Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

The harmful speech of Norden1990

I want to inform the admins about the uncivil speech and dubious agressive POVs of User:Norden1990 according to WP Conduct policy WP:NPA. What is considered to be a personal attack? 1) Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. He recently called me in edit summary a "chauvinist user" [1], called my behaviour as "hysteria"[2] and named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist [3][4]. When I complained about this behavior on another thread [5], Norden1900 was not sorry at all, but on the contrary: he replied that "I reserve the indicatives about you" [6] + he wrote "I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's." which is in fact similar to banned User:Stubes99 edits[7]. He also called the insertion of referenced text "vandalism"[8]. User:Norden1990 also used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor on my Talk page [9]. This looks like a some form of ongoing harassment. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia) from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) [10]. User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. Some unconstructive discussion with this user[11][12]. User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [13][14] he wrote: "Slovaks had not yet existed." which is obviously an attack + also deleted info, Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár[15] (Note: see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[16][17][18][19][20], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[21][22]) or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [23][24][25][26]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[27] and here deleted name Oradea [28] or [29][30]. Indeed quality of the article first. Or his contradictory edits [31]>[32]. In the past he also had this kind of unfriendly speech:

• "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak."[33] .
• "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration" [34]
• "It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself" [35]
• "typical product of Romanian chauvinism" [36]
• "So you can go to hell together with your threatening." [37]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You used again provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor (me) on my Talk page [38] or in this discussion [39]. It was not in the article Talk page about "Upper Hungary". Nevertheless, also in the main article is: Any use of the word Felvidék to denote all of modern Slovakia is considered offensive by Slovaks.

I also dont understand your dubious POVs, you wrote [40][41]: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit" and then here you edited article with this term + deleted Austrian Empire[42]. It looks like some form of poor provocation.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I've searched the archives and I noticed that is not the first time when Norden1990's name appears on this noticeboard. Four months ago the administrator User:Sandstein raised the possibility of a topic ban / other sanction for Norden1990: [43] 181.48.15.98 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also involved in edit wars, and not only with me (so in fact Norden1990's another false information...) [44] - here his opponnent was the user Inhakito. The result is that the User:Norden1990 is highly unreliable and only his dubious POVs are acceptable (for him naturally)...--Omen1229 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Omen, you were "topic-banned from all edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history for a period of 6 months, due to a persistent history of ethnic battleground editing" [45]. You were also sanctioned for "nationalist editing" [46]. It seems that the six months was not enough for you. For the case of Cabello: there were conflicting news after the death of Hugo Chávez. You can see the talk page, a cooperation evolved between the editors and I also took part in the discussion.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Said User:Fakirbakir who for example declared this statement: "the modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state"[47]--Omen1229 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• OK, I'm taking a quick look. Now, Norden1990 has clearly acted in an inappropriate manner all too often, but Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes not. Both users edit-war across a whole range of articles, over some of the most ridiculous things (categories seem to crop up fairly often) - Omen removing a category with a frankly inexplicable reason, based on the article here: [48], and [49] is part of a particularly pointless edit war from both sides being examples of both users reverting each other, pretty much based on the fact that their opponent (so to speak) made the edit. This can either be fixed by an indefinite interaction ban (which is almost certain to fail as both edit in the same area), or a 6 month/year long topic ban on editing any WP:ARBEE-applicable articles, broadly construed for both parties, for frequent, careless and pointless edit warring in those areas, based on nationalistic motives. The latter is by far the more likely to work, and I suggest that's what is applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990 > here are some my last edits and please look at who started:[50][51][52][53][54][55] and here is additional Norden1990's provocation [56] > he declared: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit"[57][58].

edit 105 > the article is about Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár, also User:FactStraight reverted Norden1990's similar edits[59][60]. As I wrote above about this Slovak nobleman: [61] > see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[62][63][64][65][66], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[67][68]. Natio Hungarica does not mean Hungarian nobility, but it is Nobility in the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit[69]? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in the Kingdom of Hungary[70] etc... Being a citizen of the multilingual, multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary is not the same with being an ethnic Hungarian.

edit 106 > I don't understand what is "inexplicable" about my reason ("no source for this info")[71]. The edit summary is clear and it reflects the reality: the information is unreferenced. The same idea is supported by another user (Koertefa) on the article talk page: "I do not see the relevance whether "Mercurius"/"Merkúr" is an original Hungarian name. Even if it was, it would not prove for sure that he was ethnic Hungarian [72]--Omen1229 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I assure you that his edit is not right. Omen. Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit. That's right, what is your problem? There were separate administrative units, like Transyvania, Croatia or Fiume, but not Upper Hungary (or Felvidék, which lit. means "Upland"). Slovak nobility never existed, as was only one nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary (Natio Hungarica, as you wrote correctly). You are trying to force modern national consciousness into old situation. Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary is might be misleading, as there are also Hungarian nobles today. But they were born when the kingdom was already abolished. By the way, there is standardization: I couldn't find Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Poland or Kingdom of Portugal etc. etc. [73]. Aaron Samuel ben Moses Shalom of Kremnitz was a Jew and lived in today's Slovakia (then Hungary) in the 17th century. Mere speculation and anachronism to inserted him into the category of "Slovak Jews". Slovakia established in 1993, centuries later. You usually use POV edits and personal attacks ([74]) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated", however article already contained Hungarian names (correctly, as apperanace only today's name version is illogical and misleading, according to my knowledge, Slovak language was never used in public administration). "however this is only a biography article of Štúr" [75] - illogical and poor argument, according to your perception, we should write that "Ho Chi Minh City was capital of South Vietnam in 1945". Absurd. These towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts. The term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography, which denies all connection and contiunity between the historical and modern Hungary. Then, Omen, now you just have to tell, who were the "Uhors"? Maybe Hungarians? I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. [76] 100,000 results? Yeah... Jesenský is a common Slav name, but this family was a Hungarian noble house of Slav origin, as you can see the sources that I proved. "poor nationalistic dubious POV", typical behaviour of Omen. Like this POV pushing [77]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [78]. when you run out of nationalist arguments, you always try to bring the matter to personal attack, as you did here [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Like this POV pushing [134]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [135] > Sources about what? Please first read the full discussion [84]. Where do you see "Upper Hungary"? You also declared that Upper Hungary has never had a separate territorial unit[85][86]. So according to these evidence, your edits here edits look again like bad faith.

edit Giglovce [87] > User:Norden1990 wrote: "Yes, but formerly known as Giglóc (until 1920)." In fact in the 1863 until 1913 was valid only one name - Giglóc, other variants have been banned. User:Norden1990 used in the article only one variant from this period - Magyarization. There are no members of Magyar ethnicity in the village - 0,00%. According to the 2011 census, the municipality had 153 inhabitants. 148 of inhabitants were Slovaks and 5 others and unspecified. There are also other names, for example: Giglowce, Gyglowce, Gyglowcze etc., but unfortunately this user used only one... User:Norden1990 also declared: "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[88] and here deleted name Oradea [89] or [90][91].

Note: I will continue in this edit, but now I'm bored of this unconstructive discussion with highly unreliable editor who have strong dubious POVs.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the above "I'm right, it's the other guy who is POV-pushing" type responses sum up exactly why I believe an ARBEE topic ban is in order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for who? I do not get it. Please compare Norden1990's contributions to Omen1229's editing. Their contributions are as different as chalk and cheese. Norden1990 is an excellent wiki editor. He deserves praise instead of scorn.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors. Regardless of whether their edits are correct or not, both have violated ARBEE by frequently edit-warring over the nationality of a hell of a lot of articles, and that is a simply unacceptable fact. There have been some very solid edits by both editors, but the fact of the matter is that good edits don't justify editors staging all-out war on other editors. Both are constantly accusing each other of being POV-pushers and both abuse each other quite frequently in other ways, which complicates matters. People should never be praised for constant edit-warring (unless that edit-warring is to removal obviously hateful content and keep it out, which this doesn't classify as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the editing on nationality is just offensive [92]. IMO, the disruptive edits outweigh the solid ones because they are inappropriate and drive other editors away. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

Per Lukeno, I propose a topic ban for both users from Hungary-related ARBEE-related articles, broadly construed, for violating ARBEE. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, a topic ban from Hungary-related articles would be equivalent to a total ban from anything, while this method is only partially affected to the Slovak ethnic Omen's edits. It is not fair. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not proposing a Hungary-related ban. I was proposing an ARBEE-related ban. Technically, since one user insists these are Slovak articles, then the ban wouldn't actually work anyway. Obviously, I strongly support an ARBEE-related topic ban, but a Hungary-related one is definitely too narrow in scope. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that edit warring is not acceptable, it should be noted that user Norden1990 made several excellent contributions to WP, mostly to articles which fall into the category of WP:ARBEE. Therefore, by enforcing such a topic ban we would lose an exceptional editor. I think that warning both involved editors should be enough and, if they continue the war, a 1RR like restriction could be applied, to enforce appropriate communication. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that the editors haven't made good contributions, because they clearly have. However, any flagrant violations of ARBEE, like this, cannot go unpunished, no matter how good the editors may be. Also, 1RR won't work, as they're edit warring with each other over multiple articles, but not necessarily making more than 1 revert per article. It is always a shame to lose productive editors, but if they won't abide by the guidelines in such highly charged areas, then there's no choice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then call this prohibition, which is actually that: ban from everything. Might as well you can also close my user account. Furthermore, Hungary is in Central Europe, so I don't understant this Eastern Europe ban here... --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support As nom. Changed to include all ARBEE-related articles. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can not give appropriate reasons. So, could I not continue to create biographies of Hungarian politicians in the modern era? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• No topic-ban - There is no demonstrated need for a topic ban after just being placed on notice as a result of this thread. Editor has been notified and that is enough, anything further will likely drive the editor away and serves as a procedural block/ban. I cannot agree with the warning to topic ban for this single instance, there has not been an issue since the warning and no expectation or evidence of bad-faith to warrant topic banning at this time. And to answer Norden1990's statement above; United Nations Statistics Division and the European Union considers Hungary to be in Eastern Europe, see page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of where Hungary is considered to be, ARBEE covered Hungarian articles anyway, did it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Might it not be simpler to use a standard discretionary sanctions model here? They've now both been warned/notified (Norden recently, Omen a long time ago and receiving a now expired 6 month ban later) and this has been reaffirmed here. If their poor behaviour continues, they can be taken to WP:AE which would likely be simpler than a ANI discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Opposing topic ban. I agree with the above comment of Nil Einne: for the time being, a warning is the proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I think that editing outside Hungary-related articles would be a very good thing for Norden1990, and help them learn a little more about neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources in subjects about which they are dispassionate. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding Norden, Omen or anyone else, having to deal with nationalist editors is hugely disruptive and a gigantic time sink. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If Norden has really created as many as or more than 500 articles, that's really impressive. I just wish they would cool down on the nationalism question. Perhaps I'm wrong in my support for a ban here. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

I proposed the article on Amiram Goldblum for deletion because there is substantial evidence to prove that the article is an autobiography. The user who created the article has been accused of sockpuppetry. It seems like mostly very partisan people edit the article. I'd like to hear the opinion of experienced users. If I'm wrong in proposing the article, I would like to know why. Thank you very much. Nataev (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was created by Soosim; I have heard no suggestion that s/he is a sockpuppet. Please remove that unfounded allegation. Further, the creation of an autobiographical article, or editing of an article about oneself, is not forbidden, and is certainly not grounds for deletion of an article edited by many editors about a prominent individual. And if you think that "partisan" people should not be editing the article, I presume that you will also be recusing yourself from it. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

At best, Nataev was not wrong in prodding the article once -- but he was certainly wrong in restoring the prod once it had been removed and in trying to insist that only an admin could determine its outcome. Not hard to see how this ANI section will turn out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would also suggest that this edit summary is a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, OK, he is a "prominent person"! I'm not willing to spend any more time discussing the article on this "prominent" juvenile who wrote an article about himself. Best, Nataev (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Juvenile"?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's a rather odd characterisation. According to the article, the person is in his 60s. That's not an age considered juvenile in probably 99.99% of the world. If the OP is calling the person 'juvenile' for reasons other than age, that's likely a BLP violation and/or a personal attack. Or does the OP not know what 'juvenile' means or did the OP either fail to read the article they kept trying to PROD? Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article subject and other editors

The edit summary linked above [93], shows Nataev referring to Golblum as an "idiot". There is now an edit on the talk page where Nataev refers to Goldblum as a "pseudo-scientist". In addition Nataev is attacking other editors, calling one of them "pathetic" and "a joke" [94]. I don't think this editor should be editing in this particular topic area and in fact should spend a brief period not editing at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nataev thinks he is entitled to his own opinion. He is pretty sure that only an idiot would write an article about himself on Wikipedia. He is not interested in "this particular topic" at all. He is just amused by Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Nataev called Goldbum himself "pathetic" and "a joke." Let's not forget that it is Goldbum himself who has written the article on Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

...and calling the subject of the article names would be a WP:BLP violation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Nataev didn't know that! You see, he is a new user! Well, not really, he is just kidding. But he is making progress. Goldbum has taught him to talk about himself in the third person. Nataev (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So, talking about yourself in 3rd person is ridiculous; calling an editor names is a violation of WP:NPA; calling the subject of an article names is a WP:BLP violation; creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb ... between the lot of you, you all need to go away and fix things. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with this: "creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb." So, a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb. That's my whole point! Seriously though, I don't want to spend any more time on this stupid matter. Nataev (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong and warped logic. Very smart people (PhD's for example) do stupid things all the time (like drive while drunk). To say "a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb" is, well, dumb. On Wikipedia we comment on edits, NEVER on the contributor - period. Nor do we ascribe traits the way you're trying to, because that's just plain dumb (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you for sharing with us your ingenious philosophy. You're indeed very smart. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Goldbum taught me new words like "lier", "vandalizer" and many others. You taught me to use the apostrophe when forming the plurals of capital letters used as nouns. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Offtopic comment about Bwilkins. Take to his talk page or file a new WP:ANI report on Bwilkins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BWilkins, you yourself keep commenting on the contributors. Just now you indirectly called Nataev "dumb", twice. (Faz o que eu digo, não faças o que eu faço.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC) It seems clear BWilkins is referring to the behaviour rather then the person. Perhaps not the best way to handle things, but they do have a point that there's been a lot of silly behaviour all around. In any case, this thread is likely best closed. The behaviour I've seen while poor does not rise to the level requiring admin attention (even more so since Nataev has said they intend to withdraw). As others have said, once the PROD has been removed, it can't be re-added, and there's no need for an admins involvement (well unless someone keeps trying to readd the PROD). Take if to AFD if needed although as also pointed out, whatever the merits of the article, you should have more than it being created by a user with a COI. And stop the personal attacks of BLP violations, or this will rise to a level requiring administrative attention. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Nil Einne, if I say that your "behavior" is (e.g.) immoral, then I am suggesting that you are immoral. It's just a simple logical step. You see, that is something BWilkins has done in the past, and keeps doing. As an admin, he should have learned to be more respectful by now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC) No. It is not a logical step; it is an assumption, which may or may not be baseless. Because we assume good faith, such an assumption is assumed to be baseless, and therefore in need of proof, if made at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Except that it wasn't "offtopic". See the title? "Personal attacks on article subject and other editors". (Sounds very on-topic to me.) Anyway, it seems that pointing out double standards is always very uncomfortable (for admins); Please revert this after you read it, Dennis, thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• This post by Nataev (which was deleted by a subsequent edit to ANI) and the others in this section do not suggest that Nataev intends to stop making personal attacks or to edit I/P related articles (particularly BLPs) with the appropriate attitude. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In that edit I clarified what I had written before. I have no idea why Robert McClenon deleted it. It's fine if with me if the Goldbum article is kept. It's not the end of the world. Goldbum is such a trivial person that not that many people read about him anyway. Nomoskedasticity, I have far more interesting and important things to do than discuss an article about some (personal attack again removed) scholar. Nataev (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So apparently it's not enough that Nataev wants to post personal attacks on BLP subjects on ANI itself. Someone else removed the phrase "obscure, semi-literate scholar" from the post immediately above (consistent with WP:TPO -- and Nataev then restored it. Again I suggest that there's no sign of improvement here, rather the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators: Please note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Administrator_instructions which helps you leave templates on users pages. If they ignore you evidently you can advance to tougher sanctions. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update. Black Kite blocked Nataev for two days and I have indefinitely topic banned him from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum under WP:BLPBAN. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops guess I spoke too soon, for the record I support both actions mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've declined the third unblock request from this editor, who has threatened to retire. I urged him to take some time off, but also to dive back into something non-BLP and non-drama. Obviously, the topic-ban remains in place, even as the block expires in a day or so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor has objected to my characterization of their comment as "threatening to retire". The editor indicated, in their unblock request, that they were considering retirement. I regret the error. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice regarding handling offensive user page

Please see the user page of St.HocusPocus (talk · contribs). I'm pretty certain that it is both offensive and out of line, but I wanted to ask for advice on how to handle this, what to cite, etc, as I haven't really addressed an issue like this before.

