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

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Unresolved

 – Split 77kb+ thread to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox_and_paid_editing_(again) --slakr^\ talk /

AkankshaG COI and sockpuppetry

Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...

AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through mywikibiz.com (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.

Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt [1], in an attempt to influence a AfD. [2] Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.

The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The author of the photos has been named in conjunction with the license of the photo. To oversight the name would be a violation of that license. Phearson (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This isn't outing as all of this evidence comes directly from Wikipedia 2. I say AkankshaG needs an indef block as a promotion-only account. He has been confirmed by checkuser evidence as having used sock puppets in the AfD, and its likely there are meatpuppets there as well. The other recent AfD of one of his articles (also, in my opinion, a puff piece) likewise had a ton of spa's flock to keep the article. I can attest to the fact that Vector Marketing hires individuals to up its "net presence". These guys just basically go around the web and insert friendly comments about the organization everytime somebody high on google's search ranks starts to complain about the company. The promotional intent of AkankashaG's edits is a major cause for concern, but the behaviour during his AfDs is beyond the pale. Anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not only Vector Marketing. A quick search of some of these companies shows that they allegedly maybe engaging in unsavory activities, whilst remaining under the radar of authorities. Whenever exposed online, astroturfing trolls attempt to spin, whilst personally attacking the the complainant. I was subjected to such attack on wikipedia awhile ago [3] Phearson (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CU

A formal SPI case has confirmed Alison's findings. Though Chase is requesting a more experienced checker to look at the other socks surrounding the AfD's, as these are more likely Meat-Puppets. I was wondering if the community was fine in looking into these, as they may not be Specific to AkankshaG. I'd recommend it because of WP:DUCK. Phearson (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef. Ban Proposal

I personally would like AkankshaG to respond to the accusations here and SPI, but in the meantime, I like to propose that she be blocked indefinably until she is able. Phearson (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear; that's going in my permanent file. An indefinable block. HalfShadow 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doc talk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a Ban appropriate in this situation? She did sock. Phearson (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't necessarily justify a ban. My point is this: a block and a ban are two different things. Are you asking for an indefinite block or a formal community ban? There is a huge difference between the two. Doc talk 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing again, I go with Formal Ban (sorry for the runaround, this is a first for me). Phearson (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

NP :> I would think an indefinite block would be easier to obtain than a community ban, but I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time. Doc talk 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a banning offense, but I do think a block is in order. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that blocks can be imposed by community !vote, or I've never encountered it anyway. It would set a troubling precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Reblocks can (it happened not long ago), but I'm also a bit leery of what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The community can only impose a block if some admin is willing to implement it, so a "community-imposed" block is no different from any other: an admin has examined the evidence, and used their judgment before blocking. That said, I have no opinion on the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have only checked the vector marketing article so far, and I see both the insertion of excess promotional material, and the insertion of way overbalanced derogatory material, along with the removal of what seem to me usable sources. It's important to keep balance. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss that specifically on the article. To sum up, AkankshaG should be banned, articles created/edited should be placed under scrutiny or deleted, and deal with a bunch of obvious issues in the wake. Phearson (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. That's way too harsh. Just block them and move on - Alison ^❤ 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Anyone else? Phearson (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

As to the attempted WP:OUTING by Phearson, I’ve hesitated to respond to any of the allegations, as our policy recommends that you not respond to these allegations at all. I had hoped that someone with WP:Oversight would suppress these edits. Apparently that’s not happening, so I’ll respond now: I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove your theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

As to sanfernandocourt, I do have a connection to that editor, which I explained offline to an oversight admin, and that editor is now blocked. Beyond that, I’m not willing to say publicly, because in light of the aggressive stalking exhibited recently, I am concerned for my personal safety and the safety of that editor, and hope that you will respect that. Incidentally, User:Sanfernandocourt removed the offending vote in the Afd, and incredibly, User:Phearson/Cutno put it back in! I have no connection to sherry84, brittponsett, alharismagee, or thekohser.

Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

I will respond to these accusations in the order given.

1. AkankshaG and I are indeed in a editing dispute at Vector Marketing. However, this is an issue that needs more discussion between us at the article talk page, which we had very little of before I discovered a wider issue that extends beyond that article. I'm not saying this to avoid the issue, but it is true. If AkankshaG is not blocked after this ANI discussion. I will continue working with AkankshaG on that page, though I admit its not going very well for the both of us.
2. I did attend the unpaid training provided by Vector in which I was instructed I was to be an "independent contractor" however, I did not continue the training after researching this company, nor did I sign anything that would make me an "Independent Contractor" or an employee of any sort. I will be willing to discuss this If editors like to examine any COI issues.
3. It is fact that I did have the name Cutno, however, after reading policy, I understood that slanted views are not welcome on Wikipedia. I have changed my name to reflect this change and have done very little editing to Vector Marketing since. In my opinion, I have become a reformed vandal.
4. Claims of "Fierce and protracted battle" is exaggerated. I have never really been in a real dispute with another editor except perhaps a minor discussion with User:Satori Son over a blog at a related article, but this was before I started reading policy. Feel free to look over my history, you will see mostly removals of unsourced claims & content.
5. The "no response" after saying that she would fix the article to make similar to Apple Inc was a "Lets see if she'll present anything for discussion". I also tagged the article appropriately to encourage any on lookers to see what was going on and to comment in preparation, of coarse the article was instead completely replaced without consensus, and thats where our dispute began. In hindsight, I should of encouraged her to keep the regular editors informed on the talk page, but also, she was creating the article in a sandbox which she didn't tell anyone about, nor ask anybody to come look at and comment.
6. During the time of our disagreement, I looked through her editing history and found COI with evidence on wikipedia itself and other websites regarding unrelated articles. Issues that I believed needed attention of the community VIA ANI. I did respect her request that she would be back soon after the New Year, and decided to confront directly and wait for a response after she got back (this is related to the outing issue, which I will address in my next point) before doing the ANI. I also sent email to an administrator to discuss my concerns. While waiting, a confirmation of a sock puppet was revealed by User:Alison [4] Which stated and I quote, "I got the roommate excuse via email. So I've left the other account alone for the moment and will defer to the community for whatever should be done, but the main account has been socking and votestacking at AfD. There may also be other accounts - I need to check further" and was confirmed formally by SPI [5]. I would like to point out that I contacted another editor to do the SPI, fearing that I would be accused of wp:hounding but since it was taking too long, and at the advice of the emailed admin. I went ahead and did it myself. And I also started the ANI because through the sock, it was assumed that AkankshaG had returned.
7. I do not dispute the direct violation of WP:OUTING. I want to apologize to AkankshaG and the Wikipedia community for a serious violation of policy. I will accept a reasonable punishment imposed if other editors believe I need it. However, I would like to point out indirectly and without linking directly, that some of AkankshaG's photos' licenses for her version of Vector Marketing contain the author's name, and that name is linked to Ciplex, an article created by AkankshaG herself. The source of the photograph was uploaded to mywikibiz, and then almost immediately uploaded to Wikipedia. Check the dates of photographs on both sites for confirmation. I have also taken screen shots, so there will be no evidence tampering.
8. I think that "Stalking" is an overstatement. Any person using the Internet, using their RL name on a public website is subjected to have their information viewed by the general public. I also like to say that I have no intent of making contact with this individual in RL or electronically ever (with the exception that AkankshaG may be this individual on WP). As for the "fear of safety for both her and the mywikibiz editor", this is nothing but a smokescreen to avoid the issues that I have brought up. As stated in #7, I standby the accusation that they are the one same individual. And now Finally...
9. I would like to make it clear that I am not out to attack User:AkankshaG personally over an editing dispute. Infact, I would have never pursued the COI issues on Articles related to Ciplex if there WAS NO ISSUE. Given Akanksha's behavior at the AfD and what I have bought forward to the community. It is very clear what is going on, and that AkankshaG is attempting a Smokescreen maneuver, in order to discredit me and throw out the ANI. At this point, I rest my case. Phearson (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Xymox (the article, not the band) needs your help

Help! Clan of Xymox has almost more conflicts of interest than it had band members--I think three of the four founding members may be involved in editing. At any rate, the edits made by Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) are getting to be disruptive, and I'm pretty sure I'm at 3R already. The persistent introduction of unverified information, information that contradicts published sources, personal jabs, fan talk, etc. is getting to be more than I can or am willing to handle, and I could use your advice. I can provide diffs of individual problematic edits if needs be, but a recent edit, this one, is a deliberate change of fact (and a stab at a former band member and possibly former romantic interest, if I may venture boldly--see this also), and this edit pretty much contains everything else, including such gems as this:

January 2006 the EP" Weak In My Knees", included are remixes of Azoic, Destroid ,Grendel and Siva Six plus a video .followed by the release of the album " Breaking Point" which got again all praise and glory , entered high on all charts possible and imaginable , COX embarked on a further tour , this time operating from Germany, where the album Breaking Point got finished.

Now, this wouldn't be such a big deal if the article didn't have a long history of being unverified and fluffy, and if the editor in question didn't reinsert these edits again and again. I have tried opening up discussion on the talk page, left notes here and there, and now I am resorting to warnings, including a 3rd-level warning for a personal attack and a final warning for deliberately adding incorrect information. Again, your help is appreciated--goth fans worldwide will thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hot off the press: this edit, by "you know who". Drmies (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hablador (talk · contribs) seems to be involved in this, as well. Creating blp-violating articles about the members of the band. Corvus cornix_talk 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

They're one of the three I suspected. The articles they created, however (Pieter Nooten and Anka Wolbert), are typical newbie articles (they actually copy text from the main article that I think I wrote, haha) without evil intent. BTW, I don't think that Knowitall is of evil intent, but they are very hard of hearing, and I don't want to shout any more or harder. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read all the edits that occurred in the last 24 hours regarding Clan of Xymox and related pages. I would like to ask the administrators here how to deal with these abusive, personal attacks made at me by Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) in this encyclopedia; on my user page, and on the Clan of Xymox page. In earlier edits Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) has vandalistically removed information, deleting Anka Wolbert from the article (this edit). On a separate, more recent occasion, I have used the Wiki warning system to request Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) to desist from altering information about Anka Wolbert User_talk:Knowitallfortoday, but these warnings have had no effect since personal attacks have continued to be made over the past 24 hours. Anka Wolbert (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

THERE WERE ONLY 3 FOUNDING MEMBERS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hablador (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Typing in all caps doesn't make you more right, just more annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not certain of this, but Nutville (talk · contribs) has just created Template:Knowitallfortoday. Possible sock, anyone? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Difficulties at Schapelle Corby

Could an outside admin take a look at User:Kimpatriciabax and her discussions at Talk: Schapelle Corby? I think everyone's been most patient with her but it is getting tiresome. I can deal with the pov pushing, it's the constant threats to put us in her blog (she has) and there will be all these media investigations of Wikipedia which will reveal our secret identities. Editor noticed, as of about one minute from now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since she's autoconfirmed, it won't help with this particular issue, but I've raised the question of semi-ing the talk page at WP:AN#Semi-protecting an article talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And she became autoconfirmed, by random edits to other articles, for the sole purpose of becoming autoconfirmed to get around the semi. Her blog, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a well-known endaround the protection system, most notably seen at the Virgin Killer a few years back. I raised concerns at the time but got a "hardly anyone knows about that" response". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 15:14, January 3, 2011

The point is, media investigations into the identities of people editing at Wikipedia have already taken place (there are multiple articles about this on the net). Further, it's something of joke that a news "Source" like Wikipedia (which I assume wants to be taken with a degree of seriousness), allows editors and moderators to operate anonymously. By all means, do as you please (as I'm sure you will), but be aware, that when publishing on sensitive political issues, it grossly undermines any claims to authority or reliability. I'm just pointing out the obvious, a bit like pointing out the weather. And again, I don't have any power to instigate a media investigation into "Who" you are, I'm just pointing out the obvious, e.g. when the films, books and spin-off articles about Schapelle hit the streets (internationally), including all the info about the way this Wiki page is sliced and diced within seconds, by people who have also extensively edited on John Howard's page, then I'm sure there will be number of interested media people. It's also interesting to see you're openly discussing ways to block me. Go ahead, be my guest (if you can, save me a lot of work, I can simply say I was deliberately blocked), and again, it's no skin off my nose - evidence is evidence, whether it's new material added to the Wiki page (which is great, I note a lot more people will now be reading Ray Cooper's evidence for instance), or gross slicing and dicing of new material (within seconds), or you blocking/banning me. Any avenue you take is completely fine with me. Kimpatriciabax (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence is the key. This editor seems uninterested in writing an encyclopaedia (which she confuses with a 'news source') but it's a win-win for her. If her edits remain she gets one thing she wants, if they are removed she gets screencaps for her blog. I think we just have to play with anabsoultely straight bat, stick to policy and take our cheques from the Indonesian security service. Whoops - did I say that out loud? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a news source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

