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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Meat, Libel, four AfDs, and assorted weirdness at David Bruce McMahan

We have a strange situation brewing and I believe that we will need an admin to come in immediately and sort it all out.

Issue One: Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money

An IP posted a link to this article today at the talk for David Bruce McMahan. I responded that the process was all done legitimately to my knowledge. It was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan (3rd nomination).

Considering that this is an issue of libel against Wikipedia, this might need intervention by the office staff. Or we can ignore the blogger, who appears to be a hack, and move on. More likely option is the first one, with all the chaos that entails.

Issue Two: Meatpuppetry or other Odd Beheavior

Someone with more experiance than I should look at the edit histories of user:SirBruce and the IP 69.140.102.40. SirBruce has not been seen since 9 Feb 2010 and then posted in the talk page warning another user not to remove sources. The other user (Melaen) seems above question and seems to have taken the correct actions, but SirBruce's appearance raises questions. This is compounded by the edit history of the IP which has been absent for over a month before posting the link to the voice and making accusations against Wikipedia.

Finally, the article creator Wikidpedia appeared today for the first time since 2007 to create this article. In 2007 he created several other articles that were deleted. The timing of all these users is suspicious. The admin User:Cirt blocked the account for 48 hours for disruptive editing, but I think this is someone's dormant sock, as there is no other explination as to why the account would suddenly come in and create an article like this.

Issue Three: The curious history of Bruce McMahan and David Bruce McMahan

There have been four AfDs for this article. Three without the David, one with it. I upgraded the fourth to a CSD G3 on account of it being deleted before. That being said, the first and second AfDs resulted in Keeps, and the third was a Delete. The sources seemed not to have changed, but the consensus shifted. In full disclosure I voted delete on the newest AfD, but was unaware of the other three except for the notification of the deletion history at the AfD. I wanted to bring this up in light of the posting from the Voice, and because the people that hang out here will know the best course of action in all three incidents.

I will not be participating in the discussion of these issues unless I am asked to do so. Please inform me at my talk page if I am needed. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

The page in question has just been deleted. Apparently this is not a problem for Admins, so I don't advise restoring it, as it can only cause more problems. All three issues are still valid though. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant link to final AFD before speedy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bruce McMahan. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

So this guy gets his page deleted because he's not "notable" even though he's had plenty of articles written on him and lawsuits against him. What would make him notable in the eyes of Wikipedia? A reference on Family Guy? Does Peter need to go "Bruce McMahan? That's like that one time I slept with Meg!"?

Just because the content of the article is poor, doesn't mean the entire page should be deleted. This person is clearly notable based on the wide coverage this has received in addition to his role as CEO of a firm that has received coverage, philanthropy that has received coverage, etc. Most of the criticism leveled is hung up on the negative nature of the original article -- clearly, the article's content was unacceptable. But, that means a stub should be created, sources listed, and appropriate tags citing need for improvement, perhaps even created with protection given the obvious controversy, and so forth. In other words, deleting articles due to controversy is ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with far less reliable (and far fewer) sources that we don't go around randomly deleting. We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are deleting the article repeatedly due to, 1) the article content being bad (even in poor taste), and 2) controversial. However, neither of this actually justify the actions taken. It means that it's just going to be a huge pain in the ass for an admin to maintain and a writer to create. Strom (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this wretched and unacceptable article, along with its talkpage. They should not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good, and I stand by the delete, but issues one and two are still important. Should issue 1 be taken to the office and issue 2 to the sockbusters? If so, can someone else do it, I'm not sure how to report things to the office staff or how to report possible meats without knowing who the leader is. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and salted the article on the reason that some extensive discussion will be necessary before considering recreation. –MuZemike 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a random policy question from a new-ish user. I know salting prevents recreating articles, but do the discussion pages also get salted? If so it didn't get done in either case... Just curious, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain this to me? NYB's deletion summary indicates that there are multiple AfDs that have deleted this, but I'm only seeing one (proceeded by 2 keeps where consensus was strongly on the keep side). Further I'm not having problems finding sources on this person. There is all the "odd" stuff like [1] and [2], but there are also things like [3], [4] and [5]on his world-record setting car and for his foundation work [6], [7]. Help? Hobit (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• • 3rd AFD, 2nd AFD, 1st AFD. As far as this last deletion was concerned, after looking at the deleted copy, I do have to agree with NYB. It was entirely negative in tone and would have likely fallen under WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page; it just happened to have been deleted a bunch of times before that. –MuZemike 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The 2nd and 1st were keeps. So if we do want this recreated we get a userspace version and DrV it? If so, I'd like to request the version deleted by the 3rd AfD be userfied to me. I'll dig back and find what was keepable about 1 and 2 and use that as a starting point. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't see any of those articles, but I'm guessing that the most recent version was a gross violation of our BLP policies, and as such it shouldn't be userfied either - i.e., it should stay invisible to the public. If the result of the second AFD was "keep", then maybe that one could be userfied - if its content is not potentially libelous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Fine with me I suppose, but given that it wasn't deleted for being libelous, I assume that the 3rd should be fine too. I'll take either (assuming I get the history). Hobit (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a page that should exist. David Bruce McMahan aka D. Bruce McMahan aka David B. McMahan has had several feature stories written about him in newspapers and magazines, including cover articles in New Times Broward-Palm Beach and Village Voice. He was the subject of multiple lawsuits and has tried to censor journalists and now Wikipedia from reporting on him. He is also a successful businessman and philanthropist who has multiple projects named after him.

The content of the article on Wikipedia was at one time up to standards, but got gutted. The article should be improved and not deleted. There is more than enough information, including direct source legal papers, to fill an appropriate article on him. The page just needs time to stay up instead of being deleted so it can be improved.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/10/memo_to_bruce_m.php

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-09-28/news/feature.html

--66.246.94.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I really hate to do this, as the comment I am about to make flies in the face of many of my core policies, but it has to be said: I'm been to South Florida. I've had the distinct misfortune of reading the New Times. It is unreliable, and has such tremendously low journalistic standards that it is on par with trash tabloids. I would never use it as a source in anything. I'd sooner use the National Inquirer. The New Times is NOT a suitable source, ever, period. As for the other sources, anything with blog in the name is genertally viewed with skepticism. A few blogs are editor reviewed and have high standards. The NPR blogs come to mind. Most blogs are not editor reviewed and therefore are not good sources. Also considering this article my view of the voice as reliable isn't that high.

You need better sources. If the man is notable, they will exist. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@66.246.94.130: Your edit here is higly inappropriate. Avoid attacking the closing admin, it never helps an argument. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Joe Arpaio article cites the Phoenix version of the New Times on multiple occasions, and has for some time despite some controversy on that article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugs Malone (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

<ec>Two things. #1, as I listed above, there are plenty of other sources, so if the New Times is really that bad, we can cope. The discussion about the New Times can happen at WP:RSN. #2 Sven, do you have any WP:COI issues with McMahan? Given your relatively short history here (though lots of edits in that time) I figured it would be worth asking just to be sure. I assume you are a returning editor going for a WP:CLEANSTART, but the COI think also seems possible. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no COI. I have the unfortunate habit of unknowingly stepping into existing conflicts, (see the above ANI that I posted in) but this is more of a "I saw something wrong and went after it" sort of thing. As to my knowledge, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006. I only got an account recently because I spent three months abroad and away from Wikipedia, and came back to a new review system, a dramatic increase in semi-protections, and an overall less condusive atmosphere towards IP editing. Before getting the account, I never used automated tools or participated in ANI or AFD, although I did launch one SOCK investigation from my iPhone. Hence my large general knowledge and low specific knowledge. Also I seem to bite off more than I can chew and have terrible spelling, but again, no COI. If you want to give me guideance on anything, please feel free to do so. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The "blogger who appears to be a hack" that Sven speaks of in his "Issue 1" above is Tony Ortega, Editor in Chief of The Village Voice, as it says at the end of the Ortega/VV blog that Sven linked to. Sven, since you referred to Ortega as a "hack", he appears to have now returned the favor by referring to you in an update to his column as a "minion" (see immediately preceding link, "Update" section). I'd very respectfully suggest that it might help keep drama to a minimum, now that you've made your opinion known, if you were to follow through on the intention you stated when you initiated this thread, and perhaps not continue to participate in this discussion. You're free to do as you think best, of course, and perhaps it'll be necessary for you to comment further, at least briefly. But it would be unfortunate if you (or any individual editor here) were to in any way "become the story". This thread shouldn't be about your opinion of Ortega, or his opinion of you: It needs to remain focused on whether we are to have a McMahan article on Wikipedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Tony Ortega did not claim, nor imply, that Wikipedia deleted the article "for money". If he did say or imply that, please do let me know, because that's absolutely false and libelous. But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures. I don't recommend having a brawl about it, and of course Newyorkbrad's wise comments should be very thoughtfully considered. For me personally, a big test for this article, and a challenge perhaps difficult to meet, is WP:BLP1E. Beyond that, the article would need to be thoughtful and respectful of human dignity and would have to work really hard to draw conservative conclusions rather than following a single source as if it is the gospel truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to quote what Ortega is saying about Wikipedia, since I'm not clear that everyone in the discussion is actually reading his blog post (and just to point out - yes it's a blog post, but also the bloogier who wrote it signs his blog posts "Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice" - for those not aware of the Voice, it is considered a "reliable source," and not just in the wikipedia context.

From the blog post Memo

UPDATE: Wikipedia's reason for not wanting a McMahan page? According to one of their minions, I'm a "hack."

The last time, while they were under constant attack by McMahan's lawyers, they pulled down references to our articles because, they said, The Village Voice was not a legitimate source of information for biographies of living people.

Say what? I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source. You can imagine that my respect for Wikipedia took a nosedive at that point.

This time, we get a Wikipedia minion saying that McMahan isn't "notable" and that I'm a hack. You can almost smell the fear, can't you?

Not notable? Well, OK, Wikipedia, how's this for notable. It turns out that moneybags McMahan put on a show earlier this year with his new $3 million race car, and unveiled it with the help of 2010's Playmate of the year, Hope Dworacyk. Notable enough for you?

I don't know. Hedge fund kabillionaire, noted "philanthropist," race car dreamer, Westchester County bigwig, and...oh, he married his own daughter in Westminster Abbey. Is that really not notable enough?

UPDATE 2: And now it's down. Well, we learn once again that Wikipedia is afraid of McMahan (which is fine, we don't expect others to take on these kinds of stories), but that they will continue to slime the Voice as their reason for taking down information about him.

For the benefit of Wikipedia editors, who still may not understand this situation, the Voice is doing things the old-fashioned way here. We are reporting what court documents revealed about a relationship between a very notable super-rich old guy who abused his grown daughter for years. Those facts are contained in court documents which are available here and elsewhere. Normally, that is the bedrock of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sourcing. In this case, however, McMahan's money talks.

(emphasis added)

I'm sticking my nose in because I find this particular incident fascinating on many levels. The collision between journalism & wikipedia, and the awful, awful story that this whole discussion is about.

You guys should really get a handle on your "minions" =) illovich (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knO5Ad7cD0M is this an appropriate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.201.102 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

National Cristina Foundation

As long as this is being discussed, someone should have a look at this edit. I reverted, but perhaps the IP who made it should be dealt with and a revdelete imposed. Also, please examine the link to the Village Voice story recently inserted. Admins should watchlist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've revision deleted that edit, and a similar edit to the talkpage. I gave the IP a final warning, as the edits were from several hours ago. They have, however, already had one block for a similar (deleted) edit. If someone else feels a block here is warranted they'll get no objection from me. I haven't looked at the Village Voice link yet. TFOWR 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk page history. The libelous edit summary is still live. IMO the talk page should be deleted entirely. Also please look at the link to the Voice story in the article. Perhaps that should be revdeleted, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries have been deleted as well, now - thanks for catching that. I'm still catching up with the Village Voice link/ref. TFOWR 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a link to the same Voice story mentioned in the first post of this thread containing the accusations against McMahan. It's not relevant to the Cristina Foundation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've revrted it and semi-protected the article. I have not revision-deleted the Village Voice ref, however. (I may yet, and have no objection to anyone else doing so). TFOWR 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to this issue, some time after TWOFRs post an IP posted a link on the articles Talk Page to a YouTube video alledgedly about "Bruce McMahaon's dark past". I have deleted the link and related comments - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

External publicity

This whole sorry mess is now being posted about on Reddit, which has an unfortunate habit of publicizing "interesting" Wikipedia vandalism - see discussion here and be sure to view the image linked at the top of the discussion page, which is visible to anyone who sees the link on Reddit's front page. When we spend our time dickering about what we should do instead of just nuking the offensive material, this is how the world sees us. That's apart from the harm being done to a living person (again, see image linked in the discussion there), which is horrendous and irreversible. This whole lengthy discussion did nothing to prevent either issue - whereas immediately deleting the BLP-violating material and reconsidering it afterward would have prevented it. One ounce of action beats any amount of debate, every time. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The original Reddit link to the Village Voice article, from yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/dooud/rich_guy_has_an_affair_with_daughter_gets_called/ - as you can see, they're pretty miffed about this guy's behaviour. This is what a person who claims to be the original editor of the Bruce McMahan article says about it:

Thank you for linking to Tony's article. I'm glad to see this scumbag's past dredged up again.

I can offer some possibly interesting perspective on this incident. I was the Wikipedia editor who first created the Bruce McMahan page several years ago. I used the original Broward/Palm Beach New Times articles as my main source and was even nice enough to not call him out on his mail-order PhD.

Once the article entered Google and became a first-page hit for "Bruce McMahan", Bruce's hired gun from the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP (www.linerlaw.com) emailed me proposing changes to the article. What a fuck up! The idiot didn't even know he could edit the article himself. I ignored him.

Bruce's PR firm wised up, and vandals began blanking the page. I kept restoring it, and we went back and forth. His PR firm soon figured out that they could actually re-write the pages instead of vandalize them. A resume was posted over the article. When I and several editors pushed back, several new but deeply concerned editors began inserting outright lies then tried to weaken the language of the daughter-fucking incident and bury it under mounds of glowing hagiography. They accused me and a handful of editors as being members of a conspiracy to destroy Bruce. One of his daughters even jumped in with a ridiculously long apologia in the discussion page. The volume of edits and sock puppets knocked the fight out of me, but a handful of other editors kept up and actually expanded the article to cover far more of the daughter-fucking incident than my original stub.

Eventually, Bruce contacted Jimbo Wales, who directly intervened and had an admin settle the debate in favor of scrubbing ALL references to Bruce's daughter fucking from the article. For the next couple of years, the article became a paean to Bruce's charity work with the National Cristina Foundation and other bullshit. Bruce won. It stood this way for a long time until someone noticed that there was a random fluff piece floating around Wikipedia and proposed to delete it. Fuck it, I decided, and I voted to kill it.

Reddit, I implore you: vote this link up. Get it to the front page. Make Bruce McMahan and other rich people realize that when they try to suppress information with the tools of coercion and deception, free-speech-loving individuals will turn around and blow it up to the stratosphere.

So, yes, thanks for caving to the guy with the money, Wikipedia. 94.193.244.17 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

When do I get my money, and how much will I get? TFOWR 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, to be clear, I have nothing to do with this. Bruce did not contact me, I did not intervene. There is no prohibition by me or the Foundation on creating an article on this topic, and never has been.. Years ago, Brad Patrick had conversation with some people about this; he may be able to explain more if he is interested. But he did not, to my knowledge, intervene back then. As always, I am a strong proponent of WP:BLP and WP:RS - those policies are clearly relevant here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• As for what Tony Ortega thinks of us: Fuck 'im in the ear. HalfShadow 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Insufferably long comment

I believe I've now discovered and examined all or nearly all the articles and web sources that are at all relevant: I've probably sifted through and read well over 200 pages, including court documents. I do not choose to provide my opinion of the facts presented in the media; other editors can examine the available evidence for themselves. I will say, however, that I don't think it's a worthwhile or justifiable exercise to attempt to shoot the media messengers in this instance. Nor do I think it's useful (or appropriate) for any of us to try to stand in moral judgment, based on our interpretation of the facts we have available. If anyone here finds he can't refrain from doing so, can't think of or discuss this issue without moral indignation coloring his thinking, this article and related ones available on the web may be of considerable use. The suggestion is not to be construed as indicating any opinion about the facts that have been presented on either side in this matter.

A procedural note is probably in order. While the article was in its most recent (4th) AfD, a user tagged it under CSD G4, and it was, in fact, deleted as a "speedy". While that tagging was no doubt made in all good faith, the article probably didn't meet G4 since the just-deleted article has been described as being very negative, while the previously deleted version (AfD three) was anything but: it was described as having been "whitewashed", and as a vanity piece. CSD G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version".