(I know ANI prerequisites are usually notifying the user, and trying to work it out beforehand, but I haven't done this because I figured this topic was more about me wanting advice on policy and enforcing it rather than needing actual intervention. I plan on handling it myself, outside of ANI, once I know what to say. If this is wrong, I'll gladly notify him though. Thanks!) Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to notify. Whether or not it was okay to come here before a direct approach, you have to notify the user now that you've started a discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing anything particularly actionable here. Can you point at which section of WP:UP#NOT you think it meets and why you think it needs "immdediate" intervention by a Administrator? It's relatively tame compared to some of the "It makes the eyes bleed" user pages I've seen. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think it was especially appropriate to be calling a group of people "self-righteous racists". It kind of goes against the entire second paragraph of what you just linked to, if you ask me. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:UP#POLEMIC. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, compared to some of the of the truly polemic comments and content and referring to it in such an oblique manner I personally (even though I'm not an admin) don't see anything actionable. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur. Compared to what I've seen pop up at MfD at times, this page is particularly meh... If you feel strongly that it should go, my advice would be to talk to the guy or nominate it for deletion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I guess I haven't seen any bad ones in my time here then. It stuck me as rather offensive, and not conducive to creating an encyclopedia. This certainly isn't my area of Admin expertise though. My approach probably would have been something along the lines of "Hey, people find this offensive, and its frowned upon per WP:UP#POLEMIC, so I was wondering if you would remove it." but it looks like thus far that's not in fact people's reaction to it, so I suppose I won't bother, unless someone says otherwise. At least I know what to cite for the future. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You find it offensive that I took offense at being called a "hilljack”? Really now, I'm 'out of line' for calling a 'goth' a racist for using a racist slur? But calling someone a ‘hilljack’ for liking a genre of music a ‘goth’ doesn’t like isn’t out of line?

Your views are warped, mate.

To clarify this, the term ‘hilljack’ didn’t offend me on a personal level, as I am not a southerner in any way shape or form. If I must clarify further, for the sake of this explanation, I am a white collar northerner who happens to be extremely liberal and socially progressive. What I found offensive was the self-righteous attitude of most self proclaimed ‘goths’ that I’ve had the displeasure of communicating with whether online or in real life…that they are somehow superior do to their taste in music and their taste in clothing.

The person in question who originally tossed the ‘hilljack’ term at me, was someone with a limited understanding of music, who was under the impression that the band “HIM” is a metal band, and who views anyone who listens to “metal” as a redneck, and because I added the band “HIM” to the “List of gothic rock bands” page (with a wealth of reliable sources to back it up) he/she got upset and couldn’t see past his/her self-perceived social superiority and called me a hilljack for it.

That was the issue. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't believe I've ever heard of the term "hilljack" before. It must not be something people say where I come from. I had no idea it was such an offensive word; without knowing the background, that sounded like it had all of the offensive edge of calling someone a "jerk face" or something. That being said, the point still stands. Its not like "two wrongs make a right". Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something? Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So you find my finding of somebody’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive? You’re not making sense. - What ‘still stands’? For one, this is really none of your business, though you’ve taken the liberty to make it yours, and unrightfully so.

“Its not like "two wrongs make a right".

This isn’t a moral objectivity lecture. Refer to the above paragraph. I am in no way, shape, or form ‘in the wrong’ for taking outspoken issue with stupidity.

“Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something?”

You can’t be serious. I don’t need a defense because there is nothing to defend. Do you honestly think you are putting me on the spot here by questioning my moral compass in an issue you have nothing to do with?

Again, refer to the first paragraph. You seriously take offense to my taking offense to someone’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive?

Your main goal here seems to be to make a mountain out of a molehill. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My problem is that your wording gives a blanket accusation for an entire group/subsection of people as racist. Your userpage says What wonderful people those “Goths” are, huh? Sad to say my real life encounters with these self-righteous racists haven’t been much different. Why you've chosen this to define your identity here is beyond me, but regardless, my problem is that you've chosen to label "Goths" as a whole as racist. (Full disclosure: I'm not a goth, don't know any, dont especially like goth music. I just figured that policies like Wikipedia is not a soapbox and no personal attacks would apply in situations like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and fully acknowledge that, yes, the text on my userpage is a generalization and that I've displayed a double standard here by 'being pissed' that someone would generalize all 'metal' listeners as rednecks, yet appear, by my wording, to generalize all 'goths' as racists. I realize this and will acknowledge the rules in the links you provided. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize, I did not mean for this to be such a big deal. I had originally intended only to get advice on how to talk to you, and then just talk to you privately about it, but I was instructed that, once I had mentioned you by name, I had to bring you into things. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Editor's Possibly Threatening Others over AfD

I have started a few AfD's on some non-notable pages. One of the editors of the page, who is the subject of the article himself took to one of the AfD discussions and issues at minimum a somewhat untoward remark and at most a threat. You can read the discussion here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undertow Music, specifically, "your attempted deletion is motivated by personal vendetta. looking forward to seeing your next show at bentley's" (Bentley's is a local establishment in Champaign). I thought admins should be aware that the discussion of that AfD has gotten heated due to the subject of the article being involved. Other related AfD's are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Andrews (artist manager) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard. Jamminjimmy (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no threat issued or implied against Jamminjimmy. I found out he is a local musician who plays somewhat regularly in my town. i enjoy music. It was nothing more than a friendly gesture hoping to diffuse the situation. But this user does not tell the whole story on why he is choosing to target these articles for AfD. User fails to mention that he has personal and legal issues with the subject of one of his AfD requests. He joined wiki the same day he lost a court case against the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard and began editing and then requested speedy deletion of that article. I disagreed and undid some of his previous edits. He then turned his attentions towards me and issued AfD request on the other two articles mentioned above. One of which I am the subject, the other is the record label where I work. He also opened a sockpuppet investigation against me that was closed after finding no abuse on my part. And now he is complaining about me here in this section. He's trying to harm my reputation because I disagreed with his edits. His only Wiki contribs are issuing these AfDs, the unfounded sockpuppet investigation against me and now the complaint here. Is vendetta the wrong word? Revenge? I'm not sure what else to call what he is doing here? If there's a better word or phrase for his actions I'd be happy to revise my comments. I don't know this person in real life. I never heard of him until all this wiki nonsense started and then I read about him on the local newspaper website. That's how I found out about the court case and his legal issues with the original subject of his wiki attentions. Should i post a link to that news story for context? i'm not sure of the policy on that. If you look at his contribs you'll find this user is clearly abusing wikipidea and using resources here to seek revenge. He should be banned or at least be blocked from editing the articles mentioned here. I would like no further contact or interactions with him. Please look at my wiki history going back to 2009. I have no previous conflicts or controversy until this user began harassing me a few days ago. Thanks for taking the time and I'm sorry you have to deal with stuff like this. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What you're looking for is conflict of interest. I'd be more interested in how a 5 day old account knows the meaning of speedy deletions, PRODs, SPIs, let alone raise them. Blackmane (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Something else he should be checking out is WP:OUTING. How many pages does Bob get to identify Jamminjimmy on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what is interesting is that the only "bothering" of Bob I can see here is asking for his page and company page for deletion via AfD as WP:AUTOBIO. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

bothering me by opening unfounded sockpuppet investigation against me, adding this frivolous complaint here, revenge AfD on articles only after i disagreed with his edits on the don gerard article. All of this is explained above. Noted that Hackwayinteresting is a new user and the only activity has been targeting these 3 articles and is now under SPI as being connected with Jamminjimmy Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

i didn't know what WP:OUTING was until i just read that link. i'm not that familiar with how wiki works on stuff like that. any sort of conflict like this is new to me. i'm not trying to make an excuse. thanks for pointing that out. now i know. i'd be happy to edit whatever i posted that's considered outing. i'm not trying to break the rules or cause this user harm. i just want this person to stop bothering me. It should be noted that his username is also the name he's known by around town. which leads me to believe he wants the people he's hassling to know it's him. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Hackwayinteresting is blocked for being sockpuppet of Jamminjimmy--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

An Jamminjimmy has been blocked for socking. So perhaps this is worth closing until there is a repeat performance? Blackmane (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

STEFF1995S/Innano1

WP:INVOLVED is certainly applicable enough here that I'm not going to proceed with a block without consensus. When I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013, I thought I was dealing with a routine case of a good-faith editor using a bad source.

As I have dug into it, though, I have found that Innano1 is actually evading one of my old blocks. He admits at User:Innano1 that he is a resurrection of STEF1995S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I blocked 28 Dec 2010. Innano1 simply picked up four days later. His use of bad charts has been better, with one notable exception: he has started a blog at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro/ (see http://www.blogger.com/profile/02260736934288394777 for the details of the blog owner: clearly the same person) where he creates his own version of a defunct chart and then uses it as a source in Wikipedia articles.

I'm inclined to reinstate his indefinite block, but am concerned that other might see that as vindictiveness on my part. Thus, I invite someone else to do the honors.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to invoke WP:SILENCE to say that no one finds this a case where my level of involvement would interfere. I'll give it a few hours, but if no one comments, I will proceed.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would be a good block. User admits to being a block-evading sock, has deliberately manipulated external links to try and keep their dodgy edits in place, and I don't see how WP:INVOLVED should stop you from blocking someone who is this clearly evading an existing indef (and has done so for two and a half years) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of objection, his block has been reinstated.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good job. I've added the sockpuppetry template to both users' user pages, hope that wasn't too bad a thing to do as a non-admin! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing by user:Casprings

user:Casprings Is canvassing editors in an RFC/U against me. While the audience is not completely biased, the tone of the message clearly is.

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U.Casprings (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings writes the messages in a very negative tone against me and in a manner that I should be topic banned. I believe this to be in retaliation to my objections to a FA submission of theirs. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings has been notified. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CANVASS is explicit that the wording must be absolutely neutral. I agree that this absolute requirement was not met in the many posts made, including non-neutral posts on ArbCom pages. In addition, the behavioural guideline states: More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. Collect (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Collect's excellent comments. This is, without question, a canvassing violation by Casprings. Ironically, Caspring's failed in his apparently clever attempt to word his message in a way that would prevent a canvassing complaint. Because here we are. Please take note of how he said, "You are invited to endorse this..." but did not invite the editors to oppose. Not to mention of course his preface of "There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban". Overall, his invitation - to about 20 editors, no less (see his May 12 contributions log between about 18:00 and 18:20) - was not even close to neutral and I feel that a sanction of some type is certainly warranted. For the record, I do not know Arzel or Casprings at all; I have never crossed paths with either of them in any articles or discussions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree that it is blatant canvassing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I directed a single statement to every person that was involved in the discussion on user:Arzel, which took place here. My audience was not picked by me and was the audience that took part in the discussion. The message is simply a summery of the events and the course of action of the arbitration committee.Casprings (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there some argument that the words "clear consensus" do not fully describe the results of the discussion on user:arzel? The number of editors involved that voted for a topic ban and the arguments provided, do provide a clear consensus of the opinion of those who took part in the discussion. Providing what is a fact is not non neutral. Casprings (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• For starters, you are drawing a conclusion and using it to persuade others to your point of view in your notification. That is a no-no for neutrality. " There was a clear community consensus..." etc. Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok. Notifications should only be saying what is taking place and where, not why you think it is needed, or how you interpreted the previous discussion. Save that for the RFC/U itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that this note about an RFCU violates the principle of neutrality, both the focus on a (supposedly) already established consensus for a topic ban and the invitation to endorse the filing. When I first saw the note on a user's talk page, I thought it was put there because Casprings wanted that particular user as a co-endorser (which I think would have been totally fine), but the note didn't appear neutral in any way, and shouldn't have been sent en masse to potential commenters. Iselilja (talk)
• Everything Dennis Brown said is right on the money. His comment, "Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok", was precisely what I thought when I read the message. Doing that would've resulted in this neutral version: "You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here." All the obvious attempts at persusasion in between were highly inappropriate. By doing that, Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started. Also, sending it to 20 editors is a separate problem. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• What Dennis Brown said. It's not your job to draw any conclusion. That act alone violates the neutrality requirement. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You all make good points and I accept that I could have worded that better. My apologies to user:Arzel. I should have took more effort in wording my statement. Casprings (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if that poisoned the well or not. It wasn't the worse violation by any means but it was a violation, and I can accept that it was a good faith mistake, but even good faith mistakes can have negative consequences. Not sure what the fix is here. While sanctions aren't necessary, there is some potential damage, and I'm assuming those notices are still on those talk pages. At the very least, I would expect you to go fix them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Same as the above with an extra emphasis on one point. An wp:an or wp:ani on a vague/general behavioral claim is just a place where anyone who is willing to do mob violence and who wants the person gone or on reduced editing can show up and deceive/mislead with immunity. The result is not by any stretch of the imagination "community consensus", doubly so when someone is overreaching and giving their personal view on the result. North8000 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Dennis... Casprings can try to reduce any potential damage by going back to the 20 editors he canvassed and either (1) edit the message for neutrality (as shown above), or (2) simply remove the message if it hasn't been replied to (or striking and explaining it, if it has). IMO, that would show his sincerity in fixing this problem and, as a result, put an end to this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have started, and will continue to work on it. Casprings (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Each message was either deleted or struck. Without any objection, I am going to post the following message on all the talk pages:

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.

