Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note: I am herewith signing this segment in response to reminder (below). As some editors have noted, Mjpresson has furnished no proof of any "threats' from Tokerdesigner and even, it appears to me, attempted to deceive editors voting in this proceeding by adding his/her own boldfacing after the fact to a comment (cited below) which I did leave on the User:Mjpresson talk page. I have never threatened to "tag", delete or vandalize any article by Mj or anyone. To get an idea of what User:Mjpresson intends to do if User:Tokerdesigner is banned for a week (as proposed below) view recent edits to Cannabis smoking (photo of a "man smoking a joint" promoted to top of article) and my response thereto on Talk:Cannabis smoking. I will also, as time permits by tomorrow, because User:Mjpresson has objected to my defense argument (also below) as too long and even proposes deleting some of it, present my argument at the MP:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page with links to it inserted on this page.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [1]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [2] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[3] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing a future time stamp here, to avoid premature archiving of this thread. Please remove when resolved. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I support this ban. This user causes a lot of cleanup work, and I've been archiving his nasty insults on my talk page for too long. Sorry for not providing more diffs, I just didn't know where to start, but I have begun the process. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural oppose I can't see how this is an administrative issue. It appears to be a content and editor civility issue. While Tokerdesigner seems to be a bit uncivil in their arguments, and constantly points to how an admin (potentially) was banned that may or may not have been related to them, that isnt an attack (more annoying than anything else) they havn't done anything that warrants ban. I could not find the "lets meet in person" that Mjpresson claims happened and Mjpresson has failed to show a diff of it when asked by Atama and even went as far as being uncivil themselves in their response. I would remind both editors to knock off the personal attacks and use proper channels like WP:3O and WP:WQA in the future before ANI. SmartSE's have more strength in the argument than Mjpresson does, but explaining WP:V can be done without a block.--v/r - TP 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, attempts to inform Tokerdesigner of the requirements of the verifiability policy, including a prior indefinite block for violations, have all failed. Exactly how are persistent violations of a core content policy not "an administrative issue", unless admins are supposed to sit idly back while users disrupt Wikipedia, then punt the issues to arbcom? Doesn't the arbitration committee have enough on its plate already? Chester Markel (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of editors being very aggressive with this user. Why not try to get the user involved in Wiki guides or the adoptee program where he can be mentored by established editors? I have a procedural close because I haven't seen attempts to resolve this at WP:WQA or other non-admin venues. Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive - including the user himself. I would like to see everyone calm down, slow down, and try to come to some sort of agreement. Has anyone tried to personally engage this user like perhaps by email?--v/r - TP 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK requires that policies be explained to good-faith users before they are blocked for violations, under most circumstances. But it doesn't set bureaucratic requirements on what form the explanation might take. Discussions at WQA and via email aren't required, if the problems with a user's contributions have been explained to him an inordinate number of times on user and article talk pages. Ultimately, a user has to bring his editing within the basic requirements of core content policies, or he will be blocked. It might seem that "Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive" only because nice explanations, beginning two years ago, didn't work. We don't have to treat editors with kid gloves indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: going from a 20 hour block 18 months ago to a 6 month ban is overkill. Start with shorter blocks and escalate as necessary, per usual practice. -Atmoz (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - (non-administative comment). This is a riled up single-topic editor but I haven't seen any evidence that a 6-month bazooka should be used on him. (By the way, there is something screwed up with the sectional "Edit" links on this page at the moment...) Carrite (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose we should let him have more rope and let him to acknowledge better and change his ways. Switch to Support. He should know not to do that. Also, the 6 months would give hime time to change his ways. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner banned for one week

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of 7 days.

Support as an alternative, per rationale given for longer community ban, and concerns regarding appropriate block length. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Tokerdesigner has been causing trouble at least as far back as 2008, but the trouble he's caused is relatively low-level. If this doesn't get his attention, then heavier penalties may be warranted. Frotz (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Please see [4].Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have provided some documentation on this issue here [5]. Mjpresson (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Thanks in part to the effort of Mjpresson in gathering the evidence, I will present my case as time permits.

As to alleged "threats from Tokerdesigner":

Revision as of 15:20, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (→Hash Oil)

followed by:

Revision as of 17:43, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Re: Cannabis smoking edits, and Block Warning)

Please note that Mjpresson, not Tokerdesigner, has added the substantial amount of boldfacing which may make the message appear more menacing than intended by Tokerdesigner. Am I entitled to suspect an intent to deceive editors who may be voting in this proceeding? Then, in his compilation referenced above, you will note that Mjpresson has added on further quotes, all drawn from October-November 2009 in the period after User:Altenmann (now permanently banned from Wikipedia) had reduced the Kief article from over 4000 to 1000 bytes and Mjpresson had begun curtly reverting efforts by Tokerdesigner to restore (in revised form) a small part of the deleted information.

That is when I contributed small edits to several articles by Mjpresson, mainly by way of letting him know I was interested in learning of their nature. As he admits, none of my edits defaced, vandalized, deleted or "tagged" any of the articles in any way, nor as far as I can see "threatened" to do so. Yet his response to those edits, and to some messages in which I tried to use humor but was possibly missunderstood, was this:

Revision as of 18:23, 31 October 2009 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→A note regarding user "Tokerdesigner")

"... This user is totally stalking me, trying to ridicule my edits, and uses his own wiki-posts as references. This is a complete and utter loser. If you want to see the saga of an asshole, see his talk page. A complete antipolicy wank..." --Mjpresson (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the italics. What is a "wank"? Anyway, I henceforth abstained from any further edits to Mjpresson's articles, or messages to User:Mjpresson until this month after he reduced the length of the Hashish article (which gets 6000 hits a day according to the Full Wiki rating service), in 18 consecutive edits including this:

cur | prev) 03:12, 27 May 2011 Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (9,838 bytes) (Inappropriate catsUndid revision 431098491 by Tokerdesigner (talk)) (undo)

Revision as of 03:11, 27 May 2011 (edit)Mjpresson (talk | contribs)(→Preparation and methods of use: STOP ADDING HOW TO multiple warnings in past)

Revision as of 23:47, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (move hash oil foto)

Revision as of 00:29, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Tobacco: article isn't about tobacco, reference removed as was not allowable as ref)

Note that on 26 May Mjpresson deleted all discussion of the practice of mixing cannabis with tobacco, including the reference to the Australian Department of Health warning against it. What's wrong with that ref? (Tokerdesigner then restored the ref, see above.)

As if in answer to Mjpresson's deletion of the Australian DoH warning that mixing cannabis with tobacco "can lead to unintended nicotine addiction", the World Health Organization issued this warning:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/wntd_20110530/en/index.html

"... This year, the tobacco epidemic will kill nearly 6 million people, including some 600 000 nonsmokers who will die from exposure to tobacco smoke. By 2030, it could kill 8 million."

Let's do some math: assuming 1% of the nicotine addictions over the past half century resulted at least in part from youngsters exploring hashish having received advice to roll it in a joint together with tobacco (I think the figure is higher), that would account for 60,000 of the 6 million yearly premature deaths (with huge medical expenses in the later stages of illness). (Comparison: Ratko Mladić is in court over a one-time execution of 8300 at Srebrenica.) Where does Mjpresson get the expertise to decide for 6000 readers a day that this "mixing with tobacco" warning doesn't belong in the Hashish article? Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support A week block for not heeding the communities warnings since 2008 to use reliable sources for verifiability seems fair to me.--v/r - TP 00:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tokerdesigner has disrupted this conversation above with his own "oppose" (can he do that?) and a huge amount of lengthy copy/paste inserted. Can this be removed from the conversation? Mjpresson (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might be hatted. But we can take it as read that people can "oppose" their own block or ban, and give a reason why - otherwise WP:ANI would be more like a kangaroo court. In this particular case the reason seems to be rather tangential, and Tokerdesigner is just digging themselves deeper into a hole with the genoicide comparisons, but hey... bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only can someone oppose, it's unusual for them not to, unless they can't for some reason (they are away from Wikipedia or are blocked, etc.). -- Atama頭 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my note from here (after justified criticism, below, and because no longer timely). (Readers can search it down in History.) I will add further defense argumentation by tomorrow at the WP:WikiProject:Cannabis Discussion page.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the above entry Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito). This is typical of the unintelligible entries we see on a daily basis. I don't understand what it means. Mjpresson (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it means "library". Perhaps that's where most of his internet access is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Because he also stated "I'm ghosthosting on various IP's to avoid getting caught by Big 2Wackgo". I don't know what that means, either. Mjpresson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's code for Big Tobacco? They could be out to get him. -- Atama頭 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an actual conspiracy theory rather than a bizarre conversational gambit, it's definitely wasting other editor's time, goodwill, and attention. bobrayner (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tokerdesigner's self referencing is preposterous. See my reversion of one here [6]. I don't know if the community has noticed this. I have reverted many of these by him.Mjpresson (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Orc (Middle-earth)

IP 68.205.7.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started something that evolved into a sort of edit war. The trigger was this disruptive revision where the word "scholars" was changed to "nerds". That was promptly reverted by 4twenty42o (talk · contribs) who also issued a vandalism warning. The IP went on with an argument that "There is not reason people who read fantasy writing should be called scholars" and changed the text back to "People". Silvercitychristmasisland (talk · contribs) undid that then. Only 2 minutes later the IP was back: "Then put that guy, don't try to say that this book is discussed by english professors and some book they would study, it is a great story, but it is horribly written, it is almost like reading a text book".

Because of the previous bad faith edit and admittedly also because of the arguments in the summaries I stepped then in, reverted that change and dealt out another vandalism warning. Edit warring itself may not be vandalism but the IP had a previous record of disrupting Tolkien-themed pages (article on The Hobbit films) and the IP's edit summaries were showing no good faith either so I decided to remove also the following changes by 68.205.7.47. Which brought me the accusation of being biased [7] because I like Tolkien's theme (WP:Vandalism: Edit summary vandalism - Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged). Because of this and because the IP went still on I reported them to AIV – although I did not explicitely report the "nerd" thing there. Meanwhile 1966batfan (talk · contribs) and Bluefist (talk · contribs) had also reverted some of the IP's continuous changes.

However, Courcelles (talk · contribs) has declined the vandalism charges (see also the following comments) and accused me of edit warring [8]. Half an hour later he also revoked my rollback rights. He did block the IP for edit warring after they went on changing the article but he wrote on their talk page that "the accusations of vandalism above were completely wrong". So, while I made four reverts using the rollback tool I am still not under the impression that this qualifies as edit warring and/or content dispute and that vandalism did take place here: removing the aftermath of what began as a bad-faith edit ("nerd") made me think that I was right to do so and there are other editors who used rollback to revert the IP in the course of this incident. Most of the IP's edits may just look like simple POV pushing which is not vandalism but overall I am convinced that all those were essentially made in bad faith, trying to use "arguments", when the first bit of vandalism was removed by 4twenty42o. I'd like to have a second opinion in this matter after explaining it to Courcelles on his talk page. De728631 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with De on this one, Courcelles clearly hasn't looked at the history of the article edits: looks like an over zealous and anal interpretation of WP:3RR. The IP was clearly editing in bad faith, and ignoring requests to discuss the matter on the articles talk page. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles has looked into the edit history, only he doesn't think that the rest of the IP's edit were bad: "this wasn't a particularly hard case, one bad edit, three good ones". De728631 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oo, those awful orcs. Courcelles was absolutely right here; while the initial edit was inappropriate, the succeeding ones were legitimate. Frankly, the IP seems to have been right on the substantive issue; the cited source devotes most of its space to discussing claims by newspaper critics and popular culture writers (including right-wing extremists eager to find racism to embrace); very little traditional scholarship is mentioned in the text[9], and the footnotes mix scholarly and nonscholarly writings. The disputed sentence is a poor representation of the cited source, which appears to have been uncritically chosen to address the general topic in a sort of hand-waving way; a piece mostly discussing brief newspaper pieces is hardly a good source to demonstrate the existence of lengthy scholarly debates. The fact that the IP doesn't hold the prevailing view on the merit of a literary work is hardly evidence of bad faith; and being inarticulate and superficial in edit summaries is hardly proof of vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For me this has nothing to do with anyone's views on Tolkien's literary work or being against prevailing opinion. Nor has it something to do with the quality of the cited work. I was and I still am under the impression that the IP began this with a clearly disruptive edit and then changed to sneaky vandalism trying to use arguments and to gaming the system (akin to hiding vandalism and to "recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title" per WP:VAND). If it had been the IP's intention to contribute constructively to the article then why did they start off with "nerds" in the first place? I have a hard time assuming good faith in the follow up edits by 68.205.7.47 to that one. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So objectively valid, non-vandalous edits should be reversed because the editor might have had a bad motive? Are you really making that argument? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the argument is that the IP editor tried to denigrate the subject matter as non-scholarly. The first attempt was crude, the next ones less so but still making the same intellectually dishonest arguments that scholarly treatments of Tolkien's work do not exist. This IP wasn't simply "inarticulate and superficial in edit summaries", esp the one that was directly insulting to another editor. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Tarc has summed it up. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bah...let it be. - 4twenty42o (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Has De's rollback right been restored? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've re-inserted this thread over here since it was already archived. De728631 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored your rollback privileges. I don't think Courcelles was totally in the wrong by taking them away, per Hullabaloo Wolfowitz above, and that privilege is one of those "easy come, easy go" things that does often get taken away from a single mistake. But from what I saw at the article's history, you were just one of many people reverting the IP, and I believe you felt the edits from the IP were in bad faith, so I think taking the privilege away was a bit heavy-handed. -- Atama頭 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Atama, and everybody else for commenting on this. From my point of view this thread is resolved. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee and WP:ITN/C

This is over a discussion on WP:ITN/C, specifically Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Start of the 24 Hours of Le Mans (15:00 CEST). User:MickMacNee had a suggestion about a news item on the 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans being added to ITN, and there was some discussion. Most of the discussion I have no problem with, it's obviously a matter of opinions and interpretation of ITN policy, but as the discussion has continued the civility has begun to be thrown out the window. And I can understand some of that as well as the discussion has been heated. However things have begun to take a turn for the worse, and the latest edit has taken things to a level that I think need attention. Specifically, the final part of MickMacNee's edit, which states that his plan is to "...the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine."

Despite reassurances that there have been no attemps to WP:OWN the article on my part and that several other editors have made major contributions to the article, MickMacNee seems to think he's going to be vengeful in his edits. Although updating an article properly is certainly helpful, I'm not quite so sure it is something that can be taken idly when someone claims to do it as a hateful act. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF? You're reporting me to ANI for thought crime? Excellent. That's certainly a new one on me. Your damn right, the only way I will bother to update that article now, to the letter of the ITN requirements, is to get it onto the Main Page, and thus have a flood of editors arriving there to make piss poor edits to it and waste your time having to revert them. Hopefully your exposure of the article at ANI will do this for me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while the debate got a little heated, it certainly didn't raise to the level of needed admin intervention. The discussion was a disappointing one for a lot of reasons but none of them need AN/I space. If I get time I'm going to write something up at ITN talk and get some reactions about how this debate has exposed some ITN problems. But there's no admin intervention needed here. RxS (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The359, welcome to the gang f&#k world that is MMN. Bjmullan (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

RxS, my problem is not with the ITN discussion, its simply the attitude conveyed in the final statement made by MMN that this was something he was taking personal and that he was going to seek out "revenge". That is something that I feel deserves some sort of attention, at the very least some sort of cooling down. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @RxS: The AN/I report obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever problems ITN may or may not have, it's about whether a Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL, is going to be enforced or not. Clearly an editor who tells another editor "...the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine" has egregiously violated that policy, so an admin needs to act on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone is improving an article, why do we care what their motives are? He can do it for revenge, fun, or to give himself an erection for all I care. If the edits are good, who gives a stuff? As for civility, get over it. Running here is more disruptive than Mick's rather boring potty mouth.--Scott Mac 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes The359 get over it. Didn't you know that there is one rule of civility for us and one for the f*&k fest that is MMN. You are wasting your time here as EVERYONE is frightened of him and will do nothing other than offering up excuses for his behaviour. Bjmullan (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with Scott; the motives might not be the most noble, but unless the edits are unconstructive there is no case. Unless Mick has intimated editors into not contributing to the project. or intentionally attacked editors with the hope of silencing them, I see no justifiable call for admin action. Ed Fitzgerald invokes WP:CIV in seeking punitive action; this to me, signifies the failure of that doctrine more than anything else. Skomorokh 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Motivation will always be a concern when the editor involved raises the issue. We AGF that edits are without unwarranted motivations, until they show themselves to be otherwise or the editor declares that they are editing with a POV, for instance. Once that happens, their contributions are naturally and justifiably put under closer scutiny. Nothing wrong with that, and everything right with it -- it's how we identify SPAs and many sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So Scott, even though you are an admin charged by the community with enforcing Wikipedia policy, you are never going to enforce the civility policy because you, personally, don't agree with it? Could we please have a definitive statement on your user page of what policies you agree with will enforce and which ones you don't and will not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins are not charged with anything, although many of them ought to be. Janitors don't "enforce" anything, other than perhaps clean floors and toilets. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I deal with reality, and not theory, and in reality admins are cops and janitors. (It's rare that janitors are allowed to lock people out of the building selectively: the existance of the power to block makes admins enforcers). But, ok, I'll adopt your metaphor for the moment: the community has given Scott the tools to clean the floors and mop the toilets, but it appears that Scott refuses to clean the toilets on the fifth floor because he doesn't like the tiling in there. What other toilets and floors will Scott not clean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Like every other admin, I only clean the floors I choose to clean. I'm a volunteer. It is that simple.--Scott Mac 23:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but, although you may not see the distinction, there's a difference between just not doing X, and carrying a stance against X to the point that you tell other editors to "Get over it". WP:CIVIL remains policy and one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS, not an essay, a guideline or someone's crackpot idea, and it's unseemly for admins to go around telling editors that they shouldn't be concerned when it is breached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee was in January, and included civility issues. Rd232 ^talk 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Far beyond just what was said to the OP, Mick's behaviour at the (now closed) section in general has been far from perfect, especially since everyone else has expressed their opinions in a civil manner (it has to be said the OP was becoming less calm as the argument discussion went on). This comment on the talk page of an uninvolved admin who reverted his reversion of the discussion's close takes the cake. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be time for you to take your own advice here and let this one go. For the record while I agree with the closing of the ITN/C debate, I think that you should not been the one to do it, it just added heat to an already inflamed situation. I ask an uninvolved editor now to close this. Mtking (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why close it. Not only has he made his plans known in ITN, he repeated them here as well! It's not that his plan bothers me or that it will "work", it's just that someone who says their intent is to cause problems for another user simply because they had a disagreement and "ruined their weekend". It is pretty harassing in its nature and I can see how someone could easily be discouraged from editing because of such statements, and certainly from someone making bold claims of WP:OWN against myself. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Because only threats have been made so far and by continuing this topic only adds fuel to the fire, close it now, if there is a problem later it can be re-opened. Mtking (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Threats are not a serious matter and should simply be ignored until actions are actually taken? That's pretty backwards IMHO. I could think of several other ways to avoid adding fuel to the fire. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you get over yourself already. My only 'threat' here was to update an article sufficiently to get it posted to the Main Page. What a fucking crime eh. The fact you feel that this would have caused problems for you, only underlines your ownership issues. As it happens, you got your way and your novel idea of what constitutes an ITN article on something like this, basically a GA, has somehow prevailed. I no longer want anything to do with the whole mess, not even to do the actual minumum udpate as required by the actual ITN rules, which is most certainly not to get it looking like a GA. The article has barely been read or editted, good or bad, and no readers or editors ever got to find out the race was even happening while it was happening. Two of the 3 main purposes of ITN have been completely ignored, in favour of shutting down a clusterfuck of a debate featuring your wrong ideas of what ITN is, alongside other objections on complete BURO grounds, alongside people who clearly didn't even do the basic thing and read the nomination request, as a 'no conensus', with all support opinions from several ITN regulars, completely and utterly nullified. And you're still claiming to be the victim in this whole thing. Unbelievable. And it's over 2 hours since it actually finished and it's not looking like anyone even cares about even posting the final result, even though it's an ITN/R and that's what is supposed to happen for ITN/R items. That's why that list exists. The most prestigeous endurance race in the world has one of its best races yet, and ITN just continues its daily drudge of the 'not news news', namely death and elections, while we wait for some mythical policy discussion to be started to figure out the supposed 'Great Matter' of policy that the nomination raised as to whether a current event is really current when its current or just after it was current, or whether the way we try and get ITN to not be 'the news' is to simply be the worst news service in the world, posting only when the minimal update has been made, well after the event, when no reader or editor who actually knows the sport would be remotely interested, and no editor or reader who didn't, was going to get any benefit at all. So, that's strike 3 on the whole 'purpose of ITN'. At least nobody tried to use it as a live race report eh, as that's of course the most important thing in the world. Ha. Fat chance. For that to happen, people have to know the article even exists. We can't be doing that, not Wikipedia! And yet again I wonder why the fuck I even bother with it, when what I could have been doing was just watching and enjoying the race in its entirety. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying you only said you going to update the article for ITN criteria is pure delusion and backpedaling. You even responded to this ANI about your intent with the edits - "...thus have a flood of editors arriving there to make piss poor edits to it and waste your time having to revert them. Hopefully your exposure of the article at ANI will do this for me." Is this what Wikipedia is about? Using editing as a means to one-up someone, to bring someone down because they have disagreed with you? And how this is somehow swept under the rug by others is beyond belief - it is pure and utter harassment, even if it does not ever come to fruition. It meets the very definition of discouraging editors, and is further advanced by your discouraging belief that I needed experience on ITN in order to have my opinions about an ITN discussion.