...and LHvU has indefed for tendentious/chilling effect editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, news travels fast - I enacted the block after reviewing the editors talkpage, which did not then include the commentary above, and spent time constructing a comprehensive rationale. The question of sprotecting the talkpage over at AN may be held/archived until we determine what the response to my action is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support LHvU - my immediate thought is that 'I will out you/diss you on my blog' is not substantially different to 'my lawyer will be in touch', and we would indef for the latter.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, moreover, the block has aught to do with the editor's PoV on that topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Elen has hit it on the head at its root no difference what so ever. It has a demonstratorable Chilling effect on collegial editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support LHvU; I agree that stuff like this is as intimidating as having battle-lawyers armed and ready. Particularly when this editor conflates "Internet encyclopedia" with "News source". I don't think she's cut out for WP; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bungling PR manager! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. The chilling effect is, well, chilling. Threatening to keep files on constructive editors in order to enforce one viewpoint is simply not acceptable. I look forward to answering the 'tidal wave of publicity' when it hits the volunteer response team, and think I can already guess what the response will be. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• (Comment) Jeremy - have a look at the blog pages, there's no way a PR manager could be that frothy mouthed intense. SPA all the way, baby. a_man_alone (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I dunno, some PR agents are so blisteringly clueless... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 10:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Although I will miss the opportunity to ask her why my pay cheques haven't arrived lately (or at all), and to discuss with her my genuine love affair with John Howard (that's the really laughable bit!). HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've worked on the Gough Whitlam article, if it's any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - bear in mind though that my user name is that of an Indonesian mountain(!!!!), I've worked on articles related to Indonesia, and I have edited John Howard's article. Kim Bax has vigilantly worked all this out and pointed it out on her blog, (as well as asking many times who is paying me). What she doesn't know, is that I have also edited Kevin Rudd's page, the Bali page, the Architecture of Sydney page, and most significantly, Bono's page - full disclosure here from me. On a serious note, a number of us spent a lot of time trying to help her through - almost none of it appears to have been heard, let alone understood and acted upon. Indeed, her rhetoric just gets ratcheted up. To me, her blog suggests similar combative yet incessantly clueless dealings with other parties.I guess I'm saying I don't hold high hopes of her turning into a productive editor (and I don't think that's why she's here anyway - she's just looking for more "evidence" for her blog) --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sarong-shaking support She's all ash and no lava. Never fear - my hero shall save us all! KrakatoaKatie 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (FWIW, at this point it seems to be a pile-on.) Maybe Corby is the victim of justice gone awry. But as I see it, the issue with this user is that she doesn't trust foreign legal systems. Simple as that. (Occasionally I hear about this case of a Seattle girl whom the Italian courts found guilty of killing her roommate. Maybe it happened during a sex crime; I don't remember the details or her name off hand. But the newstories make the Italian legal system seem as good as the Italian army.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Amanda Knox. See also Lori Berenson, the three "hikers" in Iran, the nutsos who keep crossing the North Korean border to get in, and the kid in Singapore who got caned. No reason why an American, Brit, or Aussie should face one of those third world courts. Just send her home. Can't you see she is crying?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, now that you put a name to my vague & admittedly unreliable memory, do I have to take out the part about "may it happened during a sex crime" to appease the BLP police? Or will you let me off if I just apologize to every soldier in the Italian army? (Doing anything to appease that obsessive Aussie blogger is not up for consideration. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Too late at night for such complicated thinking, so you get an unconditional pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the record. This was a very good block. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

86.157.75.69 (talk · contribs) was continuing the same conduct, so I've blocked them for block evasion per WP:DUCK. The personal attacks and soapboxing were blockable in their own rights anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Kim Dent-Brown has hit the nail on the head. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - that a long standing editor has had blog space focusing upon and attending to his few edits in one area with such vitriol and hysteria suggests blog space might be just - the place to be in this weather (wherever you are - flooding east states or boiling western side) - either way - either a dry out or hosing down sounds close enough to a block SatuSuro 12:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - "gross slicing and dicing within seconds" - how many times have I read that stupid phrase now? Makes me think this editor is a former salesman of the Slap Chop. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Return of Hullaballoo again

It seems Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) will not let go of me. More recently, he has undone several bold edits of mine which redirected unsourced BLPs of individual members of Smash Mouth — edits that I doubt anyone else would argue are in the wrong, as they seem to fall in line with WP:BAND. His edit summary called my edits "undiscussed, indiscriminate, inappropriate". The last time I tried to talk to him, I felt that I was civil enough, but he plowed right through my discussion with an edit summary calling my comments "paranoid, incompetent and inaccurate". The most recent discussion on his talk page is KWW warning him not to violate WP:CIVIL. I filed an RFC about a month ago but all we did was talk in circles and go absolutely nowhere. His edit summaries towards other users show that he is just as incivil to everyone else, although I still seem to be one of his primary targets of incivility.

My point is: Hullaballoo has gotten away scot-free with blatant WP:CIVIL violations way too many times. Everyone keeps dropping him friendly warnings not to act incivilly, and he blatantly shuns them and goes back to his same shenanigans. I don't know why he's apparently got carte blanche now, but it MUST stop now. I think it's reached the point where a block is in order, but either way, We MUST find a way to stop his gross misbehavior. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this doesn't fall under WP:BRD.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Because every time I try to talk to him on his talk page, he just wipes out my discussion and calls me paranoid. I can't invoke BRD if he won't follow through on the D part. The issue is far beyond BRD anyway — it's not just his blind reversions of my edits, but also his outright refusal to change his behavior after umpteen warnings and his hostile attitude towards other users in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you discuss it on the article talk page he can't wipe it out. You call it a blind reversion, but it looks thought out to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've notified him since you didn't. I see no benefit to a block in this situation, his comments are blunt but not egregious. He has the right to remove what he wants on his own talk page, and it would be better to discuss it in a more appropriate place anyway. Trebor (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the fact that he's been doing this to me, on and off, for two years? Repeatedly calling an editor "paranoid and inaccurate" isn't an ad hominem attack to you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The examples that TPH provided don't cause me much concern: typical editing disagreement. I was concerned by this edit, which does cross WP:CIVIL.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time I try to talk on his talk page, no matter how nice I am, he blindly reverts me and calls me incompetent/inaccurate/paranoid. Every time. If that's not repeated, blunt attacking of an editor I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then focus on that, and provide us with a list of diffs. His reverts of your redirects aren't going to lead to any clear-cut consensus.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just stop commenting on his page. He obviously doesn't want you there, and any discussion of the page redirects and other edits should take place on the talk pages of the article, anyway. I'm not really concerned about HW's blanking of his talk page from you, but if he can't actually discuss things on the correct page, that would be another matter. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be happy enough to just start blocking every editor that starts the "stay off my talk page" garbage. It's a sign of a refusal to participate in mature discussion, and is generally a very accurate pointer as to where the real problem in an interaction lies.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well right or wrong I'd advise against that without community backing.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not normally a great sign, but we give users free reign to manage their userpages how they want. A refusal to discuss on his userpage is not the same as a refusal to discuss; obviously if he edit warred without being willing to discuss it anywhere, that would be blockable. Trebor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen him discuss any of his reversions anywhere. Check his talk page; there are several cases where he pruned references, including such reliable sources as the New York Times, without explaining why besides "they're not reliable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry: I'm well aware of the distinction between "things I'd like to do" and "things I'm permitted to do". That said, user pages are a fine place to discuss things, and forcing all discussion to article talk pages isn't a reasonable strategy when you are questioning behaviour that spans multiple articles.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unwelcome and rude (admittedly, he's right on this one)
• Unwelcome and unwelcome — he told me "read the edit summaries" which in no way explained how he thought the sources in question were acceptable
• paranoid ranting
• Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
• unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
• unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
• unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
• Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
• "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" after someone politely asked him to archive his ginormous talk page; the same editor tried to instigate an unrelated discussion about IMDb but HW bulldozed their edits and called the user rude.
• "Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)

And most recently, I politely asked him yet again to discuss his reversal of my redirect, and he very falsely accused me of "harassment". That one is the last straw. Admittedly I'd been rude to him before, but even when I'm civil, he makes the falsest accusation I've ever seen in the five years I've been here. My last edit was in no way harassment, and he has no right to make such a bald-faced lie and get away with it! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here is some proof that he almost never discusses any changes made to an article, and is in general very rude when he does:
• 1.) One of my first run-ins with HW and his refusal to discuss beyond laconic circular-logic arguments was at this AFD. He argued that because it was an "Album released last week by notable group" that it was automatically notable, and pointed to listings at CMT.com and Rollingstone.com that were nothing more than track listings. When I pointed out that the "sources" were only directory listings and that the label's page didn't even mention the article, his response assumed bad faith in my source-finding abilities.
• 1b.) In between those two sections, you'll find him being just as curt and circular-logical about his blunt removal of generally valid references from countless other articles.
• 2.)Another time, I asked how he thought that the meager sources in the Jerome Vered article were insufficient. At the AFD, he called my comments "inaccurate" when I told him that I didn't think the trivial mentions in Google Books were enough, and refused to elaborate on his talk page.
• 3.)The last time I saw him discuss content on a talk page, he replied to me calling a source unreliable. I said that the author "doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility" and he redacted it as a WP:BLP violation and usage of "weasel words" when it clearly wasn't. I told him that his edit summaries were vague and didn't properly explain why he thought the source was reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've warned HW that I will block him for refusing to discuss edits. I see that TPH has reinstalled the redirects that HW refused to discuss, and I'm not going to take action now. If he edit wars and won't discuss, I'll take action then, and I will monitor this problem.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside, I reinstated the redirects and discussed on the talk page why I think they should stay redirects. (And as an other aside, it also irks me that HW has gotten away with a 465 KB talk page and outright refuses to archive it.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe that there's an active proposal to give a limit to unarchived talk pages. DGG is another "offender", but I'm not about to block him for it... It is probably about time that Hullaballoo was placed under some editing restrictions, he's been repeatedly uncivil and often edit wars and refuses to discuss edits. Can we formulate some requirements that would keep his excesses in check? Fences&Windows 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec)There's a fair bit of dickery going about through all these diffs...some of which, as you have noted, involve some snippish comments of your own...but I don't think AN/I is flexible enough to deal with this sort of thing, though it would be nice for a change if it would. If you're upto the Byzantine challenge, and RFC/U along the lines of what had to finally be done with Colonel Warden recently may be the way to go. If not, then try leaving all of the discussion attempts off his talk page and on the appropriate article talk pages. If he ignores the discussion attempts there and still reverts out of hand, then that would likely gain some traction here. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I already filed an RFC/U and it went absolutely nowhere. There was lots of discussion, but nothing came of it at all. I don't think another RFC/U would help, especially since the last one was about a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it obtained the necessary traction: if HW refuses to discuss an edit again, he will be blocked until he agrees to discuss edits. Does anyone really think more should happen at this moment?—Kww(talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hm, I had no recollection of RFCU #1, and I even commented there; maybe this is a good day to quit drinking. Well, if a bright-line "one more and he's toast" comes out of this now, then that sounds good. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree w/the above comment to the effect that if HB does not wish to discuss the matter on his talk page, that is within his rights, and I would in that situation suggest article page discussion be initiated.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• True enough, but here he is describing a request on his talk page to discuss it at the article talk page as "unwanted harassment". That's refusing to discuss it anywhere.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone thinks that an interaction ban is a good idea here? T. Canens (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The problem is that Wolfowitz won't interact with Hammer, he just reverts his actions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am goddamn sick and tired of being treated like dirt here. In the last two years I've made about thirty thousand edits, none using automated tools or scripts, concentrating on BLP and copyright policy enforcement, two areas that are among the highest priorities, as established both by on-Wikipedia consensus and by Wikimedia Foundation action. These are pretty much thankless jobs these days, as my repeatedly vandalized user page and talk page evidence. Yet obviously this counts for nothing, and that quite a few people are never going to give me a fair shake because I became an involuntary Wikipedia Review poster child as a victim of admin abuse over an incident where no less than Jimmy Wales eventually weighed in support of me and the admin who blocked me, for an edit made by another user, stomped off Wikipedia in the face of criticism. It's evident that a double standard is being applied here.
With regard to some of the specific points made:

• TenPoundHammer claims that he filed an RFC/U against me recently, but that it "went nowhere." That's hardly accurate. The RFC, which wasn't ever even properly certified, ended up with four users endorsing TPH's position generally, five endorsing mine generally, and a dozen or so rejecting most of TPH's claims particularly those relating to stalking and harassment, but finding some of my AFD comments too harsh, in particular my comment that when TPH says he can't find sources on a subject, it's because he hasn't bothered to look for them. (I didn't participate in the RFC precisely because it was never properly certified, so the community's rejection of TPHs accusations was based only on his presentation of his case, underlining just how unfounded the accusations were.) I think my comment is accurate and within the general range of comments accepted at AFDs, but I've respected the expressed opinion of the community and have not since used that formulation. TPH does not respect the community's determination and has repeated, here and elsewhere, the accusations rejected, by a wide margin, by the community in the RFC. The RFC, focusing on my responses to TPH's AFD nominations, reflects a pretty strong community consensus that TPH's deletion proposals are too often destructive. As one admin noted in a lengthy ANI discussion regarding TPH only a few days ago, "I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. . . . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't." [6]
• It is absolutely false that I "refuse to discuss edits." My talk page shows scores of discussions, and my contribution list shundreds of talk page discussions. What I won't do is waste my time responding to uncivil, peremptory comments that aren't made with any intent to engage in an encyclopedia-building process, but to make editing unpleasant for an editor who's disagreed with the commenter. Comments like these, from TPH:

  "Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived?" [7]

  "oh so now you're being a douche too? let's just have a big douche parade across his talkpage" (edit summary) [8]

  "and you wonder why I'm never fucking polite to you" (edit summary) [9]

  "why are you only ever this big a douche to me?" (edit summary) [10]

  "So in other words, what we have is an editor being a single-minded, bullheaded, tendentious douchebag and no one can be bothered to do anything about it." (under the heading "Wolfowitz") [11]

  "fine, Hullaballoo Doucheowitz... if you insist on undoing every damn edit I make. Undo this. I dare you." (edit summary) [12]

  "What the hell is your problem? You're labeling ALL my edits as disruptive. Whatever happened to good faith, hmm?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=387402805&oldid=387402473

  "What the hell is your problem? Every time I make a nomination you're here to bitch about it." [13]

  "You just have a grudge and a half against me don't you? I looked and didn't see anything that said "Emmy". Clearly my google-fu is abysmal." [14]

  "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer." [15]

  "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?" [16]

  "*Seriously man, do you have some sort of agenda against me? It seems like no matter what I do, you're there to undo it. And answer me already. WHAT NEEDS DISCUSSION" [17]

  "Are you gonna answer me or what?" [18]

  "*Great. So you're bulldozing all my edits AND giving me the silent treatment. Way to be civil." [19] (Note that the last five comments were posted over a 45-minute period.)