That is a neutral statement that informs all parties of the WP:RFC/U. Any thoughts? Casprings (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I commend Casprings for accepting responsibility for his error and working hard to correct it as best he can. I see that he has gone back to the talk pages of all the editors he contacted and removed or struck, as needed. As far as Caspring's intention to go back and message all those editors again, I think it's a very bad idea. After everything we've been through with this issue, it's the last thing he should do. My suggestion is that he simply drop the issue and move on. He's done a great job of cleaning up the mess and I think he should just leave well enough alone. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to post as long as it is done to everyone who participated. Once out, it is hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube so the solution is always going to be less than optimal. All you can do is the best you can and learn from the mistake, just as all we can do is assume good faith based on your actions and willingness here. I appreciate the timely action with this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It sounds like a number of people are trying to derail an RFC/U where there would appear to be substantial content on which to comment based on an asserted violation of a peripheral procedural aspect to the filing.

It should be noted that out of 19 votes on the AN/I, 14 supported a topic ban with 5 opposed. So the metaphors about "poison" are just diversionary rhetoric.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your claim of diversion is bad faith and wrong. I didn't participate in that RFC and have nothing to gain. But I can see the blatant canvassing violation and the effect it has. Not only does the notice draw conclusions, it actually invites people to endorse his RFC/U. The implication is that if you aren't going to endorse it, you're not welcome. As I mentioned, I didn't participate in that RFC. I see other editors here that didn't, yet see the violation. You, on the other hand, did participate and voted against Arzel, then were quick to jump into the new RFC as well. Is it really a diversion, or do you just not like it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all, the suggestion relating to the RFC was made by Arbitrators during the ongoing TPm case. Since my interaction with Arzel is limited to the TPm, it might be objected that my endorsement based on that limited interaction is somewhat out of the scope of the suggestions relating to starting an RFC. The only issue with the notification by Caspring has been addressed by Dennis Brown in this thread, so the repeated cries of "poison" seem to represent a type of IDIDN'THEARTHAT and diverting attention from the main issue at hand of the RFC.

Most of us have been waiting for the decision of the Arbcom case before assessing what might be necessary subsequently, but in light of Casprings taking up the more widespread issues relating to Arzel's editing conduct in response to AGK's comment, it does not seem too far afield to pursue the RFC, which has generated a fair amount o interest already.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let me start be pointing out that I've not opposed the notion of a RFC itself. I've opposed this one running as is. Since this is already in the ARBCOM domain, I think that this RFC is not needed, but I wouldn't necessarily fight it. So to call my "repeated cries" of poison IDIDN'THEARTHAT is really not AGF. I'm addressing Caspring's conduct and the results of it specifically....and THAT is the topic of this thread, isn't it? As I mentioned on the RFC talk page, I find the urgency and hardline stance interesting. An editor made the statement that "anycase people dont get out of trouble for disruptive editing because someone else makes a procedural mistake". Well getting Azrel "in trouble" appears to be the real goal for that editor. Regardless, in the real world, actual criminals are set free over procedural error. In the real world, tampering with a jury pool can set a murderer free. But in Wikipedialand, apparently jury tampering can't even bring a mistrial. Curious indeed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure most of those editors hadn't even seen the message yet. I really feel that it would be better to let this matter rest now that Casprings has done such a good job of handling the problem. Why reignite the fire? But I'll defer to Dennis' judgement and experience if he disagrees. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and post the neutral message. I did learn that I must watch the neutral nature of these statements, not just post it to all that is involved. Again, thanks for bring the issues to my attention and doing so in such a logical manner. I appreciate everyone's input. Casprings (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Casprings, can you please wait to allow time for other editors to comment? It was only 40 minutes ago that you posted about your intent to re-message every editor. I don't see any need to rush. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I see that it's too late. Casprings posted here at 2:51 and then started his re-messaging blitz at 2:52. Ugh. I don't understand why you asked "Any thoughts?" if weren't going to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to respond. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry. Didn't see your message. That said, each editor now has a neutral message.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Will I saw that Dennis saw no issue and you deferred to his message. The other reason is that a WP:RFC/U has 48 hours until it closes, unless other users join. I made a mistake about sending it in an un-neatral manner, but those involved in the discussion needed the message ASAP. Casprings (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Going back and lining through it doesn't unring the bell. You got too over-eager to make your case and screwed up. Needed it ASAP? You mean you wanted it now, right? Those results you refer to sat for months inactive, why the hurry now? Wonderful that you accept that, but the better thing to do is stop pursuing this and, if it's as big an issue as you claim, someone else will start one and hopefully not poison the well the way you did. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Casrpings... yes, I agreed to defer to Dennis and was waiting for his reply. But he hasn't replied since I said that. And of course it didn't mean that other editors would have deferred to Dennis. And you started the RFC/U only 10 hrs ago, so there was absolutely no urgency. I honestly can't believe you re-messaged all those editors less than an hour after asking "Any thoughts?" here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Niteshift36. It's best to withdraw the RfC/U. You can't unring a bell. The ANI Casprings refers to became the current ArbCom case. But Casprings didn't comment at the ArbCom when he had the opportunity. Why bring this action now? And the canvassing has poisoned the well, as Niteshift36 has noted. Arzel would not get a fair hearing on this. It should be administratively closed. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• We now have two editors who agree with me that Casprings should drop the issue and move on. As I first said here about eight hours ago, "Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started." 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who received the original solicitation, I disagree that its content was sufficiently beguiling to warrant withdrawal of the associated request. Conversely, the tone of this very discussion is eerily reminiscent of those which have prompted such intervention in the first place.   — C M B J   08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removing them won't really help. I don't know about you, but I actually read edits made to my talk page. Even if you removed it, I'd still see it and the poison tree still exists. As for whatever this conversation reminds you of, I wasn't involved in any of those, so I'll presume you aren't making some blanket statement that includes me. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to work to make the RFC/U's opening statements as neutral as possible. Despite my admitted mistake of not watching the wording of my first statement, it still went to a controlled audience, the members who took part in the first discussion. Since those members already have some degree of knowledge of this, I disagree that the "bell cannot be unrung" and so forth. If there was damage done, it was relatively minor. I made a good faith error, which I am sorry about. However, I see no argument that my message, either first or second, will change the mind or taint the views of the audience it was sent to. I would argue that the RFC/U should be allowed to continue. There are issues there, at least in my view and the view of others, and those issues should be allowed to be explored. RFC/U is the best tool to explore the possible problems and shutting down the RFC/U only concerns to ignore the concerns of 14 editors who saw a problem. Casprings (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I struck my endorsement of the RFC/U and supported it being closed. Again, I am sorry for the mistake of creating a non-neutral statement to start this process off.Casprings (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Casprings made mistakes here but acknowledged and addressed them in a very friendly and cooperative manner. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Time to close? Since Casprings has not only acknowledged his errors, but I think learned a lot in the process, I agree that this should be closed. The RFC/U itself is closed. Perhaps an uninvolved admin will take care of this. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Time to close Agreed. Yes, the RfC/U complaint was withdrawn and therefore closed. Time to move on. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over NPOV tag on Narendra Modi

This article has been subject to aggressive editing by tenacious editors over the past few months. At this point of time, there is an ongoing edit-war over whether the article should continue to retain a {{POV}} template on the top of the page. The discussion over the use of template on the article page, which is only supposed to be used as a measure of last resort, can be found here. This probably needs attention of an uninvolved party due to hostile revert-warring by an editor with biased views. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus has gone ahead and posted notification messages on several discussion pages (regardless of their relevance) soliciting comments on a half-baked RfC that they have initiated on Talk:Narendra Modi. Obviously, the tone of their messaging amounts to canvassing, specially after their post on the Wikiproject on Pakistani politics discussion page. A list of these pages and the textual content is available below:

RFC on Nautrality at Narendra Modi
"Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral."

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics (Not sure why this is relevant for this article?)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gujarat
• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a current thread about this article at BLP/N, which is where it should be discussed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread is mainly about aggressive behaviour of an established user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan is presumably relevant because this relates to a Hindu-Muslim issue. comments made by Modi regarding Afzal Guru, Modi being a Hindu nationalist and so forth. I probably would not have mentioned it there but, hey, more eyes for a RfC is surely not a bad thing? It is mentioned at WT:INB also, after all, by the same person. You, NHN, have accused me of ganging-up but your focus here appears to be Maunus. Feel free to add me to your list of "tenacious editors". Good luck with that: I have been trying to develop the article, including via initiation of numerous threads at Talk:Narendra Modi. I'm not always right, of course, but any article about any high-profile politician, especially one in India or Pakistan, is almost certain to attract POV. My interactions with Maunus are minimal, as they are with others who tend to get involved in modern-day issues of this sort, yet you suspect "ganging up" and "aggression" even when an issue is still shown as unarchived at WP:BLPN and there is a recent prior thread on the talk page.

I am not suggesting that you have a bias but I do think that you have taken your eye of the ball. I've done that and, hey, it happens but in the interval while you claim to have been watching there have been massive removals of arguably non-favourable content - mostly by Yogesh Khandke - that went undiscussed, was often reinstated by others (not me), and there was not a peep out of you. So, how long has your eye been off this particular ball? The RfC is A Good Thing. Maunus suggested it and I agreed. Later, much later, you said the same thing today. So what is your problem here? - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to make the point, and with no knowledge of NHN's real life or other contributions to Wikipedia, this series of edits took place on 18 April. NHN's last prior edit was 10 April and their next subsequent contribution was 12 May. A fair amount of what was removed in that block was reinstated in one form or another and I can't recall that I did any of that. Yet I am accused of ganging up? There is clearly a lot of contention here and, alas, I've never yet seen an opening statement for a RfC that I felt comfortably covered all of the bases. This one is no different but, hopefully, all will come out in the wash. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I applaud taking the issue to ANI, hopefully this can draw attention to the page from other editors than the clique of pro-Modi editors who have clearly had control of the page for a long time since I accidentally stumbled on it about a month ago. In contrast to editors like Headless Nick, and his companions at the talkpage I do not have a history of editing indian political topics, but simply stumbled on a biographic article that was so blatantly hagiographic that I started looking up the literature to provide some counterbalance. This page and others on hindu nationalist politics need acute attention from as many experienced editors as possible which is why I started the RfC and why I advertised it as widely as possible (which is clearly not canvassing under any definition of the term, and which is also not nonneutrally worded). As soon as other editors start chipping in I am fully content to leave that topic area, and let other editors form a consensus. But as long as it is maintained by a group of editors who appears to act as an extension of Modis own Public relations team, then someone will have to provide some balance. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

While I have in the past seen massive edit warring over obscure facts, this is the first time I'm seeing it happen due to a tag. Reinstating the tag by Maunus seems a bit childish to me, a lot like trolling. Clear consensus must first be established on this matter before we put up the tag. As I stated last night, the tag is being misused. Just because the tag exists, and several sections of the article are allegedly tilted for or against the subject, there is no reason why tag exists. Seems more like a case of 'The tag exists and there therefore must be inserted into the article'. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Puting the notices on the notice boards, especially the way it was worded Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral was to sensationalise the whole thing. Sitush, note that Afzal Guru was an Indian citizen, puting the tag on the pakistan politics notice board especially with such wording is clear mischief .-sarvajna (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline on canvassing explicitly states that the wording of the messaging should be neutral. Maunus, a former administrator who recently resigned "under a cloud", does not appear to care for such trivial guidelines on the encyclopedia and employs aggressive tactics into dominating and bullying other users. This effectively poisons the atmosphere and rules out any chance for productive discussions and dispute resolution. The behavioural guideline further states: "More importantly, recruiting too many editors for dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember, the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it." Maunus's bad faith editing is laid bare by their employment of biased wording and posting of messages canvassing involvement in the dispute on pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics which is not relevant for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording is neutral and this is not canvass. If you repeat the accusation of canvassing then I hope you will back up the accustation with action so that a real admin can come a long and tell you what is and isnt canvassing. Also your accusations of bad faithy are becoming pretty intolerable. From my very first edit to Modis article which you reverted (using twinkle! with no edit summary) you have been casting aspersions about my motives.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The evidence has been documented above. You will also need to read WP:TALK to understand why it's not polite to double indent the comments you post. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps. As I said, I would likely not have mentioned the RfC at the Pakistan project & I've never yet seen a well-formed RfC, although Afzal Guru was convicted and executed by India as a collaborator of Pakistani jihadists. I cannot read the mind of Maunus and was merely speculating as to why they did what they did. Perhaps I should not but when I am seemingly among those being accused of ganging-up by an admin who even after coming here seems note to have read recent discussions, well, ... some attempt to balance things out seems reasonable. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How is Narendra Modi connected with Afzal Guru? Because he made some comments on the Congress government in relation to his treatment? Would that mean that everytime Manmohan Singh says something about an Indian national who has Russian collaborators, every dispute on his biography must be referred to the Wikiproject on Russian politics? Stop wikilawyering and read up WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have made unfounded accusations against me. You certainly have not been following the article development and talk page particularly well. That is your problem and it just happens that the manner in which you have failed to do this is working out to be favourable to Modi and his extremely effective PR machine (not my POV: his effectiveness as a political communicator is well-documented). I doubt that it is deliberate on your part but while I would not have done things in the way that Maunus has, I can understand the frustration that might arise in this situation and I note that the terms that Maunus used are ones that are commonly applied to Modi. Running here crying "foul" when you are clearly not completely au fait with what has been going on - the open BLPN thread, for example - might be ok in strict policy terms but the fault may not all be on one side here. You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV and hassling at least one person (ie: me) who has been working hard to improve things in an almost peer-review manner while generally sitting on the fence when it comes to the issues surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots and how we depict Modi's cult of personality or whatever it is perceived to be. I, too, sometimes fail to handle things well but at least I acknowledge it. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you have changed the thread of the discussion from Afzal Guru/Pakistani politics Wikiproject to Narendra Modi's PR machinery. How is the chatter about his PR machinery relevant here? Your actions and words denote that you seem to be holding some strong opinions about the individual, which in by itself is not wrong, however to keep bringing up the same subject out of context over and over again and claiming that the person is so controversial that his article shall remain controversial forever does not really help the encyclopedia or contribute to the further development of the aticle. In the past month you have labelled the subject of the article as an "arch-manipulator", while also claiming that most other politicians are as well. How in the world is that even relevant for discussion on an article talk page? By extension of your logic, shouldn't the PR machinery of these other unnamed politicians be working against the subject of the article? More importantly, please drop the passive-aggressive attitude by trying to sideline discussions on the actual problem with behaviour of users on the article. Only recently you accused another editor of making "Modi-apparatchik type of edits". Are you trying to claim that the other editor is a paid agent of the Gujarat government? Do you think similar accusations can be made against you given your previous comments on Narendra Modi?