All of the discussion about the ITN discussion is moot as the ANI is about your behaviour, not the topic of the ITN. Your opinion of what ITN is and how ITN discussions should be kept to the "regulars" does not condone your vengeful attitude, let alone that you should take any of this as personal. Your weekend was ruined? I don't give a damn, and why the hell would I? Who the hell has their weekend ruined because of an ITN/C discussion?

You seem to have this great paranoia and this great imagination for things I supposed have said or what I have meant when I said some things. Let me be perfectly clear - every single isntance of "no you really mean this" or "you're trying to do this" that you've said in the past 24+ hours has been completely and utterly wrong. So this vendetta has been utterly and completely useless, because not only was it unwarrented, but it also has not in the slightest produced the results that you think it would have. The only thing I've been pissed about from the last 24+ hours is that I missed more of the race due to work than I had hoped.

Your opinions of ITN and ITN discussions are irrelevant to this discussion as we are discussing you, not ITN. Your feelings on ITN can be discussed where produent. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody acted on your claims of 'harassment' because it's categorically not harassment, much less a meanignfull or even logical threat at all, unless of course, the article being on the Main Page will infact have a direct effect on you. And as you have continually asserted, it wouldn't. It's catch-22 for you. Either you did actually feel threatened because the situation is not as you've described, or you didn't, but you thought you could achieve something here by cliaming you had been, in which case it's hard to see this report as anything but 'vengeful' from my perspective I'm afraid. And no, I never said you could not participate at ITN, I said that as a non-regular you were wrong in your stated ideas about what the rules are, and once that's been pointed out to you by a regular, then no, you do not have any 'right' to continue to claim your opinion is valid. Doing so is the 'very definition' of incivility, and 'discourages' everybody, regardless of their status as regulars or occasional visitors. Yes, this ANI was about my behaviour, and not one person in any authority gave much credence to your complaint, let alone acted on it (until RD232 commenced his attack). It even garnered a lower than usual response from the people who hate my guts and take any opportunity to pile on a report where I've actually done something wrong, in the hope of getting some kind of action. Why you cannot accept that, is beyond me. If you want, you can take some succour in the fact that this ridiculous report did at least get hijacked by RD232, who as an involved admin used it to make multiple attacks on me, to the point where someone I've never had any interactions with feels the need to file an arbitration case on me as 'enough is enough' (wtf?, enough of what? enough of me being used as a target by a rogue admin?). Paranoia? Sure. I feel ever so 'encouraged' to continue participating in Wikipedia now. MickMacNee (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not knowingly had any communication with MickMacNee before. I made one post in that ITN thread, and got a very rude, sarcastic response from him. It was not a pleasant experience. I am now another editor totally unimpressed with MickMacNee's attitude and behaviour. It does not help build a better encyclopaedia. And it certainly discouraged me from trying to add anything more there. Wikipedia should be able to do something about such incivility. People with Admin status who join these conversations but won't do anything about it should resign their Adminship. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. What we are seeing is that WP:CIVIL is enforced in a totally selective way. Some people get away with prolonged disruptive, abusive behaviour (cf [[10]]) whilst others get threatened with blocks for merely reporting such abuse. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48 made an 'ironic' post to ITN/C comparing two completely different events, simply to make a 'request' he knew would not be fulfilled. The only motivation behind that was to mock the nomination being discussed. The fact he even stated "I am simply highlighting the silliness of demands to post the car race before it starts", even though no such demand had even been made, shows just what he was up to. If he wants to call that sort of nonsense his way of building a better encyclopoedia, more power to him. If he wants to call that civility, he's got a lot to learn about what civility actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For someone who before 16 hours ago knew absolutely nothing about me, and has seen only one post from me, which happened to disagree with his view, that post is full of mind reading arrogance. It shows that so far in this discussion he seems to have learnt absolutely nothing about good faith. Any Admin looking at this thread MUST realise that asking him nicely is unlikely to change this behaviour, which obviously discourages others whose primary goal is making this a better encyclopaedia. I don't want to pretend to be a mind reader, but that doesn't seem to be MickMacNee's goal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The post is right there in black and white. No mind reading necessary. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: following this exchange of mine with Mick I'm hardly in any position to sanction him (WP:INVOLVED). Also enforcing civility is notoriously difficult. We could try putting Mick on a "civility probation" edit restriction, which would make it more likely that future breaches would result in sanctions. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally informed everyone as to what your interest is in me. Given the way you completely undermined the community civility sanction placed on Delta with your unilateral block reduction which backfired spectacularly, and shut down of an actual ANI discussion where there were plenty of actualy uninvolved people wanting to see action on an actual incivil editor with an actual proven record of failed intervention far beyond a measly voluntary User Rfc, whose community sanction came as the condition of return from a year long ban with not 1 but 2 abrcom cases with incivility as a central component behind them, then I can only see this proposal, in this place, from your position of involvement, as a complete and utter irony. All we need now is an admin to unilaterally close the whole thing and it would the the ironic cherry on the irony cake. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

MickMacNee's responses here move me to formally propose an edit restriction:

MickMacNee shall remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Breaches shall be met with escalating blocks.

This achieves nothing in itself, but makes it more likely that future obnoxiousness be actually sanctioned, instead of merely upsetting people. It may also finally motivate Mick to try harder to express himself less stridently, which may get his points across better when he is in the right. [PS: in case it wasn't already abundantly clear from this thread, I'm not a neutral party here. Rd232 ^talk 18:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)] Rd232 ^talk 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC) struck to allow reformulation below, since no relevant comment received yet. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What are your recall conditions RD232. I intend to either start the recall process on you based on the complete hypocrisy towards upholding community expectations of civility that you are showing towards me compared to Delta, or if that fails, open an arbitration case to have your fitness to be an admin examined, as I think you are far below even the minimum expected. As ever, as regards this specific proposal, there is nothing stopping any admin actually sanctioning an editor should they think that they have been incivil. I have been subject to blocks, even escalating ones, in the past, for actual incivility. Christ, I've even had one admin try and unilaterally ban me before, believing another block was not going far enough. In that particular case he exceeded his authority far beyond his position, and I dealt with him, just as I'm going go deal with you RD232. When none of your peers have even described this incident as a 'breach', then this proposal from your self-admitted position of involvement is nothing short of a disgrace. This 'sanction' is meaningless, a pathetic attempt by RD232 to take revenge on me for rightly criticising his failures as an admin here and elsewhere. It's just another classic case of somone confusing being embarassed or criticised, with having been the victim of incivility, and in admin's case, confusing their role as someone to give uninvolved opinions/action, with someone who is in a position to settle scores with editors they do not much like using the extra gravitas of their position. I'm not scared of you RD232, and I'm not going to roll over and take this lying down. MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that kinda speaks for itself. At this point, your serial obnoxiousness makes me more likely to support a siteban, were one proposed, than to withdraw my (non-admin - where does my admin hat come into this?) proposal. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

MMN is a bit of a jerk but he's correct in this specific case. You don't get to pretend you're a) noninvolved and b) making a 'non-admin' proposal. You're an admin and thus any action you take re:bans/blocks is going to be viewed in that way. I Jtrainor (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(a) I already stated I'm involved. (b) it's an action any editor can take, and I've already stated I'm involved; ergo it is not an admin action. Rd232 ^talk 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. I want you to. I want to be able to add that further disgrace to my case that you are not fit to be an admin, to show that in my case with our history and off the back of this report, you think proposing a site ban is completely normal and justifiable, and then compare and contrast that to exactly what you did in Delta's case. Both apparently in the name of respect for the upholding of civility. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My remark was carefully worded. At this point I would oppose a site ban proposal if it didn't make a very good case. A mere "let's get rid of him" wouldn't be enough. I must say, however, that my experience of interactions with you would mean my disappointment at such a proposal succeeding would be somewhat limited. As to an arbcom case - go nuts. Mind the boomerang. PS I do find your obsession with the Delta incident vaguely perturbing; as if reducing a block from 48 hrs to 24, as a compromise reflecting a divided discussion between overturning and lengthening it, is somehow responsible for much of the world's ills.Rd232 ^talk 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The time for rehashing your excuses over your handling of Delta will be at your recall or an arbcom case, where people will have the whole history to hand, and can see the full impact of your total naivety and complete lack of due diligence or even basic respect for admin colleagues and the community in that regard. They can also compare and contrast it with this report as to how you do and don't pay attention to what other people say in ANI sections, and whether your penchant for not doing any due diligence is a common trait in every case you interfere with. I don't want to hear anything from you except your recall conditions. A civil admin would have already taken note of that request and responded accordingly by now. Your intentional deafness however is no surprise, as I've seen it before as you've pissed me around with this act of yours. Maybe you should assuage my concerns and put yourself up for a nice little Editor Review? Seems to be working for Treasury Tag, the other ANI case you interfered with without any due diligance or care for others admins views, to no real actual effect. Again. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I addressed your "recall" over-reaction by noting its irrelevance here, since I'm not acting as an admin here. But since you insist, I'll point out what an editor of your experience should have been able to check: I'm not listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. I won't waste my breath explaining to you why I think voluntary recall is pointless and compulsory dangerous; you wouldn't listen anyway. Suffice to say that Arbcom can handle desysopping as required. As to Editor Review? No, I've had enough feedback about those ANI incidents, the balance strongly positive. Rd232 ^talk 20:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What you class as an admin like response to that request is duly noted. Glad to see that there are some situations that you will actually recognise my status as an experienced editor, even if it still doesn't lead you to a place where you will act civily yourself though. And for future reference, on the ANI board please don't claim people say things without providing any diffs, if you want your claims to be taken seriously. I should not have to repeat by now that in these 'supporters', you probably wouldn't even know the difference between an independent party or not in the Delta case, given the innacuracy of many of your past comments on it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"probably wouldn't even know the difference between an independent party or not in the Delta case" - experience shows it's pointless debating with you, but for the benefit of passersby, the feedback I mentioned didn't come from those who agree with Delta, who would have overturned the block altogether. But this is unbelievably academic anyway; a subsequent discussion at AN about Delta was lengthy and somewhat more productive, and led to an RFC which might possibly help a little about the core issue. But for some reason Mick wants Delta hanged for a single incivility, and by proxy me for interfering with that, despite the fact that Mick sprays obnoxiousness, incivility and bad faith at a rate that makes Delta look like a choirboy. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded below. It's too much work to keep track of all the insults you are throwing at me tonight. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Original proposal, refactored to remove commentary

MickMacNee's responses here move me to formally propose an edit restriction:

MickMacNee shall remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Breaches shall be met with escalating blocks.

This achieves nothing in itself, but makes it more likely that future obnoxiousness be actually sanctioned, instead of merely upsetting people. It may also finally motivate Mick to try harder to express himself less stridently, which may get his points across better when he is in the right. I should note, in case it wasn't already abundantly clear from this thread, I'm not a neutral party here. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would add that Mick's attempt to hijack the original proposal by attacking me is another illustration of why something must be done, and I've yet to see a better suggestion. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for responding to your disgracefull hypocritical approach to administration, and your own baseless attempt at hijacking this ANI thread with a self-serving proposal of your own. Something you took a dim view of elsewhere. Horses for courses I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks, and my opinion of you sinks ever lower. I tell you what: I'll do a reconfirmation RFA if you put yourself up for a site ban. Wikipedia would be better off without you; your behaviour demoralises more editors than your contributions can possibly make up for. Rd232 ^talk 21:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha. At least we're getting to the heart of the matter. You know fuck all about me frankly, and your accusations are as groundless as ever. On the ANI board no less. Are you still claiming immunity here as acting as a non-admin? I'm getting confused now. And as with the Delta case, you aren't likely to do your research on me either before chucking out this nonsense, it's beyond clear that you go by what you experience personally, which is of course going to be affected by your own actions. That's why Delta is absolutely convinced that everybody else is the problem and he's the sole protector of NFCC policy. Go find one goddam person who will ever say I have EVER tried to use my contributions or activities here as any kind of defence against any attempted sanction of any kind. Delta was well established as an industrial scale mass demoralizer of editors before I even registered on this site. He had a different name back then. I wonder how long it took you to even realise that tbh, seeing as you didn't even know he'd even operated an NFCC bot before until well after you'd started interfering with the sanctions placed on him chiefly due to his behaviour in that era. And that was a hell of a long time ago now. You'll find it all in the 2 prior arbitration cases, the year long ban appeal, and the many many many draft sanctions discussions. The fact you think your discussion on AN did anything that hadn't been covered a hundred times before by many admins in the past, is fucking hilarious. It was GroundHog Day in full stereo, only with the added amusement of your rather novel ideas about a content policy you don't seem too familiar with at all. With his actual documented record here, the fact you think I'm worse than Delta is an insult of the highest order, some might even call it a personal attack. It's certainly something that doesn't stand up to any kind of independent scrutiny whatsoever. The fact you seem to think you're blazing a trail on NFC enforcement, similarly so. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And while it's taken as read that you probably class my own response to the proposal as "no relevant comment", I'm not entirely clear what you saw in Jtrainor's comment on it above to similarly class it so, in this attempt at refactoring it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a comment on the merits of the proposal. Rd232 ^talk 21:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion. Did it even cross your mind you're not really in any position to making those kinds of calls here? Did you even think to ask his permission? MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know I needed to ask others' permission to strike my own comments. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're wikilawyering? You rebooted the exact same proposal minus someone else's comment, based on your judgement that it wasn't relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not forgetting of course that the striking was your second attempt at refactoring this in a proper manner. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I give up. No-one else seems interested in stopping the fountain of aggression and self-righteousness that is MickMacNee. So I'm going to count myself among the editors MickMacNee has sufficiently demoralised to wish to leave Wikipedia, at least temporarily. I will enforce this with a self-block, which Mick is welcome to consider sanction for the many sins he imagines I have committed. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope that this little tantrum is being done in your 'I'm not here as an admin' persona. If you think that this is the way an admin is supposed to go about dealing with an editor he has described in the various terms you've used above, then I don't see that you're going to retain this ability to block yourself for too much longer. You're demoralized? I'm the person who's had to respond to this all night, as you fuck me around very publicly on the ANI board. You very generous offer that I can consider this as a sanction, is your parting shame tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

This is now at arbcom. Chester Markel (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, having never heard of you or interacted with you, and not seeing anybody trying to continue this ANI above except the original filer and the involved admin, I am to say the least puzzled by what supposedly has been 'enough' here for you to file this case. And given that you did this while I was asleep and several people have already commented now, I guess I have no choice now but to go along with it. P.S. If you want to refactor ANI discussions to insert headers, please use accurate and neutral headings. There were never 2 proposals in here, and your assertion that 'enough is enough' was needlessly inflammatory to say the least. I've changed them accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I strongly object to the archiving of this thread as if it was somehow an active dispute that has simply passed on to arbitration after not finding any resolution from ordinary admins. That is a total smear frankly, and couldn't be further from the truth. As said above, I have no idea why this one editor chose this route of escalation, but his filing of a case is no reason to then force anyone who still had something to say on this specific issue, to have to go and wade through that, wasting their time figuring out the arbitration page procedures. I certainly do not expect to be prevented from responding to further points made while I've been away, painting me in a bad light if left unanswered, not least when the archiver has been accused of doing exactly that in the arbitration case! If this thread couldn't have been archived by the time it was clear that it was only being used by RD232 as a way to attack me before he chose to bizarrly block himself, then I don't see why it should have been actively archived now due to one editors incomprehensible decision to file an arbitration case as his one and only contribution to it, instead of being left to be archived as normal and in the state the discussion had naturally ended, if and when other people had stopped commenting. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain what all the commotion is about concerning ITN/C stuff. Heck, you & I have no trouble working out our differances on the 'pedia. We certaintly don't take each other to ANI or Arbcom. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll unarchive it then. No skin off my nose. I thought it'd be better for everyone for the discussion to be in one place, and to your benefit too MickMacNee so that you don't have to respond at multiple places. But if you object then I'll remove the templates, sorry about the fuss. -- Atama頭 00:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle _{vécut heureuse}

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [11] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [12] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [13] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [14], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated trolling from now-community banned IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off2riorob- Despite your phrasing of that comment as a question, it's clearly a veiled accusation. If you're going to accuse other editors of not understanding policy, or having forgotten it, you should do so forthrightly. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I was quite clear, my comment above "Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection" - as I was yesterday about your contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Will you lay off the ad-hominem attacks, please? That quote is nowhere in your comment above; had it been, I wouldn't have commented. You asked a question-- "surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFRP - is to request article unprotection?"-- and that's a loaded question. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bolded both comments above for you to see clearly. Can you see them now? So what if its loaded its supposed to be. If you begin to edit constructively and stop disrupting everywhere you go (and I hope you do) all issues with your contributions will cease. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure you're aware that that's not the comment I'm referencing when I describe your question as loaded. I'm happy to leave this where it is, but I would ask that you please stop trying to turn everything around on me in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I suggest you keep out of my way then - disrupt at distant locations, the far corners of the wiki are available for you, this thread is nothing to do with you, you should keep your battling disruptive nose out of issues that have nothing to do with you.Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, okay, whatever. This issue has as much to do with me as it does with you, and you don't own ANI, nor are you empowered to banish me to "the far corners of the wiki." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [15] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [16]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [17], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Making ED.ch pages on user after article dispute

I was advised by User:Amatulic to make this section in order to ask a question in regards to an incident between myself and User:H644444. On June 4th, he and I got into a dispute on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article over the addition of this information, which was not included in the source used. About 15 minutes after this dispute occurred, a user called H64 made an article about me on EncyclopediaDramatica.ch, which can be found here. I think the connection is fairly obvious between the two of them.