I made repeated attempts to dialogue with TPH over at least a year. Note the extended discussion in this AFD, for example. After a long period, TPH dropped any vestige of rational conversation and shifted to summary invective. As I recall, the shift came in mid-September, after I posted a comment/warning on his talk page regarding disruptive editing practices -- in that case, reinstating about two dozen disputed redirects, marking the edits as minor, and using edit summaries suggesting he was reverting vandalism. His accusations and nasty talk page posts began almost immediately afterwards.

• A substantial portion of TPH's editing, particularly as related to deletion/removal of content, is incompetent, well beyond the point of being disruptive. This is behavior which actively damages the encyclopedia, impairs its value to users, and drives good faith contributors away. TPH admits regularly that his ability to use Google as a search engine is deficient (his own descriptions of his competency level include "abysmal" and "I still suck". Yet he continues to make AFD nominations and create redirects, despite his awareness that his basis for doing so is unreliable. Just yesterday, taking one of the articles which provoked his post here to this AFD, only to have it snow-kept within an hour, shortly after he withdrew another AFD, where he'd claimed no sources "seem to exist", only to be quickly overwhelmed by proof otherwise (leading to his admission "Clearly I still suck at using Google, I would think a reasonable, constructive editor, conscious that his analyses were regularly misleading/inaccrate, would stop employing those analyses until they figured out what was going wrong. TPH doesn't. Two other examples are instructive: TPH nominated Jordyn Shellhart for deletion, saying that "Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources." [20] Yet the Google News search results [21] actually turn up several dozen news hits, some trivial, but many substantial, including full profiles, and showing that the article subject received national press attention for her televised performance of the national anthem at an NFL game. Only today, TPH unlinked the term "sheoque" from an article on Irish mythology [22], claiming "google doesn't know what a sheoque is." However, a basic Google search [23] immediately turns up relevant hits at the top of the search results, as well as, further in what appears to be detailed commentary by Yeats. Nor are the problems limited to Google use. In this AFD TPH claimed "I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations" for the article subject, although all he needed to do was click the appropriate link in the (already wikilinked) article on the award. Here he insists hat an album was released on a "non-notable label," even though the label had an article soundly establishing notability. And here TPH argued that HBO was a "redlinked network," on which no further comment should be necessary. This is highly disruptive behavior, and there's fundamentally no other way to refer to it other than variations on "incompetent." Or worse.
• TPH regularly refuses to engage in discussion after I have responded to his attacks. For example, the first time TPH raised similar matters at AN/I, he refused to provide any substantive response to my reply (reproduced below). Instead, he forum shops, abandons discussions when they don't immediately produce the results he wants, then renews them in hopes of finding a more receptive audience. It's not a coincidence that his attacks on me closely follow significant complaints being made regarding his editing practices; he's trying to divert attention from his repeated and very serious misbehavior, pointing to the alleged venial sins of the Big Bad Wolfowitz because I'm not a very popular guy with a bunch of admins. TPH has never responded in any way to my previoys response, which bears repeating here:

I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original).

In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww. [24] TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions.

TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his being bitchy. [25]

TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users.

With regard to the particular matters TPH raises:

• My comments in the Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue [26]. It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label,"[27] precisely the standard he rejects here.

• The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection.

• The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer."[28] Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article.

TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in [Atlantic Records discography RFD], where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects.[29] In [recent AFD], I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified.

In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example:

• TPH nominated Trey Bruce for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point.

• TPH redirected Robb Royer to Bread (band), asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song.[30] This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action.

• Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of CSI, including "A Bullet Runs Through It" (Edgar Award nominee)[31]; "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee)[32]; "Gum Drops" (Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list) [33]; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee)[34]; and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.[35]

TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example:

• Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary [36]

• Sept 9; two different editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for uncivil/insulting edit summary(ies) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Longhorns_.26_Londonbridges

• Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus [37]

• Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty [38]

• Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects [39]

• Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur [40]

• Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Concerns

• Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries [41]

• Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries [42]

• With regard to certain claims of edit warring: WP:BLP and WP:BRD are inconsistent. But BLP is an important policy with strong consensus support, while BRD is an essay. BLP calls for certain classes of material to be removed "without discussion" or "without waiting for discussion"; such material is not to be restored without achieving consensus for its restoration. Similar standards apply to nonfree content. In both cases, enforcing the relevant policies is exempt from the edit warring limits. There are editors who do not agree with the current policies, and believe that BRD principles are more important. But policy says otherwise, and criticizing or threatening to sanction any editor acting under those policies is not appropriate.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it beyond sickening that Hullaballoo has been allowed to continue his "editing" practice of constant haraassment and stalking of productive editors. Dozens of editors have been driven off this project because of the actions of this one non-productive editor. I find it laughable that he seems to be proud of his "edits" which consist of NOTHING but harrassing other editors. Hullaballoo is a huge negative to this project, and that the community tolerates this sort of destructive behavior has caused me to leave Wikipedia permantly. And in contrast to Hullaballoo, I have actually contributed something here-- including starting over 600 articles, not one of which has been deleted yet, in spite of efforts by biased trolls such as Hullaballoo. An editor as arrogant, this destructive, and totally non-productive should be banned without question. Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hullabaloo, I have no concept of what you are talking about with the Wikipedia Review stuff. That's probably good, and I will specifically not research it so that I remain ignorant. I haven't threatened you with a block for following WP:BLP or our copyright policies, I've threatened you with a block for not discussing your edits. I can promise you that if you removed material repeatedly based on WP:BLP, you could get blocked for refusing to discuss why you believed the material violated WP:BLP. Similarly with our copyright policies. Both of them encourage boldness, and both of them encourage to act before talking, but neither of them discourage talking after acting. If you are going to edit, you must be willing to discuss the edits. With everyone. You can move the discussion from your talk page to notice boards, to article talk pages, Wikiproject talk pages, AFDs, many places, but you cannot refuse to talk.

No one believes TPH to be an angel. He's been blocked recently, and I think it's pretty likely he's going to see more of them in the future, for precisely the reasons you point out. That doesn't excuse your behaviour, and, if you keep going the way you are going, I think it is pretty likely that you are going to see multiple blocks in your future as well.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And I want to point out that this is not between TPH and Hullaballoo. This is between every editor who has a difference with Hullaballoo's edits. To my knowledge, during my almost 5 years here I never edit-warred with another editor. If I had a difference, we discussed and compromised. Hullaballoo CONSTANTLY refused to do this, always citing his interpretation of the rule-of-the-day or some other discussion to which he vaguely referred. He ALWAYS turned editing into a game of "Chicken"-- who will get blocked for reverting beyond 3RR?-- and he has stated that he believes he has the right to exceed this point. I've found putting together diffs showing Hullaballoo's bullying behavior not only time-consuming, but absolutely futile. Some of them can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#View_by_certifier_Dekkappai . Dekkappai (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that the people decrying HW here are the same ones' who did so on the recent RfC/U on HW. That didn't get the result they wanted, so they're back again for another bite of the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the same ones. That invalidates their concerns somehow? 'If at first you don't succeed' seems to be apposite here. Here is another collection of half-truths and lies from an editor with a deserved reputation for arrogance and bullying. If he's not going to be banned then Wolfowitz must be continually watched and challenged at every turn for the common good. --78.101.20.115 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't deny that I've been rude to Hullaballoo many times in the past. That's no reason for him to continue to be rude to me. As I pointed out, I've finally dropped the rudeness with him, and yet he still insists on calling me "paranoid" again and again and refusing to discuss anything with me or anyone else. (At least he hasn't gone on another redirect-bulldozing spree... yet.) Several other users have testified that HW is outright rude and bullheaded, and is a repeated BLP blanker. And the only thing I don't have an answer for yet is... why has he not been blocked yet? As I said earlier, maybe a temp block would be a wakeup call for him, as it was for me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fraud accusation and legal threat from user Frankkfong

User Frankkfong (talk · contribs) accused me of fraud and made this legal threat on my talk page for having removed new content per possible wp:COI and wp:NOR at article Calvin cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user seems to have no idea about how Wikipedia works although some of the policies were explained and (i.m.o.) sufficient pointers were provided, both on his and on my talk page. I suggested twice ([43], [44]) to propose the edit on the article talk page, but it looks like the user does not intend to do this. Not knowing what to do with this threat, I wonder whether I should just ignore it and remove part of the section from my talk page?

User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I left Prof. Fong a note which might or might not help. A little Googling shows that he was in a complicated dispute with Purdue University in the 1980's, that I'm too bleary to read right now, but it does sound like we have to be careful about COI edits and off-wiki battles that he might be fighting. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, he does seem to be quite capable of reading the wikipedia policies carefully if he is pointed to them. He has some points about the fact that the COI policy does not necessarily mean that he he is not allowed to contribute that bear consideration and response. As to the possibility of a legal threat being leveled here, I would imagine that pointing him to the appropriate guideline will inform him sufficiently and that he will act in accordance with the guideline. If I have a chance, I will leave it for him myself. We all at some point knew little of how wikipedia works; it is not intuitive, and certainly our legal threats policy is not something we can expect people to anticipate unless it is brought to their attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned NLT. Did you see what I left him? Was it ok? 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing User DVdm's actions and my inquiries are as found at Message from Frankkfong and Reply to DVdm's Response. The underlying fraud issues are found at The Calvin Cycle Website. Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception, made possible by omitting Melvin Calvin, Francis K. Fong and their co-workers' original papers. It was shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission. In anticipation of his seeking your acquiescence to "ignore it and remove part of it," hours ago I emailed myself DVdm's User Page for incorporation in a report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Director Bobby Hunt, Executive Division of IRS, and Dr. France Cordova, Member, National Science Board, c/o NSF General Counsel Lawrence Rudolph. Respectfully submitted, Francis K. Fong Frankkfong (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The intervening messages above (and the one below) came in as I was saving mine, creating edit conflicts. I have no intention of taking legal action, but would suggest that you do not acquiesce to DVdm's intention to "ignore it and remove part of it." I'm in a meeting, but will respond to all the messages and notify DVdm of the above and other responses on his User Page at a later hour. Frankkfong (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is it "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission"? We require evidence of allegations of this nature. Please see Help:Diff if you are unfamiliar with the process of linking to specific actions on Wikipedia. Without evidence, our policy requires you to assume that User:DVdm and other users are operating with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The note that 67.122.209.190 left you at DVdm's talk page includes a little more detail on Wikipedia's purpose and several other points related to your notes there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Prof. Fong, I'm confident that DVdm didn't intentionally misuse any WP policies. He may have made a mistake with them but in any case, a lot of subjective judgment is involved in handling such things. Also, when he mentioned removing part of it, I read that as meaning he wanted to focus on the article issue rather than raising a fuss because you had (maybe inadvertantly) broken the NLT policy. Note that "removing" something via normal editing doesn't make it unavailable. It's just like editing an article. You can still see the old versions, including "removed" material, by clicking the history tab at the top of the page, and people do that all the time. So he was't trying to cover anything up. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: with "removing part of it", I meant indeed removing the part of the message containing the legal threat from my user talkpage. I know that I can and may do that at will, but I was wondering whether I should do that. Thanks Anon67 and others for looking into this. DVdm (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Calvin_cycle#Fong_papers asking for uninvolved biology editors to look over Prof. Fong's addition and use any appropriate material from it in the article. My guess is some parts of it are usable but other parts not. The stuff from scientific journals directly about the Calvin cycle is probably fine. The stuff about the Purdue dispute really needs independent secondary sourcing, not a blog belonging to an involved party. I'm not able to look for that right now but I might try a Google Scholar search sometime later. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Legal threats are absolutely forbidden. Why is this Carl LaFong Frankk Fong still being allowed to edit? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Because he has clarfied that he is not going to take any legal action in the above post.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The legal threat is still sitting there on the OP's talk page. He needs to go to that page and retract it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He is a new user with what is apparently a valid concern and who is currently in a meeting - I think it is ok to give a little leeway. I am definitely not going to take administrative action as long as his retraction of the threat here at ANI stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He may be 100 percent right from a factual standpoint, but that does not matter. Legal threats are forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The above comment by Frankkfong regarding saving DVdm's page for forwarding to government authorities (including those related to scientific-fraud investigation and taxes) is also IMO well into the realm of WP:NLT chilling effect. Those groups have no sway over WP content and are not being indicated as reliable sources on the content. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. He should be blocked immediately until or if he retracts anything that looks like a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a brief response to ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC). I'm on a short break from the meeting, which may go on for some time. And then I'll need time to digest the input. I have no intentions of taking legal action as stated in the above post. Thanks for your sharing with me an apparently valid concern involving possibly the single most important chemical reaction on earth. Your article on the Calvin cycle was based on one, and only one, paper published in a reputable research journal, Ref. 1 Bassham, Benson and Calvin (1950), which Calvin et al in all of their subsequent publications had refuted. Frankkfong (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As the above editor refuses to fully retract his various legal threats, he should be indef'd immediately, pending an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception. — No it wasn't. Wikipedia didn't exist in 1989. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown, in 1989, by the National Science Foundation to be deception.

. The representation that wikipedia shows of the cycle was shown to be incorrect back in 1989. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admin. ·Maunus·ƛ·, I have now reviewed the above contributions, including the one left on Mr. Editing User DVdm's User Page by Anon67. (I have yet to read the "new messages" on my own User's Page.) Having also read, for the first time, wp:NLT, my initial reaction is that, within the meaning of wp:NLT, I never did make a threat of legal action. The sentence, which Editing User DVdm sought to delete, appears to be more in line with that part of the wp:NLT having to do with its provision:

"A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly."