Frankly, this discussion has been rather exasperating and I am going to take a step back and do my own research on the article. You are welcome to do the same. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything against you on the ANI, I wonder who is making accusations against whom, let us not getting into how effective one's PR machine is neither ANI nor wikipedia should be bothered about that.You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV Are you saying that the edit-waring of Maunus should be ignored? You seems to be more interested in protecting Maunus here, I agree that recently you have not gone into content disputes and the other clean up work that you are doing is surerly appreciated. There are more than one editor and many were not involved in the article like me since past felt that the tag was not required but Maunus seems to think other way. Do not consider yourself a sole torch bearer of NPOV. -sarvajna (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have provided links to the various accusations above. The timing and the wording obviously relate to me as much as to Maunus. Someone has not done their homework here before spraying around accusations of tenacious editing, POV and ganging-up. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Given the substantial amount of accusations leveled against me here from editwarring to canvassing, "ganging up" and "mischief", I would like to ask what administrative action is being sought in this thread?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• If someone adds a neutrality tag and provides evidence on the talk page, then you need consensus for its removal. I see an RfC in progress so we should just let that run and close this discussion before somebody says something they're going to regret later. I'd do it myself but .... --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have really cared to see the RFC does not give any reason or evidence about why the article is not neutral, rather it asks a question "is the article neutral" so we are not sure. Having NPOV tag and giving the current RfC as the reason is meaningless.-sarvajna (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sarvajna, but flogging this on ANI is a losing approach. It would have been better to have focused your energies on modifying the RfC (because what is or is not neutral is a good question to ask) than to try to give this affair a behavioral flavor by bringing it up on ANI (I know, you didn't bring it up). I suggest you go back to the talk page (where, imo, your point is actually a good one) and deal with the issue there.--regentspark (comment) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User claiming to be the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party wanting to remove article.

User:Kehlstein, who in an edit summary claims to be Stephen Goodson, the leader of the party, is repeatedly removing sourced controversial/negative material from the article, and requesting/demanding that it be removed. To me the material seems properly sourced but I would appreciate if an administrator took a look at it, and also decided what to do to Kehlstein/Goodson. "User:Kehlstein" is a single-purpose account that has only ever edited Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party and Stephen Goodson, meaning that there's a COI too, and has been given a final warning for repeatedly deleting the material. Thomas.W (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, they've been given a final warning and haven't blanked since. Shirt58, operating under the alias "Peter", has left them a note; let's see how that goes. If they return to Goodson, that article should probably be tagged; if they return to that party article and edit like they did before, they should be blocked indefinitely. Also, good luck to you, South Africa. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That should actually be "Peter, operating under the alias 'Shirt58' "... Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A new user, Paardekraal, has just popped up and edited Stephen Goodson, in effect identifying himself as Stephen Goodson in the edit summary of one of his edits to the article. I have reverted his edits, issued a {{uw-coi}} to Paardekraal and tagged the article with Template:COI. But that's as far as I'll go, so from now on it's your problem. Thomas.W (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kehlstein filed with CU request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Kehlstein and Paardekraal have been confirmed to be one and the same in the SPI. Confirming that Stephen Goodson has been abusing multiple accounts while trying to remove (well sourced) negative info about himself. So I guess an indef block on User:Kehlstein would be logical, and well deserved. Thomas.W (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary at Stephen Goodson

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

User:Paardekraal, who self-identifies as the subject of this WP:BLP [95], has posted an obvious legal threat in a recent edit summary [96]. User is notified. [97] - Sperril (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely BLP territory, so I would ask where is the source showing the article subject is a holocaust denial. The legal threat is a separate issue but we need to iron out both. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a cursory examination and the relevant sections of the article and they appear to me to be well-sourced, but I would certainly welcome further review. I have never edited this article and have no idea who this person is. I found the legal threat while patrolling the contributions of new accounts. Sperril (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article is well-sourced. I also listened to the interview on youtube, and, if anything, the sources understate his anti-semitic views.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to be able to source exactly the extent of his views. The holocause is a big lie is well sourced, but has he ever stated he admired Hitler? I was trying to find that part. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to say "admiration for Hitler's policies" [98].--I am One of Many (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)]

Regarding the legal threat, I have given Paardekraal a standard-issue NLT block. Haven't looked into the verifiability or otherwise of the holocaust denial claim. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by this edit summary User:Kehlstein is also Stephen Goodson (in the edit summary Kehlstein identifies himself as the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, that is Stephen Goodson). Kehlstein has been used for deleting controversies and negative info about Goodson from the article about the party (see current discussion here at ANI). Thomas.W (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Kehlstein and Paardekraal have been confirmed to be one and the same in this SPI. Confirming that Stephen Goodson has been abusing multiple accounts while trying to remove (well sourced) negative info about himself. Thomas.W (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Pacific (TV miniseries) edit war

The situation at The Pacific (TV miniseries) is getting out of control, and requires the intervention of other editors and administrators. As I am involved in the dispute, I will try to give as complete an accounting of what has happened as possible, acknowledging that I am, in part, to blame for the edit war.

Niemti made a series of bold changes to the article, but offered no edit summaries or explanation for the changes he made. I reverted, stating in my edit summary: "Such an extensive rewrite and rearrangement of the article requires an explanation; discuss on talk." I then posted on the talk page, stating that I did not find the edits helpful and hoping that we could discuss the matter.

Niemti did not respond until the next day, posting a series of messages, in which, instead of showing a willingness to discuss the issues, he stated that they "totally obvious for anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a while" and questioning if I understood the meaning of the word "synopsis". He then reverted to his preferred version of the article. I responded to his talk page post, stating that his attitude was not helpful, and citing WP:BRD, I reverted his changes again.

Fearing the situation was getting out of control, I posted a message on PresN's talk page, asking him to keep an eye on the discussion. PresN never responded, but Niemti did, posting a series of messages in which, frankly, the sarcasm and attitude get even worse, and in which he admits to canvassing to get an uninvolved editor --- "I just informed JTBX (who had such problems with this user before) about this discussion, so he can tell more, hopefully leading to some action regarding this problem (it's about time)." --- to join in the fight.

Today, he reverted again and I reverted back, which I think puts us both at WP:3RR.

What I would like to see happen here is for other editors to join in the discussion, for Niemti to curb his attitude, and for us to move forward in improving the article. The latter may only be able to happen if Niemti and I stay on the sidelines. The atmosphere now is so combative, I am not sure we can work together at all. But, the situation cannot be allowed to continue. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is a bold choice for Niemti, who has just narrowly avoided being banned more than once due to civility and OWN issues. He's on extremely this ice and is well aware. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite is owning basically every article he's watching, reverting any kind of edits (I wasn't even inseting literally anything, all of it was just basic copyedit of a badly written article) unless the edits are explained to him for a reviev and accepted by him, which he calls "consensus", in a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. He does completely unilaterally, without explaining his problems (at all, instead simply claiming that "none of those changes seemed necessary or helpful" without elaborating) and he does also even in violation of 3 reverts rule ([99][100][101]). This need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're not following WP:BRD? Or waiting until there's a consensus on the talk page before reinstating your information? Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" with what, with whom? Do you call "consensus" a supposed necessity for getting an approval for performing even a simple copyedit work from someone who thinks he owns articles (plural, as in multiple articles, LOTS of them) on Wikipedia, and so he needs to review everything before any change can happen? copyedited literally thousands of articles, I don't remember having problems with aquiring "consensus" for that from anyone else. --Niemti (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, with sources or consensus, if someone is challenging it, then your answer is yes, it is necessary. (Excluding bad faith trolling type stuff, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Consensus for having a badly written article? Consensus for my edits being in fact "necessary or helpful", while it wasn't even said why he thought they were not (and all of them)? That's ownership and demands for edits to be explained, reviewed by him and then (maybe) approved, which is discussed in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (and which needs to be stopped). And once again - its's not just about me or this article. --Niemti (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for your proposed changes. Quite frankly, upon looking further, both of you are acting unreasonable. One of you demands and explanation for the changes, without stating why he needs it, (Jacobite) while the other refuses to give an explanation, when it would just be easier to explain why you made the actual changes (Niemti). Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it's not just about this article or me, it's about his ownership of multiple articles and behaving like that in regards to other editors as well. Also, as for "and OWN issues" - it was regarding the user who is now banned precisely for literally screwing up articles[102] (I was right about him all the time), a completely different situation as you see. --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but part of it is about this article, and you avoiding a real response on that is exactly what I'm talking about here. Neither one of you are discussing the heart of the problem, you're both just barking out vague questions to the other one, and then just responding with more questions. One asks "Why no edit summary?" and the other just asks "Why do I need one?". If you guys would start answering each others questions maybe you'd get somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries are optional, while ownership of articles (and it's not about just this one) is not allowed and is the real problem here. It's hard to say how much damage he did with indiscriminately/whimisicaly reverting people's edits like that, apparently for a long time (years?). --Niemti (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point, edit summaries were just an example. My point is that one of you asks "Why did you do that?" while the other just asks back "Why did you do that?" Both of you need to explain your edits to one another on the talk page. You're both too busy cooking up another "zinger" to discuss anything of substance. Beyond that, you haven't given any proof of this huge, multi-year/article spanning OWN conspiracy you keep referring to. You gave a single dif showing one other time you disagreed with him. You're going to need more proof before people start listening to that, otherwise there's not much to discuss yet there... Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's because I know this guy, and I decided to not play his game (someone got to make a stand, and I'm glad it went here). Okay. Happy now? Now, the "OWN conspiracy" (at least 215 reverts out of 500 last edits). --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I need to run out the door, but two quick points- 1, I would not describe a back-and-forth with 1 revert on one side and two on the other as an "edit war", and 2, the canvass accusation is a bit rich seeing as it was quite clear that you only contacted me vs any other admin because you thought I would take the not-Niemti side in any argument. --PresN 16:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

2 reverts on my side (plus edits), 3 on his. --Niemti (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Although Niemti does have a fairly abrasive approach to people sometimes and that has gotten him into a lot of hot water. In this case, his edits did indeed expand the article. Sure, edit summaries would have helped but aren't required and wholesale reverting the, what I think are, constructive changes to the article was not the way to go about it. Quite frankly, the article should be reverted back to the version post-Niemti's changes and a discussion kicked off on the talk page rather than going the classical BRD route since there was nothing untoward in Niemti's edits. Blackmane (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not enough. He needs to cease ownership on ALL articles. As I said, that many, many articles where he constantly blocks attempts by other editors to improve them, demanding "consensus" with him, and calling his versions "the stable version" ("stable", because he reverts back to it). I don't think I even have to say how harmful this is, and it needs to stop right now. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you show some difs for this? Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

[103] and the discussion above it (JTBX can tell you more about it). Also notice how he never even responded (and so his "stable versions" remains). Apparently, Gareth Griffith-Jones is also in it. I'm pretty sure just glancing over their edit history might reveal lots of it. (I can also recall his semi-automatic revert of my cleanup-rewrite of one of Clint Eastwood-starring spaghetti westerns.) --Niemti (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that their names have been mentioned, I've left a notification on JTBX and Gareth Griffith Jones. Blackmane (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This film was A Fistful of Dollars (Sargecross wanted me to find it, so I did). --Niemti (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Some other examples of untold damage done by The Old Jacobite to Wikipedia:

• The writing is horrible. Portions of sentences like "tries more and more drastically" give the appearance that this was written by a middle school student on lunch break. RepublicanJacobite, from the edit history and talk page, you seem to have longstanding WP:OWNership issues with this article. That wouldn't be so bad if the writing weren't quite so dreadful. My edits improve the quality of the writing. BRD is an essay, not a policy, and not an excuse to block people from improving your favorite articles or changing them from your preferred version. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that this artice is in need of clean up, however, any edits done to improve the article are being reverted and at many times without cause. For example, any edits explcitly stating that William Wallace did not have an affair with Isabella of France are often reverted along with any edits that explicitly state that Edward III was not the son of Wallace. Instead, the article has a vague passage that Isabella was 3 years old at the time leaving the reader to infer that that an affair could not have happened without clear indication that the two were never involved even later in life. There is no reason for such a run around. This [this], [this], and [this] are just a few examples of this. In fact, even adding the fact this was historically inaccurate was a point of tension with the first mention of it being reverted without good cause despite its factual accuracy as seen [here]. Additionally, this article contains certain statements which seem bold to state without any reliable sources to back them up. An example is that the article makes the connection that the Stone of Destiny was returned to Scotland as a result of this film. A citation is going to be needed for this claim. Additionally, for some reason Anglophobia has its own section despite it's light content and even though there a cultural effects section where it could be merged into. I'm afraid it looks like two editors have taken strict ownership of this article based on edit history and WP:DR will be the next step if such reverts continue without valid explanations. TheLou75 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) (the other self-proclaimed owner in question: Erik)

• Mr. T.O.J., I tend to disagree with what your saying. This particular article is not a "collaborative project". If it were, you would allow me to edit without reverting my changes giving no plausible explanation. Aside from one section, the Awards section, you haven't compromised on any of my changes. You constantly ignore everything I've been saying. If anything, I've been the only one making compromises so far accomodating a portion of your selected complaints. Your also not making any effort to review the content that I put forth. It doesn't take that long to view a few small sections of improvement. I'm not asking to you to review a novel. You are exhibiting clear ownership qualities in relation to this page. A portion of what your saying is also incorrect. There hasn't been "multiple editors" who disagree with my changes. Its been entirely you and another editor who neither seem to have their facts straight after being proven wrong. I've been more than patient waiting for your response to the improvements. You have yet to do so. Do you have anything helpful to add or say to the points and issues above that I mentioned? Or do you want to keep on ignoring what I have to say, and continue doing nothing? Your not cooperating. Moovi (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And so on. --Niemti (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, while we understand you feel strongly about these matters, some recent issues have given plenty of editors reason to drag you to ANI and other places for slight or moderate civility concerns. I endorse bringing any content disputes to DRN in the future for the simple reason of opening it up to new eyes and documenting cases in which can prove your patience and dedication in future problems. Niemti, you do acknowledge your short temper, but it would be in everyone's best interest to get a centralized mediation on any issues concerning your editing for the time being. We want to help, but if you are not being calm and remaining civil then the community is going to ostracize you and you will be perpetually skating on thin ice. You do good work, but I think you need to remove yourself from conflicts and substitute in other editors when your changes are contested. I frequent DRN now and it is a smooth if albeit slow process. In order to prevent yourself from being blocked over your questionable and sometimes hostile responses, I think a little 'editor incubation' needs to occur and your arguments and defense of those edits need to be made by proxy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a condition of participation in Wikipedia that editors be willing to discuss edits and collaborate in a constructive manner on improvements and changes and fixes.

BOTH EDITORS here need to remember this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Both"? Like it's only about me? How many more examples of "Mr. T.O.J." owning various film/series articles and blocking other editors' work do you want me to provide? Because I can do it. --Niemti (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't, "Mr. T.O.J." did. I use this occasion to highlight the enormous damage that he did to a large number of Wikipedia film-related articles (blocking many people from working on and improving the articles). --Niemti (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright then!