Some of the "external publicity" about this has already been mentioned and even quoted. There's a very great deal of it, and it appears this thread is being followed pretty closely in some corners of the web. ( A good reason for choosing one's words deliberately here, I think. ) As might be expected, some people are hoping for and trying to promote a "Streisand effect", and others believe just as strongly that the allegations should never have been published at all. There has been some suggestion of a conflict of interest re one editor along with a corresponding reference to a previously disclosed real-life identity ( I do not say "credible" suggestion, note ) and there's a different, previously-involved editor who has expressed great indignation off-site at what he sees as the improper suppression of this article. That editor has made accusations that target that indignation back to Wikipedia; and it's my opinion that it wouldn't be very extraordinarily improper ask him whether he might have some potential conflict of interest, given certain individual factors. I mention this not because I think it needs to be investigated (I don't) but because I think it's appropriate that editors should be forewarned of it. Each side in this conflict is sure it holds the moral high ground, each side just knows it's on the side of the angels.

As I see the question, there are two distinct ways we can decide whether to have an article about this. We can base a decision on rules, or we can base a decision on values.

If we're to base our decision on rules then I think Jimmy is exactly right that it comes down to BLP1E. That question resolves to (a) whether McMahan is also notable in our very-specific and admittedly idiosyncratic sense of the word on Wikipedia for his race-car development, his success as a hedge-fund manager, his wealth, or his philanthropy, OR (b) whether the coverage about the father-daughter controversy has been broad-enough and persistent-enough in reliable sources to call for inclusion in Wikipedia. If either condition (a) or (b) is met then our rules dictate that a carefully-written, non-sensational article that includes the topic currently at issue here should not be deleted.

In the course of looking into the question, I saw a great many mentions re "condition (a)" about McMahan. That's it exactly: there were a great many mentions re that condition. The NY Times mentioned the sale of a $30 million condo (furnishings and artwork included), Playboy mentioned his race car development, some trade publications mention his work as a hedge-fund manager, there were a few mentions of his philanthropy, and one or two of his great wealth. I saw nothing in-depth about these topics, however, no "feature" articles about McMahan in any of these contexts or roles. It's possible I missed something, of course, but I tried carefully to be thorough. It's a borderline case, a judgment call, and I'm not going to argue the point with anyone, but it's my view that McMahan's notability apart from the one big issue that's current is probably not sufficient to warrant an article.

So what about "condition (b)", then? Well, there's a great deal of material, multiple articles, from Village Voice, and the follow-up official blogs. ( The New Times in other locations is also Village Voice Media, btw, as I understand it. ) And there are two articles in the New York Post that I know of: one essentially follows after the Village Voice and one introduces denials and counter-accusations against the long-lost daughter, made by a different daughter and (same) half-sister. A lot of editors will disapprove of the Village Voice and the New York Post, of course, because their respective editorial outlooks don't suit. I have nothing to say about that, but it's my opinion that they're both reliable sources, have sufficient editorial oversight, etc. There will be editors here who disagree with that, of course, but I think any such debate would be moot. A case could be made that it's due to McMahan's success in getting civil lawsuits sealed in multiple jurisdictions, perhaps quite a strong case, too, but for whatever reason I was unable to discover any other reliable sources that touched this story. The Village Voice directly addresses the issue, of course, this apparent lack of extensive coverage elsewhere, but the fact remains. Oh, there was a new story today in English at thaindian.com, too. That's all I'm aware of: It's my overall opinion that our condition (b) probably isn't met, either.

What, then, if we base our decision on values? Before I really looked at this in-depth, I was sure that the "values" decision had to come down in favor of having an article: I completely understood the great indignation that the Editor of the Village Voice has expressed. I'm fairly sure I still do understand that, actually. I would almost certainly feel the way he does, were I in his shoes. But I can't work myself into the same state of indignation after looking at this as closely as I now have. There's no moral high ground here, in my view; the angels aren't on anyone's side. They're probably all just quietly weeping somewhere. Whatever you believe about the facts presented, whether you believe in guilt or innocence or some combination of the two for the accused or accusers, what we have here are terrible, devastating personal consequences, a real tragedy. If we're going to base our decision about this on values, then it seems morally right to me to leave the personally involved to suffer through the grief of this as best they can without all of us here shining a spotlight their way. I realize that others may disagree in perfect good faith, of course, but that's my view of this matter. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as an exceptionally thoughtful, well-reasoned, and empathetic comment. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Amazing. Makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully supporting Ohiostandard, after spending an hour or so familiarizing myself with the previous article versions and some of the online articles. And i'm an inclusionist. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohiostandard makes a good case that the article falls into a "grey zone" of notability, between articles that pretty unambiguously need deleting and those that pretty unambiguously need keeping. Within this grey zone we have a collective choice, and Ohiostandard raises the issue of "values". I'd suggest that there are two concrete things to inform the choice: i) WP:NOTNEWS (the fewer sources there are on a BLP subject, the more a Wikipedia article takes on the qualities of a news source rather than an encyclopedia - especially in view of Wikipedia's typically high Google ranking) ii) the notion of the "Public interest". Within the grey zone, we're balancing a subject's desire for privacy with the public's right to know. The moral strength of the latter depends on the interest involving more than prurience; for example, it's more reasonable to say that it's in the public interest to have corruption in public office reported than, say, adultery. Bottom line, McMahan falls into the grey zone, and on both considerations I've suggested, I think the choice should be not to have an article. Rd232 ^talk 08:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Other article venues where this has spilled to

• The Village Voice
• Streisand effect

Just an FYI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I haven't really edited many articles, in fact I finally just created an account because of this incident. Doesn't the fact that there is such a fervent discussion over McMahan's inclusion/exclusion point out that he has enough notoriety to warrant inclusion here? Is it simply because there are no major articles giving a complete biography in several publications that means he shouldn't be included? As soon as you willingly step into the public light, i.e. a public unveiling of a car with the help of a playmate (which absolutely is an attempt for attention for his product), you lose your right to anonymity. Certainly, the article should be balanced, giving all available information. But deleting an article of a notable public figure because they're not famous enough ignores all of the other articles on Wikipedia that certainly have garnered much less attention. I'm not implying that anything untoward happened, but given the allegations, simple deletion smacks of impropriety. BTW, if I've made any faux-pas's regarding my post here, let me know, still trying to figure this all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a touchy subject. One group of Wikipedians are against keeping articles from deletion just because their notability is Wikipedia-related, & they often win the discussions. (I don't always think their opinion on the matter is correct, but that's besides the point.) In this case, I would believe you have a point here if this squabble over an article about this guy makes it to the news beyond The Village Voice or the New York Times -- for example, it gets picked up by one of the major media networks in the US or in Europe. Or the incident gets picked apart in the next book on Wikipedia. Until then, while I weakly agree with you on this there just isn't enough evidence for notability; or to put it another way, if I'm going to spend time writing an article on a living person, I'd rather work on one of the major government officials of Ethiopia -- we don't have an article on their Minister of Agriculture, for example. In the long run, an article on the Ethiopian Minister of Agriculture will help more people than on this guy. -- llywrch (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nair

a big group of anonymous editors gang up to remove the reference to polyandry among Nairs in the article. There are multiple peer reviewed articles as i have mentioned here. all these anonymous users and WP:SPAs just use the argument that they just dont like it.

Pichaiyan Nadar (talk · contribs · count), Bhattathirippadu (talk · contribs · count), Robynhood.Pandey (talk · contribs · count), Pulayan Punchapadam (talk · contribs · count), 86.155.192.27 (talk · contribs · count), S R K MENON (talk · contribs · count), Thankappan Pillai (talk · contribs · count), 59.92.206.28 (talk · contribs · count) and Suresh.Varma.123 (talk · contribs · count) are the users. --CarTick 04:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, User CarTick is targeting the Nair article in bad faith for the past several months (from the opinion of several other users). Despite repeat requests by other users, CarTick has so far failed to give the reason to include his points and the noticeability of it. (See Talk:Nair#section_break). The users who have voiced against CarTick includes a lot of established users, in addition to a few anonymous ones. And above all, as clear from the talk page that CarTick's additions were rejected not because other users "don't like them", but because they were inaccurate and irrelevant to the particular article. Polyandry is not relevant to the Nair article and there is no need to hyper inflate it just to insult the members of Nair community.

And if CarTick thinks any one is using multiple accounts, then admins can check them. But I'd like to remind everyone that this particular user is accused of bias by at least 3 or 4 well established users. Also one should look in to CarTick's links with 122.178.xxx.xxx, who has issued multiple death threats to CarTick's opponents and is active in pages where CarTick is active. I smell something fishy. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#References. well, i have atleast 5 peer reviewed references. i can provide several more if u want. --CarTick 04:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read the discussions in the talk page? The issue is about noticeability and relevance in that particular article. Not about references. Anyway I don't think a solution can be reached by talking with you. Let the admins decide. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

one wonders why polyandry among Nairs is not relevant in Nairs page? well, this is not a place to argue. i guess it is a clear case of WP:Idontlikeit and hope some responsible eyes will watch the article. 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not relevant because - (1) It was practiced by a very small minority, so can't add in to the article saying everyone practiced it (2) It fell out of use hundreds of years ago (3) Evidence supporting it is disputed (4) Currently most of the people doesn't even remember it and is not relevant now (5) It was not limited to any particular caste - so it is not something which is unique to Nairs (6) You are accused of bias (7) Most well known researchers who worked on Nairs like CJ Fuller and Thurston doesn't even mention it once in their books (8) You are taking bits and pieces from some unknown journals and using it out of context to malign a particular community. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The system of marriage practised by Nairs was not polyandry. If any author used the term to depict the Nair custom, it was for want of a suitable term describing a system in which the females had great freedom- unknown at the time- for rejecting a suitor. The custom was distinct from those of polyandrous tribes like Tibetans and Todas. Also, bahubhartrutvam or the practice of taking many husbands was prevalent among Ezhavas/ Thiyyas , another prominent caste inthe region, reported by John Buchanan nd other western authors. However the user Car Tick, who 's insisting on a link to Polyandry in the website on Nairs, is careful not to target the Ezhava/Thiyya Wiki website, suggesting that that his intentions are not just the improvement of Wikipedia as an authentic source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.153.176 (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am having doubts about some of the anon-IPs and SPAs listed by Cartick, two or three of them look like cloned copies. But also, from the evidence given by Suresh.Varma.123, it seems that at least one established user who had a dispute with Cartick received death threats like this one. Perhaps some of the users are unwilling to use their real identities for security reasons. 203.131.222.1 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is best if User:CarTick opens a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations about the editors he lists at the beginning of this thread. In my view, the constant undoing on the subject of polyandry by new editors raises concerns about offsite canvassing. Should this continue, I suggest that an admin ought to fully protect Nair and then wait for evidence of a talk page consensus before allowing further change in the mention of polyandry. In my personal opinion, the article on Polyandry in India gives about the right level of prominence for this topic. Nairs are mentioned there, but are not the center of attention. The degree to which Nair ought to link to articles which discuss polyandry is a valid question that could be discussed in an RfC at Talk:Nair. If 'polyandry' is not the right way to describe the former customs, as an IP argues above, this could be worked out (with sources) on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. sockpuppet investigations may not help in case of off-site canvassing. i just want to state my intentions clear one more time. I dont care what kind of final text which needs to be added. There are plethora of sources (peer-reviewed) which call it polyandry. I minimally insisted on adding atleast a link. I guess a compromise would be to include all the viewpoints. "polyandry" among Nairs is as notable as Nairs being notable for their bravery and participation in military. But unfortunately, while the article elaborates in detail about one story and leaves the other out. the SPAs and anonymous editors are hellbent on keeping the info out. i dont think i will be able reach a consensus with a group of guys who dont know and care what wikipedia is all about. I will consider an RFC if i still want to pursue this issue any further. --CarTick 17:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Leave your arrogance at home Cartick. If you are accusing of editors like me of "don't knowing and caring what Wikipedia is all about", then give proof. I urge the admins to take a look at this guy's frequent insults on other editors. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

referring to your previous message posted at 04:49, 9 October 2010 on this page,

"(4) Currently most of the people doesn't even remember it and is not relevant now (5) It was not limited to any particular caste - so it is not something which is unique to Nairs"

These are some of the reasons you think why the info shouldnt be added. i will let others decide. --CarTick 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(←) I think everyone should keep in mind that dispute resolution is not intended to resolve content disputes; it's only meant for behavioral issues and such. ANI is not going to take a stance on this. I would recommend an WP:RFC on the issue if everyone can keep WP:CIVIL in mind at all times. Failing that, mediation might work. As for the sockpuppetry allegations, they should be handled separately by WP:SPI. --NYKevin @822, i.e. 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

as a totally outside observer, I think that though this at first sight looks like a content dispute about whether their marriage system as described in Nair ceremonies and customs and more specifically in Sambandam amounts to polyandry in the usual sense (something I'm not going to judge), but it actually is about the whether covering it in the main article is POV. I do have an opinion on that. I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV. When I saw the subhead of this section it immediately came to mind that it must be about this particular topic, & I was right--those who know only a very little about the Nairs, know about this. There has been frequent efforts to include disproportionate coverage of the past or present customs of various groups--usually religious groups-- that are different from the common Western norm and might seem disreputable; reciprocally, there have been frequent efforts to give these aspects as little coverage as possible. Both are gross violations of the principle of NPOV, which is arguably a matter that does concern administrators. But if the discussion is to be continued, I 'd suggest the NPOV noticeboard as the appropriate place. I do not recommend it; I recommend compromise and a moderate degree of coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

exactly. the Customs and traditions section is empty except for a link. I believe it is a deliberate effort to keep what the editors who control the article deem unpleasant. The problem is all the editors who are involved in “protecting” the article are single purpose accounts and have no edits outside Nair and Kshatriya (a larger group under which they claim Nairs fall under, which is also disputable). They don’t either understand what NPOV is or don’t care. I am positive, there will be similar opinions in NPOV notice board and WP:RFC.

My idea of a compromise would be to include a summary of customs and traditions including different types of marriages practised. But, without active involvement or enforcement by uninvolved editors, I dont see much of a chance of eking out a compromise with these single purpose accounts. I therefore predict the whole effort to be not very fruitful. I will see what i can do.

For anyone interested in reading about Nayar (Nair) form of marriage, http://www.jstor.org/pss/644756 and http://www.jstor.org/pss/2796033 are good articles. Melinda Moore begins her article, "This paper will present a view of Nayar marriage that sees each of three rituals-the taliket-tukalyanam (tali-tying ceremony), tirandukalyanam (first menstruation rite), and the ceremony that begins a sexual (sambandham) relationship-as centering on different and systematic sets of indigenous symbols and meanings." It is an interesting behaviour considering how conservative Indian society has been. The women had extraordinary powers and choices. I have the copies if anyone wants.

In the meantime, would it be appropriate to tag the article for POV? --CarTick 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Beyond belief. Nair marriage ceremonies and customs are covered in great detail in Nair ceremonies and customs. There are millions of Journal articles available and everyone of them may not be accurate. The references he has cited makes it clear that this polyandrous marriages were very rare and their existence was in dispute. "Although I have never met a Nayar woman whom I have definitely known to be polyandrous, I heard, from Nayar, of several cases of non-fraternal polyandry in recent times both from Walluvanad and from the Trichur taluk of Cochin." Even during the 15th and 16th centuries, polyandry was practiced by less than 1% of the Nairs. Polyandry completely fell out of use during the 19th century and no one even remembers about it now. I don't know how polyandry can be connected to Nairs. In Kerala, it was the Kammalan caste which practiced mandatory polyandry. The other castes (Ezhava, Nair.etc) mostly practiced single marriage, but practiced polyandry on rare occasions. Then what is the relevance of polyandry in the Nair article? Polyandry can be included in an article about Keralites in general, but what will be the reason for including it in the Nair article? Polyandry was practiced throughout the world and anyone will be able to get examples of it from around the globe. Will you create a sub-section about polyandry in British people article, if I give you one or two examples of polyandry among ethnic British? I was an active Wiki user till 2007 (when I was still in India), and I have seen many users quitting Wiki because of bullying. The tactics used here for bullying are very primitive. First issuing death threats against users who disagree with something and silencing them, and then banning the less experienced users using some lame excuses. I don't have much time to waste here, as I am working 12 hours a day. But I would like to say that, if users with extreme biases and prejudices are allowed to edit wikipedia, then the very credibility of wikipedia will be at stake. Having Cartick dicatate the contents of the Nair article is like having David Duke editing the article about holocaust. Look beyond the sugar coated words. 202.83.178.126 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hounding and weird behavior

User:Beyond My Ken and I had a content dispute a week ago. Since then, he has followed me on here and Commons, jumping into every conversation since then, telling people I am a liar and so on. He is just harassing me, bringing up the content dispute time and time again still. When I had a question about Commons policy, I went to an admin that was active on Commons who directed me to another admin who might be more help. Beyond My Ken followed me to each admins page and harassed me there. He is being uncivil, and often comments on recent edits I have made, showing he is clearly following every move I make. Can an admin step in here, maybe block him for a bit so he can cool down and get off this content dispute? See here, here and here. He talks bout changing my behavior and me misbehaving and needing to correct me, it is weird. Like he wants to be my mother. Please, someone stop this? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is like deja vu. It's like deja vu. Weren't you and a different editor put on ice for 24 about a week ago... connected with the other editor saying you were a liar? I don't know the truth of that matter... but if two different people called me a liar within a week's time, I might want to look into my own behavior before shlepping a complaint to ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)\

Yeah, there were two other editors involved in a content dispute. One got blocked for calling me a liar, this one decided to just follow me around and harass me. Thanks for your help, though. The admins seem to set the bar real low, so I guess I can't be disappointed. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that you were also blocked for your behavior as well.

