Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Possible legal threat

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely for legal threats

Sigh...you know it's a bad day when you have to open 2 ANI threads. Could someone please look at User talk:Lovelightlaugh, and review the comment I posted there, which was copied from an email sent to me by that user? I believe it could be a legal threat, and the fact that the user refused to withdraw it ("I sincerely do not know what I will choose to do but will base my decisions of whether this is fairly addressed based on all that which was discussed. I have the right to choose based on fairness, equality, being in the know of what I am making my choices based on. "). This is regarding the article Anastasia Fontaines which I deleted under A7. If anyone thinks that deletion was wrong and/or I'm completely misreacting to the whole situation, feel free to undelete and or trout me w/o asking. I'm off for a bit. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You asked him to clarify after advising him that it was perceived as a threat and that the threat would lead to blocking. User explicitly refused to clarify and reiterated a specific condition required to satisfy him, which appears to reinforce that he is still threatening the legal alternative if he does not get his way. Indef-blocked. I left his talk-page unlocked for now should he choose to clarify an intent not to go legal as part of an unblock request. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How could you delete an article on a woman responsible for undying wisdom such as "If you take the time to look, you may find that somewhere next to every joke lies the truth." And there's more where that came from... [1]. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes cartooney threats are bad but IMHO the article in question wasn't an A7 candidate. The text Some of Anastasia's works include the award nominated Comcast Cranky commercial, the controversial "Viva Viagra and her ensemble lead role as Ms. Dora in cult film Director Gregory Hatanaka film Violent Blue is a credible assertion of significance. This should have gone to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the NLT block, but I also have to agree with Ron that AfD might have been more appropriate here. This seems to be a case where the subject isn't notable but the article does make a credible assertion of importance. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I, too, was on the border as to whether there was a credible claim of importance. There was no solid info about the film, and so wasn't sure if it was a sufficient info for starring in that movie to be "important". In fact, I explained to Lovelightlaugh (by email, because that was how xe was communicating with me) that if we could show that the movie was notable, then that would be sufficient to keep the article past speedy deletion, but would still likely end with the person's article being deleted by AfD (I ran a WP:BEFORE search myself). The editor even gave me enough info by email to make the me think the movie is notable enough for an article, and I encouraged xyr to write it. So, given the comments here, I'll go ahead and undelete the article on the actress and take it to AfD; maybe someone else can find some news articles about her that I couldn't find. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that IoS is "borderline". The "cult film" Violent Blue she stars in doesn't have an article but the director does and so does one of his other movies. It may be that the movie is indeed notable but nobody has bothered to write an article about it yet. Notability is not inherited but "importance or significance" can be in some cases. However, it may also be that neither the director nor the other movie is notable but nobody has bothered to nominate them for deletion yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ironically, punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you (or Wikipedia) with legal action is criminally unlawful (obstruction of justice, contempt of court, etc) in most Western countries. I'm rather surprised that such a policy exists, let alone is enforced so ruthlessly. I have no comment on the present case itself. Deterence ^Talk 09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. In the case of the WP:NLT policy, the rationale is explained on the page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and being locked in a prison cell is not punitive, it's preventative ;-) Deterence ^Talk 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly prevents that prisoner from repeating the acts that got him in prison in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, Deterence, if you don't actually understand a policy or if you lack perspective -- and characterizing being barred from a private website as a "punishment" certainly demonstrates that -- perhaps you should be less free with the advice. You have less than 600 edits and yet here you are all over this page giving advice. Or, I should say, TRYING to give advice. Not the best approach. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Calton, I casually gave an accurate legal observation as I was passing through. Which was significantly more constructive that your patronising and uncivil use of a ruler to measure our contributions. Deterence ^Talk 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange new meaning of "accurate" I was previously unaware of. You see, "accurate" implies that the words were not only factual, but have some relation to the topic under discussion. Your comments didn't have the slightest relevance -- making them not in the bit constructive -- and hence my correction intended to discourage even more casual and uninformed commentary from you was perfectly constructive. If you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to take the time to find out, you shouldn't comment: THAT is constructive advice. At least one long-term contributor was barred by ArbCom from commenting here after a long series of uninformed responses were deemed disruptive. Yours can be excused because you're new, but that defense isn't going to last all that long. --Calton | Talk 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, was looking for my case. Deterence, you are not correct. Businesses have a right to admit or deny admittance for any reason what so ever, even if a person has a purchased ticket for entry. Its English common law and possibly dates all the way to Roman times. Today the only exception is the Federal discrimination laws against race, sex, religion, etc. US Supreme Court ruled on this in 1912, feel free to read, its 2 pages long Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912).