• Well, I beg to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's assertion of article ownership with mass reverts. He didn't think someone would one day challenge his monopoly-type authority. He basically came in there, sort of did a whole bunch of mass reverts, giving unplausible reasons for doing so, and being proved wrong on virtually every count. He's attempted to use false reasoning as a poor excuse for being opinionated. The DVD version of the film can be used as a reference as has been done so in FA nominated articles like American Beauty. The overuse of images is complete nonsense. He was upset that an image for example, appeared in the Plot section. There's no Film Project rule that says you can't have a photo in that section to illustrate a character relationship. Other FA articles have had them in the past. All the photos include complete usage rationales. As an example, a similar photo/rationale is present on the Avatar film page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg Yet it wasn't deleted. User Erik has decided to jump on Republican's bandwagon and sort of give an unplausible explanation for removing the pics saying they were not "compelling enough" reasons. User Erik is simply giving a double standard. I've placed the correct rationales: low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. I'm considering reverting that edit. Its completely unjustified. The friendship piece with Glenn and Costner details a character development relationship that occured during the filming of Silverado. It needs an expansion. Does that mean that this particular piece should be deleted in the meantime? I mentioned already the issue of the Blu-ray/DVD info regarding Amazon on the talk page. The reference is not being used for reasons of spam. It was used for one precise point: to note a particular release date. Websites like Amazon or Barnes & Noble are not user edited. Again, I don't believe there is a Film Project rule that asserts you can't use an ecommerce site just to simply reference a release date. And if I might add, Alien vs. Predator, another FA article does reference Amazon for a piece of content too. Cite number 39. DeWaine (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly, I am surprised, Andy, that you did not trot out your old "article ownership" accusation, as you seem to do every single time we have any interaction. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) (Andy = Andy Dingley, another user who was repeatedly being blocked by "Mr. T.O.J.", back then posting as RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive)

That's seven different users (me, JTBX, Balph Eubank, TheLou75, Moovi, DeWaine, Andy Dingley) in at least eight different articles, but the very some problem. Enough already for admins to stop ignoring it, or talking about us "both"? Or how many more examples I need to give you to get up and act, after this has continued for a long time? (I wonder, how many people got their edits summarily reverted and didn't even know?) --Niemti (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why RFC/U exists. Your tone and conduct show little civility and a clear frustration with the user, but responding in kind is liable to get you punished because most of us are more familiar with your actions then Jacobite's at this point. When deciding between two wrongs, who do you think is going to get off easier? No one? The quiet one or the loud one? I don't know, but you should seriously consider your tone in your responses. Even now it sounds like you are blaming admins for not being proactive with a situation that were unaware of. 7 editors having a problem with Jacobite's alleged OWN is exactly what RFC/U is for. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, one can be a nearly complete asshole on Wikipedia for many, many years before anything is done about it. The keyword here is nearly and it translates as extreme rudeness but avoiding extreme incivility. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to be off topic, but 5.12.68.204 is blocked for ban evasion. No link to who it is, but should it be collapsed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So how can I get you more familiar with this huge amount of damage to Wikipedia? How long would I keep quoting the various other people saying the same thing, before it stop being seen as only between "us both", as it was only my edits in one article being reverted for no reason? I think the situation is just extremely serious, and actually much worse than I originally thought. It's just too bad it's seemingly only me who thinks so (here and now). --Niemti (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Also it's not just "7 editors", it was just 7 of my examples (random ones). That's a world of difference, you know? I could list many more people who were reverted like that for no good (or simply just no) reason and somehow didn't like it too. That was just a few examples, because at one moment it was thought here like it was just about mey edits and in one article (while even I've got reverted like that by him in more than one article), or maybe just me and JTBX (and JTBX who was called over here can take it over from me, because now yes, I'm just frustrated, I excepted to see a launch of substantial effort to repair at least some of the damage done, maybe by estabilishing and contacting all the wronged users and encouraging them to now go back and restore their edits, and turns out it's nothing there even "actionable" at all). --Niemti (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment That's quite the laundry list of offenses you have there, Niemti. Regarding the discussion, I think everyone can agree that your edit was sound. Your civility toward Jacobite, however, was not entirely sound. That being said, I see nothing actionable for either side. Laundry lists like this tend to generate more heat than light. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? So this "laundry list" is still not enough for it be "actionable"? It just doesn't matter how many (I don't know how many, but I have a very good reason to believe it was LOTS) constructive edits were lost because of that - the work of people who didn't even know they were reverted (and they were reverted little to NO reason), people who thought it's not worth it to fight for their good edits to be approved by a self-appointed owner of many articles (I don't know how many, maybe very many), people who still fought (and I quoted the people who fought) but lost (and I've seen it too)? How many articles are kept in a bad state only because of that - not because people didn't try, and didn't work on them, sometimes the best, but because they were simply not allowed (contrary to the idea of "anyone can edit" and the anti-ownership rules), and all their work was destroyed! And you still refuse to do anything about it? I must say it's quite...surprising. I excepted something else. But, well. I can't say I didn't bring it to public attention. Now it's all your ball, I did my part and I'm out (but severely disappointed). --Niemti (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I'd be a lot more motivated to assist you if you weren't so condescending and abrasive every step of the way. We're all volunteers here; why help someone who is so difficult themselves? You've been accused of OWN issues a ton in your time here, and you refuse to address anything said about you, you just point the finger and anyone/everyone else - every single time. Life's too short to assist angry people who wouldn't appreciate my efforts anyway. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No I wasn't (unless by this guy, and now you too know this guy). Anyway I provided a plenty of leads to investigate (into something potentially very serious, or at least relatively, one might not call anything on Wikipedia a serious matter), and so my role ends here. (But you can call me if it's needed to give even more examples.) --Niemti (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not seriously denying the fact that you've been accused of WP:OWN issues in the past, right? Because it was one of the central issues brought up in your recent RFC/U. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Which was about AnddoX being AnddoX. How's your own experience with AnddoX? Please tell me, I wonder. --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you even check the links? Did you really think I wouldn't? Per your RFC/U: An IP, not Andox. Masem, not Anndox, Birdies, not Anndox. Etc etc. Come on, stop the misdirections.... Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you "stop the misdirections". OK? And now I'm really done, and I hope someone will take this seriously, as it should be, and act on it in a proper manner. Out. --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be misdirection, it was an explanation in response to your "outrage" how no one's really listening to you here. No one wants to waste their time helping out someone who is difficult and condescending every step of the way, and has been accused of doing the same exact thing (ownership issues) in the recent past. Feel free to continue to be bewildered and "severly disappointed" with Wikpedia, but the truth is that you keep shooting yourself in the foot by the way you act and treat others. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you would ever understand it's not about "helping out" me, but about the others who were and still are being artitrarily blocked from editing by him for no valid reason - which I thought I made clear again and again. (And no, no one has ever accused me "the same exact thing (ownership issues)" on any talk page like that, as far as I rememeber. But hey, keep on misdirecting.) --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U is that way. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sol1

I've just blocked new account User:Sol1, and I'd be happy for my action to be checked here - and for some other eyes on the issue, as I need to head off shortly. Sol1 has been making rapid-fire changes to Wikipedia's use of the names of well-known scientists etc. I first saw changes of the use of Galileo's name to use either his full name of "Galileo Galilei" or just the surname "Galilei" - [104], [105] and more. On further checking, I saw Sol1 is rapidly changing lots of uses of famous scientists historical figures' names to use their full names - "Goethe" to "Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" - [106], Kepler, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger to full names - [107] etc. And there are lots more - see Special:Contributions/Sol1 I left a couple of messages pointing out that we use common names and that he needs to talk if he wishes to make such wide-ranging changes, but I got no response and he was continuing at a fast pace. So I've issued a block to stop him and get his attention. So, can I please request the following?

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

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

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

FYI the minor flag is automatically added for page moves. None of these were, and I really see nothing wrong with deciding that is better to remove a redirect, and that is certainly a minor edit – reverting this edit,[108] done by above user, was absurd. Galileo has been a redirect to the scientist's full name since 12 September 2011‎. Goethe has been a redirect to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe since 9 September 2008. I would suggest unblocking, with an apology. Apteva (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Both of you are admins and are making edits like this one?[109] Apteva (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged out bot?

I think the RfC notification bot is currently editing while logged out; see [[110]]. Is that an error, or am I misunderstanding something? If I understand the instructions on that User talk:2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8, I'm supposed to softblock it to force the bot to log in. But I don't want to mess something up by doing so, so I thought I should ask here first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Apology

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

---

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

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

My reading of BLP seems to be at odds with that of some other editors on Wikipedia, but some of the editors most vocal about my understanding have been roundly criticized for their explanations of their understanding of BLP: [111]. I believe strongly that in all places (not just WP) people should not have negative things written about them unless it can be very well sourced and couched in appropriate language and that all people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We also need to be very careful to accurately reflect subject's views and what they say. Misrepresenting a person's views (in an article, or those of another editor) is never a good idea. To the extent that I have not followed BLP as understood by most Wikipedians, I apologize.

For my further education, does anyone want to opinion on this edit [112]and this edit [113]. Is this how we improve articles? Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for a DUCK block of User:Jayakrishnan.ks101

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

---

Can we get a quick DUCK block of

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

as a sock of blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinated vandals at Eugene V Debs

Eugene V. Debs is being repeatly vandalized by three editors (history here [114]). The edits of User:Elijah morton, User:PDavis Million and User:24.117.180.113 are similar and happen close together. I can't keep up with them. Please help. Howicus (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Legal Threat at Talk:Susan_L._Burke

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

---

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

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

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

Use of RevisionDelete on The Name of the Doctor

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problematic IP editor persistently adding incorrect information to articles

Over the last few weeks, IP user 2.219.140.198 (talk) has been persistently putting incorrect information into articles. In most cases, this has involved the annual passenger usage figures included in the infoboxes in British railway station articles. Station usage data is published by the ORR and is available on-line: [115]

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

• 21.310 million (edit of 15:38, 7 April 2013) [116]
• 20.100 million (edit of 23:07, 7 April 2013) [117]
• 20.100 million (edit of 23:18, 10 April 2013) [118]
• 23.234 million (edit of 22:27, 6 May 2013) [119]
• 23.340 million (edit of 22:52, 13 May 2013) [120]

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

Whitechristian2013 and the Turk Nazi Party

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely for username-policy violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd just add that making substantial additions to articles like this while marking them as minor edits is not generally a sign of good faith behavior: see [121] -- The Anome (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yeah, this is a lovely series of diffs: [122], [123], [124].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I just reverted the following three diffs before I noticed this thread. Those diffs are: [125], [126], and [127]. These edits were made after other editors tried to talk to this user on his talk page. It appears this editor is WP:NOTLISTENING. Singularity42 (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plot thickens

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

User keeps deleting sourced information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification, please

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

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

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

== Attempted outing ==Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Dennis, I know you have a lot on your plate, but please tell me what to do: If you take a glance at my talk page, you'll notice that a user named Zabadu barged into a discussion I was having with another editor about the validity of an RS that was cited (by someone else) in the Ted Healy article. He/she got all bent out of shape because I had the temerity to question comments made by a blogger who was using the Healy article to criticize WP in general. For the record, that blogger and I have since had a nice chat off-wiki ([http://ladailymirror.com/2013/05/11/wikipedia-revert-war-wallace-beery-vs-ted-healy-round-8/

the public part is here]), and we have not only amicably resolved our differences, but reached a consensus on the Healy article. So the issue is resolved, but Zabadu continued mouthing off, hurling insults, and today, threatening to have be blocked for calling him/her and his/her even more obnoxious friend "trolls", and then accusing me of being E.J. Fleming, the author of the book under discussion. (I blanked the last 2 posts because they were completely inappropriate.) Attempted outing is a blockable offense, yes? Even when the personal info is incorrect? I know you're going to say I should have just ignored the harassment, but when people start accusing you of ridiculous stuff, and repeatedly demand that you reveal your identity, you feel obligated to defend yourself. I can get a little pissy sometimes, but I'm not a dick. Sorry to bother you about this. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've revdel'ed and left them a message. If it were only the one message, it wouldn't have been so bad, but the pattern of badgering you previously, combined with the attempt is such that if he does it again, he will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I received your message. Please explain to me how DoctorJoeE can do the things you are threatening to block me over. Because I asked him about his statement that he's a 30+ year news editor? But he can question a historian?

DoctorJoeE is right when he says he can get "a little pissy". I contribute sometimes to Wiki, and Harnisch is an acquaintance of mine. I tried to point the Doctor to articles, but he argued and argued with me. I'm tired of being called a "troll", and he keeps referring to "blog entries" when we have directed him to newspaper articles (check his page, I gave him links). He has name called (troll)me and Finklesomething and made personal comments about us as well. Honestly, this guy runs and reports me after the harassment he's caused to me and another poster for trying to direct him to the "evidence" he requests? So he can "defend himself", but he can call me a troll and I can't? He specifically asked another poster "are you Harnisch", which is "attempted outing". So block him! He complains about things he does himself. I also dispute that he is "not a dick" - provable here by him running to report us for disagreeing with him. Block me if you wish, but that will only show that people like DoctorJoeE can do and say whatever they want, then run to you when people challenge him. It's really pathetic. Zabadu (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

":So apparently you are the same person? If not sockpuppets, then certainly meatpuppets? " - DoctorJoeE's comment asking if I am Finklewhatever or sockpuppets/meatpuppets". How is this not "attempted outing"? Zabadu (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Lovely. I have no dog in this hunt, I just call them as I see them, and as for the content on that article, there is no possible way I could be more indifferent. My point still stands that you were badgering him about his identity, and made enough of a claim that I was forced to stop, review, then WP:REVDEL the edit. That was a valid reason for him to ask for administrative help. And for your information, connecting you to another Wikipedia identity isn't outing. Outing is connecting someone to a real world identity by definition. I think I was sufficiently clear the first time and it isn't a point of debate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then, I would like to report him for asking the other poster if they were Larry Harnisch. Thank you.Zabadu (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

His comment is here - I am still waiting for the corroboration that you 'edited newspapers'. You brought it up to disparage a source and to make yourself sound special. Well give. Otherwise we'll know that you are just another phony and likely Fleming himself.Finkellium (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha, the troll returns. What I said is that I have written for newspapers for 30+ years, which is true. My identity is irrelevant, because this is not about me, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway. And no, I'm not Fleming, whom I'm not even sure is still alive. Are you Harnisch? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Zabadu (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You know, WP:ANI is exactly the right forum to file your complaint. Since I've already issued you a warning for outing, it probably should be heard there so uninvolved admin can view it. As it is, I've got to be up in less than 8 hours and don't have the time to read all the preceding comments to get context, but I'm sure someone would be happy to view the situation at ANI. You should tell them the discussion was started here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks, Dennis, for notifying me. Take a look at my talk page; I think it's obvious who was trying to maintain the discussion on the subject (the Ted Healy article), and who was trying to shift the discussion to a personal attack on me. To reiterate, I worked out the Healy issue off-wiki with Mr. Harnisch, who turned out to be a very nice guy. The public part of that discussion is on his blog, which is here [128]. The problem is solved. I'm going to continue my discussion with him, which should result in not only a better Healy article, but also in (I hope) some restoration of his faith in WP, which deteriorated when he became disillusioned as an editor some time ago, as he explained. Most of his objections to the article's content had already been rectified before the complainant's first post on my talk page. The complainant says he/she "tried to point me to [newspaper] articles" -- but as the dialog on my talk page shows, those sources were already cited in the Healy article (by me and others), and when I attempted to point that out, the discussion just kept coming back to me, personally. My error in this whole interaction was in breaking my own rule of ignoring personal attacks. I've learned from that, and I won't fall into that trap again. As you can see, I tried to walk away from the fray more than once, and it was only when the badgering about my personal identity continued that I felt compelled to seek administrative assistance. I should have tried harder to walk away; I get flamed all the time in my real job, and I've learned to shrug it off, and I need to learn to do that here as well. The complainant, of course, refuses to concede any errors at all. The exchange on my talk page speaks for itself -- but I'll be happy to answer any specific questions. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death of Tia Sharp

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Playerhistory.com and soccerdatabase.eu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfC User's Rash Approvals

I have been active in #wikipedia-en-help for a little while now. At least 90% of the "editing help" questions are about the AFC process, and 90% of that is a familiar routine; the wait time, the COI issues (the vast majority of it is corporates or PR types, alas), WP:ADVERT, what's a good reference, why those aren't good references, why those references "do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

So far, so good. A couple of days ago someone came in asking about what is now Eric_Sanicola; in the course of discussion, they (entirely predictably) proved to be Mr Sanicola, who had written the entire thing himself. (Not grounds for rejection itself, but not a good start). We gave him the usual spiel - references not reliable or mention him only in passing, notability is not infectious, etc. - but at the end of the discussion, User:Coolboygcp pops in for some other purpose and says "sure, I'll approve it"... and did.