After a bit of further investigation, I found that H64 is a part of the ten members of the "ED Government" on the site, a part of the "military branch" specifically. I asked Amatulic if anything can or should be done on-wiki in regards to this after I noticed that H64 has continued to edit the article on me in question. So, Amatulic advised I ask here about what should be done.

So, I guess the question is, we generally don't consider off-wiki activities in regards to evidence presented about users, but does this case, where a user creates a derogatory article on an ED related site about a user they are in a dispute with on-wiki, deserve some sort of on-wiki action? If so, what sort of action would be appropriate? Silverseren^C 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, fuck; you have an ED article? I gotta step up my game and get noticed more, I guess. Srsly though, take it in stride, as a mark of pride or whatever Tarc (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I do. Believe me, I do. I think it's pretty funny, actually, especially how the article isn't insulting at all, it's just hilariously bad. But, regardless, my question was more on what this should mean toward the user's on-wiki activity. Not to mention that this action and their apparent status shows that there is very likely meatpuppetry going on with the article and the talk page and brings into question the poll on the talk page and the fairly large number of new users voting in it. Also, I don't think this action is something that we should outright ignore when it happens, because H64 is essentially responding to the dispute by making a huge personal attack. It's just that the attack is off-wiki. Silverseren^C 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest and say I'm not sure what should be done here. I'm leaning in favor of blocking H64, but given certain WR precedents, I'm not sure if the blocking policy would allow it. Going on a tangent for a moment: a minor dispute leads H64 to create no less than 14 ED articles on Silver seren (that was only eight of them)? Seriously? That's entirely pathetic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

He essentially just went and took any story I have ever written (those are from Deviantart, by the way) and copied and pasted them into their own pages. I don't know exactly what the purpose of that was. I assume it was to allow other people on ED to make fun of my writings, I guess? But if I cared that much about what people thought about them, I would have never uploaded them onto the internet in the first place. Silverseren^C 03:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I just have a mention in an old ED article under a diff name. You can't really do much if you get an ED (mirror in this case) article, and it's poorly written articles, among other things, that doomed ED to its fate (for examples see the Uwe Boll article, good God). As for it being an off-wiki attack, you feel it is an attack, and it is meant as an attack, so do it by the rules. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know NPA had a section on Off-wiki attacks. I guess that is pretty straightforward then. I am presenting this attack article made by previously stated user as evidence of a large personal attack against me and I am asking for the proper administrator action to be taken. Silverseren^C 03:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot for a moment to inform H64 about this discussion. Informed now. Silverseren^C 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are wikipedia administrators who are also administrators on Encyclopedia Dramatica, e.g. Alison. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing ED.ch, but I suppose in this discussion, the distinction doesn't matter. Just being an administrator alone wouldn't mean anything, clearly, but editing the ED article in order to include a link to the ED.ch site without a reference and then creating an attack article on me off-wiki when I reverted him is another matter entirely. Being an admin on the site just shows that there is likely to be an organized meatpuppetry event going on. (Though that has little to do with the attack page that I made this discussion about, I just wanted to mention it for context). Silverseren^C 05:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have been personally attacked on wikipedia, I can't see that you have anything to complain about on this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on the meta blacklist to add ed.ch. (FWIW, I don't think Alison has her bit anywhere but Oh Internet; ed.ch is a fork of the original ED created in response to it becoming OI.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't read the Off-wiki attacks section of NPA that Flinders Petrie linked up above. The creation of the attack page off-wiki constitutes both a personal attack and a violation of an editor's privacy and "can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process". That means that an editor can be blocked for off-wiki attacks against an editor, especially if the attack includes a violation of privacy. Silverseren^C 05:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite recently I've seen off-wiki attacks from wikimedia commons, FurAffinity and Stormfront (website). In this particular case, if there were concerns about privacy, was it wise to use the same fairly unique pseudonym all over the web? Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the people supporting the inclusion of the link are long time Wikipedia editors, and there are involved parties arguing for both sides in that discussion. We could focus on abuses from either side to argue for a reinterpretation of the straw poll. As regards H64, I think his actions are a clear off wiki attack and should be dealt with as such. Using an uncommon pseudonym should be no justification for allowing these kinds of attacks. Polyquest (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue about the poll or the involvement of users in it. I was just explaining that for context and it's really not important for what this discussion is about. I do agree that there are a number of long time editors also supporting. But that is a discussion that can be had elsewhere another time. Thank you for your support though, in regards to the H64 issue. Silverseren^C 06:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, that stuff is public and I don't mind. The uploading of my stories is a little weird, but whatever. The real issue of privacy is the linking to and subsequent uploading of emails between myself and other users on Fur Affinity that were obtained when the site was hacked a little while back. Linking to it is one thing, but then copying all of the emails into their own ED.ch page is another thing entirely and definitely violates my privacy. Silverseren^C 06:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And the clowns on Pawsru wonder why I refuse to get a FurAffinity account. (Most Wikipedians know why I prefer to keep my online pawprint as small as possible.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record - I resigned as sysop on ed.com last December, well before "OH I" emerged. I don't have ops on any of those wikis now; old, new or otherwise. Too busy IRL these days - Alison ^❤ 07:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

you almost didnt get an article until i saw the cockroach megawolf thing, which made me lol. your fanfics have been copied for archival purposes. please see the relevant discussion on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. i dont advocate vandalism on wikipedia. if you would like the article removed you are welcome to come to our irc and discuss it there H644444 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not stupid enough to do that. Though I am interested, what exactly made you lol about the cockroach megawolf thing? Silverseren^C 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the final sentence of the article's second paragraph. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, i've seen the sentence, it's based on the hacked FA emails that I had with Dragoneer. I'm just interested on whether the last line in the article was made just randomly based on that regardless or whether he just didn't understand what the emails were talking about. Considering they were only half the conversation, where I was talking about another person's fursonas, which are a cockroach and a 50ft wolf. Silverseren^C 05:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Hmm? I know this discussion isn't about the ED article talk page, but still, meatpuppetry. At least User:Equivamp can be added to the list. Silverseren^C 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The smoldering remnants of that once great site have really hit rock-bottom. So, errr... is any action supposed to really be taken or is this just a black mark against H64 in future ANI threads like the guideline said or what? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in this case, so I dunno. Silverseren^C 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how taking any action against h64 would be useful. Blocking him here won't change anything at EncyclopediaDramatica.ch, and stirring things up and drawing attention to it may make things worse. I also don't want Wikipedia users to feel as if they can't discuss or scrutinize Wikipedia and its users off-site. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that this sort of thing isn't allowed in the future, since making ED.ch pages on editors is essentially harassment. Silverseren^C 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Making such ED.ch pages on editors is essentially harassment, but we have to make decisions on the margin. The next time this happens we'll only know about it when new attack/gossip pages appear on ed.ch (or elsewhere), by which time it will be too late to do much about the offending editor. Unless it's the same editor as this time, in which case any actions taken against them here could just provoke more mischief elsewhere. bobrayner (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds Process

Currently the featured sounds process is in a bit of a controversy. Due to the wording of the criteria, both a video and the audio track from a video can be nominated and passed as a featured sound. This is opposed by many of the regulars to the process. To keep the same arguments from being rehashed in each nomination, the active FS directors (Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs) and myself) put a freeze on all nominations of this sort so they could be debated in one central place. This has erupted into a scene. All of the good faith and will I have has been exhausted. Would a cooler head please intervene. (I haven't exactly kept my cool) thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is here there is support on both sides. I have seen two or three regs who oppose duplicate noms and two or three (including myself) who support them. I am awaiting a substantive response to issue that are repeatedly WP:TLDRed. I am asking for explanation of why they want to run WP:FSC differently than all other quality review processes. I believe what Guerillero seeks is an excuse to continue WP:TLDRing from a friendly admin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) continues to nominate duplicates (videos and sounds, mostly separately and this was all done directly after the wording of the criteria chagned to allow videos and sounds), despite being told not to in addition he also continues to nominate arrangements (mostly brass band) of well known and historical music despite being told not to, now while brass band arrangements aren't all bad they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis (his response above shows he's just doing it because a couple regulars support some of his duplicates), a majority of these nominations have been boring or musically uninteresting music. He claims he's doing this because both files have EV, but take a look at his wall of stars and his first post at WT:FSC, he made it clear that he wanted an FS to his name because FS was due to appear on the main page (this has been pushed back until underlying problems in the process are addressed). His continual ignorance of the concerns raised by others goes against the collegial nature of Wikipedia, it's hindering progress and is downright annoying. It's funny that he should be accusing Guerillero of TLDRing, check his active and past nominations. How incredibly hypocritical. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:14pm • 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When was I told not to nominate them any more? I have not violated any instructions. In terms of arrangements, I am not a musician. I don't know when things are arrangements all the time. I am a volunteer file-hunter and trying to find good files. I have found about 50 good files, so you have to put up with a few dozen bad noms along the way. Are you looking for an excuse to WP:TLDR as well?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just one of a number of issues that need to be worked through among editors at FSC and integrated into the criteria. It's a pity that TTT can't hold off nominating files of the categories he knows have become controversial—until there's an in-depth discourse on these matters, some of which are complicated in their implications. I appreciate TTT's work at FSC, but I don't want to think that there's a mad rush to acquire rows of stars on his userpage for featured content promotions. Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, you are acting like I am nominating a bunch of stuff everyone is rejecting. My nominations have resulted in 49 WP:FS since April 1. Second off, I don't even know that I was told not to nominate audio duplicates of videos (before today).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you were, look through all of your recent 20 nominations. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:59pm • 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

44 of my last 56 file nominees have passed. Check WP:FSL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is this so much an issue with FS than it is with one single editor? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strange Passerby has hit the nail on the head. Although I am no longer an active participant at FS, I do watch it, and this particular problem editor began causing issues while I was still there. TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured. He has exploited the fact that FS does not really have a policy on videos yet, which is the entire reason that he has so many FS credits already. I have advised Guerillero to consider delisting many of them, although it is up to the current participants at FS to decide whether or not to take that advice. The long and short of it is that TTT has exhausted the community's patience. Like James (AA), I've long since abandoned the pretense that TTT is doing this out of purely altruistic reasons. He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego. If his actions at FS were not enough to convince me, recent events at FfD have (see nominations 16 though 71. I don't want to steer this too off track with the FfDs, but I think that this specific nomination, combined with the above situation, shows that TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Though I have no opinion on the FS issue at this time, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago, and then, when he was generally unsuccessful, moved to VPC, where he was active until the project was closed down precisely because it lacked any real drive/direction beyond "WE NEED MORE VALUED PICTURES". He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating) and, though I wasn't involved with this (so please don't take my word as gospel truth), I believe he has been warned about similar behaviour at FAC and GAC as well. Tony takes very seriously the, as Sven mentions, "stars on his trophy wall". While many editors (myself certainly included) like to display their achievements on their userpage, Tony can take it to something of an extreme, which can sometimes lead to issues. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • As the other WikiCup judge, I can second virtually everything J Milburn just said, except that I haven't heard anything about FAC/GAN warnings. Regardless of how the FS issues are worked out, I believe there is a long-term pattern of questionable actions from TTT. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • This is very different than FPC and VPC where I could not get the hang of things. At FS after an initial pass rate of 5/19, I have learned what WP:WIAFS is saying and have had a 44 of 56 file pass rate since.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Amalgamated this and the topic ban proposals to keep it in one piece. MER-C 11:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is classic TonyTheTiger-- he seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself. Last year, he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived. This behavior occurs in any area in which he edits-- I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger

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

1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds

As per my comments above, at the thread "Featured Sounds Process", TTT has exhausted the patience of the Featured Sounds community. I quote from above "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." Until TTT is made to understand that he cannot ignore what other people are saying, and that Featured Sounds exists for more than just to fill the trophy wall that is his userpage, I believe that he is harmful to the process.

• Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• I can only speak from my own experience of Tony at DYK last year, where concerns were also raised (then WikiCup-related) that Tony was spamming, almost abusing, the process just so he could claim more DYKs. As a result I have no difficulty believing he is misusing FS in a similar fashion, and would support such a ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As I explained in the section a few above this one, similar things have also happened at FPC and (before it closed) VPC. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it would be a good idea to extend this topic ban proposal to all featured media processes and similar (GA, DYK, ITN), in that case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as a completely uninvolved editor. TTT is using the process as a personal vanity project by nominating as many files as possible for consideration and hoping some get through. He does not appear to be taking the time to evaluate them correctly before nomination. This is subverting it's intent which is to get the absolute best files featured. Exxolon (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I am pretty new to looking at either FS or TTT, and no axe to grind. Guerillo has been professional and TTT has been moving stuff around on the page in contravention to the Director decisions (as the final acts in a pattern of problem-causing). It's fine to debate the policy, but outright distruption of actions of the Director (elected by the participants) on holding or rejecting nominees, makes the whole place unworkable. Throw into that, that he is an admin and should behave better. And that he is tone-deaf and wikilawyering in interactions. And the history of similare disruption on other Featured Content processs...TCO (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• DON'T TOPIC BANS REQUIRE DIFFS OR ARE ADMINS ALLOWED TO TELL ANY STORY THEY WANT Resoponse to the four claims above by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)
  1. "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing."
     1. Not true. I began participating in FS in April. You might note that my nominations have passed at nearly an 80% (44 of 56) clip since my initial learning period (5 of 19) (Check WP:FSL). I have developed a good understanding of WP:WIAFS and begun only nominating things I view as very likely to be determined to adhere to WIAFS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. "TonyTheTiger ignoring negative responses."
     1. To the contrary I have been learning from negative responses. I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. "TonyTheTiger fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful"
     1. I have recently fought against closures that were against process both for those that were unsuccessful those that were to be successful. N.B.: Yesterday there was a batch of 5 closed unsuccessful without regard to WP:WIAFS that I fought against and last week there was one of my nominees that was moved to nominations to be closed that had 2/3 majority required to pass that I fought against being closed immediately and put back into the queue because I felt it was being closed prematurely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. "TonyTheTiger generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured."
     1. (Repeating from above). I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted. I have not been clogging the system. I have been filling it with stuff that gets promoted about 80% of the time (44/56=79%).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support While a lot of this "content" based discussion passes me by I am capable of determining concerns from reviewing contributions; there are over 5,000 deleted contributions. This is against a total number of edits of around 150,000, or 3% of edits, but of concern is a review of the deleted contributions in detail indicates that this appears to be a persistent or consistent ratio since 2006. This leads me to the conclusion that the editor has not (or cannot) been able to alter their approach to introducing content - the majority of deleted contributions being either "autobiographical" (in the widest sense, content derived from their own sources) or various files - despite some evidence of concerns having been raised all the while. This appears to be an editor, while a good contributor in certain areas (as the 146k "live" edits testify), who does not seem to Get It over certain matters. Removing them from areas where these concerns are manifested seems to be entirely reasonable and, given that this appears to be a long term issue, it should be for as long as there seems to be an issue. Presently, this is apparently the Featured Sound process and therefore I support this topic ban. I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others "liars", and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • I am not trying to impress you by calling him a liar. I am presenting an uncontested fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • You are apparently as eager to test the limits of WP:CIVIL as you admit you have regarding WP:Notability. There are more acceptable ways in which to make a point that anothers accusation are unsupported by diffs/are likely not to be able to be evidenced. Being able to conform to WP practices is part of what is at issue here - and you are not helping yourself. Impressing me is irrelevant, but not impressing me has lead me to my opinion given above and not caring makes me more unlikely to change it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How do I observe my deleted content, I believe there are three or four spikes in this regard. There were probably a lot of deleted edits when Template:NYRepresentatives and Template:ILRepresentatives were deleted. Then when Template:1970-1979VogueCovers, Template:1980-1989VogueCovers, Template:1990-1999VogueCovers & Template:2000-2009VogueCovers were deleted. And finally when the recent user space pages were deleted. I doubt that there is a consistent rate of deleted files, but rather a few spikes, mostly in template space when I was learning what was a good contribution there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There may well be "spikes", but I noted that there were instances going back to 2006 and for every year since. It is still a lot of deleted contribs. As for being able to review them, I do not know how an editor can review their own deleted contribs - I have been a sysop too long and my non sysop account (User:LHvU) has no deleted edits (and very few otherwise). Perhaps a non admin can address this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Obviously, I am going to have a high rate of deletions. I am probably the only editor on wikipedia who has created 100s of reviewed class (GA, FA) articles from scratch without doing the same type of article over and over again. I am constantly testing the fringes of notability with every article creation. Most article space deletions will be from having ventured to the borders of WP:N with my article creations. You will note that I have several GAs of articles that had been AFDed and such. I contest the borders and sometimes my borderline contribution result in early articles for NBA basketball players like Manny Harris and sometimes they end up in deletions. Someone who polices Barack Obama, fights vandals, or perfects the art of creating virtually the same article over and over again will not have high deletions like me. These deletions are basically unrelated to WP:FS and should not be used to determine this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is a project to produce a free encyclopedia, and not an exercise in determining what the base level for notability - or to alter that standard by production of marginal subjects (especially with a relative high level of failure; surely only a small percentage of the other 140K of edits can only be to such content). One of the major tools of content creation is WP:Consensus, where by both discussion and action one determines what the criteria for inclusion is - and once it has been established ensure that contributions are compliant. It is recognised that sometimes there will be mistakes or re-assesments, and that consensus may change. However, it is apparent from both your editing history and your comments here that you either do not care for or are unable to comply with consensus and notability, and nor do you think you should. That is your choice, but it means that those who do work to those standards need not have to endure your disruptive presence. As this appears, per your comments above, to be your standard operating procedure, I continue to support those who wish to continue to act within the expected norms - which in this case are those involved in the Featured Sound process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support this POINT violation makes me beleive that TTT is unable to work well at FS. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per LHvU. Doesn't appear to get it. Noting that I'd prefer a time-limited ban as opposed to an indefinite ban. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per LHvU. I really wish it didn't have to come to this :S —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:59am • 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - A topic ban seems excessive, considering so many of his nominations have already suceeded. This needs a topic RfC or to be take to the talk page and ironed out by all parties, not a topic ban on a highly productive editor. Night Ranger (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I see you aren't very familiar with TTT's edits, it's true he's a generally productive editor. However, a majority of his edits are counter-productive and arguments ensue in every featured process he's been involved with (including the now defunct Valued Pictures process), I'd hoped this would not be the case at FS but in the last 2 months his nomination reasons have been shorter and shorter, his first few FS nominations were fantastic, now he merely uses a useless, unhelpful statement such as "meets all the FS criteria", without going to explain how it meets the criteria and his own reason for nominating (which would be personalised, of course). —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:07pm • 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think there is a broader problem - Tony's interest seems to have shifted from building good content to collecting scout badges which is rather missing the point of wikipedia and is consuming the time and goodwill of other editors. However, this proposal is a good start, and I hope TTT will tweak their priorities a little in future, as TTT seems to have done lots of good content work in the past and I look forward to more of that, both from TTT and from the other people whose time has been wasted... bobrayner (talk)
• Oppose, his nominations have a 79% pass rate, I'd hardly call that spamming FS with material that does not belong there. I mean, can we get some evidence of attempts to actually resolve this without a topic ban please? I looked at his user talk page and it seems the only feedback he has ever gotten about his work at FS (on his talk page) is a barnstar.... jorgenev 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • His pass rate has nothing to do with it. Numerous people have commented that he has abused numerous featured processes, and if you look at WP:FSC now, you can see several flops. His pass rate is high because we didn't have a clear policy on videos, we didn't have a clear policy on length, and we enjoyed, before we found out about the caveats, the enthusiasm he was bringing to the project. Most of his current FSes will be put up for delisting in the near future, because most of them are around an hour long and a good deal of them have quality issues. This is not to say specificly that he is being targeted, as many current FSes are in need of being delisted, but a good number of his will be among them, and that will drop his percentage considerably. Both of the active FS directors, a former FS director, and several people in several other featured processes are all saying that TTT is highly problematic. Looking at it just on numbers drastically understates the amount of damage that TTT has caused. As for the evidence, it is at WT:FSC, the archives of that page, and in the nominations themselves. There is a cumulative affect from the IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the battleground behaviors that is very easy to pick up on, and for lack of a better term, extremely grating over the period of time that he has been at FS. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed

Over fifty graphs of TonyTheTiger's poker winnings were recently deleted in one day at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1. The conversation at one specific nomination, this specific nomination|this one, illuminates that TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable. Among the items not deleted are two images of the letter T in his signature, a check paid out to him, and a tee shirt he made himself. They are available for viewing at his biography page User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon. He's begun requesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here, and it may be necessary to start a similar proposal there,Edit: Someone else made the move-to-commons requests. however in the mean time, unless he is ordered to stop, I have serious doubts that he will.

• Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, definitely. Still thinking about the proposed topic ban for FS. Unfortunately, I don't see signs that TTT is understanding the problem. Tony (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Not only that, but a good chunk of this user's userspace was recently purged in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template. MER-C 11:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• THIS TOPIC BAN IS BASED ON A LIE BY SVEN MANGUARD THERE EXIST NO DIFFS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS ON WP OR COMMONS (1) ME INSISTING I WAS NOTABLE (2) ABOUT ANY REQUEST TO MOVE FILES TO COMMONS BECAUSE I KNOW I DID NOT MAKE ANY Come on Sven have some class. What other lies are you willing to tell to make a WP:POINT?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to have to Support the ban proposal. Sorry, because TonyTheTiger is clearly a long-standing contributor with a great track record. But I've looked at all that poker stuff - the images and the masses of personal bio material recently deleted - and it has to stop. He just isn't notable, and this isn't a web host - he needs to take all that stuff someplace else and stop trying to use Wikipedia for material about himself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment- I believe the title of this and the preceeding section should win the top 2 prizes for the most unintentionally hilarious discussion page topic headings in Wikipedia history. If you don't understand what I mean, read the two section headings while pretending you are a non-registered, first-time Wikipedia editor looking at ANI for the very first time. No offense Tony. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • At least they're fit for family viewing (you might say they're G-rate!), which is more than I can say for some of our notable subjects' self-images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Isn't a ban suppose to occur after a warning. I was never given any indication that my image uploads were inappropriate. I have not uploaded any since the FfD. What gives with a ban?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support that much vanity content is painful --Guerillero | My Talk 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately, this seems to be needed. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• This makes no sense. I have been participating in XfD for 5 years and never violated a consensus decision. Why would someone say something like this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Fully support Topic Ban - amongst many other reasons the screaming all-capps bold hysterical response from a tiger in a corner above is self evident that Tony's passion is far from acceptable in this arena - indeed maybe Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:01am • 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Completely not involved, but having had a look at his vanity piece, I kind of want to put my eyes out. --Blackmane (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems to be quickly devolving into a huge pile-on. What's next, he's banned from having pictures of tigers on his userpage? He appears to have stopped uploading images and says he has not opposed any kind of consensus at xfd, so I don't see the need for a ban (which I wouldn't necessarily call a topic ban anyway, but I digress). Night Ranger (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Pedro says it well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, he has not continued has he? It seems like editors with some personal dislike of the user are trying to pile as many topic bans on him as possible here. jorgenev 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • First of all, I don't have an underlying dislike for this editor. I think that if he focused more of his energy on improving content and less of it on self-aggrandizement, if he put in the work to earn all the stars he displays on his userpage, that he'd be one of Wikipedia's best assets. Unfortunately, TTT categorically refuses to accept that he is not notable. He has, by now, gone through several discussions where that message has been made clear, most recently the 52 templates and 50something graphs that went through deletion discussions. With this editor's track record on the matter, I do not believe that temporarily stopping is in any way indicative of future behavior. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban of Sven Manguard on discussions involving user TonyTheTiger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not going to happen per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Because Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) resorts to lies in discussions about me, I would prefer not to have to deal with a liar in my WP interactions. At his topic ban initiation you will note that he resorts to lies and does not use diffs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)

1. Lie number 1 "He's begun rewuesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here"
   1. I do not recall requesting that any files be moved to commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      1. He's right there. I admit, on this small point, I got it wrong. Sfan00 IMG put the requests in on the letter and the check, and I'm not sure who moved the ones already in commons over. I can stand by the rest of my argument though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Lie number 2 "TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable"
   1. Why would he make arguments that I am claiming notability. Note that in the arguments he points to I state "I am not arguing notability"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

      You may not be arguing notability, but by trying to host masses of biog stuff about yourself, you're *acting* as though you're notable (or that you think Wikipedia is a free web host) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems to be a ploy to silence sven. You tout your passing percentage but you fail to mention that most of those files passed by a slim margin due to the fact things pass with a 2/3 majority (including the nominator). If you would look at my closing statements they reflect this. For the moving files to commons this link should be helpful. File at commons The file was moved to commons after the local version was deleted at FfD. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• This link? Jarkeld (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be the one --Guerillero | My Talk 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Neither of those is a diff supporting a claim that I have been requesting moves to commons. None of these opposes presents any evidence against the statement of fact that Sven Manguard is a liar.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is just petty retaliation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just silly. TCO (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sven should be proud that all his admin friends think the fact that he is a liar is silly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose if you don't want to deal with Sven Manguard, you don't have to. no one is forced to contribute to Wikipedia. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note - It might be helpful if the "accused" admin would post a diff or two to refute the editor's claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reversal of fortune Don't propose things that are obviously not going to fly. I propose topic banning TTT instead. Jtrainor (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is absurd-- since it's also unsigned, I can't tell who put it up, but it's disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger did, at this diff. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  Um, and also, it is signed... GiantSnowman 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Tiger troll. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Can everyone calm down a little and look at this objectively?

I don't know Tony but from a look at his edits, he appears to be one of the most significant content contributors I've come across. I've read through this and while I see some indications Tony should (1) stop and attempt to form consensus and (2) stop uploading unhelpful files in violation of NOTWEBHOST, I also see no reason to institute topic bans and I certainly see no reason to use comments like "tiger troll" as someone did in Tony's proposal. This is looking like a huge gang-up and it's really not on. Night Ranger (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. TTT has shown consistently over the span of a few months that he is unable to work at featured content processes without turning it into a "look at my featured contributions"-like flood, many editors who have dealt with this across the different processes clearly feel this goes beyond simply FS and this needs to stop, hence the community ban request which is wholly justified. StrPby (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that these topic bans are in fact the best thing for the project. The comments by J Milburn and Strange Passerby, among others both at this thread and elsewhere, indicate that TTT has done this type of thing before. Chances are moderately high that if he continues this behavior at another featured process, the next topic ban proposal will be for all featured processes on Wikipedia, and will have significant support. I, however, chose not to go for that extreme. Also, I was tempted to suggest that TTT be topic banned from creating any page related to himself, be it a subpage, file, or template, after the combination of his 50+ poker templates and his 50+ poker graphs. He's been told repeatedly that he is not notable, and has used, to an appalling level of excess. Again I chose not to go for that extreme, and again I can easily see the community deciding to go for that in the future. This isn't pleasant, I didn't do this for giggles, but I also didn't do this on raw emotion and I believe that I was being objective when I made the proposals. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Night Ranger, I see you've been editing en.Wiki for a few months and have 134 edits; apparently you haven't had the pleasure of dealing with TTT's aim to use Wikipedia to promote ... himself. Your analysis is mistaken. I suggest that any featured content process should enact a clause similar to the one we had to enact at FAC to end the abuse endured there (and I noticed that TTT moved on to disrupting DYK in his quest to win WikiCup, and then to Featured Sounds in his ongoing quest to promote himself, which he admitted at TFA/R) ... FAC's solution to the TTT problem was a rule change:

If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, my account here is new but I've been on Commons since 2007 and have edited here as an IP for a few years as well. You're right, I'm not very familiar with Tony, but from the standpoint of someone who is totally uninvolved and sees someone who has made a great deal of content-based contributions to Wikipedia, it just seems a shame that this has been taken to this level. There has to be a better way to deal with this than topic bans. Maybe not, I dunno. I do know we need more content contributors, not fewer. Night Ranger (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy's and Sven's comments are dead-on. As at FAC, TTT's activity at DYK was the direct impetus for a rule change requiring nominators to conduct reviews on a 1-for-1 basis. cmadler (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't know what you are saying I admitted to. During the 2010 WP:CUP, I happened to be out of town at my grandmother's deathbed trying to edit without a regular connection and I ended up causing a lot of problems at DYK. Then, at WP:FSC, there seems to be a bunch of lies being cast about by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) that I am nominating any old crap, when 80% of my stuff has been passing. Clearly, I never got in tune with FP, but Sven is insistent on categorizing my FS contributions as if they have not been successful and huffing and puffing about how it is just like all other situations. For any featured content review process, 80% pass rate is pretty good. At FAC and FPC, I don't have great pass rates, but at FSC, and FLC, I do. At FLC my last 8 in a row have passed if my records are correct and at FSC, 44 of my last 56. Don't generalize to all featured content processes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your FAC pass rate is what it is because you get other people to pull your articles through-- they almost all appeared at FAC ill-prepared, and you continued to bring them ill-prepared until the TonyTheTiger Clause was added to the instructions. I was referring to your typical self-serving statement, once you realized Featured Lists and Featured Sounds would be on the main page, that "Damn. I have to learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing." After that, you went straight to Amazing Grace and tried to insert sounds just so you could get them featured. It's always all about you all the time. Please stop calling Sven a liar-- that's a personal attack and you should be blocked for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A liar is a person who tell multiple untruths. He has admitted to one regarding whether I have requested materials be moved to commons. Most people would say claiming I nominate wantonly with low-quality nominees at FSC is far from the truth since 44 of my last 56 have passed. He has said I have claimed to be notable when I have stated the opposite. This ban discussion has basically gone down the path of Sven posting lies, me showing they are untrue and people piling on saying that even though the things are not actually true you have a bad attitude and have been a problem in a whole bunch of other ways. How would you like me to sugarcoat this ban nomination. It is a string of untruths put together to instigate a lynch mob of people willing to ban a person from posting images against an XfD when the person at issue has never violated an XfDs in five years on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when I was on my grandmothers death bed, I worked offline and dumped dozens of articles into the DYK process for the CUP causing people to question why I was not using my normal editorial routine (wondering if I was dumping my own work) and creating debates about whether the numerous hooks should be merged as well as causing consternation about why I was not reviewing articles as fast as I was nominating them. At FAC, I'd have to check, but I think about 4 of my last 5 passed. So the complaint you are griping about is from years ago. I have only been nominating with co-authored work of late to keep problems to a minimum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. WRT, Amazing Grace, now that I have nominated 75 FSC, I understand what sound reviewers think improves/degrades articles (as evidenced by my 80% pass rate) and believe the two files that I want to add belong in the article. However, the main editor does not want to talk about the merits of the files and continues to WP:OWN the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My condolences, but please stop throwing numbers around, they're irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that you've been asked to stop and your methods have, in fact, been questioned and you aren't confirming or denying this. You continue to update your biography despite the very fact you aren't notable, while you are thanked for your contributions you seem to be promoting yourself and your work on Wikipedia albeit liberally (your consistant calling up of how many FSes you've made in your comments in this ANI thread are just some of these examples).

Wikipedia isn't a world stage or WordPress, it's an encyclopedia. All userspace frippery is not helping build an encyclopedia but rather starting unnecessary arguments such as this, I'm sure you know full-well you aren't notable and I'm sure you know full-well no one cares if you're successful or unsuccessful in your poker ventures. Sure you've contributed a lot of content, but showing it off and going around and waving the number of featured content you've nominated/contributed to in arguments in an attempt to coerce others to agree with you seems like you're trying to get the upper-hand, so what if you have good "pass rates", you're starting arguments left, right and centre. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:08pm • 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you are condoning me for following your suggestion. Aren't you the one who said to go count my recent nominations. I went straight to WP:FSL at your suggestion {"look through all of your recent 20 nominations"). Now, that you realize your suggestion makes you look bad, you try and say to ignore the numbers. I don't know if 56 files is exactly 20 nominations, but those are approximately the most recent twenty to have been evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Proof once more

... that handing out achievement badges results in people disrupting the project for the sake of their trophy pages. It's high time we codified that FA / FS / DYK / WikiCup et cetera are strictly intended to make contributing here a little more fun and that editors who take them too seriously will be asked not to participate in them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd wonder whether instituting regular discussions to whether to ban particular editors on the less than clear-cut question of how inappropriately seriously they are taking the processes would end up causing a lot more drama than the status quo. Thinking of the cases of Ottava Rima, Matisse etc. Skomorokh 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that it takes less effort to ban one from, say, DYK than it would to ban them from the whole project. But the point was simply to state up front that we consider these things to be strictly informal games meant to aid the building of the project, such as to dissuade people from treating them like an end to themselves. That way, there would hopefully be less drama when it comes to asking people to voluntarily stop participating in star-collection. I've been meaning to write Wikipedia:You are not your barnstars for ages now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

_delurk A person's motivation for contributing is unimportant. What matters is the end result: does it result in a net improvement to the encyclopedia? Somorokh makes a good point that the informal approach has advantages. Trinket collection is a positive except when it morphs into gaming a process, and usually that self-manages. The drawbacks to formalizing 'don't take it too seriously' is that it shifts attention from project mission to qualitative judgment of the editor, and that type of shift generates conflict. In this discussion (re: the main thread), the basic problem is that one editor who does not take feedback well has nominated a very large number of 'freebies'. Roughly that is like the difference between putting an article through an automated spell check versus manually editing it. Although it does help the project to convert files to .ogg format, it also creates problems when an editor frequently submits nominations that may take more time to review than to nominate. Two approaches have resolved that in the past: reviewers decline to evaluate and/or editors enter informal agreements to shift focus toward submissions where their own efforts have a greater role. In this instance an individual's response became combative after other editors called a break to revise the featuring criteria. New essays aren't needed: WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT already apply. The current friction would be substantially less if an editor had built up a trophy collection of several dozen FS stars by recording cicadas--especially if they created new articles for the cicada species. There's a wide open niche at FS to parallel FP's bird and bug photographers. The difference between conflict and productivity is a willingness to take feedback and step outside the box. Durova⁴¹² 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) _relurk

Notzrim

Could someone take a look at what is happening here please? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute that will probably get somebody blocked shortly if they don't start discussing the issue on the talk page. TNXMan 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mephistophelian for advising to ANI.

Other editors, I should point out that the same content problems (modern academic sources vs a medieval rabbinical tract) are showing up over several articles: Apart from Notzrim, there is Toledoth Yeshu the source, Salome Alexandra, Nazarene (sect), Nazarene (title) and Knanaya, although I'm not sure that that last has any direct relevance to the medieval tract Toledoth Yeshu. The invitation to discuss the issue is on Talk:Notzrim which seems (?) to be the focal point. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Took a look back in after meal... It gets better, along with continuing, and WP:3RR edits, and along with "Mariolater" "bully" "childish", I am now a "Nazi", per change log on Birkat haMinim, and that in the same breath as deleting references here, latest. This is apparently a content dispute of some kind, but one where no sources are forthcoming. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call you a Nazi. I suggested that the ideas you are promoting is from Nazi propaganda (not being a Jew you wouldn't be aware of how such things end up in some people getting contusions to the skull inside a Polish prison cell even in the 21st century). Revert wars are childish (although they seem to have stopped now). And you had been bullying me, although it also seems to have stopped now. As for Mariolaters I have no idea where you got the idea that I called you that.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You compared the other editor to a Nazi; dancing around with "I didn't call you a Nazi, I just said you acted like one" won't fly here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 The "Mariolaters" was an edit over "Christian" on one of the pages you've been editing, I forget which one. In regard to another Nazi comment, "how do you know she's not a Nazi". This book review makes it fairly clear that source' Susan Weingarten (who is actually the translator from Hebrew) http://www.mohr.de/en/nc/jewish-studies/series/detail/buch/birkat-haminim.html is not a "Nazi," but the translator of a mainstream Israeli scholar. Whatever. I do not know enough about Knanaya Messianic-Jewish Christians in India to know whether your edits are coming from that standpoint. If they are please find sources from your church, and add them as sources to the articles. In the meantime you have to desist from deleting and altering content based on academic sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins. If anyone has any suggestions? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this admins, it gets better, now the page has collected another anon IP 212.219.231.1 making edits based on the blog of a micro Messianic Jewish-Christian group (or individual) netzarim.co.il. How should WP:3RR work with dealing with continual deletion of mainstream academic references by more than one anon IP?