A legal problem such as defamation may have its roots in common law. In the instant case, the problem, DVdm's alleged conduct of fraud, i.e., misusing WP policies in furtherance of the "deception" - as described above by 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC) - on the other hand, appears to have its origins in the statutory provisions I cited. Moreover, in defining the "legal problem" pursuant to wp:NLT, not only I have twice affirmed that I have no plans in taking legal action, I made abundantly clear in the message to Mr. Editing User DVdm that I, individually, do not have standing in pressing a legal action in the "legal problem" I reported, in compliance with wp"NLT. If this interpretation of wp:NLT is incorrect, please let me know. Otherwise, upon further discussion in this forum, "the problem," if it exists, should be "acted on quickly" pursuant to wp:NLT. In further support, the messages immediately preceding this one by (Uncle G talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) and 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC), bring in focus the issue of "deception" germane to the subject matter on fraud, i.e., "the problem" at hand. I note, in particular, the important message posted above by Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC), which I reproduce verbatim below:

"Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV." (link provided)

To that end, I thank you for not acquiescing to Mr. Editing User DVdm's request to remove that part of my message, which proved to be offensive to him. I believe it's important to keep the integrity of this entire proceeding. Finally, this is going a lot slower than I had anticipated. I am a new member of a community which has a vast following. I pledge to act within the confines of its policies. These I have to learn before I set in writing each and every one of my findings of fact and concolusions of law - all within the meaning of wp:NLT. As a result, I am falling behind in my regularly scheduled work, which I'll need to attend to. After that, I will devote fulltime, hopefully no later than 6 p.m. this evening, to answering each and every one of the valuable contributions shown hereinabove. At that time, I shall anticipate making a showing of my finding of fact - Mr. Editing User DVdm's practice of fraud in furtherance of Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle, more than a decade after the National Science Foundation's finding in 1989 of its being a "product of deception" - in order for you to act on the problem in compliance with wp:NLT. Respectfully submitted, Frankkfong (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Understood. To make what you say above abundantly clear to all who read only the mention that troubles Baseball B, and not your above clarifications, you might consider placing the following around the phrase in question, which will add a "strike through" to the phrase and not leave any doubt or room for misinterpretation of your intentions ... Baseball can correct me if that is not what he is seeking ... :<s> (before, and) </s> after.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • He's wikilawyering over the wording of NLT; but the point of NLT is not about specific wording, it's about intimidation. If the admins won't block someone who's making legal threats, the best the victim of those threats can do is to stand up to that user and not be intimidated; to treat anything of that nature as what it really is: bluster and hot air. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • BaseballBugs, with all due respect, stop harping on that. Admins have looked, reviewed, and said their is no legal threat. Especially since he has stated twice now that he isn't threatening. Continuing to harp on that point makes you look shrill and here not to solve problems but to inflate them. Frankkfong is new, sees an issue with an article and is working through the process. He is obviously new to the world of Wikipedia and is going through the maze of policies, procedures, and "legal" wonkery that has been setup. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comments. I always pay close attention to the advice of drive-bys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Note. I have moved ([45], [46]) the entire conversation on my talk page to Frankkfong's talk page, with italicised and parethesised signatures. Please continue any discussion over there or here. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is (name redacted) HIV-positive?

Now semi-protected Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know (her)? Do you happen to know if she is HIV-positive? Because we are saying she is. I can't be the only person who thinks that List of HIV-positive people needs permanent semi-protection. I suspect (she) would agree. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, unless there's some kind of meta-shame above the normal BLP concerns for being portrayed as HIV positive. For at least the past few weeks, there were a few run of the mill IP vandals but it wasn't like several-a-day aside from this morning. If you were concerned about the BLPVIO on (her), why did you not revert that along with the vandalism to Arthur Ashe's name [47] prior to posting here? Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

delicate subject - semi is a no-brainer here, and done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't even think such an article should exist, is there something notable about having HIV? If it has lead to notable events (like"the namesake for U.S. federal legislation that addresses the unmet health needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS") then it can be covered in the parent article, do we collate a list of people who suffer from cancer or swine flu? Rant over. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• The item cited by the OP looks like an attempt to place a non-notable person, probably a fellow student, on that list as some type of prank. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but shouldn't the diff linked at the top of this section be revdeleted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the unnamed target of the BLP violation (and to you): do we revdel every time an IP or a throwaway account edits Michael Jackson and says 'Dom Frizzle is a poopy head!'? Please keep in mind that I myself am not asserting that Dom Frizzle, whoever that may be, is a poopy head by any means. Syrthiss (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fences and Windows has redacted that specific edit, but there are many just bad (i.e., giving a name and location) in the history (and this is only one list). I'll keep bringing these attractive nuisances here when I spot them. Thanks to Casliber for the protection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I should've thought to protect it, sorry. Any such list or article should be semi-protected. I have gone through the diffs applying revdel to the vandalism up until 5 years ago (Jan 2005), this is where I've got to if anyone wants to pick up the baton:[48] Fences&Windows 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article shouldn't exist. It is not appropriate to list off known HIV cases. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This list should be deleted or shortened significantly. Being HIV-positive is not something that is relevant for the BLP of the vast majority of people who are HIV-positive. One of the few exceptions may be people who are HIV/AIDS activists. While it may be subject to debate whether there is "some kind of meta-shame above the normal BLP concerns" for being portrayed as HIV positive (and we need to distinguish whether the is actually such shame and whether we would think there should be such shame), it is probably not hard to imagine that a false report about being HIV positive, even if subsequently corrected, can be highly disruptive to personal relationships, especially to relationships which include or may potentially include sexual aspects.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The list is at AfD, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

On the larger point, whether or not stigma attaches to HIV is irrelevant to Wikipedia. If it's verifiable, if it's relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic, and if reliable independent sources have found it notable enough to comment on, then it's information that belongs in a biographical article, exactly the same as a public award, a well-documented sex scandal, or a long battle with mental illness would be. And once it meets that test it can be used in exactly the same way as any other fact in the article - for the purpose of categorisation, listmaking, and templating within our policies on those practices. It's not the business of Wikipedia to engage in olitical activism, protecting the interests (as opposed to rights) of individuals, or self-censorship. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have brought the AfD to the attention of a large HIV positive online community here: [49]. In a spirit of AIDS activism I have encouraged members there to register accounts here and participate in the AfD discussion. I have not recommend they !vote one way or another on the question of deletion. Don't bother waving WP:CANVASS or any of that other stuff at me -- I don't care. MtD (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BigStripyKitty & Paedophilia content forks

BigStripyKitty (talk · contribs)

User has created (and recreated after they were deleted under A10) Pedophilia (psychiatry) and Paedophilia (sexology) as content forks of Pedophilia. They also keep recreating Pedophilia (disambiguation) as some sort of "overview" of these two new topics. I'm busy this afternoon so apart from tagging the articles haven't got time to look into it - would somone warn/explain to BigStripyKitty what the issue is here and keep an eye on them. (uh, there are also a mass of redirects and so forth they made or changed, fixing a few) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I had been doing so, but they seem adamant that the existing pedophilia article is "wrong", and also seems to be making a confusing claim that paedophilia and the variant spelling pedophilia are two different things. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to shove them on a block, it looks unlikely now to get through to them any other way (I just spotted this is a recurring problem :P sorry GW) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note that the user has now blanked the article again after a final warning so I've reported it at WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Paedophilia wears bow ties and Pedophilia chews gum. Anything else? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while the spelling is just contrariness, they do have a point about the article. 'Paedophilia/pedophilia' has a number of meanings, and the article is very light on non-medical. In journalism and through a great deal of law enforcement, paedophilia is the term used for engaging in criminal activities relating to children and sex. So viewers of kiddie-porn are paedophiles, but makers of kiddie-porn (who may not have the medical condition) are also paedophiles. Men who have sex with 12 year old girls or 14 year old boys aren't medically paedophiles, but that's the standard (printable) term used for them, and so on. This is an attempt (misguided, but one can see how it could be done better) to separate out the medical phenomenon from the social usage, probably because while the medical phenomenon can be written about non-judgementally, it is impossible to write about the social usage of the term and not state that the ultra-majority view is disapproving. That article annoys a lot of people for this very reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

but makers of kiddie-porn (who may not have the medical condition) are also paedophiles; ah, hmm FWIW no that is not correct. We generally refer to them as Child sex abusers (formal guidelines from the Met use that wording for example). However point taken; the article needs work. I only noticed the badly done POV forking and refusal to engage on the talk page properly, that method is never going to work --Errant ^(chat!) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The strict definition is the medical one, but from what I can see of the article, the other usage of the term is also given some weight in the article; there are sections dealing with its use in legal systems, for example, where it is usually used to describe those who commit sexual crimes against children, ranging from rape to "grooming" or possession of child pornography, as well as being applied to a range of ages of children which are beyond the strict definition of a term: though not technically correct by either the legal (in most localities) or medical definitions, individuals who commit statutory rape with, say, a 15 year old, would frequently be considered a paedophile by law enforcement. I'm aware this is slightly weaselly but paedophilia isn't exactly my favourite subject so I won't be participating in content discussions anyway. In any case the content discussion should be taken to Talk:Pedophilia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article also includes social usage of the term; we actually do outright state that the ultra-majority view is disapproving, just not in those exact words, in the Societal views section. The main reason we include the other uses of the term, however, is because they are considered misuses and problematic by most researchers in the medical/sexology field (for the reasons mentioned in the article), and misuse of the term is so rampant (such as a 22-year-old man with a 17-year-old girlfriend likely being called a pedophile at some point; Miley Cyrus and her older boyfriends have been an example of this). Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given the kitty a one-day break break for edit warring. Hopefully, the message gets through, otherwise we'll have to escalate. Favonian (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, there appears to be an WP:SOCK active here too.Legitimus (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fittingly, a "big stripy kitty" would be another name for a skunk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

At least Pepe LePew thought so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Heyheyhey! Baseball Bugs is supposed to make Warner Bros. jokes! HalfShadow 03:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just call me Speedy Gonzales. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stonewalling

Not sure how to proceed with User:GoldDragon. There is a content issue on Roger & Me (see Factual Inaccuracies). The aforementioned user keeps adding low quality sources to the article (a WordPress blog and a book that nowhere mentions the film). The content issue is less of a problem than GoldDragon's stubborn refusal to acknowledge and address the problems identified on both article and user talk. This user responds instead by reproducing huge blocks of text that has zero relevance to the problems described. It seems GoldDragon has been warned and blocked for refusing to discuss contested edits in the past. Moreover, I am now being pursued to articles this user has never edited before, for the single purpose of harassing me. diff diff diff One other editor has express concern that, by refusing to engage, GoldDragon is driving new editors away. diff It would be nice if someone could offer a word of advice to said user in the hope of improving the situation. Wikispan (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My response is that Wikispan has been whitewashing articles, removing sourced material just because he/she feels that it is too critical. This is not only on Roger & Me (where Wikispan refused to acknowledge film critics like Roger Ebert as well as the CBS article), but also Criticism of Noam Chomsky, here are some editor comments who have complained about Wikispan about Chomsky.

13:06, 12 October 2010 PokeHomsar (talk | contribs) (84,769 bytes) (Undid revision 390220469 by Wikispan (talk) you can't justify that much removal in one fell swoop) (undo)

21:12, 3 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,501 bytes) (How are these two books and the newspaper article "self-published" sources? They both are explicitly critical of Chomsky--I do not see why he is so immune from criticism, unlike US officials?) (undo)

01:02, 13 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,502 bytes) (Chomsky has attempted to attribute all deaths in the entire war to America, but this is inaccurate.) (undo)

13:44, 30 December 2010 Jprw (talk | contribs) (73,268 bytes) (Undid revision 404844102 by Wikispan (talk)New Criterion is a serious publication and the author is notable) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:21, 29 December 2010 Chrisrus (talk | contribs) (73,090 bytes) (Undid revision 403378541 by Wikispan (talk)Please see talk and reply before undoing) (undo)

GoldDragon (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

After a cursory review GoldDragon does appear to be playing a little fast and loose here, which is surprising as he's been around for a while, and should probably know the rules by know. Gold's instigated fairly significant edit warring and likely WP:WIKIHOUNDed User:GoldDragon. This type of aggressive behavior from such an experienced editor is disappointing. Perhaps an AE might be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(chuckle) I found this sorta interesting. I'd recommend AE and move for a moderately long block so that User:GoldDragon has some time to carefully read WP:DR. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that User:GoldDragon be subject to 1RR and be required to use the talk page to discuss his proposed edits. The user has been involved in problematic editing for many years now. I first ran into him on Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy in 2009, where he was repeatedly trying to accuse the President of the United States of bias. Also, his user talk page does not accurately reflect the number of warnings he has been given over the years, as he keeps removing them. The guy knows what he's doing is wrong, but refuses to stop. Something needs to be done. Sockpuppet allegations have been repeatedly made about this account in the past, with checkuser results coming up either negative or inconclusive. I also recommend that someone revisit that question yet again. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is not use of sockpuppets, also to note that Viriditas has been stonewalling on Henry Louise Gates here on the title of "Beer Summit" where everyone else was against him on the talkpage .Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy/Archive_2#Poll. GoldDragon (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As for a problem, I've been followed around by User:69.159.10.116 for some time, and he keeps parroting all other registered users that I have a dispute with. GoldDragon (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you've been edit warring for more than a week: [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]. It's time for you to stop and engage in discussion on the talk page. Towards that end, I've started a new thread over at Talk:Roger & Me#Recent edit warring. I notice that your edits have been reverted by several editors, including User:Anoldtreeok, User:Cmr08, and User:Wikispan, yet you keep adding them back in through blanket reverts. Please follow the WP:BRD model now. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this diff, GoldDragon knows that cites to Usenet and personal websites in articles about BLP's are not acceptable. That the user continues to do this after many years requires action on the part of administrators. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

These edits are interesting: By MaxForce on 13 May 2009 [58] and by GoldDragon on 27 July 2009 [59]. And by MaxForce on 14 December 2009 [60] and by GoldDragon on 3 July 2009 [61]. In both cases, a MaxForce edit was reverted, only to be reintroduced months later by GoldDragon. Deleting Unnecessary Words (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well. See intersection of edits, and their WikiChecker reports:[62][63]. A lot of overlap in obscure articles, and the times of day are almost an exact match. WP:SPI is where you should go now. Fences&Windows 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's one more. This edit by SubcommandanteM (19 August 2009) [64] was reintroducing an edit by GoldDragon (31 May 2009) [65] that had been reverted months earlier. Deleting Unnecessary Words (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good digging. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon is open. Fences&Windows 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions enforcement

User:Wikidea was previously sanctioned to stay away from me because of incivil behavior: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Sanction_proposal. Nonetheless, he started edit-warring to remove a tag I had added, complete with rude edit summary. I would have settled for an apology, but he's the opposite of apologetic, so I ask for administrator involvement. THF (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was his response to the required ANI notification. He's been repeatedly blocked for other WP:CIVIL violations. THF (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I forgot about that "sanction proposal". I didn't meant to do that. The problem is, THF started by commenting on me, which (from past experience) displays more of his typical, sneering sarcasm: "The solution to an NPOV tag is to fix the NPOV problem, not to blindly remove the tag." I don't personally think there's any difference in the incivility of this sort of thing. I'm probably just more overt.