Subsequently this ruling was reaffirmed by every single Federal district, and state courts for the last 100 years, and was last used in March 2011, by Senior Judge Roger L. Hunt of Nevada District Federal Court. In the case (Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr v. Harrah's Entertainment), a card counter sued to get into a casino that mailed him an invitation. Judge Hunt could have used specific laws aimed at excluding card counters, but instead he went back to the 1912 SC decision and as he wrote in the opinion "At common law, a proprietor of a privately-owned entertainment establishment may exclude whomever he wishes for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912). In addition, Nevada and California courts have long since established that the "right to exclude others" is a "fundamental element of private property ownership."" (quote i used from section: Discussion-A-1 of the above link). Please do not take this as a legal opinion or I will have to bill you. ;) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This all seems like a tangent to me, but businesses in California cannot necessarily exclude customers from entry based on the principle articulated in Allred v. Harris (the case cited in the Nevada federal case). Allred involved the intersection between picketing on private property, trespass, and the first amendment. California businesses are not allowed to discriminate on many bases (far more than the federal bases) and therefore can't "exclude" people from patronizing their business on any of thoses bases. See Unruh Civil Rights Act. And, naturally, each state in the U.S. is different.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how my casual comment came to this. --Calton, all I am seeing in your "constructive advice" is a whole lot of argumentum ad hominem - four of the six sentences in your last post (above) began with the words "you" or "your", and one of the remain two was nothing short of a threat to have me "barred", (for what, I'm not the least bit sure.) And you didn't even try to show how I am wrong or how you are right. Constructive?
• Meishern, my comment clearly referred to "most Western countries". In most Western countries, deliberately harming someone who has taken legitimate legal action against you, solely to influence their willingness to take that legal action against you, is considered an attempt to subvert their right to seek justice before the courts. Such behaviour is described in many ways, and in many languages, but include variations of "contempt of court" or "obstruction of justice". I'm not the least bit surprised that the right to exclude patrons for (not quite) any reason is significantly stronger in the United States, where private property rights are considerably more entrenched into the legal system, but, I do remind you that most Western countries lie outside the borders of the USA. Deterence ^Talk 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're misreading WP:NLT. The way I understand it, the point of the policy is not to "influence their willingness to take that legal action against [Wikipedia]". It's meant to avoid disruption and chilling effects on other editors while legal action is in progress. Think of it this way: if you worked for a newspaper, and filed a suit against them, you'd no doubt be put on "indefinite leave" while the suit was in progress, to avoid disruption in the workplace and to avoid "poisoning the well" through your actions potentially influencing the newspaper's position. Same thing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Bushranger, I'm not sure your analogy is comparable. If the "indefinite leave" is unpaid, then, most Employment Court jurisdictions would tear the employer a new one for placing the employee under such economic duress while the case remains sub judice (it may be different in the USA, but here in New Zealand the Employment Court would have zero patience for such coercive conduct by an employer). If the "indefinite leave" is paid leave, then the employee is still receiving the predominant benefit (an income) of his/her relationship with their employer. Is a blocked editor still receiving the predominant benefit of Wikipedia? I guess that depends on whether the predominant benefit received from Wikipedia by the blocked editor is merely the freedom to read Wikipedia articles or whether it is the ability to interact with, and contribute to, Wikipedia and its community. Deterence ^Talk 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't this now getting a bit off topic? What it is analagous to is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a NLT policy that we all abide by. Anyone making a legal threat is blocked until such time as the legal threat is removed or legal action is ended. If there's some misgivings about how the policy is worded, the Village Pump is that-a-way. --Blackmane (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blackmane, we're just shooting the breeze at the water cooler. Deterence ^Talk 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are not just shooting the breeze Deterence, when you make statements such as "punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you with legal action is criminally unlawful in most Western countries." That statement is false. Thus you are attempting to influence an Administrative board decision by providing non factual, false information and abstract opinions without anything factual to back up those statements. It is not criminally unlawful in all