Unfortunately anything on the Judaism/Christianity interface tends to attract anon IP edits, but Wikipedia shouldn't be overflow for blog edits of this sort. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Some of the damage restored, new academic refs added... restored lede as per Oxford Hebrew Dictionary (= Notzrim is the Hebrew word for Christian, Nazarene) and pretty quickly a new third anon IP with no edit history appears 149.254.61.35 to remove references, and press for the view of this medieval tract Toledot Yeshu that "Nazarenes/Christians" were a Samaritan group from the days of Jeremiah. No sources.

I realise it's a marginal article, but would be appreciated if some Admin help/comment was forthcoming? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Randy in Boise problem on the ISS page

Resolved

 – Content dispute combined with severe misunderstanding, all sides apparently professing themselves satisfied. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to edit the ISS page today, correcting misleading statements on the brighness and adding some extra clarifications, but I ended up in an edit war. Despite explaining things on the talk page, I didn't make much progress, because someone thinks that the website of some planetarium is a reliable source. Because I can't get people to actually think, instead of mindlessly regurgitating what some source says, I'll stop editing there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Diff explaining my point in more detail. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have revoked RadioFan's Twinkle access because of edit summaries like this. NW (Talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both Count Iblis [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and RadioFan [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] disregarded the 3RR rule in that article. The concurrent discussion on the article's talk page appeared to be progressing, but does not justify Count Iblis' revert warring with edit summaries of "per talk". Both editors should have known better. Thus, to correct the behavior, I suggest at least a 24-hour block for each. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also, for Count Iblis to call RadioFan a "Randy in Boise" could be considered a personal attack, and it appears that he did not notify RadioFan of this thread after he opened it. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "personal attack", even if Count Iblis had explicitly named the target of his "Randy in Boise" insinuation, which he did not in fact do. Nevertheless, I can't see how insinuating that he is an expert while his opponents in the discussion are "uninformed but relentless" ignoramuses—even if it's true—is likely to do anything other than further inflame the dispute.

It's not clear to me what further administrator intervention is called for, but I have now notified RadioFan and Penyulap of this discussion anyway.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a newbie editor, I've been working very hard to update the ISS page, and I understand what both these men have been going through, poor examples have been set on that page in the recent past. I'd asked for arbitration to deal with a problem person not involved with this incident, someone who was refusing to discuss anything, making life impossible, both the edit page and the summary have been setting a bad example as a result. In this small dispute, certainly there have been textbook issues on both sides, but this incident is water under the bridge in 5 minutes because both of these guys are mature and articulate enough to work together, here to edit, and their help is desperately required !! At the moment, both these editors are most of the workforce, and I look forward to working with both of them in the future. They don't come to Wiki to lose time in arguing, they both come here to contribute to making the articles better. Seriously, tomorrow we'll all be back at it working better together, and I really look forward to it. Penyulap _talk 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone involved here forgot to assume good faith, myself included. This got way out of hand really quickly and I know I was wrong in labeling this issue as vandalism. There are 2 issues here though, the edit war and the subsequent involvement by NW and John directed at me.

It got really ugly when I attempted, in good faith, to discuss the reverts and my labeling them as vandalism with NW and John. Neither seems to have seen that as a good faith discussion as both took increasingly more drastic steps in removing privileges from my account. First twinkle then rollbacker then reviewer then a couple more that I saw stream by last night. Each of those was removed not because of further abuse of any of those tools or interaction with Count Iblis or anyone else involved in the ISS article, but happend as I asked a question of John or NW about their interpretation of the situation and wikipedia guidelines on vandalism. John stopped short of a ban and left a note on my talk page explaining that this was an edit war, and doesn't fit the definition of vandalism and that good faith must be assumed for an established editor, and he's absolutely right. It's hard not to see the stripping of tools as punitive not for the edit war and resulting 3RR violation but instead for questioning these admins. Say you are sorry and this all goes away is empty and meaningless and isn't a good way to handle this in my opinion, understand where you went wrong and then say you are sorry is far more productive. John and NW didn't see it that way and forgot to assume good faith themselves along the way. I also get the Randy in Boise reference and can see it as a personal attack, but it's obviously retaliatory for being wrongly called a vandal so let's call it even and move it.

As for the article and the content in question. Count Iblis was trying to improve the article but forgot WP:V in the process. Well referenced material from 2 well respected sources (see the talk page for details) was removed by Count Iblis because the information was "obviously wrong" in his words. Attempts to come to better understand Iblis's issue with the material were met with more vague pronouncements of it being "wrong". Overnight Iblis left this this note on my talk page explaining that he can only show that material in question is "wrong" by"giving a thermodynamics course ". This "because I'm right and you are wrong" approach doesn't fit very well here, especially when challenging edits which are clearly within WP:V. Iblis has a history of tangling with other editors over technical topics and even makes the pronouncement that his failed proposal on editing technical topics is considered policy by him. Hard not to see this as anything but entering into editing and interaction with other editors in bad faith.

I was wrong in my treatment of this as vandalism, it's an edit war that got out of control, pure and simple. Count Iblis is an experienced editor who is obviously knowledgable in physics topics but his agressive approach to editing, insistence that he may set policy and apparent frequent involvement in arbitrations (judging from his talk page) as well as topic bans is an issue that needs to be addressed here as well.--RadioFan (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful in relating the content of other editors' comments. Count Iblis did not say in the note to your talk page which you cited that he could 'only show that material in question is "wrong" by giving a thermodynamics course.' That statement was very clearly referring to material in a completely unrelated dispute about entropy which Count Iblis says he was engaged in two years ago.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No but Count Iblis did call the material "wrong" multiple times on the talk page. Didn't think I needed to provide specific diffs there since it's the subject of this AIN and is readily available.--RadioFan (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see my twinkle and rollback privileges are back this morning. Not sure which editor did this but I appreciate the gesture and will do my best to use these tools and privileges more wisely in the future--RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, I don't think you needed to provide any other diffs, but I also can't see that there's anything in what I wrote to suggest that you did, so I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you thought it necessary to make that observation.

The "material" which Count Iblis appears to me to have been claiming to be "wrong" is the assertion that the International Space Station has an "apparent magnitude of -6", which originally appeared in the article. Since you later corrected this to read "a maximum apparent magnitude of -5.9" the rightness or wrongness of the original assertion should no longer be an issue. I can't find any statement by Count Iblis in which he characterises the latter corrected version of this assertion as "wrong", but he clearly believes it is misleading, and seems to me to have given very cogent and convincing reasons for that opinion, none of which you appear to have made any attempt to address.

Count Iblis has indicated that mentioning the figure of -6 for the estimated maximum brightness of the Space Station would be acceptable to him, provided his concerns were to be allayed by the addition of some further clarifying explanation. I therefore can't see that there's any insurmountable obstacle to your working out a mutually acceptable wording for the disputed text on the talk page. What you cannot reasonably do is continue to insist that your preferred version of the article is fine as it is without at least providing a convincing rebuttal to the points Count Iblis has raised on the talk page.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:V should not be used to defend obviously mistaken statements simply because some "reliable sources" make that statement. Arguments why there is an issue on the talk page cannot be dismissed just because you claim that the sources are high quality sources, without seriously engaging in the argument. This is exactly a "Randy in Boise" situation which makes editing the article on that point to correct the error, impossible.

RadioFan, like the two other editors in previous cases (on Entropy and Special Relativity some years ago) is i.m.o. too much attached to a particular phrase in a particular source (ISS being magnitude -6 makes it the brightest object after the Sun and Moon). The issue with this is that in reality the ISS is approximately -4 when it is overhead, and there is huge difference between it being -6 or -4. In the later case its possible, but quite difficult to spot it during broad daylight conditions, while in the former case, it would be so bright that you could easily see it at Noon. And sources will point out that spotting the ISS during Noon is indeed a tour de force.

There are many sources that give the ISS passes with the magnitude and they list the brightness when it is near the Zenith as approximately -4 and not -6 (different sources give different values, some say its -3.8, others give -4.5 for the brighness, so simply saying that its approximately -4 is the right thing to do). Then we can also find out where the -6 figure comes from, its the theoretical brightness computed in some way under assumptions that in practice never arise (and that can be found in sources too).

But all this information form the sources can all be dismissed when arguing on the basis of Wiki policies only (they are all websites, so they are unreliable sources) and then you can still stick to the -6, because the Hayden Planetarium says so, and that is a reliable source, period :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've still got to point back to the first sentence of WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "obviously wrong" is not verifiable. This may be frustrating at times, but it's how we prevent chaos like this. The material in question is specific to maximum brightness but Count Iblis is talking specifical about observed brightness, which are very different things. I think it's pretty clear in the article that the -5.9 figure is a maximum for comparison purposes. I agree that this can be clarified so that readers can make sense of it in relation to what they see on various websites as the predicted brightness for their area. Removing this maximum figure doesn't make sense to me as the purpose of the section is to talk about how big and bright this object is and not compare it to other objects. If there are issues with the accuracy of the -5.9 maximum, a reliable source refuting this would help here. Sources that mention other numbers dont cut it because they aren't specifically talking about a maximum for this object, they are talking about the observed magnitude for that particular pass at that particular location.--RadioFan (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion seems to have transitioned into a content dispute, which would be better suited to the article Discussion page, or if it can't be settled by consensus there, through dispute resolution. Given the fairly amiable and constructive tones of the participants, this non-admin doesn't see a need for any admin to take action (that hasn't already been taken, anyway). May I humbly suggest moving this off ANI and back to the Discussion page? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd like to point out that my bad memory needs to take a lot of the responsibility for this. When I originally wrote the piece with -6 in it, I had done exhaustive research first. But my efforts to update the first paragraph have been frustrated, whereas anything further down the page is met with acceptance (in depth readers seem to accept changes because of their in depth knowledge while cursory readers make cursory changes to the first paragraph limit of their reading ? I'm unsure. Btw Neither of these editors are anything but in depth researchers.) My original additions to the First paragraph have been trampled underfoot and lost, I don't have a clue where half the stuff is, and things missing there need adding to other sections now, anyhow. My point is, when I went looking for 'why -6' I could not recall, and began looking for it all over again, posting up parts of the trail that led to the final conclusion which i could not find. Count, you were too fast editing the main page. I know you did give me time to find the references, and I have to apologize to you for being unable to do so because of my bad memory, I am sorry for that and the immense trouble it has caused. Eventually I did as I had originally done, stumbled in on the Magnitude page, and that ended all further research. Sometimes, if I want to quote a wikipage as a source, I put 'see also Magnitude' at he end of the statement, which lasts about 6.35 minutes on average before the next editor moves, deletes or otherwise vanishes it away, I'm hopelessly green here. My efforts to describe what I am doing in the talkpage have resulted in pages upon pages of talking to myself, with no comments or consensus reached. Even the major contributor to the page, i think an administrator, won't talk to me. He'll just leave a lot of my work alone, re-arrange other parts in a manner that defies my analysis, and leaves without a word. I'm lucky to get an edit summary from him.

I really wish I could get help going through section by section of the cleanup I was doing, get feedback, editing and then consensus, and a shred of protection against un-discussed changes. If Count Iblis leaves, I'm back to square one. If RadioFan and Count Iblis leaves, I'm out the door, because what is the point ? all the hard work in the world is pointless when my recent problems (I won't mention and therefore have to draw that person here) highlight that a non-cooperative effort at editing isn't going to work and will end in frustration and despair. Only 3 editors have half a chance to fix this page, against the onslaught of cursory editing that occurs. See the international space station#Media section I added, and you'll see what a problem editors armed with legitimate referenced sources can do to the page, I put that section up there temporarily just to abbreviate my explanation to each of the expected taxi rank of next editors. Anyhow, I type too much and waste everyone's time waffling on, but I had no choice except to apologize for my poor memory to those involved. Penyulap _talk 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Alan, sorry. (wondering if I didn't see your message because it took 3 hours to type all that, probably not) Penyulap _talk 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

edit war at the vandalism board!

has the world gone mad? Noformation and Archiveman2011 are edit warring at the AIV board!! archives keeps trying to remove noformations reports and is trying to apologise for something--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll handle this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks, lol your name is upside down! XD--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I have been waiting for an admin to deal with this for a while now but it's managed to slip through the cracks. I'm really surprised ClueBot doesn't catch a user removing an AIV against himself as vandalism N^oformation ^Talk 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't Edit warring be at the WP:AN3 noticeboard? (Just wondering, since I see why it would apply here too, just seems a bit out of place) + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

probably should have filed there, but there are bigger problems, archiveman is trying to apologise to Noformation for something and if you look throug his contributions he has got upset over something--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's technically edit warring, but that's not really what's happening here; it's pretty clear to me from his edits that Archiveman2011 is not being malicious and is just a little clueless. A quick warning to not aimlessly revert everything should sort out the situation. If he keeps reverting then I'll block him. The report's not really in the wrong place. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

upside down user name is making me nauseous, are you Jake Tucker from family guy or just Australian? XD just kidding your signature is cool--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like Family Guy, and I'm definitely the right way around (since I'm English and live in rainy Manchester). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, why was this user warned again and not banned? He's been harassing me with apologies (sounds odd, I know, but it's annoying), removed multiple CSD templates from a page that he wanted to keep as "an archive" because the original was getting deleted, is possibly a second account of User:Liam20112011, made personal attacks against my intelligence, said "fuck administrators" on his userpage and vandalized a WP admin board. I've seen people get banned for much less. On top of that, his communication skills are so poor that it's unlikely he would be able to contribute to an English language encyclopedia. Please reconsider? N^oformation ^Talk 09:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd block him for the 'F*@£ administrators bit alone' if I could--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, per your comment I have all four of this person's accounts (Archiveman2011, Joshuaending, Liam20112011, and Elmo2001) since it is clear that he has been logging out to vandalise and then back in to edit. This, combined with the behaviour on the Archiveman2011 account, has demonstrated that this person is not clueless but is in fact malicious. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Is there somewhere where I can bring up users being able to remove their own AIVs? Cluebot talkpage? N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good place to start. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have created Abusefilter 419 to deal with this issue. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Block review: Suckafree420

Resolved

User unblocked, doesn't want to change name. Mjroots (talk)

• Suckafree420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suckafree420 was blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account by Courcelles (talk · contribs), and has requested to be unblocked. As reviewer of this request, I do not believe that their edits are vandalism, and I also don't share Courcelles's concerns that the username is so inappropriate (as a reference to oral sex or as an incitement to cannabis consumption) that it warrants an immediate indefinite block. As such, I believe that the block is not needed. Because I believe that it would be uncollegial and disruptive to unilaterally unblock an account against the wish of the blocking admin, I am referring the unblock request to the community for further discussion.  Sandstein  09:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My instincts tell me that this user is not as innocent as they claim to be; I suspect that their edits and username were carefully chosen to be borderline. In short, I'm not going to be much help to you since I find myself incapable of either supporting or objecting to this block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Their first edit added unreferenced negative info to a biography. The second edit again introduced unreferenced info to an article, which could possibly be seen as negative info. The third edit removed referenced info from an article. AGF that this is a new editor, and that the intent was not vandalism, I can see both sides of the coin here. Re the third edit, the editor claims in their appeal that the source may fail WP:RS, which is something that needs to be examined to see whether the claim is correct or not. Re the username, I'd say that it doesn't warrent a block, but the editor should be encouraged to change to a slightly more appropriate name. I would support a unblock as none of the three edits were outright vandalism deliberately intended as such. Looks like this editor has had a bit of a bitey intro to Wikipedia. Hopefully we haven't scared them away. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• A "new" user creates a borderline username, then adds BLP vios, claiming a source that's nowhere close to WP:RS? Combine the name with the edits, I would have been under the belief that this editor was only here to disrupt the project, so in my mind, the initial block was necessary. If the editor is willing to show a true understanding of both WP:RS and WP:BLP (plus a little nudge towards a new username) then I will be personally willing to unblock - of course, I had intended to say this when I reviewed their unblock this morning! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The person at issue in the first edit, Rodney Dangerfield, is no longer living. The blocking admin overlooked this as well (see their talk page). The other edits do not concern living persons. I agree that the edit was poor with respect to WP:CITE and WP:RS, but that warrants a warning at most, not an indefinite block as a vandal.  Sandstein  11:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps it does not violate the letter of BLP, but does it violate its spirit? I would say it does; although Mr Dangerfield is unlikely to be offended, he only passed away 7 years ago and he may well have relatives who could be negatively affected by, for example, libellous entries in his biography. Of course I'm not saying that this user's edits were libel but I think the spirit of BLP should (or perhaps even does) apply here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's kinda my point: there were others with names implicated in Mr "I don't get no respect"'s purported actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the username, the phrase "Suckafree" is possibly in reference to Suckafree Sundays, which was a program on MTV showing hip-hop videos and commentary. -- Atama頭 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I get no respect, I tell ya! When I got my adminship, all I got was a broken delete button and a plastic toy banhammer! –MuZemike 21:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The user has not, so far, explained his/her choice of username. Might it be helful if they were encouraged to do so? The edits, taken in isolation, are not blockable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor has explained their username (it meant what I suspected it meant) and understand that they should use sources in the future. Given their explanations it's clear that the edits, while not great, weren't intended to harm the encyclopedia and so a vandalism block isn't appropriate. I can understand what led Courcelles to believe that it was vandalism so I don't criticize the initial block. -- Atama頭 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is that the block should be lifted, but the username has to go. I'll communicate this to the editor. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a few comments that the edits combined with name might have made the contributions look bad. I don't see any consensus that the name has to go, and I've seen no explanation about what part of the username policy it actually violates. Lift the block and warn them about using edit summaries to explain their edits. Suggest that a username change might help with how seriously other users might take them, but don't force it on them. --Onorem♠Dil 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have made it clearer in my last post here that I already unblocked Suckafree420. I don't have an opinion on the name, to me it's borderline. -- Atama頭 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Dangerfield's extensive use of (medical) marijuana was well known and he made no secret of it, as is reflected in the biography. We need to be careful about mis-labeling edits as "negative" when they simply reflect self-admitted issues.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• note - the users unblock request has been reviewed and accepted by User:Atama - diff - so this is pretty much resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The user doesn't want to change their user name, and it's not that bad that we can force the issue. Therefore, this issue is now resolved.

thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckafree420 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: The editor's next two edits were to Origin of AIDS, where they inserted information not supported by the source, and List of British fascist parties where they removed sourced material without explanation or an edit summary. I certainly hope that the editors who assumed good faith and worked to unblock the editor will also be, at least in the short-term, monitoring Suckafree420's edits to ensure they are indeed here to contribute positively and collaboratively. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to say that I was coming here to point out the same thing. This doesn't look like constructive editing, particularly the deletion of sourced material. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, heroin users....yes, it was called the 4H disease in the early stages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckafree420 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't. → ROUX ₪ 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this thread after removing some original research from Origin of AIDS and checking the user's contributions. There is a degree of quackitude to consider, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Forget the quackitude, there's a degree of 'we got played.' Reblock, permanently, and ignore. → ROUX ₪ 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

quackitude? In 1982, a year after AIDS had first been diagnosed but not yet named in a cluster of homosexual American men in Los Angeles, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, reported that a group of recent immigrants from Haiti had the strange opportunistic infections and immune problems that characterized the disease. Fears rose with reports of similar immune deficiencies among Haitians who still lived in that country. Soon, the mysterious ailment was being referred to as “the 4H disease,” as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5786/470.2.full.pdf

that link is #19 on the AIDS entry on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckafree420 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, Science is a pretty reliable source. -- Atama頭 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Motaros

So this user has a history of jumping between accounts. The user was blocked while using User:M4pnt, but was then unblocked with the promise of only using one account. After a while the user moved on to User:Mtlv0 anyway, saying that he forgot the password to the old account. Fair enough. The user was blocked, then explained this and subsequently unblocked. During the time this account was blocked, however, the user made a new one: User:C0un+5.