This seems to me to be quite contrary to the reviewing instructions - and frankly, it seems a little futile to hang around in the help channel explaining the need for good references if someone else will come in and approve articles with junk references.

I attempted to discuss this with User:Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled; a flat denial that there was anything wrong with the article. On checking further, their contribs consist of a series of AFC approvals many of which seem dubious, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association I am not the only editor to have an issue with them.

I'm seeking advice on what should be done next. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are certainly some highly questionable accepts among User:Coolboygcp's contribs. Apart from this, has the user been asked (on-Wiki) on be more careful and pointed in the direction of the reviewing guidelines? Pol430 talk to me 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I got a flat denial on IRC that there was any kind of problem. IRC does tend to make people terse, but if you agree that there is an issue, I would be grateful if you (or someone else) would bring it up on-Wiki; I appreciate a sanity check that I'm not overreacting. I observe the Eric Sanicola article has been CSDed. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're overreacting, but I don't think the Eric Sanicola article is the worst of them (CSD has been declined). I'd rather someone else took them in hand, a third opinion won't hurt and I've already raised one editor's AfC work at AN/I today – I don't want to earn a reputation :P Pol430 talk to me 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.

I had no idea that there were this many editors interested in my contributions.

Additionally, when I read the quote: "I attempted to discuss this with Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled:", I proceeded to laugh hysterically. I did no "stonewall" Pinkbeast, in any way whatsoever.

When I corresponded with him/her, I provided several reasons as to why I approved the Eric Sanicola article. I truly cannot comprehend why he/she would fabricate such an accusation and story about me. However, Pinkbeast has repeatedly threatened me on the mentioned IRC channel several time. Threats such as, "if you upload that image, I will delete it", and I will report you if you upload that image, as well as "I will report you for even thinking about creating that article". Additionally, he/she has repeatedly misinformed dozens of editors and users who come to the IRC channel in order to seek useful, and proper advice and help, who instead receive misinformation and incorrect instructions among other worrisome advice.

In fact, I would advise that Pinkbeast has exhibited very much more worrisome, and detrimental behavior and conduct. Coolboygcp (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CB: Please feel free to show equivilant examples of Pinkbeast's disruptive behavior/content. Your behavior on the other hand causes problems, both for volunteers and the project as a whole. Your article approvals could cause editors and admins to have to edit the newly minted article and potentially have to go through the process of deleting it, having to sort out a policy morass, or potentially opens the foundation to liability. I'm saying this as nicely as possible, be extra careful with your approvals due to the fact that previous approvals have been questioned. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These accusations are false. If there is any doubt about that, I would suggest contacting other users of that channel to see if their clients keep sufficient scrollback; I believe any of User:gwickwire, User:TheOriginalSoni, User:Huon, or User:Yngvadottir might do so. For the avoidance of doubt, I am completely happy to have any comment I addressed on-channel to User:Coolboygcp, or any comment to anyone similar to those above, made public.

The only discussion I have had with User:Coolboygcp about images is that I declined to upload a non-free image for them, responding that "I can't really see that there is much justification for using a nonfree image there" (direct quote) after quoting the Wikimedia Commons guidance on non-free images verbatim.Pinkbeast (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've lightly interacted with Coolboygcp in the past. The direct interaction between us was minimal, and if there was, I dont have a strong memory or a log of it. What I do carry is an impression of him trying to help others, though giving quite a few wrong advices. Based on only that impression I carry from there (which I think were based on some articles he was involved in), I think he might make a good reviewer if nudged properly. I think a mandatory adoption for him before he can continue reviewing articles might be sufficient.

Also, IMO IRC interactions have a lot better chance of actually generating a positive response and actually solving the problem than escalating the issue, which I've often found on-wiki interactions do. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Looking through his declines, and his assurances that nothing is wrong, when many of his reviews clearly are, anyone willing to support an attempt to get a topic ban? Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through some of his approvals and am the one that nominated the article that brought this up for CSD, which was declined, and subsequently nominated for AfD by myself, which at my last check had only one other person with a Delete nomination and no Keeps. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be best, but I'm not exactly unbiased here. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They're still at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history is an approval of an AFC which took a whole five hours to get G11ed! Pinkbeast (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure IRC is the best way to communicate to people about what they might be doing wrong. Suggesting improvements or problems to people on their user talk pages leaves a record, which can be very helpful for anyone coming with subsequent problems. (It also eliminates pointless disputes like the above about what has been said.) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree; I just happened to see him pop up there while I was thinking about it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from reviewing AfC submissions for a period of three months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• There comes a time perhaps where some reviewers should be asked to cease reviewing, at least for a while, such as in the past we have had to ask patrollers to stop patrolling new pages. A polite request rather than a formal topic ban may be sufficient. Like many meta areas, AfC is one that attracts many relatively new and/or inexperienced editors. This has always been a thorn in the side of the AfC process which often requires an admin level of knowledge of inclusion policies. I am absolutely not advocating that only admins should review the pages - there is backlog enough - but some campaign to attract truly experienced editors to the task would probably not go unrewarded. Nothing will change much however until the Foundation comes up with a decent landing page for new users / new, new-page creators. Concurring with DGG, transparecy is required for discussions and IRC is not followed by any means by everyone. Some of us do not use it at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We have one example here, an AFC approval which has now survived AFD. Before topic banning anyone we should be looking at enough diffs to form a pattern, and that pattern would need to indicate a problem. But if an editor's judgement has been born out by the article surviving AFD then it is the rest of the AFC community who have got this one wrong. Note I'm not proposing that Pinkbeast be topic banned from AFC simply for this one case where he declined an AFC submission that went on to pass AFD, I'm hoping that that is an isolated mistake and a learning experience. But there is something deeply wrong with the AFC process when it is regarded as controversial that someone approves an AFC that goes on to survive AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was improved enormously (by someone else) while the AFD process was going on; the version that was approved was essentially uncited and bears little resemblance to the one people were commenting on later in the AFD process. This is not the only example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_1&oldid=551942369#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association (expunged from talkpage history)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history (G11ed within eight hours)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Construction_Contracts (notability? And the article is basically a pointless list of stuff.)

These are likely not the only ones, just what a quick trawl finds. I think a more compelling argument for opposing is that the editor appears to have stopped doing it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, addendum, I have never in my life declined (or accepted) an AFC submission. But if I had declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Sanicola&oldid=551199625 I feel I would have been right to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Copied to ANI here Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think some of his approvals are questionable, however we need a more thorough investigation before doing anything rash. I have started a thread at the WP:ANI, and have copied our discussion here as well as adding my own comments. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also informed everyone involved in this discussion via the ANI template. I hope this is due diligence - I even notified myself. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ummm... I think I said all I had to say in that AfC discussion and had thought this issue was closed. Echo me if you need clarification of what I had said, but otherwise I've nothing further to add at this time. (I'm not monitoring this discussion as I would rather stay away from ANI right now but will check back in a "few" days). Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - While there does seem to be a problem, its too premature to throwing around topic bans yet. There needs to be further discussion, and a longer pattern of troubling decisions, before that is warranted to be discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would like the editor to voluntarily stop approving AFC's right now, based on their poor history. If they refuse to do it, then I will 100% support a 3 month topic ban (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in general against a topic ban on Coolboygcp because I think its neccesary that we try to approach him directly and help him understand the reviewer functions more before trying anything of this sort. We need more reviewers, and not less, and AGF, I believe, coolboygcp's intentions are good. Maybe we ought to suggest him to be adopted by another experienced reviewer before he actively reviews articles again? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose á la flying off the handle with this one. Basket _Feudalist 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Coolboygcp does, judging by the diffs that have been posted here and his response here, not have the competence/maturity needed for the job, and should be stopped before he causes even more damage to WP. Thomas.W (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Bwilkins, I also think they can think of voluntarily stopping AFC review for sometime (2—3 weeks?), in addition they should be more careful in future, but, I don't support the "Topi ban" right now! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance. I'm not seeing any sign of Coolboygcp realizing their acceptances were problematic, and I see recent creation of two articles of their own that have been deleted as non-notable, so I don't think they "get" the criteria yet. So rather than ask them - again - to hold off on accepting any more articles at AfC for a while, I think we'd better make that official: for a short time. They can always consult with someone else if they think an article is ready, and should be encouraged to do so. Making it official will send the message that they really do need to re-read and internalize the criteria (including, for example, checking for copyvio in the obvious places). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just AFC that's the problem...

• Support per User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace. Copyvios, plainly non-notable articles, and articles that were recreated in the same state after being deleted at AfD. That was only a small subset. They weren't all AFC submissions, some were userspace drafts that the user took it upon themseslves to move into mainspace. When I redirected the unsourced non-notable article, the editors response was to tell another editor that I was "some random vandal" [129]. And then, personally, created an article for a fictional recipe in an episode of a TV program. Here you go - have another completely unsourced list of dubious notability. Unsourced BLP anyone?. This one is not only a G11 but also a G12 ... etc, etc, etc. A topic ban per WP:CIR is required here. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• SupportPer BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment He also seems to be committing copyvios. A great portion of this text is pasted straight from here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• BLP vio [130] unsourced accusations against a BLP. This is a copyvio from here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note That copyvio was made with the creation of the page back in 2007. [131] It is not the editor's fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Editor's competency is clearly insufficient to continue reviewing AfCs and their behaviour so far shows me that they don't seem to take well intentioned advice onboard. Indeed, their responses show a certain combativeness that leads me to suggest they won't stop voluntarily. This, taken into consideration with the evidence of introducing copyvios, makes a topic ban entirely justified IMO. Pol430 talk to me 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per WP:CIR and the editor's demonstrated unwillingness to take good advice on board. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

Author of the Turkish document is Dr. Nebahat Oral Arslan and she is reliable and not biased at all, Turkish speakers can control the page and see it very clearly. Athenean is just trying to discredit the author without evidence, because she wrote "tyranical" about the massacres, but what he does not realize is that the Arslan source is entirely based upon an Inter-Allied Commission report of 1921, and the report of the war journalist Arnold J. Toynbee, which are online [132]. More importantly KILLING innocent people and destroying whole villages IS TYRANNICAL! So what are you trying to say Athenean? Are you saying those massacres were just? The problem is that there were massacres committed by the Greek army against local Turks in 1921, Athenean together with Alexikoua, are two POV Greek Wikipedia users who are trying to cover up the crimes by making false accusations. They falsely accuse the authors and sources (even tough I provided full English translation) [133], they distort and cherry pick sources (I have explained this in the talkpage: Alexikoua lowers the number of casualties to 35, which is based on an inquiry out of 177 people in a camp in Istanbul. I have explained this 4 times to him, but still he persists on distorting the facts by saying that this is the total number of casualties, which the source doesn't say at all [134] : It is the result of an inquiry out of 177 people. Furthermore we have sources in one individual massacre of a village already exceeds the number 35. But still Alexikoua is persisting on abusing the source and falsely claims that Toynbee puts the total number of casualties on 35 (see [135] ).

Now Athenean is attacking the Turkish author and source just because he doesn't like what is written in it (see [136] While at the same time he eagerly adds information about Greeks being massacred by Turks from an online pdf-document (see [137] which has no footnotes unlike the Turkish source, and which looks much less professional than the Turkish source (see [138] The Turkish document is actually a published study journal from the Ankara University ("TAED Cilt 10, Sayı 22 (2003): TÜRKİYAT ARAŞTIRMALARI ENSTİTÜSÜ DERGİSİ").
Why is Athenean not so skeptical about the French pdf-document? Because he likes the content? (Turks killing Greeks) see [[139]] and apparently this was also cherrypicking because the same pdf-document writes that these numbers were made up and that Gehri doesn't believe these numbers to be true since they came from Greek refugees who call their atrocities against Turks "Selon les civils grecs, l’occupation militaire «faisait le bien des Turcs» et, de toute façon le pays était à eux, car ils y étaient majoritaires, malgré les massacres. En répétant un discours «civilisationiste» qu’ils l’avaient entièrement métabolisé, ces populations tentent de se profiler aux yeux de Gehri comme un élément actif, industrieux et riche, apportant «la civilisation». Et ils ne font aucun mystère de leur objectif de chasser vers l’intérieur de l’Asie «cette race maudite qui, depuis des siècles, n’a pas fait un progrès, est incapable de progrès et qui pour le bien de la civilisation, doit être à jamais extirpée d’Europe et du littoral asiatique». Les autorités grecques ainsi que les populations civiles locales ne réclamaient pas moins que le nettoyage ethnique et l’extermination, le génocide, de la «race» turque."[[140]] (translation, the Greeks said that the massacre to exterminate the Turks were good and that their goal was to ethnically cleanse the Turks out of those lands)

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

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

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

Alexikoua still insists on falsifying the sources. see [[141]] (I gave an answer to his source abuse/falsify)

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

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

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

User:Jono2013

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

---

Jono2013 (talk · contribs) seems to have some fairly problematic civility issues. They've written an article, Energetically modified cement, which has been AfDed twice; once it closed as nomination withdrawn, and the second AfD is ongoing. From the very first comment in the first AfD (diff: [142]), they've made inappropriate comments about people's backgrounds, false accusations of vandalism, and other very marginal remarks. A diff of the first AfD, following its withdrawal, but prior for it being blanked (probably due to Jono2013's remarks), is this [143]. It shows a lot of walls-of-text by this user, some weird formatting issues, and some absolutely insane accusations/comments, such as this gem:

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

They also responded to pretty much every commenter, regardless of their vote, with the same aggressive manner. Anyway, let's get on to the current AfD, located here. This user has proceeded to use all-caps, highly aggressive replies, disruptive removals of the AfD tag (with incorrect allegations of vandalism on one occasion; [144][145]) and yet more aggressive replies, even though most people voted keep (including myself). Following my comments in the AfD, the user then came on to my talk page, informing me of their reply at the AfD,[146] to which I made some sensible statements on their talk page (I believe),[147], to which I received this wall-of-text,[148], after which I removed his remarks from my talk as trolling. A look at an AfD on a far less notable article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin, shows identical behaviour by this user. Sadly, I'm requesting an indef under WP:NOTHERE: their editing style is promotional, which is fixable; but their methods of communication leave far too much to be desired, and leave people frustrated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From zero to Godwin in nothing flat. [149] EEng (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright violations by User:Danish Expert

Roughly 7 months ago, I noticed that User:Danish Expert had been plagiarising sources. Attempting to discuss the issue with him, and at the subsequent request for a WP:CCI ([150]), I received only resistance and denial ("I never copied word-for-word text into articles" ... "only half of the sentence was accidently an identical copy" "I forgot to use some proper quotation marks for it" ..."it is a very factual line almost impossible to rephrase with other words" "impossible to formulate otherwise, due to being listed as short factual bullet points; and not being formulated as a sentence/line" "nobody can claim a copyright violation for me to add an identical topical list to wikipedia (with the topical words identical compared to what is reported by the article), because its just not possible to change the formulation of the topical list without changing the meaning of the topical words." ... "you can not claim a copyright violation to an identically formulated "common standard technical description"") which were far from convincing that the user actually understood the issue being raised and would be able to avoid repeating it in the future.