@Bugs: Xanderliptak seems to have a number of problems: he doesn't hear what is being told him and he fairly consistently misrepresents the tenor, tone and content of discussions which can be easily viewed by whoever wants to. There may be WP:COMPETENCE problems as well, since he doesn't seem to understand basic Wikipedia policies and accepted behavior. My own opinion is that his behavior has become disruptive, but I may be too close to the problem -- others can decide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? I neglected to mention to him that I was blocked? His opening statement was, "Weren't you and a different editor put on ice for 24 about a week ago". Are you not paying attention to what is going on or are you just telling lies to help distract and win petty arguments? You want to argue competence? You argue about a subject you admitted having no knowledge in. What kind of competence was that? To say you don't know something but you want to argue about what you fell should be right without having any facts to back you up. You ignored the books I gave you, the quotes, the photos all on a gut feeling all those sources were wrong. Fine, follow me around, and get your rocks off from it, I don't care anymore. You did the same thing here that you do everywhere else, you tell them don't look here, but read this argument there, and then everyone comments on an argument that is already past and over and I can't get anyone to focus on the what is still relevant. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Xander, I did say that both he and another editor were blocked for 24 hours. Circumstances and exchange of words were a bit different there, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with someone's behaviour on Commons, it needs to be dealt with on Commons. Enwiki admins have no jurisdiction there. I would counsel you, Xanderliptak, as I have already done, to ensure that any allegations you are making about the behaviour of others are supported by diffs which you provide. Admins, and ArbCom, look dimly upon unsupported allegations. I am giving you this advice for your own good so that you can avoid being blocked. Beyond that I will not be commenting on this issue unless an admin asks me to on my talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 07:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• I have not followed the dispute, but following my bad habit of noticeboard lurking, it has been impossible to not notice the drama. I endorse Beyond My Ken's comments, and recommend that Xanderliptak spend more time listening (ignore Beyond My Ken if you like, but listen to at least some of the other editors who have commented here and at Commons). Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about a dispute, this is about someone following me around and interjecting in every conversation I have, even though he has no reason to do so but to harass me. He is upset about a content dispute a week ago and tells me he wants to change my behavior. You are not allowed to harass and hound people, and not to mention is just sounds creepy when someone starts talking to me like I am a child and they are my mother. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak has indeed raised the issue on Commons, in the same thread where 7 people have told him that he can't change the upload license retroactively, and no one has agreed with him, and yet he refuses to admit that this is a consensus. He got a quicky two-hour attention-getting block for overturning an admin's reversion of his changes, and he's likely to be blocked again, since he went over overturned the same admin again. He's forum shopping among admins here, trying to get someone to tell him what he wants to hear, but each time he opens a new discussion, he badly misrepresents what's happened over there, and he objects to my corrections. I think that sums it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't about Commons, it is about how you follow me around and harass me. You went there and now I can't get an answer form anyone because you threw yourself into the argument and just keep throwing things in and distract everyone. The question was about moral rights and CC licensing, not about you or your petty dispute form last week. Get over it and leave me alone already. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not about what you say it's about, simply because you say it. The folks here can look at the evidence and decide for themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that the links Xanderliptak had provided above were for the entire talk page discussion, but I see now that they are simply diffs, which don't give context. Here is the discussion on admin Xeno's talk page, and this is the discussion on admin Moonriddengirl's talk page. The Administrator's noticebaord discussion I've already linked above, but this Commons deletion discussion is also useful to show the general problem with Xanderliptak's behavior.

I don't really have anything more to say, so I plan not to respond here unless someone asks me to. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So do I get no help with this? Basically I am told I deserve to be hounded and harassed? Why, because I made one smart ass comment about an editor for talking shit about me for a few days? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nobody said that that - it's just you're trying to raise issues on another Wikimedia project, and tryign to get action based on them. You provided no proof of harassment - Beyond my Ken has been around and commenting for on the exact same Wikipedia pages that you say he suddenly arrived at. I have dozens of editor talkpages watchlisted. If he's actually harassing you, we can discuss an interaction ban, but at this point, merely posting in the same places is merely coincidence right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So it is just coincidence he winds up at every talk page I am? That he interjects when he does not know what the conversation is about to point out a week old disagreement, that isn't harassment? That he makes comments on my recent edits means he isn't hounding me, just suddenly developed the same interests as me? We have only crossed on one page in the nearly two years I have been editing (a year or so registered), and now in this last week we have crossed on over three dozen pages across Wikipedia and Commons, and that is just a alignment of fate and the stars? How many coincidences before it becomes hounding? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this matter should read the links that Beyond My Ken posted farther up the section here, and what's going on with all this should become fairly clear. Xander is at odds with a lot of different users now, and of course they are all at fault, and he's doing nothing wrong. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

And while I can't read BMK's third link due to its tiny font, it's clear from the other two entries that if BMK is indeed "following him around", it's probably due to what he feels are good reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@Bugs: If you haven't spent a lot of time on Commons, it may be that you haven't set your preferences over there to use the MonoBook skin instead of the default Vector, which uses a very small (to these old eyes) typeface. That may be the reason why the text looked tiny to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip. I don't actually have a logon at commons, so it looks like I can't set preferences (same issue I have with wikipedia when I get logged out), but I can read it OK on my work PC. So I'm thinking it might be more to do with some setting on my old home PC - and which, apparently, I can fix there (as I did with wikipedia) by changing a setting. So all's swell. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you're right, can't set preferences without an account, and can't even turn off "new features" (which is when the Vector skin came in) without opening an account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Turns out I actually did have an account at commons, I just set it up so long ago I had forgotten about it. When I logged in, the font became the normal size. Now that I'm there, I can get on with the business of haranguing this user. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It also turns out that on Friday,[8] the editor was issued a token block on commons for - guess what - doing the kind of stuff you were complaining about him doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. It is also the case that after the block, Xanderliptak went and repeated the exact same edits he had just been blocked for. I expect that when the Commons admin who issued the block edits again, there will be some response to XL's blatant behavior.

As long as I'm here, let me refute the allegation that I am "pissed off" -- that is not the case. I think "bemused", "perplexed" and "concerned" would best describe my state of mind concerning this editor. He has something to offer to Wikipedia/Commons in his heraldic artwork, which can be seen in a number of articles, but his total inability to grok how things work here and comport himself according to each project's policies and accepted behaviors, as well as his unwillingness to see beyond his idees fixe, is ... bewildering, as well as, unfortunately, disruptive. Dealing with him in any respect is a massive time-sink, with very little ROI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What the hell kind of statement is that? Oh, I pissed of Beyond My Ken, therefore I deserve to be hounded and harassed? Yeah, I pissed off a two editors, so what? It doesn't matter if we had disputes, this behavior is not appropriate. He pissed me off, but I don't go to every talk page he is on and bring up old arguemtns saying, "Oh, pay no attention to this issue, look at this old argument, isn't he an ass?"

I was told to go to Moonriddengirl for a question, about how my license requires attribution but I have found websites not fulfilling that license, and asking about my moral rights. Beyond My Ken followed me there, trying to change the subject and distract from my question, trying to draw attention to him, see here. He is harassing, his statements turn everything back to him, he just tries to get back into old arguments, despite my pleas to stop and assurances the question does not involve him. He just says I have to be lying,t hat the question has to be about him, that I am pretending to have an issue to somehow get back at him. It is paranoid. He shouldn't be doing this. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How about restating the commons issue here, so that everyone (or at least I) will understand it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not guarantee that I fully understand 100% what is going on here, but from the link that Xanderliptak provided above, it does seem that Beyond My Ken is going a bit overboard with his comments. Although I do not know what specific Commons policy prohibits changing the licensing of an image, I do understand why changing the licensing of an image would be prohibited (unless you just uploaded it, and as soon as it is finished uploading, you realize you accedentally selected the wrong license, and immediately changed it—that would be a sensible exception). However, I do not understand why adding an additional, alternative license or clarifying an existing license (as long as the clarification is OK under the license's terms) would be prohibited. From what I could tell by looking at the aforementioned talk page, all Xanderliptak wanted to do was clarify his moral rights. In my opinion, without your moral rights, having a license on your works is just a bunch of wasted words. I don't see why Commons would prohibit an author from reminding potential license violators what the very purpose of copyright is in the first place, when he is having problems with people violating his chosen license when they reuse his images. Prohibiting an author from reminding potential license violaters of his moral rights doesn't seem like common sense to me.

Anyway, from what I saw at the aforementioned talk page, I do agree that Beyond My Ken is going a little overboard. He is a bit too negative it seems, and he even used profanity once in the aforementioned talk page. Please do not use profanity when commenting on another Wikipedia editor. It is overly negative, impolite, sinful, and just plain old unnecessary. Instead, be as neutral as possible, while still being as factually accurate as possible, citing as many relevant Wikipedia policies as possible. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Retro: If you think you have something substantive to add to the discussion about upload licenses (not copyright) the place to bring it is this thread on Commons, where the questions that Xanderliptak has raised have been considered, and rejected.

As far as my profanity is concerned, yes, I admit that after many, many interactions with Xanderliptak, I did use a bit of profanity. Specifically, I said: "You've got to stop ignoring consensus and believing only what you want to believe, you've gotta stop edit warring, and you need to play nice with others. If you can do those things, you and I can be quits. I'm certain you'd like that, and I know I sure as hell would too." on Moonriddengirl's talkpage, and I believe I may have used "fucking" as an intensifier somewhere else that I can't locate right now -- but, Retro, you need to understand that I've been through the mill with this editor, and adults sometimes use this kind of language when they're at their wits end. It isn't meant in any dirty fashion, it's just a way of signaling "I'm exasperated!", OK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Retro: Found it! My other use of profanity. Earlier in the same conversation on Moonriddengirl's talk page, I wrote:

So, consensus at Commons tells you you can't change the license retroactively (and yes, "retroactively" is the correct word), an admin undoes your changes, you revert the admins edits, so the admin give you an attention-getting "Stop now!" 2-hour block... and your response is to revert the admin's edits again -- and you have the nerve to come running to admins here trying to get one to take up your cause? Simply fucking amazing.

Well, I kinda stand by that. Don't you think it's amazing that someone would repeat exactly the same edits that got them blocked in the first place? In fact, I think it's fucking amazing, because it's so ... weird, and so (apparently) deliberately provocative and so ... clueless.

Sorry if you're offended by such language. Out here in the real world, people talk like that all the time, and no one takes offense, because they read' the meanings behind the words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I might have said "cluelessly amazing" or "amazingly clueless", as either one works. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this. Profanity is extremely petty and insignificant compared to Xanderliptak's disruptive behavior. I think it's simply fucking amazing that Xanderliptak hasn't been blocked, and is still around to waste everyone's time with this ANI thread. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect that the reason the rule is there is to prevent uploaders from deciding, some time after the fact, that they want to renege on their original agreement, maybe because the image was used in some way they hadn't foreseen. The user is expected to get it right, upon uploading, or soon thereafter. I expect the cutoff point would be that once someone else has used the picture, you can't change the licensing, at least not to make it more restrictive. Presumably if you decided to release your image to the public, i.e. to lessen the restrictions, that shouldn't be a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I just finished reading this debate on commons,[9] (previously posted here by BMK) and if I were BMK, I might have indulged in a few "sinful" words myself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I think that once you upload the image, you're stuck with the license you agreed to, whether or not anyone has used the image, but I also think that it's possible to re-upload the image with a different license, and have the previous image deleted (which is unlikely to happen if there isn't a good rationale to delete it and it's in use on one of the 'pedias). What's not allowed is to change the license language after the fact, and it's evern more verboten to try to insert language which is incompatible with the upload license, which is what Xanderliptak has been attempting to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's vaguely akin to being allowed to delete an article that you started, are unhappy with, and which no one else has edited. Once others start to touch an article or file, the uploader loses control over it. Which reminds me, what is this "moral right" stuff that he keeps talking about? That sounds like a legalistic term rather than a policy term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as Xanderliptak has been told repeatedly, the Creative Commons license does not deal with "moral rights" in any respect. If he believes that his moral rights as the copyright holder have been abused in a modification of his work under the CC license, his recourse is to sue the abuser under the national laws of his country, which in his case I believe is the United States. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ & [10]. –xeno^talk 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno: I don't see anything at either link which contradicts what Xanderliptak's been told (repeatedly) in the Commons discussion. True, the CC license does mention the author's moral rights, but only to say that the license isn't concerned with them. It's still the case that legal action, not Wikipedia- or Commons-based action, is his recourse, and it remains true that an editor can't retroactively change the license once an image is uploaded. The only new (to me) information, in your second link, is that he has the option of asking that his name be removed from the derivative image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Where it says, "In addition to the right of licensors to request removal of their name from the work when used in a derivative or collective they don't like, copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US except in very limited circumstances) grant creators "moral rights" which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a "derogatory treatment" of the licensor's work." So the OP would have to demonstrate a "derogatory treatment". And my very non-lawerly guess is that to collect damages in court, the OP would also have to demonstrate monetary damage of some kind. I wonder how likely that is for an electronic image of a shield? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that Xander did lay the groundwork for such a claim,[11] arguing that the revision was "horrible". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

According to discussion on this commons noticeboard,[12] Xander really doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Basically, it looks like he created an illustration, and someone took it and modified it for a specific purpose, and Xander is trying every means he can think of to get rid of the modified items. So far it hasn't worked out for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't call any rendition horrible. I said that moral rights prevent my work from being used in a derogatory or demeaning way, and that I don't want my work used in such horrible fashion. I draw the coat of arms of nations occasionally, and I don't want my work used in some sort of political uprising or genocide movement or anything of that nature. And the US does have limits to moral rights, which is why it is necessary to express them. You only hold up why I must include my moral rights, because f I do not express them, I could potentially lose them. As what that has to do with Beyond My Ken, or why he thinks the question is about him, is beyond me. I never brought him up, he brings himself into the issue. Look again at the conversation, Beyond My Ken comes up when he arrive sand tells people the conversation is about him. The conversation then changes back to the topic at hand because it becomes quite clear it isn't about him. He is merely trying to infer with normal discussions and hounding, following me on here, to Commons then back here. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno, what the CC-BY-SA licence effectively says is that it does not remove or modify the creator's moral rights ie it does not affect their ability to enforce their Berne Convention rights, which are not lost even if the creator voluntarily gives up the right to economic gain from the image. It's a bit like the notice in the shop SALE GOODS MAY NOT BE RETURNED your statutory rights are unaffected.

Oh, and by the way, Xander's repeated arguments in respect of the right of an artist to license when creating a pictoral representation of an heraldic blazon (eg to shove in a shield containing the star spangled banner when not only does the blazon not contain same, but the grant of arms predates the first appearance of said flag) is completely bogus. Ask him to provide you with a source that supports his pov - he won't be able to do it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of the main findings of the event which began all this nonsense, this very long and enervating discussion on the Theodore Roosevelt talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The emblazon didn't contain the Star-spangled Banner, that is a flag and there is no flag. Anyways, Elen of the Roads and Beyond My Ken two don't seem to be familiar with heraldry. They are saying the coat of arms of Teddy Roosevelt can not be shown next to the coat of arms of the United States (it is a lie to say the US arms are being included as part of Roosevelt's blazon, they are not, the US arms are simply being shown next to Roosevelt's and other arms) because Roosevelt's arms originate further back in time? Theodore Roosevelt didn't originate in the 17th century, though, yet he still had arms in the 20th century somehow. You see, arms might originate further back in time, but they continue to exist, be inherited and evolve as time goes on. So by his time both his arms and the US arms coexisted. It is a modern painting, you both realize that? The coat fo arms of England originate back to the 13th century, but images show it next to modern arms. That is because a coat of arms gets repainted and repainted over and over by contemporary artists, and those contemporary artists add contemporary imagery, because while a coat of arms may originate in some far distant time, they still continue to exist to the present day.