So this user not only moved to a new account yet again, but also did it while the old account was still blocked. What is going on is not only account jumping despite being told not to several accounts back, but also socking.

The history of old accounts can be found here. Nymf _hideliho! 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As the user who started the second SPI regarding this user, I feel I should comment. This is becoming a problem. This user generally ignores Wikipedia policy, or takes a very long time to accept it. They refuse to take the time to read policies linked to them, requiring another user (lately, me) to quote, paraphrase, and so on. Even then they will start editing properly on some articles, while continuing their non-policy-based edits on other articles. Although they claim that they won't keep creating new accounts and moving on, they do so anyway (especially in this case, where they were blocked for a couple days, and immediately went on to create a new account). I think both Nymf and I have put in more than a reasonable effort in trying to help this editor improve their editing, but it's come to a point where the effort isn't yielding the necessary results.

I hate to say it, but this user just isn't interested in becoming a better editor, and is becoming more and more of a disruption. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whip out the hammer, whack the mother****** and deposit him directly into /dev/null! No Miranda warning, enough of the three-strikes-you're-out shit; first offense, BAM, into /dev/null you go! —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bumped as it just got archived. Any administrator around willing to deal with this user? Nymf _hideliho! 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The quick suggestion would be to run an SPI on Motaros (sockmaster) and Mtlv0 and C0un+5 noting that Mtlv0 was confirmed as a sock of a sock (M4pnt) and request a CU. If that supports the above (likely) the blocking admin should tag all of them so an unblock review has all the info. - J Greb (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mtlv0 and M4pnt are both confirmed socks. C0un+5 is a WP:DUCK, but I'll go ahead and report that one as well. Nymf _hideliho! 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's up. Nymf _hideliho! 06:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Followup on earlier thread

At the end of May, TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) pledged to undergo an WP:Editor review, which is now open at Wikipedia:Editor review/TreasuryTag.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that it would be vaguely polite for someone to notify me that my editor-review was being subjected to unusual publicity at ANI, but perhaps that's just me... ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 11:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A, that's not "unusual publicity", considering that it was on ANI that you made the commitment to open it, and B, make up your mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that notifying editors who are the subject of an ANI thread was obligatory. Although it is possible I made a mistake. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I please encourage people to participate in this ER, but before doing so, please read the thread on TT's talk page? Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange new users with same profile.

As I am doing new user patrol I have noticed strange new users created with same profile in last several days.[28] Can any admin look at this matter?--Shrike (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My first thought was students in a class, but not with the identical profile these folks have. Maybe you need to open an SPI. LadyofShalott 20:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the default wording on the userpage step for the new signup process. I don't remember where it was announced...can't find it atm on any of the noticeboards I usually watch. I'm guessing it was archived with little discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm back to my first thought with evidence now: User:MTHarden/SU11-Assignment. They signed up through the account creation improvement process. LadyofShalott 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's just some of them. I think Onorem has the real answer. I'm going to shut up now. LadyofShalott 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed because not everyone like biology or snakes--Shrike (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At least some of them actually say "replace the example text below with information about yourself" (or something close to that). So there is nothing malicious here... we just discovered a flaw in the ACIP current testing. LadyofShalott 20:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, but then I saw this: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hannibal/draft/2, which is the boilerplate default for userpage creation when nobody changes anything in that text box. As a result, we now have several hundred, if not thousand users who apparently speak both English and French, are interested in biology and in particular snakes, and who listen to a lot of music in their off-time. It is a little irksome in that regard alone, not to mention making it harder to detect disruptive accounts. Unfortunately, until a better alternative can be set up, we need to AGF on each of the accounts until Wikimedia Outreach's Account Creation Program can be better refined. –MuZemike 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not really the ACP's fault—people just don't understand what "replace this text" means. Perhaps changing the relevant javascript used for that pre-loaded stuff can block the default text, but maybe not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Outreach or not, I'd like to see this disabled. Redlinked userpages are a valuable clue when scanning recent changes for trouble, and I don't really want to have to click all the unfamiliar editor names to see if they are herpetologists.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Let editors create their own userpages. At least a red link is better than a default user page with inaccurate information. -- Atama頭 22:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me a little while to figure out why we had a sudden influx of bilingual herpetologists joining. It makes it harder to monitor accounts that look like they could be role accounts, because they sometimes add their spam on the second edit now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Being followed/stalked by two editors

I have created several pages on here, and these two people, user:Reaper Eternal and user:ConcernedVancouverite marked them with deletion, and were quickly declined because they did not justify the right criteria. These pages were redirects to Wiktionary (Groan, Wiseass, etc.). Then, user:ConcernedVancouverite marked 4 pages I have created many months ago, which I believe are notable and deserve their own articles. The page NuTone is clearly a notable, big company that needs page expansion and more sources. But should not be deleted. They have not been marked for deletion before, I don't think its a a coincidence. I am currently finding additional sources and encouraging others to help out as well. Tinton5 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Reaper Eternal CSDed two of your articles while on New Page Patrol. Whereas it appears that ConcernedVancouverite CSDed one of the articles created by you on the 12th of May, and then today PRODed 3 articles and AfDed 1 article created by you. ConcernedVancouverite may have come across an article created by you that he felt did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and nominated it. It is likely that he also checked to see if any other articles you created failed to meet the guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For added clarity, as noted in my reply directly to the editor who raised this issue in this diff [29], "I have explained the rationale for all proposed deletions on the individual pages. Generally subjects need to be notable as documented in reliable secondary sources to have articles on Wikipedia. For those that are not, and for which I can not find evidence of such reliable sources, I propose deletion and explain it as such on each proposal." As I imagine the user may be aware, they are free to remove a PROD if they disagree with it, as long as they address the concern. Also as noted by the admin whom the editor contacted to request assistance on this here [30], "...it might be a good idea to open up a wider debate and/or confirmation that we want essentially empty articles pointing to Wiktionary." (which was one of the speedy deletes I proposed as an A3, which was declined). The other deletions I have proposed were not related to this issue, they were based upon lack of reliable source coverage to establish notability as noted here [31] or lack of any notability claims at all as noted here [32]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion request on a few of the articles. Tinton5 asked me to restore others that were created as redirects/references to Wiktionary, and I suggested bringing it to ANI for more input. Before I go restoring what might be a bunch of pages, I wanted to make sure there was consensus that these pages are okay. In one sense, they could technically be deleted per A3 if you only go by the criterion as written, but we have hundreds of such pages and they seem to provide some value (more than a redlink at least). I suggested an ANI discussion, because on the one hand a lot of people watch this page, and on the other hand there are pages to either be deleted or restored which will require admins to do it. -- Atama頭 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that these "Wiktionary redirect" pages are appropriate for Wikipedia because they are essentially just external links or interwiki links, hence falling under criteria A3. Additionally, many of these pages (like Wisecracker and Wiseass) seem unlikely to ever amount to anything more than a dictionary definition and thus require deletion by PROD or AFD. If, however, consensus is that these pages are appropriate, I will abide by the community's decision. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) (Stricken, per Moonriddengirl below)

(non-admin comment) As a Wikipedian in general, I am all for inclusion, but as a new page patrolman I get incredibly frustrated at A. The amount of BS pages that I have to tag for deletion, and B. The amount of BS pages I know wouldn't pass an AFD but can't be speedied. With that said, I'm actually on board with Tinton's Wikiquote redirect pages. If they don't redirect to Wikiquote I can pretty much guarantee some newbie who doesn't understand/care about WP policies will create that page with something like "A wiseass is someone who makes sarcastic comments." And it will be deleted, and recreated, and deleted, and recreated, and maybe eventually salted. At least this way we keep the place clean and don't have to deal with the "discussion" side of things, nor the constant deletions. N^oformation ^Talk 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm to Wiktionary. Is someone wants a simple definition, off to Wiktionary on your own. Delete redirects to Wiktionary on sight. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• That would seem to necessitate altering Wikipedia:Soft redirect and perhaps WP:CSD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, hadn't seen that page before, so I strike my comment on them being subject to A3 deletion. However, I don't think we should go around creating hordes of these pages that will never turn into anything. Like BWilkins said, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm for Wiktionary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection of a user's talk page

User:J3Mrs is being harassed by an IP over a dispute about the historical boundaries of Lancashire. The IP is absolutely in the wrong and has hinted at threats of physical violence. I'm asking for J3mrs's talk page to be semi-protected. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Malleus. I've put semi-protection on his talk page for a week, nobody should ever have to put up with this. If this needs to be extended, you or J3Mrs can drop a note on my talk page. -- Atama頭 23:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll keep a weather eye on that IP...it's a /20 range, which is going to be a bit of a headache, but not impossible, and it'll be good practice for a couple of upcoming interviews. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Atama, and to you Alan. What makes this worse is that J3Mrs is a woman, and we need as many of them as we can get, not scare them away. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have known from the username that he was a she, my apologies for the unintentional gender assumption in my earlier note. It's probably due to the fact that yes, we have far too great a male to female ratio on Wikipedia (I'm usually more careful than that). -- Atama頭 00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of equity, I'd like to be referred to as "Mrs. Drmies". Thank you. In other news, this IP just came off a six-months block, and immediately picks up where they left off on Metropolitan Borough of Bolton. Moreover, J3Mrs told them to stop posting on their talk page, and the IP did so twice more. Given the content of their edits, I have no faith whatsoever in their intent to contribute positively, and they seemed to have learned nothing since being blocked for being "unable to edit collaboratively", as Floquenbeam put it. To cut a long story short, I am going to reapply Floquenbeam's block. If any of you admins think that's going too far and you want to give them more slack, that's fine, but I see no reason to give them more hope to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to thank you all, especially MF. By the way I don't edit as a woman when I come to wikipedia and don't expect any special treatment but I do appreciate protection from this pov pusher.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Drmies, I concur with your reasoning and support your block. -- Atama頭 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of TW anti-vandalism tool

Resolved

 – Twinkle user warned to be careful of what button they're hitting. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit beside being disruptive edit warring constitutes a personal attack as well as abuse of the Twinkle tool. At minimum the editor should be harshly warned against such behavior in future. I recommend to revoke this user's rights to use the Twinkle tool. (Igny (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

I hit the wrong button bu mistake, a shame IGNY has not mentioned I self reverted immediatly upon realizing me error. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor did Igny mention his/her edit summary prior to that, "undo disruptive WP:POINT edit",diff which is hardly an example of collegiality and assuming good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re which is hardly an example of collegiality and assuming good faith. That is because I am not assuming good faith of The Last Angry Man. (Igny (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

I completely agree with Igny here, on both counts. First, that The Last Angry Man should be harshly warned against such behavior, so here it is. Try not to accidentally click the wrong button please, thank you. It was in bold text, so I hope that was harsh enough. Secondly, that Igny wasn't assuming good faith (as should have been done), that was also true. Are we done then? -- Atama頭 00:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering his self-revert (which I haven't noticed until after I placed this report), I agree that this warning is enough. I no longer recommend to revoke his TW rights unless he makes this "mistake" again. (Igny (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

Just to clarify summary of this diff. I generally do not like when an editor who has just got reverted] by me starts stalking my recent edits to other articles looking for what he can revert to make a point. (Igny (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

... and just to clarify, WP:BOOMERANG. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bio about me keeps accumulating demeaning and Defaming material

Trevor Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I am Professor Trevor Marshall, the subject of a BLP which was created in 2006 or 2007 (I didn't take much notice at the time). It survived a notability deletion attempt in Dec 2007. But every few months a WP editor comes by and defaces the Bio by adding material which, in total, make me look like a scientific cretin. On 1 June a discussion ensued on Ronsword:Talk between two editors about the validity of the Science contained in our many peer-reviewed articles. In particular, editor WLU said "if you're looking for counter-sources and criticisms of these types of articles, the blogs at sciencebasedmedicine.org .." On 9 June an article from sciencebased medicine.org duly appeared on the BLP about me, posted by WLU, and therefore presumably intended to defame. Here is the total diff of the changes made by WLU on that day. The defamation by editor WLU was executed in at least the following ways:

1. My academic affiliation was removed, all mention that I was a Professor at a recognized university. It is still missing from my Infobox

2. My profession was changed to "an Australian engineer" while for the last decade I have been notable for my work in Translational Medicine

3. A blog from sciencebasedmedicine.org was cited, apparently with intent to demean or defame

I raised a flag for adminhelp on the bio talk page, and admin Atama kindly dropped by on 10 June. I continued to try and discuss with WLU the problems on the discussion page, but was getting nowhere, so I raised the issue on the BLP:Noticeboard. You can see from WLU's recent post to that noticeboard that his intent seems uncompromising (here is the diff). His edits continually citing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which are patently not applicable when so many peer-reviewer opinions and prestigious conference presentations exist. Records of the conference presentations of myself and my colleagues are archived at the Foundation's non-profit YouTube channel. Yet WLU even dismisses a Journal review of my keynote alongside Nobel Laureate Avram Hershko.

WLU has expressed his motivation for defaming my character and my achievements at my own Trevmar talk page earlier today. As you can see from this diff he is promoting the concept that our work

1. "isn't "medicine", it's speculative research that hasn't been subjected to a randomized, controlled trial. Your interpretations of the human genome/metagenome and vitamin D are not mainstream. Possibly yet, possibly never."

I spent many hours trying to explain our science and our achievements to WLU on the Talk page, to no avail. He apparently believes that it is his responsibility to expose "junk science" even when he apparently has no comprehension of its complexities. Our last two peer-reviewed publications have been an article in a Nature.com journal, and our invited chapter on Autoimmune disease in the new Springer textbook edited by Karen Nelson, operational head of JCVI.org, arguably the most prestigious genomic research institution in the world. The introduction to the book was written by no less than J.Craig Venter himself. WLU wrote off both papers as being "unreliable". Any impartial observer would disagree. Yet WLU has continued to insist on edits which denigrated my character and my works. Further, his presence and his interference in every discussion has had a chilling effect on the other editors who have visited the page to offer their help, for example, this diff

WLU is clearly in no position to assess the many peer reviewed papers. He says he hasn't bothered to look at the records of the many mainstream scientific conferences that I attend every month or two. He doesn't care that I am frequently invited to chair session at these conferences. Prima facie, he seems to have a reckless intent to defame, he certainly is doing that.

Sadly, WLU's actions potentially harm Wikipedia. That he is absolutely wrong is easily proven. That his negative editing over the years has done harm is also provable. Additionally, I suspect that editor Ronsword may have a conflict of interest when editing, or colluding to edit, any bio in my name. However, I am assuming that Ronsword will revert to a low profile once an admin starts to take an interest in stopping this defamation.

I still hope that the situation can be resolved by discussion between the editors, but the two posts by WLU, which I diffed above, seem make that likelihood remote, particularly this one.

Can WLU be banned from editing the bio? He continues to insist on making changes to edits of other editors, and the sum of all those edits is apparently to ensure that I look more and more like a fringe scientific cretin. I am sure that lawyers would have a better description of it, but I hope you understand why I am concerned about having to waste so much of my time every few months dealing with educating yet another editor who has wandered by the bio. Maybe WLU could be locked out, the bio made NPOV, and protected, I don't know? What options are available to a Wikipedia admin?

As for sending out ANI-notices, I am a scientist, not an editor. Just putting the links into this post were a challenge for me. Can somebody please help me with sending out those notices?? .. Trevmar (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I will let the users know. notified - User:WLU - I have a degree of sympathy for this issue, the reporter, I assume good faith and from their well meaning comments is the subject of the article struggling with wiki process and attempting to provide support for positions and content that is being editing at his BLP. Recently an anti fringe position has been edited into the article. I also note that Trevor has been adding admin help templates at BLPN and the article talkpage and to my understanding has so far received no admin assistance. The subject is being edited to appear as a quack - there is as I have seen a lot of medical students here editing aggressively against anyone who appears alternative. Could we perhaps allow the subject the respect of deleting his blp so that he is no longer attacked via the project. We really need to discuss and support allowing living subjects to opt out if they feel they are being attacked and misrepresented through their articles here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• I am uninvolved. I am also ignorant of the subject area. I read what's above with considerable sympathy: nobody should be portrayed as a charlatan (let alone a cretin) unless he really is one, and Trevmar doesn't sound at all like one. But then I read more closely; and the more I read, the more I doubt that Marshall is being portrayed as a charlatan. Further, I do not see any intent to demean or defame Marshall, or to demean his work. To my (uneducated) mind, there can be a difference between an (a) interesting, publishable, even promising theory of disease, and (b) medical treatment acknowledged as efficacious. And to say that (a) is not (b) is not necessarily to demean the former, let alone to defame its proponents. Now, even if I'm right so far, it's imaginable that WLU has been axe-grinding, and that WLU should lay off. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoary, I agree with most of what you are saying. But have you not not seen the bio at its worst, before my intervention on 9 June, after all mention of my academic affiliation had been stripped off (for example)? I primarily want to make sure that WLU does not come back and do this again, as he has in previous years. Or indeed, another 'WLU', intent on 'jousting with the bad guys'.. Trevmar (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're talking. This version again does not paint TM as a charlatan, but it does seem to harp on the negative. Two examples: (i) the positioning in the introduction of the material The MP has not been tested in a randomized clinical trial and is not officially recognized as a treatment for any disease. [...] (incidentally raising the question of what officialdom might mean here), and (ii) in 1988 [he] founded the California-based graphics and printing company YARC Systems which went into bankruptcy in 2001; if just about all that can be said about it is that it went bankrupt (a common fate of companies), why bother? ¶ Well, let's see what others say. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and since Yarc Systems was a publicly traded company for several years before it went into bankruptcy, and I no longer had effective control, and a decade has passed since the event, the citation of the bankruptcy is extremely unusual in a personal bio.. Trevmar (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit strange, yes. I'll drop a note on the talk page about its relevance, and if nothing is forthcoming I'll remove it in the next couple of days.