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

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

Examples of plagiarism

Danish Expert Source [151] [152] "The new MTO definition is designed to set country-specific values, according to the economic and budgetary position and sustainability risks of the Member State. It will be defined on basis of the state's current debt-to-GDP ratio and potential GDP growth, while the overall objective over the medium term is still to achieve a budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus. For eurozone states or ERM II Member States, the upper limit for MTOs has been set to 1% of GDP as structural deficit if the state has a combination of low debt and high potential growth. For states with a combination of high debt and low potential growth, and for states suffering from increased age related sustainability risks in the long term, the MTO-requirement shall move up to be in "balance or in surplus". The MTOs will serve the purpose of providing a safety margin towards continuously respecting the 3% deficit limit, while ensuring fiscal sustainability in the long run. ... All Eurozone states and ERM-II member states that have not yet reached their MTO, have agreed to implement yearly improvements of its structural deficit equal to minimum 0.5% of GDP. It was also agreed to pursue active consolidation of the budget when the economic conditions are favourable (periods during which actual GDP growth is above potential growth), and to use windfall revenues, as a rule, for the reduction of government deficit and debt. ... The existing early-warning mechanism is expanded, so that the European Commission can now issue an "opinion" direct to member states, without a prior Council involvement, giving advice to encourage Member States to realise the agreed adjustment path. Accordingly, the Commission will address the Council in future not only if there is an acute risk of breaching the 3% of GDP reference value, but also in cases of unjustified deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO or the MTO itself, including in good times. ... In order to eliminate possible disincentives for structural reforms, it was agreed that, under certain conditions, certain structural reforms can justify a temporary deviation from the MTO and, for Member States that have not yet reached their MTO, temporary deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO. If the 3% deficit limit is respected and the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the four-year programme period, the Council, when assessing the MTO or the adjustment path towards it, will also accept the negative impact of major structural reforms (if they have direct long-term cost-saving effects - and can be verified to improve fiscal sustainability over the long term - i.e. pension scheme reforms)." "The new definition of the medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) is designed to better take into account the diversity of economic and budgetary positions and risks across Member States. In future, the medium-term budgetary objective of a country will be defined on the basis of its current debt ratio and potential growth, while the overall objective of achieving over the medium term a budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus remains. For Member States having adopted the euro an for those participating in the exchange rate mechanism (ERM II), the agreed range of MTOs is between – 1 % of GDP for countries with a combination of low debt and high potential growth and balance or in surplus for countries with a combination of high debt and low potential growth. The aim of the new country-specific MTO is threefold. It is designed to provide a safety margin with respect to the 3 % deficit limit, to ensure fiscal sustainability in the long run, and to improve the scope for productive public investment. ... Member States of the euro area and of ERM II that have not yet reached their MTO have agreed to achieve, as a benchmark, an annual adjustment of 0.5 % of GDP. ... Governments have agreed to pursue active consolidation of the budget when the economic conditions are favourable, i.e. in ‘good times’, and to use windfall revenues, as a rule, for the reduction of government deficit and debt. ... With a view to strengthening the preventive character of the Pact, the 2005 Ecofin report clarifies and expands the existing early-warning mechanism. The report expects the Commission to issue direct, i.e. without prior Council involvement, policy advice to encourage Member States to realise the agreed adjustment path. Accordingly, the Commission will address the Council in future not only if there is an acute risk of breaching the 3 % of GDP reference value, but also in cases of unjustified deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO or the MTO itself, including in good times." ... "With a view to eliminating possible disincentives for structural reforms, the Council agreed that, under certain conditions, certain structural reforms can justify a temporary deviation from the MTO and, for Member States that have not yet reached their MTO, temporary deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO. Provided that respect of the 3 % of GDP reference value is not jeopardised and the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the four-year programme period, the Council, when assessing the MTO or the adjustment path towards it, will take into account major structural reforms. Only major structural reforms that have direct long-term cost-saving effects and verifiably improve fiscal sustainability over the long term will be considered. This rule pertains, in particular, to systemic reforms of the pension scheme of a Member State." [153] [154] "The European Commission also recently proposed the establishment of a Convergence and Competitiveness Instrument (CCI) within the EU budget. The proposal is to create a special EU budget account with earmarked money, for supporting the timely implementation of needed structural reforms (traditionally considered to be political unpopulair to implement), on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission. If the Member State implements the identified and needed structural reforms to ensure convergence/competitiveness, then the CCI budget will so to speak pay the Member State an economic reward of behaving in a sound and responsible way. On 29 November 2012, the Economic and Monetary affairs Committee of the European Parliament voted on the framework proposal, and gave its mandate to reach an agreement with the Council, meaning that the informal trilogue can now begin.The outstanding issues for the ECOFIN council to consider at their next meeting on 4 December 2012, is to decide on the role of the national supervisors, the governance of the ECB and the voting rights within EBA. At the council meeting there was not sufficient time to agree on any final decision, so the council will be called for a second meeting within 8 days, with the aim to conclude the work ahead of the EU summit on 13-14 December. Any change of the EU legislation about EBA require (according to article 114 of the TFEU): A qualified majority at the Council in conjunction with the Parliament's approval. While any change of the EU legislation about ECB's function/role require (according to article 127(6) of the TFEU): Unanimity for adoption by the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the ECB." "convergence and competitiveness instrument" within the EU budget – but separate from the MFF - to support the timely implementation of structural reforms, on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission. On 29 November, the vote of the Economic and Monetary affairs Committee of the European Parliament gave a mandate to reach an agreement with the Council, which opens the way to starting the informal trilogue. The outstanding issues touch on the role of the national supervisors, the governance of the ECB and the voting rights within EBA. Based on article 127(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the draft ECB regulation requires unanimity for adoption by the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the ECB." [155] [156] "contracting parties to make active use whenever appropriate and necessary: 1) Of the more ambitious regulations and measures applying specifically for Eurozone member states in accordance with Article 136 of the TFEU (which relates to the already existing enhanced and more strict Stability and Growth Pact regulations applying only for Eurozone member states), and 2) Of enhanced cooperation on matters that are essential for the proper functioning of the eurozone without undermining the internal market, as provided for by existing articles in the EU treaties." "Contracting Parties stand ready to make active use, whenever appropriate and necessary, of measures specific to those Member States whose currency is the euro, as provided for in Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of enhanced cooperation, as provided for in Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and in Articles 326 to 334 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on matters that are essential for the proper functioning of the euro area, without undermining the internal market." [157] [158] "Íslandsbanki (Icelandic for: Bank of Iceland), is an Icelandic bank with roots tracing back to 1884, formerly being the domestic part of Glitnir banki hf., but on 15 October 2008 being split from the bankrupt Glitnir and reestablished into a new independent bank. The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas, and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. It is being owned 5% by the Icelandic State Treasury and 95% by "ISB Holding ehf.", which is the creditor group behind the old bankrupt Glitnir bank. "with roots tracing back to 1884 ...The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. [159] [160] "In March 2010, Germany presented a string of proposals as an answer to the present European sovereign debt crisis. They emphasized the intention at this point of time was not to establish a fiscal union, but simply to make the monetary union more resilient to crisis. They argued that the previous Stability and Growth Pact needed a reform to become more strict and efficient, and in return an European emergency bailout fund should be founded to assist states in financial difficulties, with bailout payments available under strict corrective fiscal action agreements - subject to approval by ECB and the Eurogroup. In case a non-collaborating state with an Excessive Deficit Procedure breached the called for adjustment path towards compliance, it should risk being fined or loose its payment of EU cohesion funds and/or loose its political voting rights in the Eurogroup. A call was also made to enforce the coordination of economic policies between eurozone members, so that all states take an active part in each other’s policymaking" "making monetary union more resilient to a crisis ... Co-ordination between euro members must be more far-reaching; they must take an active part in each other’s policymaking."

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

DE is a quite prolific editor who has made a tremendous amount of valuable contributions to the project. Unfortunately, in my experience, in addition to the above plagiarism concerns, he lacks adequate understand of many of wikipedia's core policies, in particular what wikipedia is and what it is WP:NOT. A significant fraction of what he adds is unsourced original analysis, non-notable minor details, WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of stats, etc. See for instance a recent example at Latvia and the euro: [161] Talk:Latvia_and_the_euro#Latvia_and_the_Maastricht_criteria, [162], [163], [164].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really don't think it's fair to claim that I'm stalking DE. The articles which we have been in conflict on are restricted to a handful (all eurozone-related) which have all been on my watchlist since before DE began editing in this topic area: [165] [166]. Looking at DE's recently contributions, there are many articles within this topic area of which he is the primary editor and which I've never touched since his first edit: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]. As far as I can recall, I've never followed him to an article which wasn't already on my watchlist. If I'm stalking him, I'm certainly not doing a very good job of it as I missed all of the diffs listed above when they were originally made. It was only after I noticed an issue on European Fiscal Compact that I looked further into it and found the pattern repeating in other diffs. Yes, I scrutinize edits he makes to articles on my watchlist, just like when anyone else edits these pages and just like he does likewise for my edits. But that's called the normal collaborative editing process, not stalking. TDL (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your fast reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin reinstates unsourced, very obviously false material, protects page

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reopening this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lfdder misused the deletion processes first likely unintentionally by using {{delete}} instead of {{prod}} [172], but then most likely deliberately by stubbing and then [173] A3ing the article [174] and finally he edit warred [[175] to stub the article again (but added no more deletion tags).
• DGG edit warred to reintroduce unsourced content after it was challenged in good faith as unsourced WP:OR [176] [177] (note that Lfdder's 2nd stubbing only removed content, but did not add any more deletion tags) and finally DGG protected the page to his preferred version [178], a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

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

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

List of Wikipedia controversies‎

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

---

List of Wikipedia controversies‎ needs to be protected so that only established editors can edit it. User:Thekohser is breaking his indef ban here with impunity on this project.[179] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser shows that this is the case. We all know that this article is a trolling exercise from Wikipediocracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Lucas Horton#Requested move

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

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

Improper use of alternate account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As someone involved in MIT network security ( http://www.mit.edu/~jhawk/home.html ) you (jhawkinson) also have a COI concerning the Aaron Swartz page, which I see you have edited. Swartz was indicted for larceny of electronic data and unauthorized access to a MIT computer network.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrt3366 at Narendra Modi