Western countries for a private business to bar entry to a visitor who threatened to sue them (with the only exceptions being cases covering extremely rare need based (not based on want) circumstances). Wikipedia does not employ this particular editor (no employer/employee laws involved) nor is it the editors landlord (tenant/landlord laws), nor is there a signed contract between the parties. If you go to a New Zeland restaurant and tell the owner that you will sue them, based on your statement, the restaurant must continue to admit you, and can not ask you to leave, nor bar your future entry and if they do, there will be a criminal case filed against the restaurant by law enforcement? The restaurant is under no obligation to feed you. They will bar your entry if you threaten a lawsuit as their legal adviser will ask them to do, as a preventive measure from you possibly planting evidence, influencing witnesses and customers, and creating additional incidents to back up your original claims. NZ legal system is also based on English common laws as is the US, which value property rights. Its not a right but a privilege to edit on Wikipedia, just as it is a privilege to eat at a privately owned NZ restaurant and not a right. If you want to be helpful, use facts backed up by references as I have above, otherwise you are the one who is attempting to obstruct justice by providing false information (even if you believe it to be true). Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is actually why we have to block this user. We have a policy that is blind to the editor's membership in any group. If you make a legal threat against anyone in the community, you are not allowed to edit until the legal issue is resolved, or the threat is rescinded. The policy is simple, and is based on the first amendment right to free association, and does not take into account anything except the presence of a threat. The easiest way to run afoul of the law is to take into account an editor's race, religion, sex, perceived sexual orientation, veteran's status, marital status, creed, national origin, immigrant status, etc. etc. when applying these blocks. The fact that we routinely and consistently apply the rule is actually the key to legal protection. We don't discriminate. We are not required to provide full access to anyone, and nobody but Jimbo Wales and a select few others have it. All access is granted based on a member's actions, and by applying the rules consistently, we protect ourself from legal claims that we deny access because of prejudice. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this has been resolved now, but is it worth just mentioning that although Jimbo does have full access, that doesn't exclude him from the NLT process - it could be applied to him as well as anybody else; hence no discrimination. a_man_alone (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I was actually simply referring to the "founder" permission flag. Every member of the community has access that is a subset of Jimbo's access, and the amount of that access is dependent on your behaviour on-wiki. If you don't follow the rules and decide to act in ways that are contrary to the health of the community, then your access will be limited to simply viewing content. The fact that we have decided to grant greater access to just anyone who walks in the door does not change the fact that we retain the right to protect our community from those who harm it. It's analogous to refusing entry into your store for shoplifting, except we still let those people view the merchandise from the street. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos violates topic ban??

According to the list op Topic Bans ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a topic ban for al Euthanasia-related articles. As stated on the mentioned page: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed,...". Knowing his habit of connecting the nazi atrocities with eugenetics and euthanasia, I was wondering if he crossed the line. The contested sentence is Although it was not the ideology underlying Nazi atrocities that Sanger found regrettable, it was the methodology.. Violation or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section "Eugenics" at "Margaret Sanger" article, and that paragraph does deal explicity with "nazi eugenics" not with euthanasia. And clearly my edit and the cited source was referring to "Nazi eugenics" related to "Margaret Sanger" and my edit did not relate nor even mentioned at all euthanasia. And this issue has been discussed and resolved already 3 times, here at the ANI and at one admin-talk-page. And all the times it was concluded that editing eugenics topics is not a violation of the euthanasia topic ban. This user NotBW certainly know this as he has been directly involved. I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, there is the traditional smoke screen and counter accusation. But, my dear Claudio, you are referring to earlier questions in relation to other articles. And here you clearly make the connection nazi atrocities vs. eugenetics movement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has six prior blocks for edit-warring, several of which stem from his relentless efforts to link Planned Parenthood to Nazism and eugenics by any means necessary. He was unblocked early last time because he supposedly understood the error of his ways. Now he's moved on to edit-warring at Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), pushing the exact same agenda.