But I said his method of placing neutrality tags everywhere was "fat-headed" because I think it's an unproductive way of editing the encyclopedia. I didn't say anything about him personally, until he shoved another of his silly little warning tags on my discussion page. Anyway, I'm happy to apologise to THF for the offence I am clearly causing him, if he will apologise for his own ongoing rudeness. In the meantime we might both do something useful. Cheers, Wikidea 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. If he hadn't just made that "running to Mommy" comment, I might have bought the attempt to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good block. And Wikidea: the solution to any tag is to fix the problem, not to remove the tag, unless the prob has been fixed. That's not sneering sarcasm, it's how it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not optimistic about long-term behavior improvement. The last few remarks show the insincerity of the above apology, not to mention the previous apologies. THF (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddity with when a banned user, who got a 2nd chance, hunts the sockpuppets of one another banned user

The user is notified about being discussed:[66]

User:Iaaasi had been blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing, in the meantime he had been made numerous sockpuppets [67] but in a magnamimous gesture of good will, he got a second chance to return. His disruptive editing was in connection with Hungarian and Romanian related issues, and that leaded to his former block for indefinite time.

Yet, when he had spent his indefinite block,a Romanian Ip user emerged on the talk page of administrator JamesBWatson to let him know about the block evasion of a Hungarian user,User:Stubes99, and to make a demand the block of Stubes99 to be extended to indefinite time. [68] Perhaps it is important to note that Iaaasi is Romanian as can be seen on his user page. Then User:YellowFF0 commenced a checkuser against Stubes99 which resulted in having him blocked for indefinite time [69] [70] but it also came to light by checkuser that YellowFF0 is one sockpuppet of Iaaasi.[71]

During this, Iaaasi was about to get a second chance to return to the Wikipedia and his attempts were crowned with success eventually, due to his intrepidity and the benignity of administrator Ronhjones.[72] After his return, he has also been resumed his sock hunting instead of flattening to a sequestered corner.

09:38, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"

09:42, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"

22:09, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

22:10, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

21:28, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

21:29, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

11:32, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

On 27, December 2010, Iaaasi got warned by administrator Wifione that "You call the ip a sock again and you will get a warning from me - and this will lead to a definitive block on you. How can you avoid that situation? File an SPI and list all ips/editors you believe are socks along with definitive behavioral evidence. If you're not ready to do that, stop calling editors/ips socks from this moment onwards! I cannot emphasize this more as an administrator who has already left a note on your page." [73]

Today, on 4, January 2011, it seems that Iaaasi hasn't learned from his previous warnings as he has made 4 edits on Talk:History of television saing that

"Note: The IP 84.1.210.189 is probably the sockpuppet of the banned user Stubes99. He edited recently the article using the IP 84.0.146.116 (Iaaasi (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC))".[74] [75]

And perhaps it needles to say that if administrator Wifione had had any preliminary knowldge of the user, she/he would havn't warned him(=Iaaasi). Once one of his confirmed sockpuppets,User:Rogvaiv1, warned User:Squash Racket ->Reminder [76] providing a wikilink to it made by administrator Tiptoety-> [77] "Instead of blindly reverting those who you think are socks, I might suggest you file an SPI case and request a CheckUser. Thanks," as early as 29 July, 2010.

--Nmate (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not break Wifione's advise (or at least I tried not to), I only posted a note on a talk page to inform the other contributors that the author of a particular message could be a sockpuppet - 99.9% of the premises were leading to that conclusion and the admin User:Tiptoety later confirmed my supposition. The edits of Stubes99 are very frequent and they are made using dynamic IPs, he has been evading his indefinite block for a long time (sometimes even daily, there are tens of caught socks; an admin told me that his range is too wide for a range block). Consequently it would be difficult to file a SPI report each time. Wikipedians should fight together against sockpuppetry instead accusing each other.

P.S. I don't want to talk right now about User:Nmate's apparent battlefield mentality WP:BATTLEFIELD (anyone could check that his recent activity consists almost exclusively in making reports against others)(Iaaasi (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Everything is proven by diffs.--Nmate (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The admins will decide what is proven and what is not(Iaaasi (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

Personal attacks (Re: Darkstar1st)

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darkstar1st has posted an offensive comment against other editors at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, "you have shed some light on the practices of other editors here, specifically those who agree with your ideology. they often claim to be objective, yet when someone with a different view as you, breaks as many rules as you have, they try to have the editor banned. yet your violations have gone on without incident." (My emphasis, Darkstar1st is referring to Communist ideology). When I asked Darkstar1st to retract the statement, he replied, " i have informed you before your warnings are not needed. you are no longer welcome on my talk page".[78] It is extremely offensive to accuse other editors of being Communists, when they disagree. Darkstar1st should be warned or blocked. I recently brought up a similar discussion to ANI which was archived and now restore it. TFD (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st accused me in an ANI thread of "past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried".[79] I asked him to remove the personal attack,[80] and he replied that I was defending the remarks of the subject of the ANI,[81] who was accused of anti-Semitic remarks. He also made uncivil comments about the subject of that ANI,[82] which incidentally was closed without action.[83]

Darkstar1st had already complained at ANI about my reference to ethnic stereotypes which had been made as a form of example, and the discussion thread was closed without action.[84] Darkstar1st also argued his position on his talk page.[85] He has repeated the epithets over and over again which shows a lack of sincerity in his finding them offensive and perplexing that he cannot see that there is a difference between mentioning epithets and endorsing them.

Darkstar1st's use of personal attacks is disruptive and he should be warned or blocked to prevent him from continuing them.

TFD (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like your "greedy Jews, etc." comment was totally misrepresented by the user Darkstar, either out of not reading it closely enough, or deliberately. You were listing stereotypes. Most of us could make a list a mile long of ethnic stereotypes. Citing that stuff doesn't qualify you as being prejudiced. If that's all he's got, he had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First, in general I think such complaints first should be brought to Wikiettiquette notice board, but I guess since they happened here... Re: this diff mentioned by TFD where Darkstar1st attacks me, it seems a bit odd that Darkstar1st attacked me for criticizing any political leader who sends people to war when that's the kind of thing we libertarians do all the time and Darkstar1st and I usually debate on the Libertarianism article. But I guess he's revving up for when the Libertarianism article is opened up again for editing in February. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is simple harassment, and Darkstar1st needs to stop it immediately. ClovisPt (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I really can't believe that DarkStar1st is still at this. He was harping on this "greedy jews" stereotype analogy months ago, and was repeatedly told to stop misrepresenting TFD's post by just about every single editor who became involved in the conflict. The misrepresentation is clearly deliberate, because there is really no possible way that he could be misunderstanding what the statement actually meant after having it explained to him in so many different ways, by so many different people. DarkStar1st has been continuously disruptive ever since he began obsessing over the libertarianism article. He should cut out the personal attacks, or be blocked for it again, and since he has disrupted the article for months at this point, I recommend that he perhaps should take a break from libertarianism-related articles, because he seems utterly unable to work in a civil manner on the topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rereading Darkstar1st's comments in the thread I closed, they're at least borderline blockworthy for the WP:BATTLEGROUND degree of misrepresentation involved in facilitating personal attacks. If there is any other recent behaviour of this type a block should be hard to avoid, and an WP:RFC/U considered. Rd232 ^talk 09:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And he's now canvassing users' opinions of the 7-year old offsite remark [86] [87]. At some not-too-distant point, continuation of this behaviour may qualify as harassment. I'm not familiar with the WP:AE terms for the topic - they may have some relevance too. Rd232 ^talk 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has not been as active in the last several weeks. However, in response to Jehochman's question to Carolmooredc whether she was an "anti-Israel activist", Darkstar1st replied, "Carol in the past proclaimed herself an "activist" (for a different movement unrelated to Israel) on her home page. when i brought this up in the conflict of interest noticeboard it was buried".[88] The specific complaint was that Carolmooredc was "writing a bokk and using wp to make her pov". No one saw a COI and the alleged POV was anarcho-capitalism.[89] TFD (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The attack account User:EveryoneLookAtMe,I'mCarolMooreDC! popping up there seems to have a fair probability of being Darkstar1st, given the context of its contributions and content of the deleted userpage. If it is, that would certainly be enough of a pattern to justify some action. Perhaps a passing checkuser could confirm. Rd232 ^talk 18:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it is a sock of banned User:Karmaisking, and it is probably too late to perform CU. That account commented in the COIN discussion.[90] Karmaisking has provided extensive advice at Darkstar1st's talk page beginning here and most recently has invited him to join the Mises Institute wiki.[91] TFD (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD is not without sin. The comment where TFD took umbrage was aimed at an interesting editor "Prairiespark" who appears to be the subject of some discussions elsewhere. The comment It's just completely absurd that this article should exist at all - unless one is an anti-communist agenda driven fanatic, like Mr Griffin. is, to my mind, far more of a direct personal attack than anything raised here. By all means do a CU fishing trip on Darkstar, but be well aware that it is a fishing trip. Collect (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference is to Prairespark and other editors. I in fact placed a welcome message on Prairsspark's talk page after he began editing and informed an administrator of edit-warring on the page. Another editor has started an SPI. Also Darkstar1st writing is part of a continuing pattern. TFD (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Alas - I can find no inference in your complaint at the start of this section to corroborate "the reference ..." I did find a specific complaint about Darkstar. Collect (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

N.B. "Prairiespark" et al have been determined to be socks, and blocked accordingly. Making this section quite moot indeed. Collect (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New RM discussion after only two weeks

Can someone please speedy close this RM discussion about moving an article that was moved just two weeks ago after a WP:RM consensus decision and a proper close by an admin? We can't just resubmit proposals over and over until we get our way. In this proposal, there are no allegations of improper closing in the last decision. Perhaps the proposer overlooked the previous discussion? Regardless of motives, I believe six months are supposed to elapse before consensus is checked again, unless there is evidence of an improper close.

• Discussion closed on December 26: Talk:Ann_Arbor#Requested_move
• New discussion started Jan 4: Talk:Ann_Arbor#Revert_move

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be "Ann Arbor, Michigan", as per the way U.S. cities are commonly named. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is the procedure, rather than the substance. The discussion should be taken up again either after several months, or, alternatively, after a possible change or clarification of the relevant guidelines. I'd therefore suggest to close the current move discussion with an explanation to that effect.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Business-to-Customer has indicated he's willing to devote years to this battle, so a few months will be no big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is this six month rule?   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I've seen the 6 month rule mentioned, I believe by GTBacchus, but I can't find it documented anywhere. It might be undocumented. Anyway, it makes sense. Otherwise, why not submit new proposals for all the U.S. cities that have had discussions recently held and closed? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous move was undertaken with only 3 supports and one oppose, but it goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United_States. The previous close looks dodgy to me, because it counts heads rather than weighing arguments, and I support the opening of a fresh RM to allow a wider discussion on whether editors really do want to create an exception to the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous move discussion took place during the pre-holiday period, when things are generally slow. It should have been re-listed for further input rather than closed. Also, no policy-based reasons were provided for the move from the supporters, whereas the lone opposer cited a specfic policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If the previous close is being disputed, a discussion on the appropriateness of the close should take place, and a discussion on the content-related question (the move itself) should take place after the discussion about the previous close has been finished.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned the debate neutrally at both of the relevant WikiProjects, WikiProject Michigan and WikiProject Cities. I'd suggest we leave this open to allow full debate as the previous debate was not very well attended. Fences&Windows 01:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Cs32en: WP:BURO. The substantive discussion is underway, and has already attracted more contribs than the previous one. Wider discussion allows the formation of a more stable consensus, so it should be welcomed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This would indeed be a somewhat bureaucratic approach if there wouldn't be an ongoing RFC on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#RFC: United States cities. Because of this, the previous move discussion close should be invalidated if found to be inappropriate, resulting in moving the page to the previous title. The substantive discussion should continue on the naming conventions talk page, and any specific discussion about Ann Arbor, or Ann Arbor, Michigan, should take place after the guideline has either been confirmed or changed.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

B2C probably figured he could slip this one through, it being Christmas weekend, and GTB, with typical blinders-on to a given situation, went ahead and did the move despite the fact it was obviously inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This kind of conjecture is highly inappropriate, BB. I can't speaking for GTB, but I had nothing to do with the original move, didn't even know about it until after it was closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your intention to take years, if necessary, to impose your will on the naming conventions, is what's inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well these moves certainly have the markings of some personal vendetta but it wasn't B2C. The same person who did the original Ann Arbor request during the holidays also posted several other [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] requests around the same time. While B2C is very vocal in his views, he seems to mostly focus on changing the guideline at WP:PLACE. These numerous page moves during the holiday, in circumvention of the guideline, seem far more disruptive. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Then they should all be reverted immediately as being bad-faith moves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of them were closed as "No consensus" and a couple are still being discussed. I do think that Krauseaj's RMs seems a bit pointy and he should be more circumspect about filing such requests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...there might be more to the story. When I went to notify Krauseaj of this AN/I thread I noticed User_talk:Krauseaj#Green_Bay where it seemed that B2C was encouraging him to do a RM instead of taking it to the guideline's talk page. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What you see there is that when I noticed an apparent newbie was trying to move a page by copying text [98] [99], I advised him to go through WP:RM instead, and showed him how. What do you mean by "taking it to the guideline's talk page"? There is no requirement for that, and it's rarely done. In that case, it didn't even occur to me. God forbid I ever actually do something inappropriate, you guys are so anxious to hang me. Kind of pathetic, really. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What I see there is that you used a newbie by giving them incomplete info. Even though you were well aware of the existence of a relevant naming convention, which you should know is explicitly authorised by policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, you chose not inform the newbie of the existence of that guideline. You chose instead to leave the newbie with the impression that it was all up for grabs.