Someone asked about the Commons dispute. I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but on Commons, Beyond My Ken and AnonMoos are arguing that I can not include my moral rights on my images and remove the information. This shows Beyond My Ken has followed me here at the English Wikipedia over to Commons to hound me, to continue a dispute. The CC license says my moral rights are left intact, and there is no clear consensus about moral rights over at Commons. Yes, most say I can't include them, but the license clearly says I still have them, and each reason given why I can't include them is different. This is not an editorial conflict, so a simple "yeah, he can include them" or "no, he can't" doesn't work. There has to be a clear and defensible reason, no gut feelings, because it is an issue with copyright.

The idea that Beyond My Ken is allowed to harass and hound and swear at me because he has grown frustrated with me is ridiculous. I do not search him out, he finds me. He jumps in to any conversation I am having to interfere, he gets mad, he swears, cusses and tells me I need my behavior corrected as if I were a boy (which is really creepy). His defense for his rude, crass, harassing and disruptive behavior is, "Hey, look how much I follow him around and hound him, how can I not get mad at him when I force myself into every aspect I can? If you followed someone around as much as I do, you'd get irritated, too." [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Xanderliptak seems to want to re-hash the very long discussion on [[Talk[Theodore Roosevelt]] that found that adding elements to the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt that were not specified in the reference he provided was original research, and therefore could not be used on Wikipedia, which is why I made a derivitive version of his image without the embelleshments blah blah blah blah bah (the entire boring saga can be found here for those who aren't as deathly sick of this as I am), but AN/I is obviously not the place to do that. I would just point out that the two paragraphs above are a good example of the behavioral concerns this editor presents: facts are distorted, discussions misrepresented, opinions are offered as fact, everyone is out to get him, self-awareness is notable by its absence and the resulting mish-mash bears little or no resemblence to reality. I'm still not sure why he behaves this way, whether it's the Big Lie or he just can't help it, but it nicely illustrates the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we are starting to get back on topic here. This dicussion is about inappropriate behavior by Beyond My Ken. It is not about the Commons dispute. It is wrong to follow a user, jump into any discussion he enters, and go on and on about how bad he is relating to a specific dispute. Instead, keep all the ranting and raving at the relevant discussion page on the dispute (note that I said page, not pages). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Retro, we've been dealing with the approrpiate topic all along, which is Xanderliptak's behavior: his unwillingness to recognize and follow consensus, for instance, and his insistence that anything he happens to believe msut be true. Try looking a little harder -- maybe check out the page of links just above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The "topic" is not just BMK. The OP's behavior also comes under scrutiny. I see that the OP continues to make the same "moral right" argument, despite having been told that it does not hold water. There, in a nutshell, is the real issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read [the CC license]. See where it says my moral rights are intact? It doesn't matter if Beyond My Ken's opinion is I don't have them, it is very clear in the CC license I do. If you want to talk about moral rights, you go to Commons and discuss it there. This is about Beyond My Ken hounding me and harassing me. He even admits to being uncivil, but tries to rationalize it by saying it was a slip from dealing with me so constantly. Looking at the conversations, it is clear he injected himself into the conversation, I did not mention him nor did I seek him out. He is being uncivil and hounding me and blaming it on the fact that he is being uncivil and hounding me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why, but one last try. Consensus at Commons:Administrators noticeboard is that

(1) You cannot change the terms of an upload license after the image has been uploaded

(2) The language you want to use is incompatible with the license, and therfore cannot be used on any future uploads with that license

(3) The "moral rights" of an image's creator are not a matter of licensing, or something that Commons is involved with, the moral rights are protected through legal action initiated by the creator in the courts of the proper jurisdiction

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus at Commons, every editor and admin has a different opinion then the next, which is why that conversation hasn't ended yet. This is not the place to argue about a Commons issue, anyways. Take it to Commons if you think you have something to add, but stop trying to bring old arguments into conversations, stop distracting from current ones by pointing to other places. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion - how about Xanderliptak and BMK both shut the hell up and let an admin deal with this? That would be great. → ROUX ₪ 04:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like the discussion, don't read it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I have asked an admin to stop by here and box this thing up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the admins at Commons did approve the language added to the images there. They have not archived the discussion, but consider it closed. I am sorry Beyond My Ken, but you must have been lying or mistaken about the discussion there, you made it sound as if the admins and conversation was going against me when they actually upheld it. Are you done with Commons now? Can we move on to your behavior? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(Speaking as a Bori walking down the opposite sidewalk) Experience has taught me that anyone seeking to have a user sanctioned over a petty dispute either has an axe to grind against that user or is specifically looking for a fight. My recommendation to you, Xander, is to drop it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get involved here, but I really am sick of these utter misrepresentations of reality. Dealing with your statements one by one:

"Turns out the admins at Commons did approve the language added to the images there."

Actually, not. Out of all the people who commented in that sprawling thread, a total of two, only one of whom is an admin, have said that your latest attempt to change the licencing is okay, because unlike your previous attempts it does not contravene what the licence actually says.

"They have not archived the discussion, but consider it closed."

I do not see anyone, anywhere, saying they consider the discussion closed. Please provide a diff that someone has said that and that others agree.

"I am sorry Beyond My Ken, but you must have been lying or mistaken about the discussion there, you made it sound as if the admins and conversation was going against me"

It was, actually, very much going against you. I don't think you understand a really basic thing about how wikis work: the rest of us can read what is being written, and your continued misrepresentations of what was actually said reflect very poorly on you.

"when they actually upheld it"

See my first point, above; a total of two people have agreed that your latest change, unlike your previous attempts, is not in contravention with what the licence you agreed to actually says.

"There is no consensus at Commons, every editor and admin has a different opinion then the next, which is why that conversation hasn't ended yet"

Well that's interesting. You're claiming that they support you... and then you're claiming there is no consensus and the conversation is ongoing. It cannot be both. Pick one. (Hint: you're actually wrong on both counts.)

"This is not the place to argue about a Commons issue, anyways. "

Again, back here in the real world, you are the one that brought a Commons issue here. Not me, not Beyond My Ken, not the little gnomes that live behind walls... you brought this issue here when you attempted to FORUMSHOP and get two admins from here to go support you over there. You.

I would really appreciate it if an admin would come along here and deal with this. While it is true that BMK has gotten a bit aggressive in his language, there is fundamentally not a single thing wrong with what he is doing. Xanderliptak, however, has been repeatedly and verifiably misrepresenting the tone, tenor, and content of discussions made elsewhere. I will not speculate on his motivations, but it really seems as though he is not capable of understanding that other people can read what has been written, and see edit histories, and therefore that anything he attributes to others needs to actually reflect reality, and not reflect--sigh, how do I put this without getting blocked?--his rather unique and unsupported view of what is going on.

This is an ongoing problem and not merely limited to this particular dispute, but in fact appears to be Xanderliptak's standard behaviour, based on a random look at various talkpage contribs going back almost a year. I submit that this sort of quite deliberate misrepresentation is completely incompatible with even the barest definition of 'collegial editing,' and that behavioural correction is needed, fast. Further problems which need addressing are Xander's apparent feeling of ownership regarding images he has created (which is not a new issue), though at this stage it would appear as though that needs to be addressed at Commons, and his tendency to attempt to deflect discussion of the issues via projection of his feelings onto other editors. For example, here, where he not only claims that I was making the discussion all about me (the most cursory examination should show how much in error that is), but then returning to his pattern of misrepresentation states that he had never made any claims about me (and then goes on to accuse me of 'stealing attention,' which may go a long way towards explaining some of the underlying issues here), when he had done so in his immediately preceding edit, which also included the claim that I was trying to abuse him. Neither I nor BMK are doing anything of the sort; we are merely requiring that Xanderliptak adhere to the same standard expected of any editor on any Wikipedia project: tell the truth, and back up your allegations with diffs. In the same vein, I would categorically deny that anything going on here, at least anything coming from me and BMK, has anything to do with the specifics of any content dispute. The problems here are entirely Xanderliptak's behaviour, which merely happens to have been at its most egregious in the recent dispute.

Accordingly, in order to deal with the most important issue here, I am making an editing restriction proposal below. While there are other serious issues at play here, I believe this editing restriction will deal with all of them, one way or another.

I am also proposing a voluntary restriction for BMK. While I categorically do not feel that BMK has done anything wrong here--it is, after all, standard practice to alert other users when one user is not representing the facts as they actually are--in the interests of ratcheting down the drama it would make sense for BMK to stay away from Xander for a bit. I do not believe that this will need to be imposed on BMK. → ROUX ₪ 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction for User:Xanderliptak

Proposed: User:Xanderliptak is required, when making assertions about what another user has said, to provide diffs promptly and without argument. If no diffs are provided, he is required to retract (as in, remove, not merely strike out) any unsupported statements he has made. Infractions to be dealt with via the usual series of escalating blocks. Xanderliptak may appeal this editing restriction in six months, or six months after the most recent block for an infraction, whichever comes later. While this restriction merely codifies what all users are expected to do anyway, it addresses the problem unambiguously and provides an avenue for corrective action as required. As usual, any editors who use Xanderliptak's restriction against him by gaming it or requiring unreasonable numbers of diffs may be sanctioned themselves.

• Support - as proposer. → ROUX ₪ 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed voluntary restriction for User:Beyond My Ken

Proposed: Beyond My Ken voluntarily agrees to stay away from Xanderliptak for three months. This means no editing of pages that Xanderliptak has edited and Beyond My Ken previously has not, and no commenting to or about him unless invited to by an uninvolved party. BMK, can you agree to this to get this silliness ended? → ROUX ₪ 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Review of NLT Block

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

---

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

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

Additional discussion: Orangemike's talkpage

• First, please note this is not a review of the admins or their actions. This is a review as to whether or not an editor is permitted to protect himself from unwanted off-wiki contact.

• User:Ronsax is apparently a real-life musician, who has been editing an article about himself. He has apparently received e-mails and phone calls from another editor (which has been admitted by the editor who sent the e-mails). According to Ronsax, the e-mails took a more threatening/offensive turn, and he forwarded them to the police for his safety. He was blocked under WP:NLT, and has had his unblock declined.

• Personally, I do not believe that this is a violation of WP:NLT. We have in the past blocked editors for calling and/or threatening to call someone's place of work. I do not see any calls for litigation. I do not see that it was in any way an attempt to inhibit editing, or send a chill: it appeared to be a request to "leave me alone". (Agreeably, if it was an attempt to say "leave my page alone" it would be different).

• IMHO, we have the block in the wrong place - someone has admitted to possibly inappropriate off-wiki contact. We can never know the nature of the contact, but that User:Ronsax saw it as inappropriate.

• Some discussion about moving forward would be beneficial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. An editor should not be blocked for forwarding threats (via email) to the relevant authorities. --Stickee (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise agreed. This is common sense. -- ۩ Mask 10:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; let's not be a WP:DOLT about this. This is an off-wiki situation which needs to be dealt with off-wiki; I see no reason why a user should be blocked for rightly reporting off-wiki harrassment to the relevant authorities. WP:NLT doesn't remove our right to protect ourselves off-wiki, as far as I'm aware? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. He has been consistent in his comments:

• "After the second harassing email I found out how I could get the email trail to the police so that they have a copy of exactly what was said. I haven't filed any formal complaints but I've been asked to report to them each time I hear from Leah outside Wikipedia." (comment which prompted block by Orangemike)
• "I haven't filed any formal complaints with the police concerning User:Leahtwosaints and I am not threatening legal action. I contacted the police because I received two harassing emails from her. I made them aware of her emails and sent them copies. No formal complaint was made." (first unblock request declined by UltraexactZZ)
• "My decision to share the emails with the authorities was a matter of self protection and it did not have anything at all to do with editing the article. It was about improper emailed messages sent to me outside of Wikipedia. I welcome anyone's input on the article and I would NEVER say or do anything to discourage it. I will not, for any reason, be taking any legal action against User:Leahtwosaints." (second unblock request declined by Sandstein)
• "The matter is indeed settled on my end. The police merely have a copy of the email thread as it occurred as a precaution against tampering with it.... Even after I became aware of these false accusations I didn't threaten any legal action. It was when she began sending the volatile emails that I knew I had to do something to protect and defend myself... If she's capable of spreading falsehoods on a public forum she might try to alter the emails. Based on her behavior I was taking no chances...Speaking for myself; this matter is settled. You have my word there will be no legal action on my part." (third unblock request - on hold due to this discussion)

AGF and unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Evidently editors have the right to contact the police about perceived harrassment by other editors, but the question here is whether they should continue to edit Wikipedia while the police investigate. The purpose of NLT is to prevent the continuation of such offwiki conflicts onwiki as long as legal action is either threatened or undertaken, and I think that for the purposes of NLT filing a police complaint is equivalent to filing a lawsuit. If consensus here is to unblock Ronsax, I suggest that both Ronsax and Leahtwosaints be interaction-banned with respect to each other, and also article-banned from Ron Holloway (talk page excepted). This would stop them from continuing their dispute, which now involves the authorities, onwiki. Leahtwosaints has already agreed not to interact with Ronsax or his article, and Ronsax shouldn't edit the article about himself anyway per WP:COI.  Sandstein  11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

