesting from time to time (when I found reliable references, of course) and I thought that was the point of Wikipedia - to see what interests you and edit that when you have free time. Of course, other stuff interests me too, I edited a few other articles as well, but I feel like there are a lot of people who already edit most of those other articles, so I did focus on the ones that I thought were neglected to an extent - Malagurski and his work. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that somebody would accuse me of being on Malagurski's payroll or Malagurski himself for doing that and for discussing the topic on the talk page of the Malagurski article and the articles of his films.

I hate arguing, and when I noticed that editors like Opbeith were aggressively demanding the addition of blogs and fishy websites as sources, I assumed that unbiased, independent editors would show up and note that this can't be used on Wikipedia. This never happened. However, Opbeith wasn't alone, and several other editors, who seem to really have issues (personal and ideological) with Malagurski and his films (for example, "Malagurski's work is crap" - Opbeith), quickly organized to subvert every single attempt I made at resolving issues in a civilized manned and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. These editors, User:Opbeith, User:PRODUCER, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner, have as their only purpose, regarding the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles, to do any or all of the following:

1. Promoting the addition of slander to the article, using as references Internet forums, blogs and fishy websites that, among other things, photoshop a "BIA" badge, trying to prove that Malagurski works for Serbia's Security Information Agency, on an original photo where there is no badge; or call Malagurski an unemployed Vancouver-based amateur "film director", apologist for Serbian Nazi-collaborating Chetniks and a racist genocide denier (this article the most disputed one they tried to push, carried by E-novine); while, at the same time dismissing actual relevant reliable media sources as "tabloids", including Politika, the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans.
2. Clogging the talk pages with discussions on just how much Malagurski's work is crap, how horrible the people he interviewed are [57], how Malagurski is just an outright extremist [58], and much more.
3. Not allowing any good-faith discussion to proceed without personal attacks.
4. Personally attacking anyone who disagrees that Malagurski is exactly who they say he is. Accusing me of not allowing the addition of any sources that don't have a positive outlook on Malagurski, which is not true. I agreed to the addition of a Croatian link that described Malagurski's film as "too pro-Serbian".[59] I've also stated several times that I have no personal interest in there not being any criticism of Malagurski and his work, as I believe (and I think Wikipedia does as well) that well-sourced criticism is very healthy for any article, but only if it's truly - well-sourced.
5. Removing sourced material ([60], etc.), promoting the idea that any source that has a neutral or positive attitude towards the topic is all part of Malagurski's "self-promoting machinery", and adding irrelevant poorly-sourced material ([61], [62], etc.) that constitutes original research and POV pushing.
6. Promoting the deletion of these articles. PRODUCER nominated "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" for deletion, again claiming that the sources that support the notability of the article are tabloids. When I noted that, for example, Večernje novosti is a renowned Serbian newspaper and news source which exists for almost 60 years now, also the leading Serbian book publisher, with over 5 million books on diverse cultural topics sold, 159 titles including books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Bulgakov, Nabokov, Faulkner, Orwell, Kafka, Sabato, Andric, Crnjanski, Selimovic, etc.[63], PRODUCER went on to change the Večernje novosti article so that it says it's a "tabloid", without adding a source.

This is a very well-coordinated attack mechanism aimed at slowly destroying the Malagurski article and all articles related to it. I could provide more references to back up these claims, this is just the top of the iceberg. I'd just add that I checked with the sources noticeboard regarding the disputed E-novine source I mentioned before, one editor commented agreeing with me that E-novine was not the kind of source we should use on Wikipedia [64]. Naturally, Producer jumped to defend the source, even calling User:Joy to lend his support. I've tried contacting the film MOS, Dispute resolution, Sources noticeboard regarding the issues in question, but nothing has changed. I believe none of these editors have any good faith when it comes to the articles in question - almost every single edit they made was motivated by any one of the points that I listed. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)