I have just replied at the RFC to a post of yours in which you claim that the existence of the guidelines creates instability, and I pointed out that the instability is created by editors who set out to ignore a guideline they don't like. You have just provided a perfect example of you doing exactly that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at the RFC, but here I will add that you conveniently ignore that I had nothing to do with that user's inclination to move the article in the first place. Have you seen his edit summaries, like, "(I want to make Green Bay a page like Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, or Detroit. These cities are so well-known that they don't need the state to be identifiable)" [100]. I have no idea what prompted him, but I know I had nothing to do with it.

As far as notifying him of the guideline, at the time all this was going on, the RFC survey had been open for some time and it was already starting to become clear, not only from the vote count but also from the comments and wide array of arguments, that the current wording in that guideline no longer had consensus support. The fact that some contingent of mandatory comma convention proponents apparently have to be alert to pounce upon any innocent and well-meaning newbie who naturally wants to contribute by moving articles to more concise titles the way most articles in WP are named should tell you there is something very wrong with the situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

B2C, your assertion that "the RFC survey had been open for some time" is demonstrably untrue, and ANI is not a good place for that sort of crude attempt to blatantly misrepresent reality. Your comment to that editor was on 17 Dec; but you RFC opened the RFC on 19 Dec. So at the time you advised Krauseaj to open an RM, there was no RFC, and no vote count.

Even if there had been an open RFC, it is not for you to decide to set aside a long-standing guideline on the basis of your lone interpretation of where it was heading.

We have tons of guidelines which newbies may not be aware, and which they need to be politely informed of (not "pounced on", per WP:BITE). Most of us do it routinely as an essential part of ensuring that consensus is upheld. You choose not to do so in this field, because you prefer to push your own campaign to maximise the number of RM discussions by having everything left open to flexible general principles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I already explained above in another thread how you misread my statements. Search for "misread" on this page to find it. Please stop misrepresenting my position and views. If you want to know what it is, I have nothing to hide: see User:Born2cycle/NamingGoal.

The Krauseaj situation is exactly what I'm referring too. As long as unambiguous titles are unnaturally disambiguated, people like Krauseaj will show up and will want to fix it. That's why the situation is made inherently unstable by a guideline that requires unnecessary precision. Like Agne says, I spend most of my time trying to get the guidelines fixed to be consistent with WP:TITLE and to indicate titles consistent with WP:TITLE. It's people like Krauseaj who innocently and naturally just want to fix things so all naming in WP is consistent. But if you want to believe I'm the problem and if it wasn't for me the situation would be stable, suit yourself, but I assure you, anyone who thinks that is not being realistic. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The normal way U.S. city names are given, except maybe for the very largest cities, is "city, state". You can argue your conformist theories all day and all night, but it won't change that simple fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Like "New York, New York". Doc talk 07:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your point being... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kidman Wheeler and ongoing disruptive editing

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive147#User:Kidman Wheeler reported by User:Jæs (Result: user warned ) (later blocked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive147#User:Kidman Wheeler reported by User:Jæs (Result: 72 hours)

Single-purpose account Kidman Wheeler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began editing the Maclean's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article on 23 December, inserting content regarding various "controversies" with unreliable sources and clearly non-neutral phrasing. Other editors and I began working to try to improve and pare the content to meet wp:rs, wp:npov, and wp:undue, almost all attempts of which were, at first, overwritten by User:Kidman Wheeler (unintentionally during editconflicts, I believe, as they made dozens of "live" sequential edits). The account later began reverting any and all revisions made by other editors, compounded by impressively pointy edits,^{[a], [b], [c], [d]} resulting in a block for disruptive editing on 25 December, which they evaded. They were blocked again shortly after their initial block expired, on 28 December. They have since proceeded to reinsert their preferred content on three separate occasions, with their only posts to the article talk page being random diatribes accusing any editor that disagrees with them of being part of a conspiracy (among other gross, and ridiculous, assumptions of bad faith), culminating in this from a few minutes ago. User:SpikeToronto and I have both^{[a], [b]} tried to persuade, cajole, and bribe User:Kidman Wheeler to familiarize themselves with our policies and assume good faith to no avail. Two blocks later, this person still is absolutely unwilling to collaborate with editors who he views as orchestrating a vast conspiracy against the truth. I don't know what to do at this point, especially in light of comments like this. jæs (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  At first, based on what I read at my talk page, I couldn’t understand why this report was filed. But, now that I have read User:Kidman Wheeler’s latest comments on the Maclean’s talk page, I understand completely. It includes reputation-damaging, unfounded accusations and indicates that he still does not read any policy to which he is referred (e.g., WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:AGF, etc., etc.). As I have pointed out to him on more than one occasion, his cries of conspiracy and an understanding of why certain actions have been taken regarding his edits would all be answered if he would just take an editing break and read the various policies to which he has been directed.

In addition to the WP:AN3 reports referred to above by Jæs, I would also recommend looking at, in no particular order:

• Maclean's#Quebec controversy, bookmarked as at 14:14EST, January 4, 2011 → This is the re-write that I thought would satisfy Kidman Wheeler and put the matter to rest. Instead, he labels it “shameful”. I thought it was neutral.
• User talk:SpikeToronto#Maclean’s & Jean Charest
• Maclean's#Quebec controversy
• Talk:Maclean's#Controversy
• Talk:Maclean's#Charest’s letter
• Talk:Maclean's#conspiracy to remove criticism of Maclean's
• User talk:Kidman Wheeler
• User talk:Kidman Wheeler#Charest’s letter

I hope this helps. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the first to block Kidman Wheeler for 31 hours for disruption and edit warring. Even after Magog's subsequent 72-hour block, the user clearly doesn't get it. He's only here to push his own agenda and has made no edits outside the Maclean's area since his first few hours of editing. If he thinks Spike's rewrite is shameful, we either aren't getting through or he doesn't want to. KrakatoaKatie 04:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Those few edits were actually related to Maclean's, as well. He was trying to make hay of the fact that Maclean's employs Barbara Amiel (who happens to be the wife of Conrad Black, which is the only mainspace article, other than Maclean's, that User:Kidman Wheeler has edited). jæs (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Delicious Grapefruit (still)

Delicious Grapfruit was recently blocked after a tirade on my talk page that included "FUUUUUCK YOU", breeching 3/rr, and all sorts of fun while he was blanking the Glenn Beck article. I get that he is not happy with it but we need to be done putting up with his trouble. One of his first comments back from his block was to comment on a contributor in an obviously disruptive way (while disregarding that his forum shopping actually got some good fresh eyes on the article) by saying that I was acting like his boss.[101] This was done while he still had a talk discussion open in another section. Enough is enough with this guy. Someone needs to mentor him or he needs to be banned from the Glenn Beck article until he has learned a little bit more about the process here. Saying that I am acting like his boss may not seem like a big deal but he has been warned by an admin for personal attacks and I have explained to him that it is not OK to comment on contributors like that over and over again. He has returned form his block intent on starting trouble.

Recently archived discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Deliciousgrapefruit and I have not been getting along. I recently (today) reported the user at the edit warring noticeboard and he reported me a few weeks ago at Wikiquette alerts. I stopped making personal attacks since I was warned. The user continues to comment on the contributor and not the content on an article. This has been discussed over at Wikiquette but the user has now attempted to post my real first name on Wikipedia.[102] That is outing. I am concerned he might attempt more since he said he was researching me on Google.[103] He needs to be blocked now. WP:PRIVACY.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Take it to wp:Oversight, don't draw further attention here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that the diffs you provided are troubling, and I think Deliciousgrapefruit really needs to disengage and do something else for a while. But I don't agree that a block would help the situation, in fact I think it would further inflame the matter, and possibly be seen as punitive rather than a preventative action. What's done is done, and should you require a revdel that option is available for you upon request. At this point User:Deliciousgrapefruit should be formally warned about wiki-hounding and only if it continues shall it require a block. -- œ™ 03:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Per OlEnglish here, I gave Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs) a warning about posting personal info (using {{uw-pinfo}}). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC) My first name being possibly mentioned is really not that worrisome. It is a little but what is done is done. But a warning would be appreciated since I don't want him going a step further and mentioning a last name or employer if it can be found. BTW< he was already warned by an admin for personal attacks and keeps it up so a final final warning that really means something would be great.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Grapefruit was created on the 6th and immediately went after the Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" debate. Methinks there is hosiery afoot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC) where else would you wear your hosiery if not afoot? Maybe I shouldn't ask. --Jayron32 04:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC) On your head? -- œ™ 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC) depends on which head...--Jayron32 04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC) The responses to this Grapefruit situation are getting fruitier by the minute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I just nuked that first diff, FWIW - Alison ❤ 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Tbanks Ali, good call. -- œ™ 04:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC) In my defense I didn't out anyone. I employed a slang term that means "buddy" or "Pal" that also happens to be a name. Had no intention of outing anyone, nor did I ever threaten to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC) And I would just add, that while Cptnono has stayed away from personal attacks since his warning, he has continued to bully edit, and continued to treat me like a subordinate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Baseball bugs, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Please feel free to explain your editing history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Indeed. It's always interesting when brand-new users pop up on AN/I and seem to know considerably more than would normally be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Him being a sock has crossed my mind. He has shown a lack of knowledge regarding process so I doubt it is a long time abuser of socks if that is the case. Not sure though. And I know this is the exact opposite of AGF but I do not believe the user when he says there was not an attempt to use my name. It was one of the only edits to my talk page and the user said he was looking me up on Google. Just seems more likely that it was a veiled jab and not the use of something like "pal" that is hardly ever used and does not show up in their vocabulary in other discussions. But as long as it doesn't happen again I am happy. Does this come across as being a bully? Don;t no and don't care as long as there are no more personal attacks from the editor.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Cptnono, I never said I was looking you up on google. Nor am I sock puppet. I don't see how my editing history indicates that I am one. What I think is going on is there are a small circle of editors who pretty much run things on these pages. Bully editorsDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Do not refactor other's comments! I provided a diff and you changed it. Completely out of line.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Disregard. I misread the tabs open. Link is here where you say you have been googling me: [104]Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Well, let's see... He said he wasn't googling you, and he said he wasn't a sock. The part about not googling you was untrue. Any bets on the other part? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Enough is probably enough with his recent actions: "Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU." and blanking of the entire article.[105] Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC) And he has crossed 3/rr in his second blank of the page.[106]Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC) 3 blanks of the page now. Epic meltdown. I've been in the same boat before. We do not do cool down blocks but there is certainly a level of disruption that needs to stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Blocked for 48 hours for now. Feel free to change the length either way without letting me know. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC) 48h sounds good. I didn't examine the person's contribs but based on reading the user talk page, I see an extremely frustrated newbie who stumbled into a crappy region of wikipedia and got into standard wiki-conflict without having the skills to engage in it. I left some advice encouraging the person to come back after the block, but find a new area to work in. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't touched the article itself since being blocked, and I don't see any personal attacks or other serious problems with his talk page edits since the block. Your assertion that he must "learn the rules or get out" on the other hand... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When he comes on to the talk page and starts throwing accusations around then he needs to learn or go away. Enough is enough with this editor. Notice that I actually posted it on the talk page then removed it a minute later after thinking it would be better on his talk page. So although being contrary is fun, an editor who might have tried to out another editor, starts screaming FUUUUUCK YOU on my talk page, forum shops, refuses to get it, then blanks the article multiple times (c'mon: [107][108][[109][110]) should have little leeway. Like I said, anyone want to mentor him? If not, then he should go edit on other articles like several others have suggested. Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that anything DG has done since his block merits discussion here. TFD (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If him saying that I act like his boss on the talk page is acceptable then so be it. I thought it as a repeat of previous behavior but maybe I am overreacting to the past stuff. I will make sure to return the favor, of course. No worries if someone wants to close this out.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I considered being pointy and calling him a brat on the talk page then though better of it. So if this is closed out, anyone want to make a friendly bet (images of money? :P ) that he will keep on doing it and we will be back here within a week? I would love to be wrong but I don't see it happening. But I don't mind waiting and seeing.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono: I haven't even edited the article, and this kind of rules enforcement is what I mean when I say bullyedit. I feel like you are reporting me for simply expressing opinions and concerns about the article and about the need for more third party intervention. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think its worth pointing out, as a third party editor has pointed out to me on my talk page, that Cptnono is enforcing consensus incorrectly. I've read the rules on building consensus multiple times, and I believe they are not meant to be used the way Cptnono is using them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, if a user feels you are bullying them and then you report them to ANI over stuff they did before they were blocked and they haven't repeated any of those actions, you pretty much made their point for them. I don't care at all for the tone of the diffs provided from before the block, and I do think the block was justified, but I also think it appears to have worked for once and the user has corrected the problem with their behavior and is now attempting to work in what is clearly a hostile environment on the Glenn Beck page. This isn't the place for content disputes, perhaps an WP:RFC to identify and repair the problems with the article is in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234

Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)

I am becoming concerned with the long-term editing behavior of this particular user, and wish to bring to to attention of the ANI.