An interaction ban certainly seems reasonable (and in both parties' best interests). It seems somewhat unfair that filing a police report for off-wiki harrassment should be blockable under WP:NLT however; picture this: person A disagrees with person B's edits. Person A phones person B and makes death threats, which person B reports to the police. Person B is blocked indefinitely until a police investigation is complete, which may well take weeks or longer. Person A therefore eliminates the opposition. I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, but I think we need to consider the actual purpose of WP:NLT here when considering whether taking off-wiki action against an off-wiki action should be blockable under NLT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban seems reasonable. I seem to recall in the case of a certain admin and one of our serial pests, that reporting RL harassment to the cops did not require a block of the admin (interaction ban was irrelevant here as the pest had been blocked, banned and nuked, and was still coming back as more socks than Sock ShopElen of the Roads (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Ronsax's talkpage at his request by Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you so much for being so perceptive and discerning, BWilkins. It is much appreciated. There is one thing I would like to reiterate; there IS no police investigation. The police don't expect there will ever be a need for an investigation. Neither do I. I would like to request that this discussion be moved to the ANI. Thank you. Ronsax (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• I declined the first unblock request, properly I think, because this is one big honking legal issue that needed resolution one way or the other before unblocking could happen. If the interaction ban is agreed to, the cause of the issue is removed and I think the block can be lifted. The COI issue is secondary, but with a few editors helping at the article, I believe we can address the subject's concerns about the article in a neutral fashion. Perhaps we can get the subject editing other articles, since he seems to enjoy (at least initially) the editing process - but his edits are almost exclusively to his own article (something like 84% of his 2100 edits over three years). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree here and think the interaction ban is appropriate. If this happened in a physical workplace the business would not suspend the person making the police call. Given Ronsax's comments above I think we move ahead with the unblock and interaction ban which must be explained clearly to both. JodyB _talk 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that an interaction ban is a wise idea in the circumstances, and the terms will need to be properly explained to both parties. Also, although a lot of things seemed fairly clear by the third unblock request, if not earlier, I think Bwilkins has (probably without realising it) demonstrated an ideal way of handling an incident with the same sort of circumstances. That is, holding off the unblock request in this case allows the chance for more effective clarification/resolution emerging before a blocked user reaches the maximum number of unblock requests where a predictable claim will be made that he's abusing his privileges when that's not really what is happening. On a related note, I don't think it's particularly helpful to say that filing a police complaint is the equivalent of litigation after an user has repeatedly emphasised, even in the so-called perceived legal threat, that no police complaint has been filed as such (see quotes above). Yes, we put in NLT or perceived LT to err on the side of caution, and I can understand how that was initially being applied here, but I'd echo (and re-echo) what GiftigerWunsch very effectively points out at 11:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm agreed that if the "legal threat" is a formal complaint of criminal behavior, against another Wikipedia editor, for conduct unrelated to the actual development of a Wikipedia article, it's not a "legal threat" within the NLT guideline. NLT is about editors threatening civil suits against each other for encyclopedia-development work--e.g., libel. Let's draw the line carefully here: if the complaint is criminal, then the editor making it cannot, himself, file suit: in every jurisdiction that I'm familiar with, a relevant prosecutor must be convinced that the charges have merit and file charges on behalf of the state. That takes the "threatening" (or "victimized" if you prefer) editor out of the actual decision loop. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I was the first to have received emails from User:Ronsax that were of the same tone as the ones in which I merely responded in kind. I've been editing and coaching Ron on the article about him: Ron Holloway for two years now with good faith. After he found the article was a matter of discussion:[13] from Admins. (User:Orangemike), for example, his contact with me escalated as he was afraid his article would be substantially changed or a rewrite would be necessary. I kept coaching him and attempted to speed up the progress in cleaning up the most glaring problems there. However, as the discussion continued at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, I was forced to agree with the others that there were definite problems with WP:COI, WP:AUTO, WP:OWN, etc. Ronsax felt my "loyalty" to him (for lack of a better word) had changed and sent emails saying my "tone" had changed and that since he had been criticized for his editing (ie, my coaching) he felt "it was time to criticize [you]" me, which he did by email. I responded, not with agressive language or foul words, saying it was small thanks for putting in so much time trying to help him outside Wikipedia. English is not my first language. Sure it bothered me. After, I apologized to him on the talk page here if I had hurt his feelings, and I felt the issue was over when I discovered (while still editing his article) that he called the police! Imagine my surprise. I'd be fine with any member of the community looking at the sent email. Go ahead, unblock him, please. As User:Sandstein requested, I do not intend to have any contact inside or outside Wikipedia with User:Ronsax aka Ron Holloway. He only edits his own article, so it should be simple. I have nothing to hide, having done nothing to violate Wikipedia's WP:AGF, and nothing to violate the law in any sense of the word outside Wikipedia. He lives 15 minutes from my home. If I had in any way harassed him by responding in kind to his email, I'm certain he would have taken it to another level. I've been editing the Wikipedia in several languages for over 3 years! Other than this situation, I haven't ever had problems here that involved me. Question: rules here require that the people involved are notified of input. Will another person notify User:Ronsax so I can maintain my promised distance from him? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Ronsax was already notified of this thread earlier today (and has since replied) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jclemens - yes, for goodness sake, reporting someone to the police for a potential criminal offence is not the same as threatening to sue. The chilling effect here is Wikipedia editors concerned that they cannot report a RL stalker to the authorities because they will be blocked from editing (think Grawp here). Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just take into consideration that the chilling effect works both ways. If the instant case is not considered a NLT case, threats like "I'll report your harrassment to the police!" would seem to be allowed, while "I'll sue you for harrassment!" would not. Where's the difference? Both sorts of threats (let alone the corresponding actions) exert a strong chilling effect. And we're not able to determine whether involving the police was justified in this case. As we know, much that goes on on-or offwiki is rather quickly called "harrassment" by some, even if it would not qualify as criminal conduct or as violations of Wikipedia policy. And we don't know (and are not competent to decide) whether the communications at issue here do qualify as illegal harrassment. In such cases, the standard approach of NLT to block whoever brings the law or the authorities into an onwiki dispute would seem to be appropriate. This does not rule out blocking the other party as well if there is any evidence of disruptive onwiki conduct on their part. And evidently, if the user being reported to the police is an already banned long time abuser, matters look quite differently. That however is not the case here.  Sandstein  20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree. There is a bright line between actually placing a call to police concerning personal safety and threatening litigation in civil court. If I understand this particular case he only reported what he had already done not issued a threat. Of course any legal process is serious filing a false or frivolous criminal complaint generally carries greater consequences than a frivilous lawsuit or threat of such. Judgment is important in these cases but for guidance I would treat the two as vastly different. JodyB _talk 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have my own opinion on the issue of whether or not this counts as a "legal threat", but I will not express it here because it is irrelevant. The editor in question has made it quite clear that, whether it was a "legal threat" or not, it is no longer active, and so, since the user's block was made on the basis of "making legal threats", the block should be lifted immediately. Discussion on an interaction ban can then continue, and include Ronsax if he wants to take part. I see in the discussion above a range of opinions, including "should never have been blocked" and "should now be unblocked" but not, unless I have missed something, "should now remain blocked". I am therefore tempted to just go ahead and unblock, but I will hold back for the moment to see if anyone has a late objection. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• My opinion is that, if it is an issue that is off-wiki (in this case, threats made via email and phone calls), then we shouldn't be involved in such issues. Blocking said user is making us involved. If it is an off-wiki situation that does not pertain directly to a conflict dispute, which this does not, then WP:NLT does not apply. Truthfully, in my opinion, if the legal issues do not take place on Wikipedia, then we have nothing to do with them. Wikipedia is not the abitrator of actions made off-Wiki and blocking a user for off-wiki actions is making us an arbitrator. Silverseren^C 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's also prejudicial when such a harsh blanket measure is imposed (and continues to stay in effect due to unblock requests being declined when they actually required more discussion); there needs to be sufficient or due regard to the particular circumstances. What happens between two users outside of Wikipedia does not actually affect the rest of Wikipedia (nor should it be regulated by Wikipedia) except if the users can no longer interact appropriately on-wiki (and in these circumstances, it's been made clear that NLT doesn't apply so an unblock is appropriate). I see no reason that would justify holding back; any late objections can be addressed by way of a restriction if necessary. I again ask that someone AGFs and unblocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen here, and in the absence of new information currently unavailable, an unblock appears in order.

There is no bright-line rule that can be applied in all cases of this nature. On the one hand, an editor who filed a frivolous police report against another editor as retaliation for the latter's editing should be blocked for a long period of time, if not permanently, because of the devastating effect such action would have on the collaborative editing environment. On the other hand, an editor who files a substantive, good-faith police report against another editor who has engaged in significant off-wiki acts of harassment should be allowed to continue editing. If this were not the case, there would be a fairly awful way for a bad-faith editor to force someone off the project, simply by escalating unwanted off-wiki contact until the victim was forced to do something.

The problem, of course, is that we may sometimes have no way of distinguishing between these two situations, and it may not be desirable for us to go out on a limb and do so, lest editors or administrators themselves become embroiled in the underlying off-wiki dispute. Situations of this nature must be addressed with great care and sensitivity to the competing values involved.

Situations involving grave acts of off-wiki harassment, or ones in which it is impossible to determine the correct action to be taken without reviewing private information such as the contents of off-wiki e-mails, are to be reported to the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave real-world harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the entire discussion above (and thanks to all for their part in it), I would suggest that a well-crafted interaction ban notice be given to both Leahtwosaints and Ronsax ASAP, and the latter unblocked once this has been provided (I'm not an expert at writing interaction bans). I already took the liberty of removing the "mentored by leahtwosaints" userbox from Ronsax. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do that.  Sandstein  10:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)}}

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

Sock account?

This showed up on my watchlist... Anyone know about this? Grandmasterka 20:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC) User notified of thread. Grandmasterka 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Dingbat2007 is banned, and Hacker has been blocked as a sock though the SPI itself seemed inconclusive. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Zimmbotkiller in need of a blocking? I'd do it myself but I don't know the background of this. Grandmasterka 20:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Zimmbotkiller (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hypocritepedia5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hypocritepedia4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hypocritepedia3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hypocritepedia2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hypocritepedia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PPPBoot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Underlying range hardblocked. –MuZemike 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been dealing with the Hypocritepedia socks for at least the last three months, along with other IP vandalism from related accounts for at least the last two years, mainly involving insertions of unsourced and insignificant information in articles and templates involving television and other errata in North Dakota and Minnesota, along with other smaller markets in Montana, Nebraska and Colorado, and adding overbearing geekery information about QAM (a technology of interest to only a few people) and adding radio networks to television templates. Subsequently I also had attacks on my pages left by the Hypocritepedia and IP accounts. I had my suspicions about Zimmbotkiller but it seems he was using that account as a 'white knight' account to distract from the vandalism and unsourced info left by his other accounts, all of them under IP's from Dakota Central Telecommunications (or Daktel), thus my references to IP vandalism there as the "Daktel Vandal" in edit reversions. My edit history among these various IP's should prove the pattern of persistent vandalism and ignoring of multiple warnings to desist.

Thanks for rooting this one out, these accounts have been a thorn in productive editing among Midwest media editors for months. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone who has the time could also roll back all of Zimmbot's edits and check on all the socks whose pages he edited... Grandmasterka 09:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

See User:Turdsbot where Zimbotkiller "Created page with ' {{banned}" 86.181.236.234 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

New attack tonight via 75.221.198.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); looks like he's using a Verizon 3G stick to round the Daktel range block. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Dweeby123 - misuse of both Twinkle and the term 'vandalism'

Dweeby123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been repeatedly asked to stop labelling edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism', e. g., [14], [15], [16], [17]. He has been edit warring at Tony Curtis over the wikilinking of Curtis's birthplace, calling some of the reversions against his preferred version 'vandalism'. He refuses to stop, and does not respond to other editors' entreaties on his talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 23:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good-faith but inexperienced editor here; over the last month or so, I've seen the vast majority of his edits being constructive, at least in intent. Some advice as to the nature of "vandalism" would be in order, and maybe even adoption or mentorship, but I don't see it as being that destructive at present. Perhaps if you notify him of this discussion, that would focus his mind a tad. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, Rod, but it's been spelt out on his talk page a few times already, and the behaviour continues. Radiopathy •talk• 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

He's done it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dweeby123#More_pretend_.22Vandalism.22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.140.186 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to neither heed nor read messages or warnings on his talk page. The only way to make him aware that anything is wrong will probably be a block.--Kudpung (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I imagine it will get his attention. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he will request for an unblock sooner or later. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Umm, isn't an indef a little strong for a first-time block? Radiopathy •talk• 16:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's an indefinite block, not an infinite one. It'll last only until he enters into some kind of reasonable dialogue. Usually this happens within 24 hours, sometimes the user never responds. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• My guess is that he just needs to slow it down. He's offered to stop using Twinkle, I'm thinking maybe we just add him to the Twinkle blacklist and require him to get an admin's permission to turn it back on once a reasonable amount of time has passed without a recurrence of this problem. I'm going to place his unblock request on hold pending the outcome of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I really think you should give him a one more chance then, if he messes up then that's his problem, isn't really??, okay I don't know this person (at all), but it look's to me that he's passionate about Wikipedia, like we all should be --83.218.31.112 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He is being given a chance - see Elen's comment above. TFOWR 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

83.218.31.112 looks suspiciously like Dweeby123... AnemoneProjectors 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on the same thing. The edit summaries from Dweeby123 ([18]) and the IP ([19]) are strikingly similar. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And it started editing straight after Dweebly123 was blocked. Oh dear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Emmerdale" is a dead giveaway. Could you block the IP as well? Radiopathy •talk• 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sokac121 for Canvassing

This notice was placed on the Croatian Wikipedia soliciting editors to come to the English Wikipedia to participate in a Request for Comment at Talk:Croatian language. Google translate: "Traba reference to the Croatian language as part of the Serbo-Croatian to be removed on the English Wikipedia on talking about the Croatian language is set to a request for feedback, so if it wants to be declare". This follows two decidedly negative comments from other participants in the Talk:Croatian language discussion, so the context is clear. One from User:Roberta F.: "Članak je sada zaštićen, ali s previše jugounitarističkih ideja u tekstu i Kwamikagamijevih neoriginalnih besmislica" (Google translate: "The article is now protected, but with too jugounitarističkih ideas in text and non-original crap Kwamikagamijevih"). And one from User:Jack Sparrow 3: "Onaj kwami ne odustaje. A onaj Taivo čak tvrdi da kwami "štiti članak" od nas. Pa gdje se rađaju takve spodobe, da mi je samo znat." (Google translate: "Kwami He does not give up. And he even claims that Taivo Kwami "protects the article" one of us. So where are these creatures are born, that we just know."). The context of "summoning the masses" from outside English Wikipedia is clear. Since this was posted, other single purpose editors have arrived to post their views at Talk:Croatian language, all of whom are Croatian, such as User:Ali Pasha, who is clearly an SPA as shown here. --Taivo (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sokac was banned from the Croatian article by Courcelles,[20] but continues to edit war there. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the correct translation...

Should reference to Croatian being part of Serbo-Croatian be removed On English wikipedia at the discussion about Croatian language a Request for comment was placed/submitted, so if anybody/(that) wants to declare (in the meaning express ones opinion).

The notice in question is phrased completely according to Appropriate notification. This is due to "other relevant noticeboards," such as hr:Wikipedija:Kafić and in sittuations "regarding something which may have a wide impact,". The notice was polite, neutrally worded, clear in presentation and brief. All according to en:wiki standards. --Sokac121 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your post was not in accordance with Wikipedia standards: "Inappropriate...Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion, or who state on their user page (e.g. through a userbox or user category) that they hold a particular opinion ("votestacking")" (from WP:CANVASS). The context in which your notice was posted was a thread where editors were being attacked by name on the other side of the issue. That's why I posted Robert F.'s and Jack Sparrow's comments as well as your notice. It is all in an antagonistic context. In addition, the very fact that you were posting your notice in the Croatian Wikipedia Cafe makes its "neutrality" highly suspect. --Taivo (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So, Taivo finds that it's a good to propagate a lie behind the back of community that might be interested in the topic. And Taivo finds himself more competent to speak about the X language, than the maternal speakers of X language. Sokac121 wasn't hiding. He wasn't sneaky.. He informed the community, the interested side.He notified. In fact, it's a matter of fair behaviour to notify all interested parties, not to hide it. We are not allowed to be selective; that applies both for informing and not informing. Deciding about Croatian without asking Croat(ian)s speakers? And how come that you, Taivo, and a group of other users (that never edited that), appeared out of nowhere on that article? Language that you don't speak at all? We don't accuse you or someone else for canvassing. Please. There's a big difference between canvassing and notifying. Read again: [21] "pa ako to želi može se izjasnit" if someone wants, he/she can state his/hers opinion.". Are we punishing users for notification? Hiding the processes from particular groups of users is the same as canvassing: attempt of creating unneutral structure of participants. Kubura (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to actually read the rules for canvassing, Kubura. You're not contributing anything constructive whatsoever to the discussion, but are pursuing pointy "warning" without any real understanding of what you're warning people of. --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But this thread is finished because User:Sokac121 has been banned for a month. --Taivo (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

constant insertion of commercial spam into Teardrop trailer article.

Just recently there has been repeated insertion of commercial spam into the Teardrop trailer article, which I have been reverting on the grounds of it being commercially biased - initially including the makers website address, although that was removed on the second insertion. There are two users (three including myself) involved:

User_talk:63.174.60.11

User_talk:213.26.255.134

[22] [23] [24] [25]

I will be more specific later in the day - somebody has just shouted over their shoulder something to me, and I have to go...

Users informed.

a_man_alone (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is tagged as USA-biased, so it only makes sense to have an entry of a German T@B trailer.

I have also explained in my edit summary that all vehicles are available commercially, and if we were to remove the T@B section of that article, we might as well remove all articles that are vehicle-related.

User:A_man_alone has also broken the 3RR before I arrived: [26] [27] [28] [29]

213.26.255.134 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also left the latest revert of User:A_man_alone intact ([30]), and have decided to let the Administrators resolve this case. 213.26.255.134 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Back again. Typical - when you actually want to post, something comes up and you can't even see a computer for miles, never mind use one. This has calmed down a bit by the looks of things, (I see the page has been protected[31] whilst I was away,) however if - stroking my own ego - anybody was waiting for an update on my reasoning, I'm back and can elucidate if needs be.