Mrt3366 has recently begun contributing at Narendra Modi. Are this edit summary & comment this edit summary and a lot of the stuff here really necessary? I did try to deal with it but was brushed off. Although there has been some heated debate in recent weeks, we have generally managed to keep a lid on things until the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• And can someone else notify Mrt3366, please? I am persona non grata on their talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)ANI is not the appropriate venue for this. Do you want me to get blocked or banned? If not, then this is admin shopping. Before he came here I initiated a discussion seeking his explanation. He shrugged it off and came here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you know that I shrugged something off. What I want is for some uninvolved people to take a look at what seems to berather pugnacious editing by you on that article and its talk page. As I said, things were actually being discussed quite reasonably (the specific section about POV aside) until your arrival. The temperature has suddenly risen and given that this is (i) about a controversial politician, (ii) a BLP, and (iii) potentially one of those awkward Hindu vs Muslim situations that often spiral out of control, it seems sensible to see if something needs doing sooner rather than later. I can't even discuss it with you on your talk page and the article talk page is really not the right place to discuss behavioural things. I'm no prude but shouting out "fucking" in an edit summary that mentions Hindus and Muslims is something that sorta catches the eye, seems unnecessary and perhaps should be revdel'd even if the actual content of your edit is considered to be reasonable & thus reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment MrT is a sometimes passionate editor and gets a little carried away, he does on the other hand stick to NPOV quite well. And saying "fucking" is not a violation of any policy I know given Wikipedia is not censored. I would ask MrT to allow you to post to his talk page so that the two of you can discuss the issue there and should that fail, return here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of him sticking to NPOV quite well? two weeks ago he ws editwarring to insert a claim that Kashmiri Pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race sourced to a 200 year old book. Today he is removing a POV tag from an article that glorifies a hindutva politician during an ongoing discussion of neutrality concerns. I dont think he even knows what WP:NPOV says.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would not ask MrT to allow Sitush on their talk page because I can understand why someone may not want Sitush on their talk page. Perhaps they could discuss things on Sitush's talk page or some other talk page, if it needs discussion at all ...OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Sitush on this. While the f-word is not by itself a problem, this sort of edit summary indicates that Mrt is approaching the article in a less than salubrious way. Regardless, I think a warning and closing this thread is the best action here. --regentspark (comment) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's a fucking good idea. Basket _Feudalist 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Warning MrT for what and what do you want to warn him? Closing the thread is a better idea though.-sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning him that India/Pakistan topics are covered by discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom and that he could be blocked if he continues exhibiting biased editing and intemperate language in edit summaries or elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 11:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Has he shown biased editing? I am sure you have seen other issues on the page of Modi here at ANI, you did not call that bias editing, coming to the edit summary I am sure if you dig out you might find not so good edit summaries on the page of Modi. You can close this ANI though, if you want we can ask MrT to tone down his edit summary if it was that offending.-sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is natural for a Pakistani POV guy to fail to see anti Modi bias even if it exists, but see pro Modi bias/problems even where there is usually no cause for concern.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure who is this Pakistani POV guy you are referring to, everyone commented here commented are pretty reasonable and if you are referring to RP then I strongly disagree. Can an admin close this thread. I don't think it is going anywhere, lest it turns into a slugfest.-sarvajna (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why should a warning be given to Mr.T? A warning should be given only if his introduction of any lines was found to be a POV. Unless that has been established by consensus, how is his editing being considered biased? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The comments, edit summaries, and edits of MrT show that he just wants to display what wrong the "Muslims" did. This may be a violation and breach of Wikipedia policies. The editors should take in account WP:POV. That's all. Faizan 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What POV in it? Those are facts. Do you wanna say those numbers are wrong? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about facts, whatever they might be. Rather, this edit summary Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were FUCKING BURNT TO DEATH by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims. is extremely problematic. More of this sort of thing and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Again, I suggest that we warn Mrt that this is not acceptable and move on. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok read this Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were burnt to death by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims., if you remove the f-word then I don't see any issues at all.I don't see any reason why he should be warned, like I said before this is not a first dispute that is resulting in an ANI and somehow you think that this was wrong.Close it if you want.-sarvajna (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I met Mrt3366 a few weeks ago when he was editwarring against multiple editors to insert a claim that "Kashmiri pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race" a standard Hindutva propaganda claim which he sourced to a 200 year old book. When I reached out politely at his talkpage to let him know that he was about to breach 3rr this was the reply[180]. Now he is continuing the same pov pushing at Narendra Modi where he is joined by a few other likeminded editors trying to keep critical information out of the article about the Hindu National politician. I think a round of topic bans are in order, someone clearly are having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality. Mrt3366 also clearly has a hard time accepting critical messages on his talkpage instead flying off the handle[181], but this is a kind of communication that is vital for wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is someone who is "having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality" then it must be you for sure. Your edits to the page/talk page are clear testimony of that. Also if you know even a bit about Hindutva thing then you will know that they do not support the theory of Aryan race, you still need to do some research in that field I think. -sarvajna (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to you I have a long history of editing things that have nothing to do with Hinduism or Indian policy. I dont have a POV on this topic, but I recognize propaganda when I see it. In fact it is only this last month that I came to the topics and discovered their dire state. And your claim about aryanism not being espoused by Hindutva is of course wrong, they exactly propose the theory that there was no Aryan invasion but that the Aryan race and the Indo-European languages originated in the subcontinent. Im a little surprised you wouldnt know this yourself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So what, yes I edit articles related to India, that is what interests me, I need not edit other articles to show that I am neutral also coming to the point about aryanism they don't believe in the theory that there were people called Dravidans and the theory that aryans came to India and pushed natives to south India is not something that they accept. So the whole point of considering just Kashmiri Pandits as the purest form of aryans is not some Hindutva thing.One more point, the dispute here is not MrT pushing material against consensus like you were trying to do, the dispute here is whether his language in the edit summary is proper or not -sarvajna (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to push any material as you well know, I was trying to tag the article for its obvious lack of neutrality and start a discussion about how to make it conform to NPOV. As for your claims about Aryanism they are contradicted by sources like these:[182][183][184] which describe the racialist element in hindutva thought. The topic here is Mrt editing aggressively in collaboration with a group of povpushers trying to own articles related to hinduism and make them conform to their own viewpoint.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is Mrt's pugnacity and the way that has almost immediately raised the temperature from warm to uncomfortably hot. We were generally getting along ok together until their arrival. The edit summary is one part of that but not the whole. He has been combative from the outset seemingly because he thinks I am not trying to usefully develop the article and am hiding my POV by committing many small edits etc (at least, that forms part of his rationale in the last of my three links above). - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So was there any discussion started when the disagreement began? To be honest I am still not able to understnd the reason why we are here, Sitush, disagreements happen and people might not have the same style as you do. Taking people to ANI because you did not had your way or because you did not like how they did things might not be the right approach.-sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See my 09:38 above. I am not here because I have not got my "own way". I want uninvolved people to look at this, not you or Maunus or OrangesRyellow (who is pretty much always involved with niggling commentary whenever my name crops up here, rather like another user with a fruit-y name once was). Without input from uninvolveds, we are just going to go round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, however you have tried to involve more people [185], [186] .-sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And your point is? I went to Boing! before Mrt posted the last-linked item above and with the knowledge that Boing! had just posted a message in another thread here & thus was active. There was no response from Boing prior to Mrt escalating things further and I had good reason to believe that Boing may have gone away. So I came here. I could have come here straight away but I was trying to keep the drama down. If Mrt had not posted that last comment, I might still have been waiting for Boing now but it seemed obvious to me that he (Mrt) was getting still more worked up. Happy now? - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• With due respect to everybody, I think nobody likes to apologize or to be warned, when they have done nothing wrong but still I have been accused of exhibiting "pugnacity" and it's time I said something about it. If somebody's emotions are hurt because of the valid edit which elaborated (with a reference) how a mob of 2000 Muslims burnt alive 58 helpless Hindu pilgrims, then I am profoundly amazed. If somebody doesn't like my usage of the word "fucking", then I ask others to close this discussion ASAP; it is not the right venue to discuss user conduct. There are other venues to discuss user-conduct. Having said that, I am sorry that any of this is happening at all. Let's close this damn thing and move the discussions to relevant pages. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fucking get on wiv it then Basket _Feudalist 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not looking to get involved here, but I feel the need to point out that user conduct is indeed discussed here (although RFC/U is equally appropriate; it just depends on whether you want sanctions or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Pointing out that User:Ratnakar.kulkarni have now removed a pov tag three times from the article (just today) with no other rationale that he doesnt agree that the article is biased. These are the editors who are accusing me of pov pushing, "mischief" and "aggresive editing". Could we get some fucking admin attention here already? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, you dont get to come and cry here begging for admins. The real problem here is that you simply want the POV tag stayed there on the top of the article. There is absolutely no action from your side to remove it. You have been asked n number of times of what exactly is POVy and what you think should be written instead. But instead of commenting on the content you are being very very fond of this mud throwing at other editors. Its been 24 hours since i have asked you to come up with your version of non-POVy lead. But here you are playing blame game instead. In that vaguely worded RFC you raised you are asking for other editors to come and see if the article is POV. Why will they do that? You think its POVy, you say it why it is. When i said this last time to you, you resorted on personal attacks. Not surprised by that; Chesterton says that people generally quarrel because they cannot argue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because it gets anonoying after having spent three weeks descirbing in detail what the pov problems are and how the article doesnt conform to policy that idiots like you keep saying "so say what the pov problem is". It is pretty difficult to talk to people who are simply not willing to listen. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• How odd. How could anyone deny that this edit here is of a promotional kind? "In 1967, he volunteered to serve the people of Gujarat who were affected by the flood"--sourced to the subject's own website. The additional detail on the 2002 massacre appears to be inserted here to rally anti-Muslim sentiment (58 against 2000); the numbers add nothing to the article's subject. And then Ratnaker has the gumption, after all this promotional stuff was added, to remove a perfectly valid POV tag. I think an ArbCom-enforced slap on the wrist for Mr. T and Ratnaker is in order. And Basket Feudalist, if you got nothing useful to say, then just stay out of it. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely the numbers do not add anything, but don't you have any issues with the other numbers given there? that post train burning killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. If you really cared to see the talk page you will see that I have started discussion on those things. Unlike few other editors who just want the POV tag, I am rather trying to resolve the disputes.-sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Solving the dispute by editwarring and slandering others....Thatll work....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies, the edit does appear to be promotional in the sense that it employs the phrase "to serve the people of Gujarat", but there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for something non-controversial that is not unduly self-serving. The text would have been alright had it simply stated the fact that 'he volunteered during the floods' and so on... and it would have been better had the fact been corroborated through a secondary source. The same paragraph that you point you details the fact that among those dead there were 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. Does that equally seem to prove an anti-Hindu sentiment? I would like to see some unbiased commentary here please from an apparently uninvolved administrator. I would further like to understand your rationale behind the proposal to sanction Ratnakar. Please do elaborate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Edit warring, related to the tag. There is a big difference between saying there were 790 victims of faith X and 254 of faith Y, on the one hand, and saying that a mob of 2000 Muslims burned 25 women and 15 children, on the other. It's called rhetoric, and it's pretty obvious what this is supposed to accomplish. Helping flood victims and all is nothing encyclopedically unless rigorously verified to be non-trivial. You can send a $10 check and write it up in your autobiography. It is not easy to judge whether this is unduly self-serving, but it certainly is self-serving, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Given that Modi is a high-level politician and a former pracharak (propagandist working for the RSS), who is known to be reluctant to talk about some of his early involvements and to have pulled the plug on attempts to write an official biography, I think it reasonable to assume that anything he says about his background etc on his website is self-serving and any source that relies on it is also thus. Nick and I do not see eye-to-eye regarding this, nor about the use of op-eds to contrive neutrality, but while I might give a little on the latter, I'm sticking to my guns on the former: Modi's self-published biography is not acceptable for anything much other than his date of birth, religious affiliation and nationality. Mrt3366 only needed to read some still-visible threads on the talk page to understand the contentious nature of some of his recent edits: he should have continued to discuss, not forced the issue in such a heavy-handed manner. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, I am actually amenable to what you have said regarding the particular assertion and using the primary source above and I am happy to discuss content on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Mrt3366 was involved in a discussion where you pronounced that using the above WP:SPS for an almost-identical statement was ok. From that he may well have been encouraged to make a contribution based on that dodgy source. Like it or not, I think that even many experienced editors (me included) do tend to have a subconscious "they're an admin so I'm alright doing as they say" mentality. On this one, you were way off-base, as I suspect you have been on a few other content pronouncements relating to that article. You know that you are fallible but did Mrt3366? He is responsible for his own action, of course, but it is all a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, you are misrepresenting my position again. The other discussion was altogether different where there were secondary sources available to corroborate the primary source. Please review the discussion again. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor behaviourial issues

• I have recently reported Maunus's less than productive behaviour on this page when he went on a campaign to canvass for support on several Wikiproject pages without due regard to their relevance. Their aggressive mode of editing and commentary is counter-productive to any form of dispute resolution on the article talk page. I think that any form of sanction should equally apply to users who indulge in unnecessarily combative behaviour to bully, intimidate and harass other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And that would of course include your twinkle reversion of my first edit to the page[187] (a clear violation of WP:VANDAL which should cost you your access to automated editing tools) and your subsequent unmotivated threats on my talkpage[188]. You know that your accusations of canvassing are unfounded (advertsising an RfC on project pages is NOT canvassing), and your accusations of bullying are gooing to boomerang right back on your own ass. So I think you should shut up with that right about now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, reverting your edit using Twinkle was a one-off mistake. As a courtesy, I left a message on your talk page asking you to discuss prior to making substantive changes to the lead section (even when cited). The rationale behind the reversion is available in my comments. You also appear to have gotten into a habit of clearing out your talk page each time you have an uncomfortable discussion takes place, mostly cases where other users highlight your less than ideal behaviour. Perhaps you should take time to read what you write and reflect upon that. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how many one-off mistakes like that I could find if I perused your editing history. Yes I archive my talkpage regularly - is that a problem? As for my "less than ideal behavior" look at your self in a mirror. I have met few more arrogant admins and admins with less clue about policy. As for your "courteous message", perhaps you could take time to read what you wrote and reflect upon how it looks in the relation to WP:OWN and WP:CHILL. You do not have the right to request from anyone to discuss before they edit, and an edit not having been discussed is not a valid rationale for reverting, not even when not using automated tools. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop treating Wikipedia like your personal playground. You cannot simply decide to barge in on an article and make substantive changes to the lead section without discussing on the talk page first. Please extend some courtesy to other editors if you expect them to extend the same to you. Or perhaps, given your recent experience on the project where you had to give up your admin tools, you no longer believe in civil discussion? The fact is that you edited the article to make inappropriate inclusions to the lead section and I reverted you and left a message on your talk page (which appears to be that of an SPA) informing you that a reversion had taken place and that you were invited to discuss the matter on the talk page in the spirit of WP:BRD. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No? Honestly you call yourself a wikipedian administrator and you think one has to ask permission before adding reliably sourced material to the lead of an article. How the hell did you pass an RfA? And dont talk about courtesy to me you unctious platitudinizing eunuch. Your first courtesy to me was a threat and a claim of ownership.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A few other one-off mistakes: [189][190][191][192][193] Here is your admission[194] that you know [[User:Kondi] personally. User Kondi who showed up out of nowhere[195] to remove the pov tag that you dont like on the clearly biased BLP article which he had never edited before. Could be a coincidence I guess. But on the other hand perhaps you are not the one to be accusing me of canvassing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it is you who is clueless about policy after all. Or perhaps in the spate of zealousness you forgot to review the cited diffs properly. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They are all reversions of good faith inclusions of cited material with only an automated editsummary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner circumventing deletion of Amanda Filipacchi attack page

Howdy! Kauffner has recently used his userpage to highlight the recent media attention that wikipedia has received regarding Amanda Filipacchi. The page has been blanked three times by both Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Delicious Carbuncle citing CSD G10 attack page (which Kauffner was tagged for), BLP, and BLP a second time. Twice they were restored by people other than Kauffner, (William M. Connolley, and Launchballer) [196] [197]. Kauffner has since moved the content into a sup page and linked the subpage to his userspace. Kauffner has already discussed the matter with Delicious Carbuncle on their talkpage, where Delicious Carbuncle reitterates that this is a biography of a living person issue and that Kauffner shouldn't use his userspace as a WP:SOAPBOX. Kauffner argued that a procedure for removing the content from wikipedia hasn't been followed, and that the page was intended to be both a discussion of current wikipedia events, and that it was intended to be funny. This was brought to the BLP noticeboard, and after very little discussion the sup page was speedy deleted by Alison as a attack page. Alison chose not to participate at the BLPN, but her edit summary was "You don't get to write content disparaging a living person - even under the guise of 'satire' - especially with unfounded statements. Not cool at all."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you're here to tell how justified your repeated vandalism was. You have a lot of nerve to show up here. I'm not only who thinks it was vandalism either.[198] Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He responded to doing this and... this.

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

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

I don't know why you consider my pictures as spam. I take good photos an only upload the best. This is my category at commons. I have 1000s more pictures that I could upload but I don't because they are crap in my opinion. I also have 1000s more that I haven't had time to upload yet. If you are really nice I may upload https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50919224/Bighorn%2C%20strength%20of%20wisdom.jpg as public domain. It seems a shame that only me and a few just hoard it on our desktops. The cosplay article is a huge mess of few sources and mucho text of fan input. Editors should should focus on the quality and truth of the text and not the few images it has to fill it out.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think Canoe1967 harass Niemti by placing 3RR notice to his talk page [199], whereas Niemti made only one revert in this article during last week or so. And that is a behavior problem on the part of Canoe1967. Saying that, I think Niemti should simply take a wikibreak and relax. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Smohammed2

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

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

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

Blanks Gun and redirects to Firearm without comment diff

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

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

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

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

Legal threats, User:74.218.250.83

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

Said IP was the one to introduce the names in question ("Giovanni Strassini" and "Giova Stroh") to various Wikipedia articles (e.g.,[200], [201], [202]). Only now he began to refer to those names as his name [203] and started to delete them from other users' discussion entries because of claimed violation of privacy laws. This is by no means a violation of anyone's privacy laws, because said IP deliberately invalidated them for himself. --bender235 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delaware Air National Guard

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

---

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

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

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

Please remove defamatory content from a BLP currently under full protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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