Name calling

Arilang has persisted with name calling and bad faith attacks on other editors, such as on the Mao Zedong article, where he indirectly accused them of "50 cent party" and being paid by the PRC government [111]. He also inserted edits on the respective article referring to Mao as a "mass murderer" [112], and suggested that wikipedia is the PRC's propaganda department [113].

He has previous issued personal attacks against myself over a content dispute at Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, suggesting that I'm an employee of the "50 Cent Party" [114], that I am burying my head in sand [115], and that I "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept" [116]. When I raised concerns, he claimed that is simply a "friendly message telling me to improve my work skills" [117]. When another user raised similar concerns, he claimed that being a 50 Cent Party is nothing to be ashamed of.[118][119]. He did this again recently at the talk page of the Great Leap Forward article [120], claiming that I am "always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points".

Arilang is also known for his anti-Manchu views, and issued numerous racial epithets against Manchus, being raised by another user [121][122], who he called to "improve his English" [123], and asked him to "read more books" [124]. On the Boxer Rebellion article, he claimed that the Boxers were "barbarians and stupid to the extreme" [125], that the Manchus are also "barbarians" [126], and said he will personally throw eggs on (pro-Manchu personality)'s face [127]. He even changed the lede of the Boxer Rebellion article, calling the Boxers "gangs of xenophobic, anti-Christians and ignorant bandits that had no political consciousness" [128]. He has previously created an article named Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, deleted for original research, as a well as several other linking Manchus to massacres [129][130][131], including a deleted article named Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers.

The issue has been raised by other since he started editing Wikipedia, [132], where he indirectly compared another editor to "holocaust deniers"[133], [134], that the editor is attempting to "paint a rosy picture of these barbarians" [135] and called the Manchus "the most murderous barbarians of them all". He later offered an apology, claiming that the name calling "are just jokes". [136]

Removal of sourced materials

Recently, Arilang removed large amounts of sourced material from Great Leap Forward [137] [138]. He justified the removals because one of the authors is Mobo Gao, who he claims is an employee of the Confucius Institute, thus his views equal to those of the PRC government. He also claims “PRC sources on the GLF are all propaganda” [139], despite the fact none of the sources he removed even comes from the PRC government. I addressed these concerns on the article talk page, and he replied with a snide remark using a propaganda poster. [140]. He also removed sourced material from Li Miqi, who he claimed is "the modern version of Edgar Snow[141]

He repeated his soapboxing on the talk page of the Mao: Unknown Story article [142], using original research from another Wikipedia article [143], suggesting that because Gao worked for the Confucius Institute in Adelaide, he thus is an employee of the Chinese Communist Party and his views should be instantly dismissed. He called Gao “the biggest 50 cent party of all” with no justification [144]. Quigley pointed out his fallacies, and he replied with an overriding comment asking Quigley to read a certain book [145]. He also had removed critical material from the article in the past [146]. Another editor raised concerns about his behavior on the BLP noticeboard, and he claimed that the labelling "is not a big deal" [147]

Other concerns

Ariliang1234 has a habit of introducing external links, while I believe is in good faith, nevertheless appear to violate WP:EL, [148] [149][150], which consists largely of Google translations of dubious Chinese language forums and blogs. [151][152][153][154][155]--PCPP (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

hmmm... Arilang ^talk 10:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• This guy needs to be topic-banned for a lengthy period. Some of his comments are so mind-bogglingly racist I'm amazed he hasn't been reported before. Check out this comment on his Talk Page "Beside computer languages, serious science subjects such as Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Rockect Science, Genetics, just wouldn't be there without ENGLISH. Chinese language's contribution? None." No rocket science without the English language? lol! No MATH without English?! This guy has some serious issues. LaoZi81 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Re to PCPP. I do not see anything urgent here. If you have serious concerns about a long-term contributor (like Arilang1234), you should file an RfC about him and discuss the problems if any. Biophys (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing urgent about using racial epithets??? That alone warrants a ban, does it not? LaoZi81 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any "racial epithets" at all. The user is talking about the individual Wikipedia language-specific projects, as in the English Wikipedia versus the Cantonese Wikipedia. To say a Wikipedia project has not contributed anything on serious science subjects, whether it is fair comment or not, is hardly a "racial epithet". There is nothing to force Wikipedia editors to praise a particular Wikimedia wiki's achievements on the rather dubious argument of cultural equality. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Apologies. I misread the comment. He wasn't talking about the Wikipedias; he was, however, talking about the English versus Chinese languages. Still, my original argument stands; there's nothing particularly racist debating the merits vs. disadvantages of particular languages as goes particular fields of academia (irrespective of how spurious the discussion may be). I haven't seen the user say anything to state that Chinese people haven't contributed anything to these fields. I cannot help but wonder about the motivations of the complainants, however, given the lack of substantative erroneous conduct; and whilst I am going to assume good faith, I can't help but see this as rather deliberate muckraking in defence of China's prestige. Whilst Wikipedia isn't the place for the debate, it takes sensitive skin to consider this racism. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Look again Turnbull. If said user had been referring to Black Africans or Native Americans as "barbarians" and "savages", I'm sure your response would be very different. That you're not familiar with the Chinese language or anti-Manchu sentiment should not affect Wikipedia's tolerance of racial vilification. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you have a grievance, LaoZi81; however, I would remind you that you are required to be civil. I am simply an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator reviewing this AN/I request; I am not a disputant in the Chinese language debate, nor do I have any need to have any wider knowledge of whatever this dispute concerns. I see the user being complained about has made some uncivil comments in comparatively isolated circumstances (and has made some strange article edits); but this conduct is at least matched, if not exceeded, by the attitude of the pro-Chinese editors as well; nobody comes out very well from this, at all. In short, what I see is an ongoing mutual disrespect and incivility marked by the pro-PRC versus PRC-critic editors on these article topics, which I suspect is being worsened by one or more conflicts of interest on both sides. I think everyone needs to just get on with article editing, and grind their axes somewhere else other than the English Wikipedia. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Turnbull, you're way off here mate. Look before you jump. The user IS Chinese (I, for the record, am not - which makes your insinuations of being a CCP stooge rather amusing!) - no one's accusing him of being an anti-Chinese racist. The racism is in reference to the anti-Manchurian remarks (See Diffs 145-149). I quoted his "theory" about the English vs Chinese language in an attempt to show how bonkers he is - I guess I should have made that clearer. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't insinuate you were anything at all, actually; I just said I felt there was a conflict of interest at work somewhere. I don't think what I wrote above could reasonably be interpreted as such and I invite you to seek the comment of other editors as to whether I was "insinuating" anything at all. I refuse to be drawn into this and, frankly, your combative attitude does not help me identify what you want me to do about your grievances. Therefore, I will be taking no administrative action. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What? I don't have any grievances - I am also an uninvolved editor, just giving my 2 cents. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the conflation, then. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering this discussion is getting heated, I suggest, as an outside viewer, that people read Wikipedia:CIVIL and Wikipedia:TALK before they reply to each other. That is all! ;).--Graythos1 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

I believe the most amicable resolution of this issue would be a community ban along the following lines:

Users editing topics relating to the People's Republic of China and the Chinese language in 1) a combative or tendentious manner or 2) in repeated violation of Wikipedia policies may be indefinitely topic banned by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator. A list of users subject to this broad community editing restriction shall be maintained at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any users to whom this ban is applied who continue to edit these articles may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in enforcement of this editing restriction. Users subject to this ban include Arilang1234 (talk · contribs), PCPP (talk · contribs), and any other disputants identified by Wikipedia administrators prior to enaction of this editing restriction. Users to whom this ban is applied may request community review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

• Proposed. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Amended. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. That kind of discretionary sanctions is normally introduced only by Arbcom. The idea is to look carefully at all issues. This is not a proper place. Biophys (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense to me. Same should apply across all areas of WP that are continuously the subject of edit-warring and dodgy practices LaoZi81 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as uninvolved. That's a huge swath of articles, and we haven't seen a major problem with it across those articles the way we have with the Troubles, Scientology or Israel/Palestine. At the moment, this needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - requires more discussion and details of major issues regarding multiple users before such a broad brush is required or applied. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Like most of the above editors, I think that the need for such a wide-ranging restriction has not been convincingly demonstrated here.  Sandstein  21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. All China-related articles? That's an large range of articles, and an action that's usually reserved for Global Warming-level disputes. I think Arilang is guilty of some civility issues, but a cautionary warning should suffice. Let's not go overboard here.--hkr (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Break 1

I've interacted with Arilang on the Boxer articles as a third party editor, so I can verify that disputes on China-related articles are very heated, although not as much as the Israel/Eastern Europe disputes. Like many Wikipedians, Arilang is very opinionated. He is steadfast in the promotion of his POV, but he has a tendency to lose his cool when disputes escalate, which results in the incidents listed above. As Turnbull mentions, this occurs often with editors that deal with controversial topics, but it should not be encouraged. And I strongly disagree with Turnbull's tit-for-tat defense of Arilang. The incivility of one POV side is not a valid excuse to justify the incivility of the other's.

As for a response, I think an official warning and a slap on the wrist will suffice, Lao's (a sockpuppet?) call for a lengthy topic-ban is excessively severe. If Arilang's behavior continues to decline, I think a more severe response could be merited, but until then Arilang should be allowed to edit, with a reminder that he should edit more cautiously, and in consideration of neutrality, civility, and consensus.--hkr (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Campaign of Deletion" against the Transformers Wiki Project by NotARealWord and TFWiki.net

The Transformers wikipedia project has recently suffered from a glut of sock puppet attacks and deletion nominations. I recently came across posts by user NotARealWord on a fan wiki (he posts as Item42 there, but since he publically admits to that, I think it's okay for me to say so here). In it he talks about the current "Campaign of deletion" he has going here. I also noticed several of the people who talk to him are also voting for deletion nominations, and some even admit to having sock puppets on Wikipedia. He did this after I told him how anti-Wikipedia sentiments on the tfwiki are. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive47#Some_Wikipedia_user The tf wiki even brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Wikipedia I was wondering if this amounts to canvasing or even instigating some of the sock puppet attacks. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly some of the participants are dicks and violating policy, but multiple established editors have also initiated and participated in these AfDs, merges, redirects, etc. None of these happen without multiple people chiming in, and final evaluation of the merits of arguments about the articles are rendered by established administrators. Perhaps this calls for closer scrutiny of new(ish)-user initiation and participation in AfDs (which I think has already happened), but nothing more. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Individual cases of possible sockpuppetry can be investigated, but my experience of the Transformers AfDs have generally been that in spite of some occasional questionable nominations and/or !votes, the right decision is usually reached, as genuine editors weigh in and sockpuppets/SPIs are exposed and disregarded by the closing admin. I can't claim to have any understanding of what happens on tfwiki but I'm disinclined to try and understand who is who and who has done what on which wiki, as I don't really see the relevence.--Korruski^Talk 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The question about whether the deletions were done correctly isn't the issue. It's about NotARealWord's tactics in seemingly canvasing from anti-Wikipedia groups about his nominations. He even brags on how many Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. He would seem to be abusing the nomination process. Since he joined NotARealWord has been about article deletions. Maybe he should take a break and do something else with his edits for a change? (Note: This is Mathewignash at a terminal at my work.) 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not seeing evidence of canvasing per se. Can you point to a specific divdif? You might interpret his statements as bragging, and I agree that referring to it as a 'campaign' is a little unfortunate, but I don't see it as particularly inappropriate. If you found me talking on another wiki about my 'campaign to improve citations in BLPs on Wikipedia', I don't think anyone would be complaining. And yes, in the end, the question about whether the deletions were done correctly is the issue. If no damage has been caused, then any further discussion is really just drama for no good reason.--Korruski^Talk 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Failing to see an issue here, particularly with activities at TFWiki; whose members seem perfectly happy and content and quite accepting of our policies (it is, after all, what TFWiki exists for....). This just comes across as an attempt to get some action against NotARealWord. Mathewignash doesn't seem squeaky clean in all this; WP:BOOMERANG --Errant ^(chat!) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Canvassing "Stealth canvassing - Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages." People there had already said they were wikipedia editors when he started telling them about his "Campaign of Deletion". He did it off site with the clear intent of gaining support. He provided a link to his talk page which has a link to his nominations for deletion. He clearly attempted Stealth Canvassing to gain support for his nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link or two to a diff of him asking folks to chime in at AfDs, or pointing folks toward a specific AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As said in my comment above, which you have not responded to, difs would be useful as currently I see no evidence of the 'clear intent of gaining support' that you are claiming. Incidentally, I have informed NotARealWord of this discussion, as you seem not to have done so yet.--Korruski^Talk 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Merely notifying those who are clearly on one side of an issue is is canvasing. It would be no different from me notifying only those who voted with me in a previous deletion cases that there is another deletion nomination. Doing it off site is stealth. He provides a link to his talk page on Wikipedia, and tells them about the nominations. I don't know of a requirement that he provides a link to the nominations in his posting, he does link to Wikipedia and tells people who are admitted members. They know to look in the Transformers Wiki project for current nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You might have been within spitting distance of a point if NotARealWord actually solicited anyone to come participate in an AfD, and if any of the TFwiki users were considered some sort of hotbed of Transformers deletionists. But he didn't say anything like that at all, and the TFWikipeople seem largely ambivalent/dismissive about Transformers articles on the Wikipedia, preferring their own content and methodology. I read through a few articles, and it is much more of a fan-oriented and humorous approach to the subject matter. If Mathewignash has a bee in his bonnet about how people talk about him off-site, there's really not much to be done about that. Similar complaints pop up time time time regarding the Wikipedia Review, where the response is (appropriately) "tough cookies". Tarc (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the TFwiki's page about Wikipedia makes a joke about how it now has fewer Transformers articles is proof of it's deletionist tendencies. We don't need proof he asked them one way or another, he informed those he clearly knew off site to be of one opionion about deletion nominations. That's stealth canvassing. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, stop asking for diffs. They don't exist. Mathewignash is making things up. Ego sum a atrum militis (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. How can he? canvass people after the !vote? Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It is not "stealth canvassing" if nothing is actually being, y'know, canvassed. Again, at WR there are regular discussions about problematic articles, but there is no sort of bloc response that results, now is one expected. Same for the TFWiki place. They are dismissive of TF Wiki articles in general. Dismissive != deletionist. And I really don't put much stock in the point of view from single-purpose anon IPs anyways, so this will be the last of this side tangent. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of the issue is that there's only a problem if pages were inappropriately deleted, which does not seem to be the case. The spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia: No damage means that this is a non-issue. Besides per Mathewignash's own link(very bottom) at the top of this page, the stated purpose of this "campaign" is to improve the encyclopedia. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think there's much cause to worry. Administrators are not, in general, members of the ranks of the terminally stupid; they will not simply delete nominated articles that have evidently been vote-stacked despite the appropriateness of the nomination. In fact, people can nominate articles for deletion until they are blue in the face, but articles won't get deleted solely because they are nominated -- the nomination must also have merit, and the votes must be reasonable plus representative of a consensus. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to this, please note that my "campaigning" was already addressed by Dream Focus (see here) a few months ago. And no, the fact that TFWiki "brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia" has nothing to do with me. The bit that says "Wikipedia is also a real website. It has many articles on Transformers—though not nearly as many as it used to", has been around long before I started making AfDs. I started around August 28. Also, I don't think TF Wiki is actually involved in this deletion very much, I only noticed like, 2 people from there commtning on my AfDs. One of them was already blocked as a sockpuppet. NotARealWord (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In an interestign turn of events, a message board thread run by the tfwiki is monitoring this thread, a thread where NotARealWord has posted as well, and one member, Blackout, admits to "wasting" one of his sock puppets to post against me here. Meanwhile I see blocked editor "Editor XXV" has attacked this thread. Blackout is Editor XXV, a known mass sockpuppeteer, and Blackout is a major contributor to the tfwiki. So basically we know for sure one of the many sock puppeteers is a major TFwiki member. Mathewignash (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your point? -Blackout-/Editor XXV/whatever's acounts have been blocked. I'm pretty sure only the Divebomb account was created as a result of this. And, that was a "good hand" account which has already been blocked. Also, that thread is not really "run by the tf wiki" NotARealWord (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Ignash, this feels like a rehash of a previous thread you started last year.