PS:I don't even have a caravan, never mind a teardrop. a_man_alone (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat against WalMart

Are we supposed to report stuff like this? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It geolocates to New York City, though that may not prove anything. For what it's worth, December 27 is the Monday following Christmas, when one might expect to see white sales. And FYI, Clark County contains Las Vegas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in contact with Clark County Law enforcement. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They're probably laughing at you. They have more important things to worry about than some website. October First (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Last year, I reported this threat to police in Goshen County, Wyoming; they responded with a notice that they'd investigated and caught the threat-maker, and I even got an apology email from the kid who'd made the threat. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be oversighted? Buggie111 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so, it's not offensive or anything, just dumb. It's already rev-deleted. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see it; it hasn't been revdelled. It should deleted as RD3 though. Oversight shouldn't be necessary though, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:OVERSIGHT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought revdell and Oversight were synonymus. Ok then, learning lesson for me. Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I couldn't see it the first time. I'll rev-del it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I fried the edit summary, too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In these kinds of situations, things like this probably shouldn't be oversighted or revdeleted, in case whatever authorities have been notified would like to have a look at the edit themselves. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What I can't figure is why 66.66.119.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked. It's edited sporadically for 2 1/2 years, and every last one of them was useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sporadically in this case being an average of about 3-4 edits per year; it's most likely a dynamic IP address and has had some occasional vandalism. We shouldn't block it based on a total of about 10 edits, spread across 2-3 years; it could deter constructive users at the IP in future. This is why AIV insists on recent warnings + vandalism before blocking IPs. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Road Runner IPs are quite static. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to check the contribs for a range of IP's all at once, to see if a pattern emerges? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Here are contribs for 66.66.0.0/16. Antandrus (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. And while it's only a 3-4 day sample, the topics for each IP suggest a degree of stability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You must be using a different type of road-runner ISP, because mine changes every time I'm forced to unplug the router for fluctuating internet(the wireless dies, so I have to unplug everything and plug everything back in).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to have RoadRunner in NYC...I kept the same IP address for two years. It only changed when I moved. 170.149.100.10 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I use RR in Rochester NY, and I don't think I have a static IP (whenever I reset the modem, anyway). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Apes and pigs in Islam

I recently incubated this article (Apes and pigs in Islam), because it's an incoherent, POV-ridden, amateurish mess. I decided against AFDing it since it had already survived an AFD (although most of the "keep" voters appeared to be SPA's), but it was of such poor quality that it had to be incubated; in the state it was in when it was written, it was an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and it still is (although I've removed some of the worst parts of it since then). However, User: Trendsies keeps moving it back into the mainspace; he has done so twice, despite the fact that the article certainly doesn't deserve to be in mainspace right now judging by its quality (or lack thereof). Could someone please move that article back into the incubator and then move-protect it please? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this article was taken from elsewhere, run through a translator, and slapped with sources. Also its a POV powderbox. I agree with Stonemason's plan, but I also suggest that this gets permanent semiprotection even if it is rescued. I know that isn't common, but this article demands it. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This article looks like a serious POV-fork, though exactly from what is not altogether clear. It really should be zapped. I'm surprised it passed an RFD. Maybe nobody knew about it except the proposer, the creator, and the creator's socks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, this was a particular pet article of Zeq once upon a time. If there are any new-ish users that have a particular POV-pushing interest in this, I'd be wary. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This shows the inadequacy of the AfD process. Try merging it into Islam and antisemitism or some other article, then you can keep only the parts of the article that have value. TFD (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no parts of the article that have value. The article got PRODed, and I for one see this as the correct course of action. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

IANAA, but the article is horrible. Recommend removing those parts that have no value. If anything's left, reincubate or merge. Saebvn (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Formally, it should not be WP:PRODed, as it already survived one AfD. However, I support it per WP:IAR. The article is half WP:OR, half confirmation bias, and half islamophobia (yes, that's 150% crap in 100% article). It has no redeeming quality I can think of. It's not even entertaining. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't survive a prod. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know this was still "hot" as a debate. I pruned all the junk that couldn't be attributed; what's left is covered in here and elsewhere. Redirected. (By the way, the only reason I PRODed this was to call attention to it, and as you can see, I've followed my own clean-up concerns)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• - The article was only kept at AFD two weeks ago, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apes_and_pigs_in_Islam little evidence of much socking and a few thousand contributions from the Keep commentators. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy-tagged the redirect as per redirtypo: it strikes me as rather implausible. Revert as you wish. HalfShadow 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, didn't even know you could WP:SPEEDY an article that had already gone through a PROD discussion. Endorse the SPEEDY, but it may be "hangon" tagged. Saebvn (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And the speedy was accepted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the redirect struck me as implausible. The point of a redirect is that someone somewhere is going to put in that specific term... HalfShadow 21:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was going to say that the article is basically overkill, and could be reduced to a couple of sentences within another article - which is what Seb seems to have done. Christians, Jews and Muslims have called each other all manner of stuff over the centuries. This particular insult doesn't need an entire article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think he did, he stripped the article and then prodded it and asserted that the content was already in this article Islam_and_antisemitism and then he redirected the page to that article and then the speedy sand the redirect were deleted. IMO another AFD would have been better and fairer on the people that bothered to comment in the AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to keep the timeline accurate, I PRODed, then followed my own PROD-concern. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
      • (ec)At least that was what I had seen before it was deleted and I can't see any of the edits now as they are un-viewable to me now. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a good example of a more general problem, that it's much too hard to get rid of POV-extravaganza articles under current policy and thus such articles are, all too often, kept, as was the case with this article originally. I've started a discussion here. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And a new angle, I think: the title by itself says it is OR. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the title could be read as a subtle hint that the writer thinks it is Islam itself that contains the "apes and pigs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Trendsies and User:Nazarethian are  Confirmed. User:Ip101 is  Possible to the former two due to similar approximate geographical location and user agents. –MuZemike 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. Block'em. User:Trendsies edited just a few hours ago. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If I counted correctly, discounting the socks rubs out all but two of the "keeps". It's unfortunate that these keep/delete debates can come down to just a handful of users out of the millions that wikipedia has. Hence the IAR principle, well-invoked here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The AfD closing admin found the OR "a surmountable problem". Today, it qualified for a speey. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

While it hasn't been recreated and deleted several times, considering the sketchy proceedings of the AfD, and the blatant POV issues, I move to SALT the article. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it has more of a history under other titles, i.e. Apes and pigs and Apes and Pigs. Tarc (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Josegmol

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

User has frequently been making the same disruptive edit to A Thousand Suns, changing the album's critical reception from "mixed" to "positive" despite reliable sources and firmly established consensus on the talk page (which has been pointed out to him). He has not been involved in any discussion whatsoever, and does not leave edit summaries. He has been warned by multiple users four times, yet continues to do this on a regular basis. Here are some diffs:

• [32], 16 September
• [33], 17 September
• [34], 22 September
• [35], 26 September
• [36], 1 October
• [37], 1 October (Alteration to his own edit)
• [38], 3 October
• [39], 4 October
• [40], 8 October
• [41], 10 October

However, this is not the only article he has made disruptive, POV changes to. On his talk page you can see that he has previously been warned at least once about several changes he made to $h*! My Dad Says, and once about adding info to 30 Rock (season 4), which was apparently copyrighted. Overall, he seems to have a history of making nonconstructive edits and ignoring warnings. Dealing with him is making the editing process on A Thousand Suns more difficult. While I would personally say there's enough here to warrant a block, if anyone else has ideas on how to stop this, I'd appreciate it. Friginator (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. I've given Josegmol a week off; I suggest they review WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPT before their return. EyeSerene^talk 09:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin A Kuntz and Gibraltar

After having been banned from the Gibraltar article space for 3 months by ArbCom [42], User:Justin A Kuntz has now returned and is removing the same text (first time second time third time), arguments over which were a major cause of the dispute going all the way to ArbCom, and which was restored there in his absence during his block (he was the only editor objecting to it). (He's also, for some unknown reason, twice reverted my attempt to archive the Talk:Gibraltar page.) It seems to me that his failure to follow WP:BRD, and his two-time reversion of an edit he knows noone else agrees with, and which he can see from the talk page posts further up that we reached consensus on, should be sufficient to demonstrate that he is edit warring. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this name Justin A Kuntz not a violation of policy? Sheesh mark nutley (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu, what Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Kuntz is a legitimate surname in general, though in this case I wouldn't bet the family jewels on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is his real name or not, but Justin has been editing for a long time at WP and it's accepted amongst those who interact with him that his user name is not meant in the way it's apparently being taken here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh marvelous, schoolboy jokes about my name, how ... original. Deja vu? Thank for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

I have no intention whatsoever to edit war. I reverted the archive page since it had the results of an FA nomination which I planned to use in improving the article. RHoPF reverted it without consulting me why I'd changed it. Secondly the edit I proposed I have initiated a discussion in the talk page. RHoPF seems to think that threats of admin action is how to impose content. Regarding edit warring may I suggest someone count the number of reverts RHoPF has had on that article in the past 24 hrs.

RHoPF also reverted by reflex whilst I was part way through a series of edits, I was trying to establish a BOLD text and merely ensured that the edit I wanted to do was completed.

I would draw attention to an edit I recently added [43], that RHoPF immediately reverted. I have been prepared to discuss it, moving it to other relevant articles, adding a slimmed down version, yet despite clearly establishing relevance RHoPF refuses to consider it as material for inclusion under any circumstances [44].

As I have already pointed out to RHoPF raking up past disputes is contrary to wikipedias policy on civility WP:CIVIL and I have worked hard to avoid a repeat of the past and have sought help and advice in that respect from User:Atama. Despite being provoked I have focused solely on content. Now as I have stated several times I am happy to discuss content on that article talk page. Justin talk 00:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You must admit "Nutley" finding fault with "Kuntz" is vaguely amusing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Content discussions go at the article talk page. The reason I came here was your behaviour - returning from a three month ArbCom ban and continuing to make the same contentious edit which had a large part in taking us to ArbCom, and which nobody agrees with you on, not once, not twice but three times is a clear demonstration that you're about to turn things into a battleground again - you are simply unable to accept that consensus is not what you would like it to be. This needs to be nipped in the bud before things degenerate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No I did not, you have never even gave me a chance to explain. You reverted by reflex whilst I was in the middle of editing. The only person demonstrating a battleground mentality here is the RHoPF who has had 3 reversions to my 1 on the article since yesterday evening - and as I stated above that 1 reversion was to complete my edit. Risking a 3RR violation he has used ANI instead and has repeatedly raked up the past in an attempt to needle me and has made personal attacks here as well. If anything needs to be nipped in the bud, its the behaviour that led to the arbcom case and let me remind you that RHoPF narrowly escaped censure by arbcom for precisely this sort of thing. I have focused on content, the written record is clear in that respect, I would welcome an independent viewpoint on that. Justin talk 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And if I may be permitted an obervation, RHoPF lives in _____ where it is currently 21:24, it is currently 02:14 in Glasgow. RHoPF has a habit of making ANI complaints where it is late at night in the UK and the opportunity to defend oneself is limited. Justin talk 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not post personal information about me. You, not me, chose to stay up late (your time) to edit war. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not edit warring and have no intention of edit warring, I will for the last time request that you focus on content and cease the personal attacks. As regards your comments on personal information, you told me on wikipedia your location, if you didn't wish it to be revealed you should have made that plain. I will not restore it but I will restore time difference to make the point that is relevant. Justin talk 01:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:138.210.38.129

Resolved

 – minor

This user needs some attention. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I put a welcome on his talk page and asked him to use the article talk page to ask questions. Hopfully this will help mark nutley (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Now I need to learn that template that gives all these smart users links. Any hint? -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Should use {{checkuser}}. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The one Marknutley used was {{welcome}}. Keristrasza (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but apart from the welcome their edits needed a bulk revert. Which I, a non-admin, cannot do. My oldskool learned me to be bold with v. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, checkuser is not the template that should be used. CU policy does not permit tying IPs to usernames, unless it falls into long-term abuse territory, and even then it's a stretch. That aside, you should be thinking of {{vandal}} or {{userlinks}}. The former is used on WP:AIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to find the template to use here at ANI. It should help an admin (e.g. user contributions in one click). {{checkuser}} does have heavy links like CU, but I -not an admin- cannot use them. If there is a light version -- please say so. The suggestion by Keristrasza to use {{welcome}} (at users talk page), is clear. -DePiep (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggested two alternative templates; both provide the links you seek. Did you not check them before responding?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock/NPA block needed immed please

Resolved

 – Blocked by Shirik (talk · contribs)

TungstenCarbide XXIX (talk · contribs) → ROUX ₪ 01:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shirik beat me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds painful (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami continues to violate WP:INVOLVED