What this article probably needs more of, Trevmar, is eyes. I've watchlisted it, and I encourage a few other uninvolved editors/admins/space gophers to do the same. We'll get this sorted to everyone's mutual satisfaction, probably, though it's likely going to take a little while. In the meantime, feel free to drop me an email at lifebaka@gmail.com if there's anything you'd like me to explain about Wikipedia; I'm always happy to help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Lifebaka, I have sometimes felt so alone these past few days. Like I was talking to a brick wall. More eyes would have helped, although WLU seemed to pick a difference (I will refrain from imputing 'an argument') with every editor who tried to help. The main problem which remains is the quote from Dr Crislip, who never contacted me before he wrote the blog, never sent me a draft for comments (a usual professional courtesy) and failed to correct the errors after he was notified of them. I have left a list of secondary sources which should outweigh his opinions. Thanks for giving me your email address, mine is trevor@trevormarshall.com, perhaps you could whitelist it.. Trevmar (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we do not give undue weight to theories that have absolutely no confirmation in real peer-reviewed journals. Just because this guy has a real life and has "published" one article on this "theory" does not mean that BLP stops us from providing the huge amount of real science (say Germ Theory, but I could go on) that stands in opposition to this. Fringe theories are fringe theories because they stand outside of real science. John Edwards (not the politician, the guy who thinks he can speak to the dead) is subject to BLP, but that doesn't mean we can't show that his bullshit is bullshit. Same here. Until such time that "Doctor" Marshall, who has no training or education in a real natural science (electrical engineering is applied science which means...not real science. And if everyone is going to get all upset about BLP, read up on AIDS denialists like Lynn Margulis. She discovered one of the great ideas in evolution, endosymbiosis. But she thinks that AIDS is caused by syphilis. So, her BLP gets to show that she doesn't know what she's talking about. I don't know if "Dr" Marshall is a well-intentioned, a crook, or has some insight into germ theory that changes our whole idea about the universe (and I doubt that), but these ideas are fringe until significantly published in real science journals. And yes, sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so no one researching this is indicative of how badly this is dismissed by real scientists. The article does not demean "Dr." Marshall, it doesn't say he's a fool or an idiot. It merely states what is available as reliable sources, and there are none. If real science comes about, then we'll change our mind. But seriously, the logical fallacy of his claims are amusing at best, and harmful to patients at worst. Very harmful. If he's wrong, and based on the science, I'm almost certain he is, he should be ashamed at the harm he'll cause humans. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, again, will you please stop editorializing and using profanity? If you can't edit science, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and medical topics with some degree of objectivity and decorum, then you need to stay away. Seriously. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask admins to watch and if OrangeMarlin keeps making unsourced edits like this or this to a BLP, that he be blocked. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Those may sound contentious but they are hardly worthy of a block and they are likely correct statements. N^oformation ^Talk 04:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And Cla68, you've made a personal attack based on.....bullshit. So, unless you have reliable sources that say it is real science, please show it. I know you can't, because I already checked. Now, if you can tell me how to post a reliable source that says "there are no reliable sources", I'll be glad to do it. Otherwise, retract your personal attacks. They are getting boring. I know, my Asperger's Syndrome must be going full blast. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I've read through the last few revisions and I'm not exactly sure that the defamation claim holds any water. As OM elucidated above, this person's work is on the fringe, is in opposition to mainstream science and hasn't been clinically tested, so those are clearly things that have to be mentioned if we want the reader to walk away with objective information. It would be a disservice to the readers to let them believe that these ideas have credibility within the scientific community. That is not to say that the ideas are wrong, just not credible and not tested and thusly not science, yet, or never.
2. I'm more concerned about the WP:BOOMERANG bringing a WP:COI back to Trevmar. Should he really be involved with this article? After reading his complaint I've come to the conclusion that the article is negative but doesn't violate any NPOV critera, and yet the subject is upset that it doesn't reflect his POV. I understand this, as if there were an article about me I can think of a few things that would be in there that I might not want, however, this is irrelevant to the encyclopedia.
3. One thing I don't get is why his status as a professor was removed, if he is in fact a professor then I can't think of why this wouldn't be included in the article. I did not read more than 4 diffs from the current so if this was explained I have not seen it.
4. Regarding the profession change, I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that this was changed to reflect the subject's background as an electrical engineer since he does not have a degree that relates to the field he is discussing. This change may well be inappropriate.

N^oformation ^Talk 04:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find some clinical case series and case histories from the clinical validation in the Nature.com journal. Our work is 100% in line with mainstream. The new textbook book edited by Karen Nelson of JCVI.org, about as main stream as you can get, with the first chapter by J. Craig Venter himself, can be viewed at Amazon.com. Chapter 1 is worth browsing, as is the chapter we wrote, chapter 12.. Trevmar (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doctor, I have no doubt that microbes have the potential to play roles in dozens of areas we never thought possible (hence why I'm studying microbiology!). Correct me if I misread your biography, but the statements relating to your work being fringe are not in relation to microbial pathology in regards to autoimmunity, but to the so-called Marshall Protocol, which as of yet is certainly not mainstream science. Also, I have not read your Nature article yet (I will, it looks fun), but does it publish your recommendations for treatment or is it about the potential pathology in general? If my assessment is incorrect, I apologize. N^oformation ^Talk 05:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Our resaerch over the last decade has been open-published, whenever possible. Our collaborative study used both traditional meetings and telephones, as well as a study website. The actual therapy is described by third parties in some of the secondary sources I listed on the bio TALK page, variations have been around since 2002, although it has been changing as the science underlying the pathogenesis became clearer. There is a Wiki which acts as the repository for the current practical Knowledge Base, that wiki is at MPKB.org and no, I don't maintain it. Our collaborating clinical centers and some of my colleagues look after that Wiki. As for mainstream acceptance, I did post the review of the keynote of Nobel Laureate Avram Hershko at WCG-2008, and also of my keynote on the same stage, albeit following his :) You can find it here. I posted many more good secondary sources on the bio TALK page. And although Wikipedia apparently doesn't consider YouTube as a source, you will find video recordings of most of the (mainstream) conference presentations from my colleagues and myself in the Foundation's archive here. Yes, I know it looks like self publishing, so listen to the question and answer sessions at the end of each presentation, and see what real scientists and physicians are saying :) .. Trevmar (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to insist that for the tone of the article to change, the published science has to change. I just read through the talk page and briefly checked your secondary sources but found them unsatisfactory to present what is still clearly fringe as mainstream or even semi-established science. I think WLU gave you a lot of good reasons why your sourcing was not satisfactory. I'm also going to insist that this discussion be closed and moved to the bio talk page. There is clearly no need of admin intervention here. This is a content dispute and no BLP violations have occurred in my estimation. N^oformation ^Talk 05:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The list of trivia you just posted, seems to distract attention away from the very serious WP:BLP concerns that Cla68 just mentioned right above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I organized my response into numbered points makes it easy to read, not trivial. I responded to Cla68 above; those statements are likely true. Jimbo himself just edited OM's additions to the article and found it fit only to remove the comment regarding the germ theory of disease, saying that it needed a source, but he did not remove the rest. They are not BLP violations if they accurately reflect published science. N^oformation ^Talk 04:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noformation. Remember Cla68 is just mad at me all the time, and has a 4 year hard on about me. He even accused me of having Asperger's Syndrome. I tend to ignore his personal attacks, he's kind of obsessive about me. Back on topic, I read over Jimbo's changes (I'm still shocked he edits these kind of articles), and although I completely disagree with his one change, it's kind of a throwaway. As to Demiurge, "Doctor" Marshall is pushing a Fringe theory. Sorry for hurting his feelings about it, but he completely lacks any supportive sources. NONE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Per MastCell on the BLP talk page, [33] because of sourcing problems, I would agree that the BLP be deleted or replaced by a stub. There is no wikipedia article on Marshall Protocol, just a redirect to the BLP. MastCell has indicated that this proposed treatment and the theory behind it have not been discussed at length in mainstream medical reviews (or none have so far been cited in the BLP). It is inappropriate to have a detailed dissussion of this topic in a wikipedia BLP unless independent reliable sources like that can be found. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. While every biography on Wikipedia must avoid unsourced negative material and other BLP violations, there is no requirement that we devote space to explaining all of the views of their subjects. Sometimes it's best to stick to listing biographical events instead of trying to describe theories, especially when secondary sources are unavailable. Unusual medical claims, even those in biographies, need to be presented with care.   Will Beback  talk  —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

I've removed[34] all information about the Marshall Protocol from the article to ensure that both BLP and neutrality are upheld. Chester Markel (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the last sentence in the lede, since "Marshall's hypothesis" refers to the Marshall Protocol. That sentence could just be removed. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed that sentence from the lede. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: (i) Remember Cla68 is just mad at me all the time, and has a 4 year hard on about me: Please spare us commentary on other editors' procreative organs. (ii) "Doctor" Marshall: putting "Doctor" (or similar) in quotation marks effectively lumps the person together with "Dr" Gillian McKeith -- or, as Ben Goldacre neatly describes her, "Gillian McKeith – or to give her full medical title, 'Gillian McKeith'". Goldacre can write this because he has already laid the groundwork for it, and because he's doing so in a newspaper column and a book. However, this, you'll remember, is neither but is instead a dry and neutral encyclopedia. So let's avoid innuendo. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I replaced the info about YARC just because it was there and the content is rather sparse; I have no issue with noting he's a professor, once a source turned up for that I didn't remove it again (same reason I removed the point that he has a daughter - no source); I think there should be some info about the Marshall protocol, even if it's one sentence, because that's really what he's known for. But the lack of attention in third-party sources is crippling. So far I've found one brief mention from 2007 and a letter to the editor, both critical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that editor WLU continues to edit the bio, and that his/her edits continue to convey a negative opinion of our reputation and our works, and that they continue to contain factual inaccuracies. I have added to the talk page a citation showing that the US FDA has reviewed the Marshall Protocol, at the request of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, has provided two orphan designations covering our longterm use of antibiotics for sarcoidosis, and has never raised any safety concerns.. Trevmar (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I further note that is seems to have been editor WLU who removed the FDA citation from the bio.. Trevmar (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Did the FDA express any opinion on the efficacy of the treatment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

An orphan designation is granted if the FDA assesses that a therapy has potential for efficacy in a disease.. Trevmar (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it:

Orphan designation qualifies the sponsor of the product for the tax credit and marketing incentives of the ODA. ... In order for a sponsor to obtain orphan designation for a drug or biological product, an application must be submitted to OOPD, and the designation approved. The approval of an application for orphan designation is based upon the information submitted by the sponsor. ... The approval of an orphan designation request does not alter the standard regulatory requirements and process for obtaining marketing approval. Safety and efficacy of a compound must be established through adequate and well-controlled studies.

I read that as basically a bureaucratic rubber-stamp of all properly submitted drugs, allowing for tax credits and marketing incentives, without regard to safety and efficacy, which still have to be established through the normal approval process. Given this, WLU was correct in deleting the statement from the article, as it was essentially misleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for some more information on this on the article talk page, to help clarify its relevance. Perhaps we could move further discussion of this sub-issue over there? MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I have the impression that orphan designation paperwork (which is about taxes and market exclusivity) is often completed before the standard drug approval. That is, you can know that if the drug is approved, it will have certain financial advantages, without knowing whether it will ever be approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To Noformation: It appears that Marshall's official job title is "adjunct professor". Although I have no information about the specific case, typically, this job title indicates a part-time, temporary teaching position with zero opportunity for tenure. Although I would report a current job title as being the current job title, even if it were "Grand High Poobah", it would not be entirely unreasonable for someone to interpret this as "not a 'real' professor", or to believe that a part-time, temporary job position was not the most important part of a person's career. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe one could just ask, instead of suggesting I might be a charlatan. That lack of concern about defamatory writings is, after all, why this incident was raised in the first place. Let me give you some other possibilities to think through. The position may have been offered as be an honor,maybe tenure is of no interest to somebody who is already notable? Do universities grant honorary adjunct positions, perhaps? In truth, there is a mix in this case, as I have some responsibility -- for supervising a graduate student, and representing the University at the many conferences I am invited to speak at, and chair sessions :) I hope that helps :) Trevmar (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet, you introduced yourself in this thread by writing "Hi, I am Professor Trevor Marshall," giving the impression that you are a full professor. An adjunct professor would normally write something like "Hi, I'm Trevor Marshall, adjunct professor at the School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences at Murdoch University in Western Australia." As with the FDA issue above, the choice of wording seems designed to mislead.

I'm not seeing a significant lack of balance in the article, but I do see a WP:BOOMERANG problem with your apparent difficulty in writing about yourself from a neutral point of view. I believe you should read closely our policies on editing with a conflict of interest and follow the instructions there, including not editing the article directly, instead making suggestions on its talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond_my_Ken, I have never edited the bio myself, I did revert some of the wholesale changes which were made on 9th July, that was to preserve the factual accuracy of the bio. So I am not sure why you addressed this comment to me. As for calling myself "Professor," If you listen to the archives of any of the professional conferences I speak at, I am introduced as "professor" and then, if the bio is read, I am described as an adjunct professor. there is no stigma attached to an adjunct position, and that seems universal, wherever in the world I travel. The conference presentation archives can be found here at the Foundation's non-profit YouTube channel .. Trevmar (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is editing. Please follow the directions at WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was carefully following the instructions in WP:BLP .. Trevmar (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yotemordis and AfD

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

---

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

User:Yotemordis is a newly created account whose first action was to nominate an article for deletion. Since then this user has been nominating articles for deletion at a rate of about one per six minutes; in any case faster than I can keep up to see if the nominations are justified. Needless to say, in many cases they are not. I don't know what this means, but I don't have a good feeling about it, and the phrase block evasion comes to mind. Perhaps someone recognizes the pattern?  --Lambiam 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I did it wrong but If I think it should be deleted shouldn't it?Yotemordis (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think over half of the pages Yotemordis has proposed should not be deleted (possibly all, I haven't checked). I think they should stop proposing pages for deletion until they understand the criteria better, and spend much more time on trying to improve pages before deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as the same user:

• Thisbites (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yotemordis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Whydyougoanddothat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All accounts have been indefinitely blocked, including the sockmaster Thisbites, who has already had an extensive block log and numerous blocks for vandalism and disruption.  IP blocked. –MuZemike 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that at least this AfD nomination has some merit and should not be shut down only because it was started by that sock. De728631 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And I've just punched every one of his noms except that one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. De728631 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Issues with The New Angel

The New Angel (talk · contribs) has been uploading a series of non-free character images and generally doing nothing else with them. The same editor has also been creating a series of articles on non-notable characters from a single series, reverting all attempts to merge the individual characters and fictional groups into a singular character list under different IP address, all originating from Argentina.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Because of this, the articles end up going to AfD as a result. The editor seems to have no interest in following Wikipedia's guidelines and even attempted to revert the outcome of one particular AfD, resulting in the redirect being protected.[43][44] The editor has also restored trivia and excessive amounts of non-free images that he/she adds to articles.[45][46][47][48] —Farix (t | c) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A few things...

• Have you compared notes with Fractyl (talk · contribs)? They had commented on the users talk page that some of the articles were copy-n-pastes from an unnamed Wikia. If so all the articles need to be reviewed to see what are copyvios and what aren't.
• Reverts of bold redirects kick the issue to discussion, not ANI. Check for copyvio, tag notability/plot/OR/etc, and possibly PROD (though IMO a reverted redirect would preclude PRODing as essentially a de-PROD) or AfD. Let those run their course.
• Has anyone bothered to point out or explain WP:NFCC and WP:NFC to the editor? That should be an immediat step if there are upload issues and NFC use problems. Not jumping to ANI.
• Images that are uploaded without a source for the file and the original image can, and should, be tagged with {{di-no source}}. And if there are a slew of them, try not to drown a new editor with reams of notification templates. Give them the basic problem and list the relevant files.
• Articles under an AfD can still be edited. Ideally this is to correct the issues that generated the AfD but it can go the other way. If the article is getting worse, it's short term and part of the process.
• If they are restoring redirects by AfD or removing maintenance tags, provide the warnings to them. Persisting in that would be something to bring to ANI.

Missed anything?

- J Greb (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami

In a surprisingly contentious AfD, User:Tothwolf has, I believe, crossed the line. There've been two incidents which stand out in my mind.

First, in the course of the debate, one of the posters launched what I believe to be an egregious personal attack against me. [49] I refactored it, and it promptly devolved into an edit war with Tothwolf, who reverted several times before ceasing.

That being settled, he turned his attention to the {{afdanons}} template. As a casual observer would notice, the AfD has been flooded with anon IPs, egged on by postings in multiple topics on a message board to do so [50] [51], making use of the template not merely appropriate but the very situation for which the template was created in the first place. Tothwolf removed the notice, it was reverted, he removed it again, and - apparently unaware it had been up before - User:Yworo put it up afresh, with the edit summary "surprised no one had added {{not a vote}} despite influx of !votes from forum."

That Tothwolf is strongly oriented towards saving this article is obvious from his postings, but while strong advocacy of one's position is quite acceptable, disruption is not. Thank you for any consideration you can offer to settling the situation down.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, as explained on User:Ravenswing's talk page [52] [53] I take exception to any editor removing someone else's comments, particularly while making false statements that they are "refactoring". [54] [55] [56] When I undid Ravenswing's removal of another editor's comments [57] I also linked to WP:TPO in the edit summary which itself states under "Removing harmful posts": "[...] This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

  I've also made it clear to Ravenswing [58] that mass-tagging good faith comments by others as {{spa}} which had !voted "keep" while specifically choosing not to tag similar !votes of "delete" from other anonymous editors is not helpful. This selective tagging of those whom disagreed with Ravenswing's position [59] makes it clear such mass-tagging was not done in good faith, and was instead done in an attempt to discredit and downplay good faith arguments and discussion from those with an opinion which differs from Ravenswing.

  In addition, Ravenswing has already made it clear that they will try to use anything they can to attack my character [60] [61] including by means of selective removals of material from a discussion thread on their own talk page: "Just not particularly interested." [62] "Still disinterested." [63] (and now, apparently even AN/I).

  Ravenswing, stop playing the victim. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't refactor, you removed, and Tothwolf was right to revert that. I don't care to look in to anything else, but I'm sure someone else will comment. Prodego ^talk 07:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: Yes, I indeed missed tagging the one Delete SPA voter ... but then again, I failed to tag a few Keep voters as well. As Tothwolf removed all those tags, his complaint is rather a moot point. "Refactor" has frequently been a synonym for "remove" on Wikipedia, but that being said, WP:NPA plainly states "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I believe the comment I removed was one, and the passage plainly does not prohibit doing so. Finally, the "selective removal" Tothwolf speaks of are his most recent comments on my own talk page, at the point where I judged that he wished to drag out a slanging match that had no apparent bearing on the AfD over which there is dispute or any other matter involving the editing of articles. As does any other editor, I enjoy the privilege of removing comments from my own talk page, especially when I believe they serve no purpose beyond harassment, and it should not have required a direct demand that he cease posting to my talk page. As it happens, he reverted one set of comments to my talk page, which is wildly inappropriate.