This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making.

— User:Uncle G, An AN/I thread sometime ago

NotARealWord (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a regular on TFWiki (under the name JW), I am not aware of any anti-Wikipedia sentiment more organized than, "It would be nice if their rules were more like ours, and it would be nice if they had more Transformers articles, but [shrug] whatever." TFWiki's article about Wikipedia is not much more than an idle grumble (and mostly just about Wikipedia getting mentioned in a Transformers magazine, anyway). I believe this basically boils down to a disagreement between Mathewignash and NotARealWorld. 38.111.35.2 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus there is the minor detail that at least one tfwiki regular member, user:Blackout, is an active sock puppeteer disrupter on Wikipedia (user:Editor XXV). Something he told NotARealWord just before NotARealWord told him about the current "Campaign of Deletion" he was running on Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In full disclosure, there are currently two SPI cases about this: one where Mathewignash accused NotARealWord of being a sockpuppet, and one where NotARealWord accused Mathewignash of using an IP. What a mess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

156.26.118.77, Jordan-related articles

156.26.118.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making a large number of edits to Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other Jordan-related articles, which I had been assuming good faith — until the most recent bunch of edits on Jordan, which included POV-pushing and introduction of a false fact (listing JK as an ISO code for Jordan in addition to JO with no evidence that is the case). However, there are some parts of his/her edits that appear to be at least potentially factually accurate. Should all of his/her edits be simply rolled back as I am tempted to since I have lost confidence in the integrity of his/her edits? Thoughts would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Make a "cost-benefit analysis". In this case, it looks to me as though the ratio of potentially correct edits to insertion of factually dubious (and unsourced) information is not a particularly good one. I would think a temporary block is in order if the user has already been suitably warned, and the user may as well be topic banned from editing Jordan-related topics since there is evidently a fixation. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It's the shared IP for Wichita State University. I suggest therefore it get a short block at best and, since the edits may be originating from multiple users, you may as well err on the side of caution regarding reverting anything relating to Jordan (perhaps I might suggest a topic ban of IP editors from WSU editing Jordan-topic subjects?) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Uninformed deletion of newly created articles.

User:Deb has been deleting articles without informing users and not giving the chance for users to add a "hang-on" or improve the article if it has not been fully completed. This involves my article, Gracious K, and an article User:Bgordski has created. Don't bite the newcomers  RichardOwen97  talk  17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The first port of call in situations where you disagree with an administrative action ought almost always to be that administrator's user talkpage; try discussing the issue with Deb first. If that does not work out, then perhaps review and intervention by other administrators may be warranted. Best, Skomorokh 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, articles should be compliant the moment they are created. Users are encouraged to create articles in their userspace until they are. That doesn't mean they need to be in a completed state, they just need to be able to stand on their own, as at least a stub, before being in the article space. Bgordski can request that the article is userfied so he can work on it at his own leisure; almost any admin would gladly do so, excepting for reasons of vandalism or copyviolations. --Jayron32 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Don't bite the newcomers" applies to newcomers, not everyone. AD 17:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrase is "don't bite the newcomers", not "don't bite the new articles". I would suggest to RichardOwen97 and Bgordski to take care that any articles begun in article space are at least to the minimum standard of an extremely short stub (WP:STUB) and their topics are suitably notable for inclusion (Wikipedia:Notability) as well as verifiable (Wikipedia:Verifiability). This need not mean that the articles are some sort of paragon of excellence, but they should at least look vaguely like they are 1) a half-decent attempt at beginning an article; and 2) be on topics that are generally considered notable. Articles are almost never deleted when both these minimum standards are met. If the article creators remain dissatisfied following discussion with the deleting administrator, they may go to WP:DRV should they so desire. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gracious K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted because there was no assertion of notability. It was deleted twice, the article having been created by two different editors on different occasions, for the same reason. All articles, including stubs and sub-stubs, must contain some sort of information as to why the individual named in the article is notable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Both of the articles were clear candidates for speedy deletion. Not biting means not being nasty to newcomers, it doesn't grant them a free pass to ignore our content policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles that match a WP:CSD may (and most often should) be speedily deleted no matter who wrote them. Biting is only an issue if the new user (if they make good faith attempts at contributing) is not informed in a helpful and friendly manner about what they should do better next time.  Sandstein  21:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Macr86/White rabbit thread archived

Hi, the Macr86/White rabbit thread was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive662#User:Macr86 and the White Rabbit without any action taken. --JaGa^talk 18:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No here to contribute + Sock puppetry

• Jean-François Monteil de Quimper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• Jean KemperN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• Jean KemperNN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• PESSAC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

is a trans-wiki spammer of original research. Also with the same logins in the french wikipedia. See here Thank you. --Epsilon0 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All  Confirmed except the first one, which is stale, but I think that's also an obvious sock. –MuZemike 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please block: Baseball Fanatic sockpuppets: again, and again!

Baseball Watcher (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email), seems to be the same user as User:Baseball Fanatic. Evidence: he follows me. (Look at his deleted pages, admins.) (and my pages, historical revisions.) Same notices, same style...he's basically following me. Block him quick! Perseus (t • c) 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Humor Guy, which I basically allowed him to edit again. I permitted him to create one account in which to edit provided he does not sock again. –MuZemike 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Site header

Everytime I login, I see the Thank you banner. I've already read it, I've clicked the litle X. It takes up a good portion of the screen, and it shows on every project I visit. How doth one make this meta notice go away. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to your preferences, and select "hide site header" or something. Perseus (t • c) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> Browsing gadgets. Check the box "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather more obnoxiously, it's capturing geolocation information on every page view. It's better to block the banners completely with something like Adblock plus than to turn them off with user preferences. I remember feeling a touch of pain when I first realized I had to use Adblock against Wikipedia, but it's just the way things are going. The rules I use are:

|http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Wikiminiatlas.js

labs.wikimedia.org

|http://wikimediafoundation.org/tracker/*

||geoiplookup.wikimedia.org^

I'm not sure what's blocking what, but the above stops the banners and various other spy-like stuff that sometimes appears. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• thank you for the help, I was becoming irritated. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

persistance vs. trole?

Kaynaw is still saying that i'm being a trole, and that i'm making up all the stuff about my disability. I have told him time and time again that it is 100% true. He needs to learn to except the truth, and to quit accusing me of being a trole! i've told him so many times, that it has esculated me to the point that if i find any messages about me being a trole, i will delete them and dismiss them without prejudice. I will not be called a trole just because someone has no idea what persistance is, so that is why i'm mentioning this user to you guys. You need to talk to Kaynaw and get him to realize the difference between being an actual trole, and just persistance to tell it like it is. He can't say that i am not blind, i'm not saying that he's wrong in saying he uses a screan reader too, so why in the name of god's grean earth does he feel that he has the right to make sugh accusations and present them as if they were completely true? Talk to him please, and get him to at least reconsider the whole "i don't believe you're blind, you are a trole who is attention seaking" thing, please. And remember, persistance doesn't mean i'm a trole. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NIM, I thought I told both of you to drop this. If you really want, then the correct desk to raise this issue is at WP:WQA. But seriously, my advice to you (and to him) is to just voluntarily stop interacting with eachother, and stop commenting about each other. If you each pretend the other doesn't exist, the world becomes a much better place (for you two AND for us bystanders). Seriously. Let. It. Drop. --Jayron32 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I did for a while, but that comment about me at the talk page for the ref desk he made was too serious. trole? that is so wrong. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong. And if you do nothing about it, and go about your business, do you know what happens? Nothing. And nothing sounds much better than anything at this point. So let us allow nothing to happen, let this evaporate, and go about our business at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points, i'll do nothing. I'll still use the ref desk, and except good answers from Kaynaw, I just will try to avoid commenting on him. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor changing naturalist/physiologist etc to biologist

See [156] - 79.5.238.156 (talk · contribs) is continuing to make these changes, replacing his reverted edits. See [157] and [ndex.php?title=Alfred_Brehm&diff=prev&oldid=406118925]. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

K.O.K Kev

I originally came across K.O.K Kev (talk · contribs) in early December after he added a poor quality watermarked copyrighted image to an article resulting in this discussion. Since them, I've advised him various times on what constitutes as reliable sources and non-free content in the user space. These and some other issues (mostly involving his inappropriate but good faith image uploads) resulted in these two comments on my talk page that resulted in a 12 hour block on his account.

The other day, I discovered he had added a poorly referenced (read unreferenced) section to an article, explicitly stating me in his edit summary. As it was unreferenced (and not very well written), I removed it. Tonight, he has been adding it back repeatedly, and left me these two comments (second one in response to this). He has broken 3RR just now and added a bunch of YouTube links copyright violating copies of this film (he has since self reverted after I told him he broke 3RR).

I don't think he's mature enough to continue as a part of this project. This is the second time he has become overly emotional and incivil due to reminders I have left him of the rules.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Indef block needed. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This section got archived prematurely and I am unarchiving it for more input.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening Weiterbewegung, Maurice J. Halton and revocation of licensing for posted text

This was raised at the end of December WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Weiterbewegung.2C_Maurice_J._Halton_and_revocation_of_licensing_for_posted_text but was auto-archived without any resolution - or any response by the user involved. (Please read if you're not already familiar.)

Today has now brought the same problem back, on threefour more articles:

• B. Hick and Sons
• L. Gardner and Sons
• Seddon Atkinson
• Ferranti

As previously, this editor (who is generally assumed to be Maurice J. Halton) has helpfully posted large parts of his theses, but now flagged these same additions as copyvios. As before, that's an attempt to revoke an irrevocable license of this text, as clearly explained on our edit pages. The alternative (they're not the author) would be that their contributions represent a serious bulk copyvio.

Action is needed here. Obviously the project is harmed by this sort of addition and reversion. Several editors have already wasted time on dealing with this and, more seriously, it's difficult to justify working on these articles in the future if they're to be under perpetual threat of deletion / major content removal in the future.

This is made worse by the editor's refusal to engage in any discussion of their actions. Their carping at anyone and everyone else is irritating, but no worse than the usual trolls that we have to suffer.

What is our action from this point? Rollback of all of this editor's additions? An indef block and ban to prevent it happening again? Doing nothing, as last week, doesn't seem to be a viable option. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jose Maria Siles, Jose-Maria Siles, et al

The article, originally deleted through AfD two years ago, keeps being recreated after each speedy deletion, under at least three different names that differ only slightly. The vandal uses a different account each time. Evidence:

[158]

[159]

[160]

The article has been deleted a total of eight times, twice on AfD, and I just put it up for speedy again.

I strongly suggest that each spelling variety be salted. Qworty (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's Al, and how is he involved? HalfShadow 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see "AI"? I'm not familiar with all of the potential socks that have been participating in this vandalism over the years. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)