User:Newyorkbrad has called this resolved, so I am marking it as such. Plus, it is generating more heat than light. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Back in April 2010, I brought Kwamikagami to ANI for violation of WP:INVOLVED and using his admin tools when involved in a dispute. Later in May of 2010, it was found he had done it again. It was brought to my attention that this behavior continues at Croatian grammar and Croatian language, with Kwamikagamiprotecting the page while involved. He even went as far as to block a user who was involved as well. This behavior was seen by User:Courcelles (an admin) and was commented on. I believe with these several instances, that Kwamikagami's misuse of admin tools, violations and WP:INVOLVED and other rules should result in a block until the community can figure out what to do with this constant and blantant misuse of his admin tools. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know what User:Neutralhomer's agenda is, but all save one of the "violations" that he cites occurred nearly three months ago. The comment that User:Courcelles made was concerning the new pending changes tools, which I'm sure few of the admins understand completely anyway. Once Courcelles pointed out the error to User:Kwamikagami, Kwami self-reverted and notified Courcelles here. That's not the action of someone who is misusing admin tools. --Taivo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC) No "agenda" as Taivo put it against Kwamikagami. To be honest, I actually forgotten about Kwamikagami since our April/May run-ins until his name popped up on my talk page today. I am not in the Croatian grammar and Croatian language arenas, so I don't know of any of this before it was brought to my attention and to be honest, I don't know why it was in the first place except that I had previous run-ins with Kwamikagami. I actually debated for a couple hours on whether to bring this to ANI, but decided in the end that this was the best forum for the problems to be addressed instead of being swept under the rug. Even if it were three months ago, it needs to be addressed as it shows a pattern of behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Since you, Neutralhomer, have nothing whatsoever to do with either Croatian grammar or Croatian language, then bringing User:Kwamikagami here certainly reeks of a personal agenda against him. I notice on your talk page that the individual "reporting" Kwami to you is User:Kubura, who has engaged in a massive wikilawyering crusade to cast aspersions on everyone who doesn't share his POV at Croatian language. For example, here he warns an editor for two reverts in 28 minutes, here he warned someone for three reverts in 27 hours. He is a POV warrior at Croatian language and is guilty of pointy warnings and tags without understanding Wikipedia policy. Here he shows that he doesn't understand the meaning of canvassing. He is conducting an active war against Kwamikagami, investigating to the point of finding your complaints from the spring and feeding upon your own apparent agenda against him. Rather than reporting Kwami himself, so that the POV warrior was clearly evident as the protagonist, he played upon your own feelings toward Kwami and convinced you to report him, therefore giving the appearance of a "neutral observer". You, sir, are hardly neutral, but the puppetmaster behind your report is User:Kubura, a POV warrior who has made few, if any, positive contributions to the discussions at Croatian language. Indeed, the very fact that User:Kubura looked you up out of the blue constitutes a clear case of hounding on his part against Kwamikagami and he should be severely reprimanded for doing so. --Taivo (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC) OK, bucko, chill. You are slinging around terms like "agenda" and "personal feelings" when you have evidence of neither. I don't give a damn one way or another about Kwamikagami or Kubura. But when I see a pattern of evidence that an admin is misusing his tools (which you seem to be defending to the ends of the Earth), then I will say something. Just because "neutral" is in my name, doesn't mean I have to be neutral on all things. I am not Switzerland. If Kubura is correct, then Kwamikagami needs to be investigated. If Kwamikagami is misusing his tools, he needs a consequence. There is evidence of his misuse of his tools. Let the admins sort it out instead of slinging around terms like "agenda" and "personal feelings" when you have no evidence to back up I have either against Kwamikagami. None. Zero. Zip. Nadda. Goose egg. Let the admins do the work, drop your agenda against me and stop defending the guy who hasn't even responded (what are you, his lawyer?) and move along. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC) There is no "pattern of abuse". You are dealing with Kubura's, a highly prejudiced observer, take on events of three months ago. If this were a pattern, then there would be recent evidence. There is none. The only recent issue is Kwami's change of the pending changes settings in order to reduce vandalism and edit warring. When Courcelles pointed out his error, then Kwami changed the settings back. That's not a "pattern of abuse". And, Neutralhomer, since you are completely uninvolved with issues concerning the Croatian language, and, as you said, you had forgotten about Kwamikagami, why did you pay any attention to User:Kubura in the first place? You could have politely pointed him to this page and told him to make a report himself. No, the proof that you have an ax to grind with User:Kwamikagami is that after reading Kubura's nonsense, you came right over here and filed a report yourself, without any knowledge of who Kubura was or what his agenda was. Indeed, Kubura's pattern of disruption is clear even to those who share his POV at Croatian language as here. --Taivo (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Again, you show no evidence of this "ax" I have to "grind". If you actually read what I wrote, I said I thought on it for several hours before reporting. I actually debated, in my head, like a logic human, what to do. I payed attention because it was on my talk page. I don't dismiss things on my talk page unless they are vandalism, this wasn't vandalism. So, I have a question for you...why, with the evidence above, are you defending Kwamikagami so hard? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Taivo, chill. There is an allegation of a pattern of administrator abuse of tools. The {{ani-notice}} has been placed on the accused administrator's talk page. There's no need to rush things before he comments, as you yourself have pointed out that the allegedly improper behavior spans a good length of time. Your counteraccusations against Neutralhomer are premature and distract from the topic at hand: Has INVOLVED been violated in a repeated manner after the administrator in question had been called on such behavior? Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Then I have a question for you, Jclemens. This is clearly a case of User:Kubura hounding User:Kwamikagami by looking for another individual to make this report rather than making it himself. Indeed, all of User:Neutralhomer's "evidence" is from Kubura's post (and, as far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence of misuse at all). What repercussions should Kubura face? --Taivo (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC) None. This isn't the place for bringing up charges on others. You can start your own ANI thread for that. Do what the admin said (and I said) and chill. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Is there anything here I even need to respond to? — kwami (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, primarily everything in the first post (very top) of this thread. That is the evidence, it is your job to make a case why all of it was necessary in violation of WP:INVOLVED. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I'll let an uninvolved admin tell me what, if anything, needs to be explained. Something within recent memory: I'm not going to dredge through months of edits to reconstruct events beyond that. Old violations, if they were violations, should have been brought up by the injured party at the time, not as part of some vendetta months later. — kwami (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Lest anyone forget, editors should be reminded of the instances of complex unilateral page moves executed by Kwami not following adequate discussions at Cantonese, Yue Chinese from, IIRC, December 2008 to July 2010. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) The tone of the initiating report in this thread and some of the subsequent comments in it is unnecessarily strident. Blocks for mistaken use of administrator tools are rarely justified. ANI reports should relate primarily to current issues rather than historical ones. A hostile and hectoring tone should almost always be avoided. Kwamikagami should be aware by now that administrators involved in a content dispute on a page or topic area should not use administrator tools (blocking, protection, etc.) on that page or topic area, except perhaps in the very clearest cases of vandalism. As I've documented elsewhere, the emphasis that the community places on the guideline that "involved" admins must not act as editors and as administrators in the same dispute has increased over time, so that some conduct that might have been permissible when Kwamikagami first became an administrator would now be frowned upon. Given that Kwamikagami has gotten into more than one of these disputes, it would now be best if he were to avoid taking administrator action relating to disputes in which it would be reasonably possible to suspect that he is a party to a related editing or content dispute, in the best interests of both himself and the project. I hope that these observations will help to resolve the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Sounds like good advice. — kwami (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC) The only pattern here is User:Kubura's hounding of other users - of which I am becoming one of his latest targets - and I am concerned that while User:Neutralhomer claims no personal agenda he openly states "I don't know of any of this before it was brought to my attention and to be honest, I don't know why it was in the first place except that I had previous run-ins with Kwamikagami." Kubura has trawled histories looking for someone he can point at Kwamikagami in order to do his dirty work for him. How can there be a pattern of abuse of tools when this all dates back so long with no incidents since? Kubara's badgering is starting to discourage my own editing here, and I have no interest in Croatia, Serbia or the languages spoken there. I simply had the misfortune to review two pending changes during an edit war of his and his associates and ever since have been accused of edit warring, violating RR and gaming the system. It's about time someone finally said "Enough is enough" to this guy. And yes, I may well take him to ANI myself. This fabricated charge against Kwamikagami is ridiculous. Keristrasza (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, don't look at the guy behind the curtain, just this guy here. This is about Kwamikagami, not Kubura, try and stick the subject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC) It is the subject as he is the one that effectively pulled your strings by prodding you to bring this here in the first place. There was nothing stopping him from doing it himself except you lend an apparent air of credibility/neutrality by doing it for him. Keristrasza (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I am going to type this one more time: I debated for several hours before bringing it here. There is a pattern of evidence, which no one seems to have looked at but the admin. Just more smoke and mirrors so the real subject of the post isn't discussed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC) An ongoing pattern of evidence? If this was correct, then Croatian language would have been protected by Kwamikagami, not protected as a result of pending changes reviewers requesting it at WP:RPP as actually happened. I dispute that you looked at the evidence beyond ancient history which was served up on a platter to you by another user. The smoke and mirrors here is that you claim neutrality and that Kubura is attempting to remove an opponent in the discussions about Croatian language by abuse of process. Keristrasza (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Let's set the record straight, Neutralhomer. Kubura posted his claim on your talk page at 23:47, 10 October. You initiated this complaint at 02:11, 11 October. (Both times UTC.) That's 2.5 hours only if you read Kubura's post immediately. That is not "several hours" as you claim. --Taivo (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Several, a couple, whatever. That's semantics. It was still more than enough time to decide whether or not to post this. Plus with your, now, obvious agenda against Kubura (see below for where he impersonated Kubura on many talk pages and then laughed about it), I think you can drop the act that you are impartial here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Unlike you, Neutralhomer, I never claimed to be impartial. User:Kubura has spent a lot of time disrupting the process at Croatian language, including seeking you out to use as a willing puppet in this complaint. User:Keristrasza is a true impartial observer who was targeted by User:Kubura almost by accident along with those who truly oppose his POV. If Keristrasza can see through this sham of a complaint and know that Kubura is your puppetmaster, then it's pretty obvious. --Taivo (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Riiight. You can't be impartial, then you are dismissed. No need to hear from someone who has now all but admitted they have an agenda. Oh and if you think Kubura and I are one-in-the-same, then file an SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC) No one has claimed that you and User:Kubura are one and the same and the evidence is clear that you are not. But rather than bring this to AN/I, Kubura used you to create an impression of neutrality toward the topic of the Croatian language. You are not neutral toward User:Kwamikagami and that was clear to Kubura when he chose you to be his messenger. You presented just and only the evidence that Kubura handed to you. That's the sense that you are his puppet, not in the technical Wikipedia sense of sockpuppet or meatpuppet. If I thought you were a meat or sock puppet, I would have reported you in the proper place, but you are neither. --Taivo (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Did anyone other than Kwamikagami read anything I said? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Kwami's the one that counts and in the most recent issue at that page (within the last three hours), rather than using his admin tools at all to block an edit warrior who was in clear and unambiguous violation of 1RR, he followed your clear advice and obtained the assistance of other uninvolved admins to place the block. --Taivo (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rude and racist behavior

Resolved

 – Extended to indef based on unblock request(which has now been declined by a diff admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I received another complaint on this user, Ecko1o1 (talk · contribs) for some of their edits. Ecko1o1 was previously blocked for personal attacks as well as edit warring and leaving racist comments such as this and comments such as this and this.

After the block, he has continued to be racist. Here's a racist comment Ecko1o1 made with regards to interracial marriage and another on Malik Shabazz's talk page. His edits about other racial issues have also met with complaint as seen with the warnings on his talk page. I'm a bit involved in this, and there is a request on my talk page if any intervention can be taken. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Block him. That's disgusting. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a troll.    Thorncrag   02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And revdel those personal attacks per RD2. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Block for 2 weeks although longer might be needed. JodyB _talk 02:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You beat me by two minutes -- I was still working on my block summary (mine would have been indef). I couldn't find any useful contributions in his history. Did anyone else? Antandrus (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope.    Thorncrag   02:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with indef so go ahead. I wasn't familiar enough with him at the moment but wanted the garbage cleared away quickly. Also please check behind me and see if I cleaned the revisions properly at the talk page. Thanks JodyB _talk 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have extended the block to indefinite based on the content of the unblock request, which made explicit and worse some of the earlier racist comments. Not here for anything we need on the project, they're gone... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

_{I also declined the unblock request S.G.^(GH) ping! 09:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)}

Taivo mass-posting edits signed by another editor

User:Jclemens issued a warning to Taivo. Generating more heat than light. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Warning issued. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC) User:Taivo appears to have posted, en masse, a group of posts to other users in the Croatian language arena and signed them by User:Kubura. Edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. This appears to be done to be used against Kubura. I recommend Taivo be blocked for misrepresenting himself and impersonating (poorly) Kubura. I brought this to admin User:Jclemens's attention, who asked it be directed here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC) A note: Tavio and I are involved in the above thread entitled "User:Kwamikagami continues to violate WP:INVOLVED". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I did not write this post. It was a cut and paste of this post that User:Kubura posted on my own page and on the pages of others who opposed his POV. I simply copied his post and placed it on the pages of his friends as well. If I had intended to hide the fact that I was placing Kubura's notice on these pages, don't you think I would have signed in with a different user name so that the edit was not identified as coming from "Taivo"? I simply pasted Kubura's notice in its entirety as copied from my talk page. --Taivo (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter if you copy/pasted it from one place to another another user's talk page. It was still signed as Kubura and you didn't seem to find it applicable to sign it yourself. That's impersonation. This pointy behavior violates WP:TALKNO. Ishdarian 04:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict): Exactly. Two wrongs, sir, do not make a right. You should NOT have posted anything with Kubura's name on it regardless of what he did. If you think it needed to be posted, you should have posted it with your name, not his. What you did was a clear violation of WP:TALKNO. That is one thing you do not do. This time, you will probably just get a very stern warning, but I believe it should go further and a block should be imposed. Not because we are involved in a conversation above, but because of the flippant nature of which you did it and responded with "ROFLMAO". Obviously you think this is a big joke. Then you don't need to be here. It ain't life or death or brain surgery, but impersonating someone isn't something to be taken lightly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I've warned Taivo, and am marking this thread resolved for now unless anyone else has reason that it should not be closed. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I do not want to add more fuel to this but I can not accept above explanation (or better say insult), citing: I simply copied his post and placed it on the pages of his friends as well. This sentence is degradation of everybody involved, it simply states that all involved do not have their own mind, that they are just friends. If I add something to mentioned discussion I will probably be also branded as Kubura's friend, naturally, we are living in same city, despite fact that we are not friends and most of the times we are on opposite sides. That is simply unnacceptable sentence coming from person who has to adhere to Wikipedia rules. Thanks --Lasta 09:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC) My use of the term "friends" was not the best choice of vocabulary. A more accurate phrase would have been, "those who share Kubura's POV in the discussion". The copying of Kubura's post was not a wise choice on my part in any event and it will not happen again. --Taivo (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I presume Taivo thought it obvious that he was the one posting the comments, since he was signed in and his name showed up for anyone watching the page, such as its owner, and indeed its owner did see his name. I see no intent to deceive, and thus no impersonation. Taivo now understands that he needs to make himself perfectly obvious by making a quote out of the words he's copying, and signing as well as signing in, so that an inattentive observer can't possibly mistake him for the original poster. — kwami (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I have also gone back and added a signature line beneath every copy I posted just in case. --Taivo (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations at Talk: Jonathan Cook

I watch this BLP and have intervened in the past to help with sourcing. Following a post from an editor currently blocked for sockpuppeteering I suggested a compromise and started to try and unpick a sourcing issue. For this, I was accused by User:Cptnono of "playing a game", which I emphatically was not, you can see from the talk page. I asked him to apologise but he hasn't and said I was free to bring it here. ArbCom Israel-Palestine restrictions apply to the page. It's a battleground but that will never be resolved if people trying to find policy-related compromises are bitten as soon as they arrive at the page. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith is over analyzing the situation. Some editors were not allowing a source (which I can understand) so I provided a source from a site already used as a source but then noteworthiness came into question. Too me that seemed silly. I made a comment not even thinking of it as an accusation and it sucks that the user took it that way. It was tongue in cheek. I would actually apologize for not being clear but the two demands for an apology is a little unpalatable so I won't be making one.Cptnono (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle and his IPs

User:Grundle2600 has been community-banned for disruption and has a huge list of sockpuppets, as seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive. Most recent was October 7. Now more often he pops up with IPs, mainly in 71. and 72. range, and today a 96 (all Verizon, Pittsburgh). Some IPs are [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. For those of us familiar with Grundle, it's easy to tell when it's him. Is there anything that can be done other than revert on site? Is it even worth reporting for a short block? Grsz¹¹ 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The ranges you mention are too busy and dynamic for IP blocks to work. Two possibilities: 1) WP:RBI, or 2) WP:Abuse report.
Amalthea 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea, what about a rangeblock or would there be too much collateral damage? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant with "too busy". Amalthea 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but my brain wasn't quite working up to speed yet (not enough coffee). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Grundle2600/Sandbox should be deleted (along with history) since he enjoys linking to old versions of it that reproduce the contents of deleted articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, people have legitimate grievances but they did something the wrong way. For some people, not all, the opportunity for the banned to explain their original grievance is a way to reflect and help the situation. I don't know if this is the case with Grundle.

People say "banned is banned" but I have seen many bans in ANI that were just railroaded through. Most of the time, I said nothing because the people were bad. But there is merit in having fair processes.

In the USA, there was a debate about Bush being bad for letting terrorist suspect rot in Cuba. With Wikipedia, banned is banned would mean that the Bush actions are to be praised. Without dragging more Bush into the question, we should allow banned people to make a statement once every 12 months, which would not result in repeated messages but just open the door to appeal. There are those that say secret appeal by e-mail exist. Likewise, the people in Guantanamo can appeal secretly. Yeah, right. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of account activity?

According to this diff, a talkback message was posted to Wikispan (talk · contribs)'s talk page on my behalf. I never posted the message, nor does the activity appear on my list of contributions. When I asked Wikispan about it, he replied (twice) that I left him the message, that it's recorded on my contributions list and suggested me to look again. He claims he doesn't use any scripts, and his contributions indeed suggest so. In that case, how could an unauthorized "watchdog" activity be performed on my behalf? The fact that it's not recorded on my list is a clear indication of bot use. I have saved both my list of contributions and Wikispan's talk page history, as of yesterday, several activities after the incident. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't looked far enough down on your contributions list. It is there, but the edit is from September 29, not really recent anymore (not among your last 100 edits). Considering that it was nearly two weeks ago, can you have just forgotten all about it? Fram (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It does show up in Hear's contrib list, sandwiched between some Katie Couric discussion:

03:46, 29 September 2010 (diff | hist) Katie Couric ‎ (Not one, but two, and yes, the article is biased. Prove it's not and you can remove the tags.)

03:36, 29 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Wikispan ‎ (→Michael Moore: new section)

03:34, 29 September 2010 (diff | hist) m Katie Couric ‎

03:33, 29 September 2010 (diff | hist) Katie Couric ‎ (Tagging per multiple discussions)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

More useful link: [53] - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hearfour, the diff says that you made that edit. If you didn't make that edit, the only explanation is that someone else accessed your account. If that's what happened, you'd better change your password, pronto. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:V and WP:Before

at Talk:Charles Kuralt, User:Cresix states:

Regardless of the accuracy of the information, it is more than a little serious (and possibly libelous) that there is nothing to back up this information. I know that Kuralt is deceased, which limits the applicability of WP:BLP, but he was a major public figure in recent times. I've placed a tag specific to that section. If there is no sourcing and no comments here within two weeks, I plan to remove the section. If anyone thinks he/she can find some sources within a reasonable period of time but you need more than two weeks, please leave a message. This can wait, but not for months.

questions:

1. does WP:V apply?
2. does WP:before apply?
3. does WP:GRAPEVINE, or WP:BDP apply?
4. is questioning a proposed section removal, a personal attack?

Accotink2 talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V always applies on Wikipedia, especially for disputed material, and even more especially for unsourced, potentially libelous information about a public figure's personal life. Even if the information is true, asking for sources is far from unreasonable; it is supported by clear policy.

The "personal attack" to which Accotink2 refers has nothing to do with questioning the policies. It refers to his/her repeated false accusations that I made threats, and especially Accotink2's false accusation that I threatened to nominate the article for deletion here. Apparently Accotink2 didn't like it that I asked for sources instead of adding them myself, and decided to personalize this content issue. Cresix (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

questioning an editor's statements is not a personal attack. i consider the "ticking time bomb" method of directing other editors, to be a "threat". i understand that this method is in use in the BLP Prod process, but now we have an example for WP:BDP where there can be no libel. i understand that WP:before is widely flouted. does it apply to contentious material deletion? if not, then should we not do away with wp:before, since noone follows it? it's unclear to me, that the "ticking time bomb" method increases the quality of the wiki, is it really policy for contentious material for non-BLP's? Accotink2 talk 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Falsely accusing an editor of making threats is a personal attack. You weren't just questioning which policy applies; you were accusing me of making threats, including a threat to AfD the article. You're use of the phrase "ticking time bomb" is a straw man that you have contrived to portray me as using threats to edit. I simply placed a statement on the talk page that unsourced and sensitive information about the private life of a very public figure needs sourcing, that I didn't think the unsourced information should remain in the article for months (and it had already been in the article unsourced for over four years), and that I would wait a couple of weeks to see if anyone wanted to add sources. I stated that if anyone felt he/she needed more than a couple of weeks, there would be no problem if I knew that someone had the intent to add the sources. My so-called "tinking time bomb" was simply a statement that the information did not need to remain in the article indefinitely with no one even attempting to source it. Even if I did delete it, the information is still available to be sourced in the article's history, and my comments on the talk page serve as a reminder for editors to be aware that the information is available. Here's the bottom line, Accotink2: You didn't like it that I suggested adding sources without adding them myself, as seen in your edit here, telling me I should edit the article instead of the talk page. And because you didn't like that, you decided to personalize this matter by accusing me of making "threats" and setting up "ticking time bombs". I have no problem with your questioning which policies apply, even if I disagree with you. It's your innuendo and false accusations that are the personal attacks. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that Cresix said (as presented here in this thread) is inappropriate or a misconstruction of policy. While the "ticking time bomb" metaphor may have been misunderstood, it's not an inappropriate description of the potential damage that unsourced allegations in a biography (even of the deceased) can cause. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "libelous" in an assertion of COI?