  As far as attacking Tothwolf's character goes, I reject the charge. Stating in a conversation on my own talk page that he was sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility is nothing more than a fact. If he does not wish that fact publicized, he should not highlight it at the top of his own talk page, without which I would not have seen it. Conflating a disinterest in reading over several links defending his conduct in that case into "doing anything I can to attack his character" is pretty far out there and, frankly, verging on paranoia.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring everything but the part about refactor since I must go, see wikt:refactor. Rewriting is the definition of refactor, nowhere on Wikipedia should refactor ever mean remove. Prodego ^talk 08:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just thought of this, but did you perhaps mean redact instead of refactor? There is actually a handy little template for this named {{nono}}. While I didn't undo your edit of the other editor's comments [64] perhaps you could redo your edit and use the {{nono}} template instead? --Tothwolf (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to be all tangential, folks, but WP:REFACTOR point #3 does indeed say "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material". Nevertheless, the context strongly suggests that the word Ravenswing was looking for was "redact" in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gah, that'd be right: "redact."  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

UK privacy injunctions and BLP

There is currently an ongoing discussion as to whether the David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn articles should contain information currently sealed by a superinjunction. The issue primarily comes down to one of notability. There are reliable sources, but there is disagreement on whether there is enough attention to satisfy the requirements for including negative information in a BLP article. This is a situation that may crop up with increasing regularity in the future, and I believe a discussion on how we should deal with superinjunctions and BLP articles is warranted. Polyquest (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't superinjunctions a British thing? If so, I don't think a site with a Florida-based server has to worry about it. So long as the editor putting it in is not a citizen of the United Kingdom themselves. I am no expert on those though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this information is true, and that the London tabloids have wanted to publish it for weeks. The problem for Wikipedia is that is covered by the injunction ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd and it would be contempt of court to publish it in England and Wales. This is exactly what happened with Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas in CTB v News Group Newspapers a few weeks ago. The Irish media has published the names, because Pauline McLynn is Irish and the injunction does not apply there. My views on this issue are at Talk:David_Threlfall#WP:BLP:_notable_or_not.3F. This type of situation is undoubtedly a headache for Wikipedia. The issue here, though, is not legal but BLP notability--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We aren't covered by the injunction - the servers aren't in the UK, nor is the organization, and neither US courts nor US law nor the Foundation nor the english language Wikipedia community are particularly inclined to comply with that aspect of UK legal affairs.

With that said, the question of whether the sources which did publish in Ireland meet our normal BLP reliable source standards is valid. Our rule is "verifiability, not truth" - we can verify that a source said something, and we can make a judgement that the source is reliable (by normal standards, or by BLP standards which are somewhat stricter). Even if it's (almost certainly) true, rumors and tabloids aren't good enough. They wouldn't be good enough on a celebrities childs' name, much less on an affair.

I recommend the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, they're used to trying to figure this kind of thing out. I am not familiar with the newspapers in this case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The names of the people are accurate, the Daily Mail could barely bother to hide them here by saying Shameless twice and working itself into a lather here, but the injunction was not granted by their favourite legal hate figure David Eady. The details of the affair would usually fail WP:BLP, but have become involved in the 2011 injunctions controversy. The publication of the names took place over a week ago, and if the lawyers for the two people named were going to hit the roof it would have happened by now. So far, complete silence has occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that the assertion that it would normally fail BLP notability; it's certainly something worth investigating more. That it is now tangled up in superinjunction geopolitics is indisputable, here as well as in real life.

BLP requires that negative living person biographical information have higher quality sources proportional to the negativity of the claims. If the subject of the article is notable enough for an article regardless of the alleged affair, then mention in the article (if properly reliably sourced) is not unheard of - many many other articles describe people's affairs or flings, especially where someone else's marriage or relationship ended due to one.

But the sources do have to be good, and it has to be notable enough. This should not be excluded due to the superinjunction, but that properly doesn't support including it either. It has to stand on its merits as relevance to the person and their life, quality of sources regarding the alledged affair, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is now a classic Catch-22 (logic) situation here: no notability without coverage, and no coverage without notability. The injunction has turned a routine piece of showbiz gossip into a cross border incident which can be reported in Ireland but not England. This is daft and has to be seen as one of the unacceptable consequences of this type of injunction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who went through hoops to get a section in the Ryan Giggs page on his order, I am not so sure that we have to be hyper-careful here, as long as it is clear that the page is covering the reporting of the alleged deed rather than passing off the deed as fact. for example "In Somemonth 20xx, xyz newspaper reported that person y was behind a gag order to protect details of an alleged affair with person z". VERTott 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The risk of defamation action on this is zero, but at the moment neither of the BLP articles gives the information. The names are in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy as there are no legal problems with publishing this information outside England and Wales. The Streisand effect has become involved once again, and made all of this look more notable than it actually is. Wikipedia is read all over the world, and most people are not itching to hear about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely we don't require British sources in order to include the information? So long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:BLP and the sources are reliable, the information can be included. As for whether the British superinjunction is valid anywhere but Britain, I'm going to go with "no". If we're wrong, Wikimedia has lawyers for a reason. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The situation has been simmering since 8 May 2011, when "Billy Jones" tweeted this along with the claim about Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas. The naming of Giggs on Twitter sparked legal action, but so far there has been no legal action over Threlfall/McLynn. One thing to bear in mind is that the Daily Mail is wetting its pants to publish the ETK names, and may say "Look, folks, they're on Wikipedia". No problem, as long as the names are reliably sourced. Unfortunately, the London courts need to move with the times and accept that this type of injunction is never going to work in the age of the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this material (of which I know nothing) noteworthy in the normal (Wikipedia-nonspecific) sense of the word? If it's about very minor celebs and the Mail is wetting its pants over it, I strongly suspect that it isn't noteworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mail has previously tried to use Wikipedia as an injunction-busting tool [65] and mentioned that ETK's name has been on Wikipedia here. So what? Since Pauline McLynn is Irish, this was always likely to happen. I don't know what they teach at English law schools these days, but it obviously isn't common sense. Injunctions like this are unenforceable outside England and Wales, as Ryan Giggs showed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is unenforceable, BLP is not wholly about not getting sued, and Wikipedia is not a proxy for the British gutter press. The sensible option is to wait it out until the injunction is either lifted or rendered invalid, at which point we can tell the whole story courtesy of reliable sources. It's bound to happen in the long run. The alternatives will lead to Wikipedia getting a tremendous amount of negative press over utterly trivial taboid gossip. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese Government denies the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and punishes those who report on it. Should we strike that from the project as well? Certainly this is a much different circumstance, but our criteria for inclusion should not depend on the outdated and unenforceable laws of any particular country. If it's worth putting in the article on its own merits, then we do so. WP:BLP is not about not getting sued, it's about not ruining people's lives and acting as a codifier of slander. The Brits can sue the Internet if they want to, but their laws have no bearing on Wikipedia. The only laws that matter are those that govern the territory where Wikipedia is hosted, and where the Wikimedia Foundation is registered. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend how you managed to accurately characterise BLP in your third-from-last sentence while missing it completely in every other part of your response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I only mentioned it in the third-to-last sentence. The rest of my response covers the question of whether we are legally obligated to adhere to British law. I say we aren't. Whether or not we choose to include the information should be determined by our standard procedures outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. You seem to think that BLP is the overriding issue, and I agree with you. Given, however, that the section is entitled "UK privacy injunctions and BLP", and that there are those arguing that we are beholden to the superinjunction, I felt it necessary to comment on it. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely infer that this is about two or more minor celebs, and about two people who aren't married to each other bonking. This sounds very trivial. If I'm wrong and there's a nontrivial aspect (if for example the gagging order itself merits coverage), then it's sure to get coverage somewhere credible, and then WP can write this up. Meanwhile, the Mail can continue wetting its pants. -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What is notably missing from this conversation is anyone taking either extreme position that we should not publish because of fear of the law, nor that we should publish just to stick it to them. I'm pleased to see that. Additionally, the overall theme of this discussion is - correctly - that our own quality editorial standards are what matter here. I don't know whether in this particular case a BLP threshold has been reached - that's dependent on the specific facts, which I have not studied in these cases, but I do know that ordinary routine BLP thoughtfulness is what should rule the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no assertion here that W should be subject to English law, and the repeated refutations suggest the issue is a straw man. Notability and reliability are addressed, maybe not resolved.--Egonb (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is rare for me to agree with the Mail, but it is a farce when something can be published in a newspaper in Dublin but not in London. This suggests that little has been learned from the Spycatcher affair in the 1980s. The extra-marital affairs of minor TV celebrities are not issues of state security, and should probably not be gagged. TMZ and Perez Hilton must be yawning over this non-issue. The only notable thing is the injunction itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the SPEECH Act of 2010 makes these injunctions basically worthless in the United States. -- Selket ^Talk 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of laws is a field of study unto itself and has much jurisprudence and case law. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't do any editing in the area of minor celebrities, and I haven't followed the story beyond reading about the British courts' attempts to silence it. I have no opinion on whether the information that is trying to be suppressed belongs in any of the relevant articles, but the superinjunctions themselves and their ineffectiveness could probably be included in articles such as Streisand Effect or Superinjunction. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue is a classic example of the Streisand effect. The alleged affairs are trivial, and of no interest to me (indeed, even after I heard the names of the alleged miscreants, I wondered who they were); but the attempt to suppress this, and even to suppress the information that this has been suppressed, guarantees increased coverage and interest and makes it significant. I have not the slightest interest in what two B-list celebrities get up to; but I do care that the rich are able to prevent the gutter press from discussing this, while most of us would not have the means to prevent such prurient intrusion into our private lives. And I wonder what else, of possibly greater public importance, has been suppressed. RolandR (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Interest in intrigue for intrigue's sake, regardless of the people involved, is precisely why tabloid rags make so much money from this sort of thing. Let it go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to follow them. This is not a scandal sheet. While the celebs involved are minor, they have their own articles and are therefore presumably notable; but their affair is not worthy of mention. Nor does the Streisand effect or Superinjunction justify mentioning it in those articles. The idea that its reportage (or not) is enough to make something notable has been rejected before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But the reporting and sources that mention a given piece of information are a primary part of how we are supposed to make an interpretation on whether something is notable. If there are reliable sources how can we toss aside its notability so easily, especially when the sources that are supposed to inform that decision have been distorted by government action. Polyquest (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

user 94.69.228.49

IP user 94.69.228.49 (talk · contribs) has been adding the category:History of Greece to pretty much any remotely Greece-related articles today. I pointed out that this was counter-productive and contrary to the relevant guidelines (which I pointed him to), and the only response was blanking the talk page and calling me names ([66] & [67]). The additions of the category by themselves are mostly harmless, but then he moved on to edits such as adding that Constantinople was renamed to Istanbul "only in Turkey" or removing the History of Albania category from Cleitus the Illyrian, Malësia, and other Albania-related articles and adding the History of Greece category to places like Category:Thraco-Illyrian. Incivility coupled with extreme nationalist POV and apparent trolling around with categories. Constantine ✍ 13:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop following them around for a bit, let me see if I can get anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest. Constantine ✍ 14:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't necessarily disagree with their edits. They just removed the History of Albania cat from the author credited with the first Albanian sonnet. Shakespeare doesn't have a History of England category. This needs to be discussed, not just reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Especially since Category:History of Albania states "This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, on some cases he/she may have some point. However, when I see someone adding "History of Greece" willy-nilly and the going around and removing "History of Albania" etc, I become suspicious whether they are motivated by accuracy or by other reasons. Especially if, instead of discussing, they throw a few swear words at you and blank their talk page. Constantine ✍ 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I tossed a {{uw-balkans}} in his direction for good measure.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done, but if this IP is who I think it is (have a look at the history of Zeibekiko) then that won't mean anything. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And anyhow, the solution is not to remove the category but to change it into a more relevant sub-category. Constantine ✍ 14:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what would you say the relevant subcat is for Kanun is, considering it already has Category:Albanian culture and Category:Albanian law? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would say that we could leave "History of Albania" here, since the Kanun has been a central aspect of Albanian identity through the centuries: it covers medieval, Ottoman and modern periods. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

--SarekOfVulcan we speak for the total sense someone has vandalised all this category  : history of Albania - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully, they'll take the feedback they've gotten on board when they return. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not likely: new IP address active in the same category: 188.4.19.18 (talk · contribs). And I think there's evidence for persistent sockpuppetry too: this new IP has an edit history at Hasapiko in what is a clear block-evasion after 79.130.92.92 (talk · contribs) was blocked... It appears that this is the same person who's been causing much grief on the Greek music-related articles (see my comment son Zeibekiko above). The user's level of English also tends to support WP:DUCK. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 and reverted edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Given these IP's histories, I am not sure whether 24h are any good. This user has a long history behind him ([68]) and regularly switches between half a dozen IPs. Constantine ✍ 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Insult and threat from IP User:88.233.98.18

Hello!

I was recently assaulted by an IP:number. The background is the following: the IP:number in question has recently rewritten and deleted information from several articles, especially the article of Safiye Sultan, withouth any references, or indeed anything but, as it seems, his or hers personal POW. One one the things was, for example, a deletion of a theory that Nurbanu Sultan and Safiye Sultan was related. The IP deleted this on the grounds that : "relatives must love each other and therefore they could not be related because Nurbanu hated Safiye": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Safiye_Sultan

This is obviously POW. Because this IP has deleted information from articles without any base other than POW, I have been reverting the IP:s changes. I have now been subjected to something which seems intented to be a threat and an insult of some kind, by the IP, on my personal discussion-page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aciram&diff=434274094&oldid=432663388

I suspect that this IP is infact the same IP which have been editing the articles of Nurbanu Sultan and Safiye Sultan many times previously in the same fashion and was warned that time. I am not sure how to handle this. I would like to report this user. I do hope this is the right place to do so. If not, can you direct me to the right place? Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly an WP:NPA violation, and the user's tone on two different talk page comments (here and here) is pretty iffy. But the post to Aciram's talk page linked above is pretty obviously unacceptable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I warned the IP. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I also warned the IP regarding their deletion of the RP's comments above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IP expressed regret on my talk page and apologized (sorta...for the personal attack, anyway) on Aciram's page, so as long as his cooler head continues to prevail I think the NPA issue is relatively resolved. No opinion on the remainder of issues brought up above. Could be content type stuff best suited for article talk page discussion, unless there's a more serious problem here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the subject of the content dispute dates to the 17th century, I think we're going to have to wait to see who can produce WP:RS material to support their position. I've commented on the article Talk page to that effect. I also think the IP was unclear regarding the described relationship, although I'm unsure of it myself...the article topic is described as being "captured by corsairs", yet the disputed material talks about "following in her cousin's footsteps". I think there's a disparity between the two, and it may take an expert opinion to resolve it. With all that said, I'm pretty sure there really isn't any admin action required right now, so someone wandering through can likely mark this issue Resolved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I found what caused the problem in the first place. The biggest of the issues is apparently described in the article Esperanza Malchi; Esperanza was Safiye's economic agent, or kira. An allegation was apparently made, by an official in the British Embassy of the period, that Safiye and Esperanza were lovers, and that seems to be what got the IP's blood pressure up. I can't prove or disprove the allegation, and I don't see anything in the single reference for the article on Esperanza that states whether the relationship was proved or simply an allegation. I think I've taken the only action that can be taken at this time: I flagged the allegation with {{citation needed}}. If there's an expert in medieval Euro-Asian history lurking about, feel free to chime in. Otherwise, given what I've dug up, this episode can be closed out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

sock puppet Anthem of joy's history of speedy deletions and PRODS

As you can see by [[69]], a sock puppeteer who constantly plagues Wikipedia with deletion nominations also PRODed and speedy deleted dozens of articles in the last 3 months. While I know they don't reconsider AfDs for sock puppet nominations once normal user start voting, should all his PRODs and speedy deletions be reconsidered? Mathewignash (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Both will have been reviewed by the deleting admin who agreed in good faith that the article should have been deleted. Reyk _YO! 20:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. All the deletions have, by definition, been reviewed by at least one admin, so there's no need to revisit them at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed for the speedy deletions and prods, but given that the user was originally blocked for abusing multiple accounts in deletion discussions I have to wonder if this was their only sockpuppet active on AfD pages. --CBD 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had brought HominidMachinae (talk · contribs) as another potential sock to MuZemike's attention. Account was created in March and has almost all of their activities has been in the deletion of articles. —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already commented on my talk page with regards to both; as far as AFDs, if he made a significant enough of an impact on the outcome of the discussion, get the closing admins to re-review them and then, failing that, send to deletion review. The same applies for any other relevant discussions outside of AFD.

From my quick spot-check on HominidMachinae, it doesn't look like he's related, aside the fact that Claritas normally does not do NPP if I recall correctly, just because someone works a lot with deletions doesn't mean they are socks. –MuZemike 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern with user reverting speedy deletion tag on a category he created

User:Jj98 has twice now reverted a speedy deletion tag that I placed on Category:Animation portal selected lists, a category he created. I reverted with an edit summary explaining that it was against Wikipedia policy to do this, but that was apparently ignored because he reverted me again. Even if he believes this is the type of category that is exempt from C1, which he apparently does by his placing of the empty category template on the page, that is an argument he should have made using the hold on template. I would personally say that this is not the type of category exempt from C1 - this is not the type of category intended to be empty on occasion. If the animation portal has not "selected" any lists yet, then this category does not need to sit around empty for an undetermined amount of time until the portal has a list selected. In any case, the debate as to if C1 applies is secondary in nature to my main concern that this user is reverting my placing of the tag in violation of Wikipedia policy. If a neutral party reviews my tag and declines, that is one thing, but the category creator doing it is another. Thanks. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Category:Animation portal selected lists classifies as a featured topics category, which is exempt from C1. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that featured topics are different from "selected lists" (or any "selected" content) on a particular portal. Namely, I was under the assumption that everything that fits in that exception is in Category:Featured topics. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've created this category myself for each selected lists for the Animation portal. The selected list parameter has not been used yet for the WikiProject Animation banner. It's at the sandbox. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note that there many Featured lists like List of The Simpsons episodes and Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1). JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether the category is eligible for the CSD category is irrelevant. Jj98, as creator of the category, cannot remove the CSD tag. He can contest the speedy, but removing the tag is generally considered a blockable offense.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I've should have done that myself. I've working on WP:ANIMATION for months to try getting the Animation WikiProject riving for years to get many new members. Yes, I've violated a little bit, and I've should been blocked just like last time when I got blocked for messing around the non-free copyrighted images for three weeks. Still, I am not really happy about it, but its not going help me. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is over, so I'm not saying you should be blocked now. In the future, though, use the button that says "contest the deletion", don't remove the tag.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User 67.224.71.131

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Atama. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope I'm reporting this in the right place. If not let me know. I recently reverted an unexplained removal of an entire paragraph (link) by this user, and when I went to his/her talk page to ask about it I noticed several warnings for removal of content. At the bottom of the page is a "last warning" from April 12, 2011.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Drilling down in the WHOIS reveals it to be a school IP address. I see only a couple of edits at a go, and only one block on the Talk page. In future, this should be reported at WP:AIV, but I'm sure a friendly admin will sort this out in short order. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something more but Alan the Roving Ambassador answered before I could save my answer. It looks like the user /IP address has not edited or vandalized any articles recently. Thanks for asking. No, I am not an administrator. Bye Starionwolf (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for a week after that "last warning" (blocked on April 14). Their previous block was on March 25. There was just no block template to accompany that block. I've blocked the address for 2 weeks. -- Atama頭 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)