At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Howard Gittis, I've reported an allegation that an ex-wife is trashing the article about her recently-deceased ex. The s.p.a. making the assertion has characterized the edits as "libelous", which approaches but does not (in my estimation cross) the NLT threshold. Comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not willing to see it as NLT; it's not that uncommon for us to use that term (whether on-wiki or elsewhere) to mean an egregious lie, without any legal sense being involved. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For example, see the thread above this one; Cresix surely won't be suing anybody for the bits in question. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no NLT here. She is not making a threat but only an observation. However a note advising her of the NLT issue is worthwhile. JodyB _talk 16:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Characterization is never a threat. "That's defamatory" is not the same as "I'm going to sue you for defamation"; "that's illegal" is not the same as "I'm going to sic the authorities on you". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See generally Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats, which was added to address precisely this type of situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Serial deprodding

Resolved

 – SPA/POINT account blocked, disruption reverted Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Within 15 minutes of account creation The De-PROD Meister (talk · contribs) has made 36 edits to article space, all of which have been to remove prod tags from articles. The user's first edit ([54]) to his own user page leads me to believe that this user is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, not actually contesting these prods. I'm sure this is not the first time this has happened, so what is an appropriate disposition here? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was writing this up before this was posted, figured I may as well share

User is mass de-prodding articles. A look over these articles shows that there were valid reasons to prod articles, but user is adding generic comment when de-prodding. Examples: [55], [56]. Going by username, userpage, and these mass, similar edits without analysis, it looks to me that this is an example of wp:point. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I also noticed this, the de-prod reasons are really out of whack ("fix it, don't delete it") and not very constructive. --Crusio (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not disrupting to make a point, over the years there has been a tenancy to reach for the PROD button far to quickly, there is only one page (that of Diary of a warrior) that is worthy of deletion without discussion. The De-PROD Meister (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A more appropriate way to go about this is to initiate a discussion at a place like WP:VPP or WT:PROD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Again to echo Kuyabribri, it seems that you have a problem with the policy. Mass editing like this is not the way to go about it.--CutOffTies (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No I am happy with the policy, just the way over the years it is being used, used to delete articles that should be discussed at AfD. The De-PROD Meister (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, how would you go about editing Wikipedia under this username once you finish carrying the torch for this ideal/solve the perceived problem? Request a WP:RFUC to "User:Stub your article"? You can see the potential issues. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Classic WP:POINT-only behavior. Will issue warning. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously an alt account, which leads me to ask why this individual isn't willing to serially deprod articles using their main? Resolute 17:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can the prods be replaced, or are even pointy de-prods deprodded forever? Novaseminary (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in this example [57], where the prodding editor claims that they can't find sources, why do you feel it should be discussed at AFD? Your original edit summary was "You cant be sure not notable so take it to AfD", which you used many other times. I'm curious if you have anything more to say to justify this. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it is not to prove a point, it is a real belief that some are all to quick to throw away editors work without thinking about it and without discussing it. This is my first "account", I have in the past edited as an IP. As for the example given, that is one editors try, let the community as a whole have a go. The De-PROD Meister (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I can't really cast the first stone here, but this de-prod is as sensible as the contested prod that preceded it. In both cases a little digging first might have avoided the need for an AFD, which is where I assume this article is going to end up as its author now believes that the article's subject never occurred. TFOWR 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I remember once of those that I had, where I CSD'd myself. Almost like those snide little comments Twinkle makes if you try to report yourself to AIV. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Their de-prods are largely without any justification being provided and appear to be disruptive. I would support a block if this continues.--Michig (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that they are with justification, all but the one I left should be deleted only after a discussion. The De-PROD Meister (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No they aren't, and your explanation above is a textbook example of WP:POINT: You don't like how a process is being used, so rather than discuss it, you are disrupting it. And I'm sorry, but "You can't be sure they're not notable" is a bogus reason to deprod. In the case of a BLP especially, the onus is on those who want to keep to prove notability, not the other way around. Resolute 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The sad thing is, De-P M, that you could have done everybody a real service by going through the articles you felt should be de-prodded and working on them, finding sources and in general "fixing them" as you told others to do. If you had reason to think that the articles were notable you must clearly have had sources in mind, and if so, it's hard to understand why you didn't add those sources. Unless you were in fact doing this only to disrupt a process you didn't agree with. --bonadea contributions talk 18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right. More than a few of them look notable; and an admin going through the PROD log would probably have de-PRODded those articles anyway (I certainly would have). However, the dePRODs also include clearly non-notable stuff, and more worringly, unsourced BLPs. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Are all the articles de-prodded here going to be treated normally? Meaning, if it seems like they should be deleted, do they have to go to AFD rather than undoing the de-prod? Thanks--CutOffTies (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm putting most of them up for AfD right now. Meanwhile, block this guy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I will note right now that nearly all of the articles being serially-dePRODded were PRODded on 4 October; i.e. they would have been set to be deleted today. But then again, admins who patrol PROD (more particularly WP:PRODSUM, do similar things. –MuZemike 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Taking an alternative approach by applying the NPP procedure I follow to each of the "challanged" prods. Give them a few weeks and if they aren't improved, boot them with AFD (since POINTY de-prodder has thrown a wrench in the works) Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, we don't reward disruptive behaviour. Clearly not a new editor; copy-and-paste "rationales" for removal; multiple de-proddings per minute which means they haven't actually read the articles (and that's quite clear on some of them - they're obviously good PROD candidates). Simple really; any more of it and the user will be blocked. I would suggest that any de-proddings of obviously non-notable articles are reverted per IAR (and possibly per SOCK). If any editor in good standing thinks the PROD shouldn't stand, they can remove it themselves. Other dubious ones can go through AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Block as a serious misuse of the prod mechanism. It is ridiculous that the wording of WP:CONTESTED is so limp-wristed, but this is clearly a case where abuse needs to be halted immediately. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Block the disruptive user and restore the prods. Reyk _YO! 18:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Just a thought: could this be Azviz (talk · contribs) again? He has a history of disruptive rapid PROD removals, and this guy seems to have started editing about three days a month after the last lot were blocked. (Sorry, misread the SPI!) Alzarian16 (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Azviz was prodding; this is de-prodding. HalfShadow 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh? How come the SPI archive talks about "serial de-PRODding" in six different places then? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear it up right now, it doesn't look like this user is related to Azviz; he's on an entirely different continent. –MuZemike 18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, it was just an idea. I'd still support a block for disruption. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He's already been blocked indefinitely[58]... Doc9871 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I bot-rollbacked all PROD removals that he made that were still the top edit. Any PROD removals that had an edit after them I manually restored. Any articles which were under PROD that are now at AFD I left that way. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--CutOffTies (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a textbook case of what IAR is for. Good job. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Harleancarpenter

This editor has been causing problems for some time. The account appears to exist solely for adding content to Wikipedia promoting the obscure musician 'Zarjaz' - see [59]. It should be noted that there is an account of the same name on Youtube ([60]) that states that they are "pr for Tronics/Zarjaz/Freakapuss". They have added a significant amount of totally unsourced content to the Sigue Sigue Sputnik article, complaining about 'removal of sourced content' when it was removed, something repeated at Talk:Heinrich Ignaz Biber. See also Talk:List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange#Deleting referenced entries on Zarjaz. Any attempts to point this user towards policies have been responded to by their spuriously claiming that I am breaking these same policies. The latest issue is that after challenging this editor to provide citations to back up their additions to the Sigue Sigue Sputnik article, they added the following: Record Collector, issue 265, September 2001, The 80s Fight Back p. 6 - I have this issue and there is no such article anywhere in it. I have removed it only for this editor to re-add it. This editor is not making any useful contribution to this project and is herely purely to spam on behalf of Zarjaz. As I have been involved in discussions with this editor already, I would like another admin to look over this and consider blocking the account. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They have now restored the bogus reference yet again. If someone could deal with this it would be great. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am finding the behavior of the editor Michig totally disruptive to wikipedia. The editor Michig has continually disrupted and blocked and deleted valid input I have given in good faith to Wikipedia. I feel that he is now making false accusations and using his obvious experience with Wikipedia to bully me as a user.

1. I do not in any way claim to be an expert with Wikipedia and am adding content, where I believe it is right, in good faith and following every Wikipedia guideline I can. I know I make mistakes but Wikipedia guidelines say to be bold and make mistakes.

2. This editor is controlling the pages I have ben involved in, in particular the Sigue Sigue Sputnik page where I have been adding relevant and important information to the origins of this group.

3. This editor, Michig, has made illegal and defamting remarks agains living and respected artists, against Wikipedia policies and is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, for what seems to be a personal grudge or motive.

3. I believe this person has a COI with this page and perhaps Wikipedia itself where he seems to be building up a portfolio of Wikipedia pages he is controlling. Wikipedia says that Wikipedia does not write the pages. Nevertheless Michig is writing a number of pages and then saying that he is Wikipedia and represents Wikipedia.

4. Michig obviously has a petty problem with the information I am adding to Wikipedia, in good faith. He is prepared to make trouble, to defamate and libel people and to bring problems upon people like myself in order to protect his own input and control of pages. He is clearly going out of his way to investigate me on the Internet but yet he is unable to place together details regarding the subject I am researching and continues to diminish the value of the subject in order to inflate his own importance on Wikipedia.

5. Michig is acting totally against Wikipedia guidelines in editing, his actions towards other contributors and his false accusations against me, manipulated as an experienced editor against an inexperienced one.

6. The information I have been adding has been contributed, in good faith and is as valid as any other information, albeit more obscure than some, but relevant all the same and not as obscure as some information on Wikipedia.

7. The information I have added is from a valid, mainstream source and the lie that it doesn't exist is just outrageous. Therefore Michig removing it for his own motives is vandalism. Harleancarpenter (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean? I can supply a scan of the magazine page in question if anyone really needs further confirmation.--Michig (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The magazine wouldn't by any chance have a web archive, would it? John Carter (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Things that pop out:

1. If material that is added in good faith is contested, it is incumbent on the editor adding it to show that there is a reliable, verifiable secondary source for the information. This is done by discussion on the talk page in a civil manner. And throwing walls of text boarders on uncivil.
2. If a source is contented, the same thing happens. It is more likely though that an uninvolved editor be asked to review the source off the hop if it isn't on line.
3. If an editor here is using a nickname that has been identified elsewhere as being a particular person or in the employ of a particular person, band, or organization, they should consider carefully what they contribute. Persons in these situations should be aware that Wikipedia does not exist as a platform for self promotion or spin control.
4. Accusations of article ownership should be accompanied by examples by way of differences showing the behavior.
5. Leagl threats are taken very seriously as grounds for blocking editors. Care should be taken when branding actions or edits as "illegal and defamting" (sic).

- J Greb (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The magazine has a web archive put behind a paywall. The page in question contains two articles, "Jimi's All Wight" about Jimi Hendrix, and "In Their Liverpool Home" about The Beatles, and a box with five short items about JJ72, The Hard Rock Cafe, Marc Bolan, Boston, and Sally Oldfield. No mention of Zarjaz whatsoever. Do you seriously think I'd make this up?--Michig (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't, but we have had people before fake page scans and whatever, which makes them less than reliable. In general, though, I have to agree with J.Greb about pretty much every point he raises, particularly regarding what might be taken as legal threats. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I could be totally off, nothing new, but it seems that Michig should be awarded the most patient(sp) admin of the year award for dealing with this user and trying to engage on the talk page. This should have come here alot sooner. I support Michig here. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But this is incredible, Michig has been an editor/contributor for a long time. I have been contributing for a very short time. I have tried extensively to discuss and appease Michig and even complimented him on the improvements he has made. Nevertheless I am entitled to contribute and I have never made spams or promotions just contributed on a subject I know about. I have made a contribution that is referenced but even that, Michig is now saying doesn't even exist. I would say Michig is rude and disruptive and should not be given an award in this case. I don't see the point in this at all and is not what I expect from Wikipedia that invites me on as a contributor. Harleancarpenter (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I also have hard copy of the article in question here. Nevertheless, I am willing to say that the dates I have given may be wrong. Also, it has been my understanding that contributions sould be flagged and discussed, not deleted by a controlling editor with an obvious grudge.

Youtube - So what if I contribute to Youtube with this subject? So what?

It is my understanding that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of their interests and connections, as long as they do not spam or self promote. I have had connections to this subject in the past but I am not in the employ of the subject or in the band and so on but I have considerable private research on the subject. This is why I am contributing here - because I have information that would be of interest. I admit that I have given more information in places without reference than I should have, in my inexperience but that is not to say that I am unable to provide reference. I just am unable to provide the reference overnight where Michig is driving me to in order to diminish the information I am contributing. I have never placed any spam or promoting contributions.

With reference to details of article ownership, the editor Michig has scores of pages he has started listed on his user page User:Michig most of them incredibly obscure. I mention his control of a page only in what I believe is clear from his actions towards me and the Sigue Sigue Sputnik page.

I have never made legal threats to Michig but have merely pointed out, in discussion, legal problems with what he is doing on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but Michig has made serious comments on the discussion section of the Sigue Sigue Sputnik page that would be seen as harmful to the reputation of the subject. He has claimed that nothing the subject says is true or relevant and gave a list of details, some of them false, that he claimed were not true. I have pointed this out here, in discussion, merely as an indication of Michig's refusal to accept the details and the extent he would go. Again, I'm sorry but I think his actions are totally against Wikipedia guidelines and could bring Wikipedia into disrepute. I also believe it would be correct for me to approach the legality of Michig's remarks, in discussion, where I have pointed out to Michig that I believe Wikipedia has a policy to not accept the responsibility and to hold editors to their own actions and if someone is abusing Wikipedia it should be exposed.

I do apologize for my inexperience of editing but I feel I am being unduly thrust into a deep end here. I hope that when I have proved the existence of this article and any other reference I contribute to Wikipedia, Michig will be held accountable. Harleancarpenter (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Harleancarpenter, no need to apologize for inexperince. Every person on here was/is inexperieinced. The problem is that you are accusing another editor of misbehavior with pretty thin/if any real evidence. I have removed the "material" you wanted to add to the article as non notable and asked for more references on the talk page. What's my involvemnet? Natta. I don't know you, Michig, sputnik, of Zarjar from a hole in the ground, and don't want to. Time to step back, imho. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ok and I'll go with that but I hope you can see that I have gone with just about everything except where I have been harassed and intimidated. I haven't used Wikipedia for this. And I think the huge lists of pages he started of obscure bands is evidence, together with the unavoidable comments he made in discussion. Harleancarpenter (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow 3

User:Jack Sparrow 3 has violated ARBMAC 1RR restrictions at Croatian language. He's now at 3RR ([61] (an old deletion that has previously been made and reverted by others), [62], [63]), despite being twice blocked for edit warring on that article in the past (24 hrs on Oct 4, extended to 48 for block evasion, and 72 hrs on Oct 7, both for this article). — kwami (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User is blocked for a week and indefinitely banned from editing the article.

Incidentally, this should have went to WP:AE . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oversight needed

Resolved

Can someone suppress this edit and block the user who made it? It's a blatant attack against EnDaLeCoMpLeX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel needed?

Resolved

 – All done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

MichealH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has posted a little too much personal info on his user page and that concerns me because he has been actively fighting vandals. Regardless it would be best if he didn't, especially if he is as young as he claims. Could an admin with a minute have a look and decide what's best to do? Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem that would require the info being forcibly removed. I'd suggest talking to him and just making him aware of the risks of posting that much information rather than bringing it to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done - I think per WP:YOUNG name, age and school shouldn't be on display for someone so young. Will advise on his talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now he can pursue his vandal fighting without any unpleasant or even dangerous real-life consequences. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please block Boggwiki!

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please block the troll Boggwiki (talk · contribs) - that is NOT me!--Buggwiki (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Btw, is it possible to block the user in every language versions? The administrators of my language are really slow.--Buggwiki (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is possible. Stewards have the ability to globally lock accounts and IPs. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)