  Obviously he's repeatedly trying to force in contentious material and earned a number of blocks, but he's still at it, still refusing to gain consensus on the talk page. How long does this go on? (That is not a rhetorical question - it is addressed to any uninvolved admin reviewing this thread). MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell is another user who has been involved in this attempts to look for an excuse to ban me. My last edit at Margaret Sanger has not violated the 1RR and the prior cases are NOT the case now. Actually my edit was reverted 1 time by NotBW arguing that "he does not believe that I have read the source"; thus clearly baseless assuming bad faith due my edit was almost literally taken from a source which was already accepted as a reliable source for that article. Now, NotBW is trying to abuse the topic ban to enforce a broad ban against me, as it has been attempted 3 times up to now. If it was a content dispute at any rate MasterCell did not even complaint about the phrase but he just came first here also to attempt to enforce a ban against me. And MaterCell was also involved in the prior attempts to extend the euthanasia topic ban to the eugenic topic. So it seems MasterCell is always looking for any excuse to try to resolve the dispute contents by forcing punishments and bans against me. Is he stalking me also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing your POV-pushing and creativity with the truth, I still do not think I was overly distrustful to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that the sentence is really there in the source. But crucially, the context is totally different. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this guy edits dishonestly and in bad faith, and has problems understanding written English that severely undermine his ability to edit effectively. Worse, he seems uninterested in improving himself in this regard. When challenged on any of the above, he reacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute.

Take this for what you will; I am apparently risking a permanent ban from Wikipedia just by saying this, as you can see from my talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[To clarify, I am not familiar with this topic ban or the previous incidents that led to it, and don't take any position on the topic ban itself. I added the above comments because they tend to support some of the things NOTBW and MastCell have said, and also, partly, out of sheer frustration.] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factcheker was warned two times because of his proven personal attacks and rude uncivil comments against me. At any rate, for Factchecker I am just a "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, in fact, say those things, and was indeed warned twice, with the second warning appearing to imply that any subsequent block would be permanent. This really has no bearing on the complaints that I and other editors have raised regarding your actual editing conduct. Regardless of how inappropriately I acted, has it occurred to you that the frequency of personal attacks against you, real or perceived, may have something to do with your own behavior? And has anyone ever made a criticism that you found to be legitimate or worthwhile? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, you are simply attempting to legitimate your continuous and very rude personal attacks against me. I have to ask also if you are looking for a revenge against me because you were warned by an admin to stop insulting me?. At any rate I have not to tolerate nor to condone you calling me "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" speaking "gibberish", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"[R]eacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute." Yeah... that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) As you already asked for an excuse for your behavior then I solely have to hide it because the above comment is just another personal attack dealing wiht nothing else than me and my alleged reactions. Thts is its content. But you already promised not to repeat that. So let me add, at any rate: I am not able to understand anyone expecting answers from me about any content when it is asked with insults. And let me overreact and exagerate: I also can not support nor undertsand if an inquisitor demands to those tortured to stay focused on the matter of question and not in the brutal manner it is asked. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time the issue came up, the limited consensus appeared to be the topic ban didn't cover eugenics in itself. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#ClaudioSantos_and_eugenics. Has the topic ban changed since then? If not it was suggested last time there may be merit to expand the topic ban, or if his behaviour is too bad, just banning him completely would I guess be an option. However I wouldn't suggest his editing the topic in itself should lead to any action (his precise editing may be a different matter), particularly since he was aware of the previous discussion so even if a new consensus develops, it seems a bit unfair to take action when he was possibly relying on the previous intepretation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem that he is seeking the borders... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems, you NotBW are the one seeking the borders. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that it's time to expand the topic ban to include abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. He's racked up three blocks for edit-warring on these very topics in the past few months. And that's on top of his prior blocks for edit-warring that led to the topic ban from euthanasia. People who edit these topics constructively shouldn't have to deal with this sort of relentlessly tendentious editing. There are actually general sanctions on abortion-related articles which are supposed to prevent this sort of thing: "Any uninvolved admin may impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Such topic bans or blocks may be of up to three months duration." MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell you always attempt to use any excuse to try this, I believe you are stalking me and less concerned about the disruptions in this wikipedia. Proof: Factchekcer (the user who believes that I am a "fucking idiot") violated the 1RR rule at the same articles more than 1 time during the last weeks and he even got an incredible patience although he insisted on edit warring after being warned[2]; but his clear disruptive behaviour did not deserve your attention surely because he is usually at your side of the disputes. So it seems you are not really concerned about the disruption at those articles but you are trying to eliminate an user who does not agree with you. Another proof: if you were just concerned about my alleged contentious last edit why did not you revert it or attempted to discuss it at the talk page but you just came first here to the ANI? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If Factchecker violates 1RR and doesn't self-revert, I think he should be blocked. If he gets blocked six times for edit-warring, as you've been, then I think he should be topic-banned. Does that sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I violated 1RR once because I had never heard of 1RR before and didn't know any such restriction was in place; I violated 1RR a second time because I simply forgot it was in place. I am now wary of the existence of such strict measures. In the meantime, I also participated in the discussion and implemented the resulting consensus even though it was contrary to my own feelings on what was appropriate. This last part is a very crucial step that Claudio is missing and I'd suggest that this is the chief reason this discussion was initiated. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No MastCell, as I said, your attempts to ban me are not a fair way to resolve your contents disputes with me. And my last edit was far from become a edit warring, so you even lack of a pretext to try this ban again. It seems you are stalking me. Factckeer I am not missing nothing not even one of your words referring to me, such as "stupid reasoning", "giberish" or "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What I said you're missing is, among other things, the need to accept consensus when it is contrary to your own conclusions about what is best. I am aware that you noticed the profanity I directed at you on one occasion, as you've now repeated it in this discussion five separate times, as if to distract from the substance of the complaints about you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a discussion on whether or not the topic ban should be extended is warranted. The continued and tedentious behavior exhibited in order to try and create this link has gone on long enough. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What "tendentiouslink tendentiously inserted" are you talking about Falcon8765? That Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, coercive sterilization of sick people, ban for sick immigrants based on eugenics grounds is not a "tendentious link tendentiously inserted" but a fact that was even accepted and included into the Margaret Sanger wikipedia-article since long ago and actually not by me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "tedentious link". I said "tedentious behavior". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

At any rate it is not a link tendentiously inserted but a fact already inserted since long ago into that article and not by me. And actually that link has nothing to do with the current discussion here. But you are another of those users who always came to the ANI looking for a ban against me based on off-topic things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question Glancing at ClaudioSantos' edit history, I see a near single-minded obsession with eugenics (and, lets be fair, it is pretty horrifying) and related sanctity of life issues such as euthanasia (again, many people find it pretty horrifying), and a lot of chatter that seems to involve an aggressive attitude and getting into edit wars. What am I missing here that makes a topic ban make sense as opposed to a plain old, and rather long, block?--Tznkai (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So an "obsession with life" is your reason to push a block against me? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to second Tznkai's question. ClaudioSantos has been topic banned (once) and blocked SIX times for tendentious and obsessive POV pushing and shows little promise of reform despite numerous unkept promises. An indefinite block seems reasonable to me. Patience is a virtue, but only up to a certain point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been topic banned solely 1 time and I have not violated that topic ban ever. Dominus Vobisdu is clearly lying and misleading misled or he just mistyped, but his comment could mislead other users to my detriment. And the reason to open this thread at the ANI was baseless: solely one edit -already reverted and which did not drive to any edit warring- which at any rate also did NOT violate the topic ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the phrasing for which you are searching, Claudio, is "Dominus, if I have been topic banned as you say, could you please provide diffs of those bans? Thank you." I am almost certain you were not calling another editor a liar in a thread about how combative your approach has been. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps Dominus mistyped and meant to say "blocked six times" not "banned". This is a common mis-type. KillerChihuahua^?!?[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice] 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Sometimes my keyboard freezes up for a moment and ignores input, as it did in this case. I've added the omitted words in bold to my post above, as well as added the word once so that no one can interpret it as meaning that he was topic banned six times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, then let correct my last comment. Here I also have to add that the user (NotBW) who opened this thread already admitted that the reason he argued to revert my edit was also baseless due my edit was indeed explicity in the source. So his confessed assumption of bad faith ("I do not think you really did read the source") was nothing else than that. And this edit did not violate the topic ban as it was already stablished, because a lot of times it was told that editing eugenics topics does not mean editing euthanasia topics. This thread lacks even of pretexts but not of hostile and sedulous supporters who have called me a "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" writting "gibberish", included some other users bordering the personal attacks referring to my edits with psycho(patho)logisms such as "obsessions", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be; its irrelevant to the issue of your behavior. Its clear from your posts here that you have a problematic approach to working with your fellow editors. Regarding Factchecker atyourservice, you keep harping on a past transgression which has been handled and therefore there is no reason I can see to bring it up unless you're trying to refute his statements not by refuting them directly but by the ad hom approach of character assassination; Mastcell, you accuse of stalking you and "looking for excuses to ban you"; Dominus, you accused of lying - and yes, I appreciate you refactoring that statement, but in the future you'd do much better if you think before you post, and refactor before hitting the "submit" button. Meanwhile, you've caused a lot of disruption and don't seem to be at all open to the idea that your approach is causing any problems. I'm leaning strongly towards supporting Mastcell's suggestion we widen the topic ban; my main concern is that we'll have to keep widening it until it encompasses all of Wikipedia if you don't start reconsidering some of the advice you've been getting and taking it to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And at the end of this long and quite not-so-nice discussion, I still have no answer on the question "Did he violate the topic ban". Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; no, he did not. The topic ban was quite narrow; hence our discussion about whether it should be expanded to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics; I would also add Nazi related topics. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear! Thank you for your opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic ban is explicitly broad, and I quote: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". I don't think that Euthanasia sections of any article could be considered outside the scope of that topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics is not euthanasia, no matter how broadly one construes it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. The altered paragraph, however, is focused on euthanasia in eugenics. No matter what the title of the article or the section, he is editing regarding the topic of euthanasia - that's a violation of his topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The preceding sentence, which he did not edit, mentions euthanasia. The sentence he edited has no reference to euthanasia at all. I'm willing to call that a non-violation. Right now, I'm more interested in trying to see if he understands why he got that ban, and realizes he's engaging in the same behavior, and looking at increased editing restrictions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.

KillerChihuahua, let me ask: so it is fair for all the mentioned users to refer about what they consider my behavior to re-open this ANI-thread but it is a fault of my part to refer to their behavior toward me? and it is fair to reopen this ANI-thread harping things which were already "handled" and which happened weeks and even months ago, but it is a fault of my part to refer to some very rude personal attacks and disruptions continuosly happening (and the last PA took part just 1 day ago) for whereby I think they are stalking me? KillerChihuahua, if that is your concern, certainly I was not the one who opened this ANI-thread to deal with already handled things, I came here to defend myself. So I find this unfair, given the fact that this ANI thread was opened because of one single edit, whereby I have not broken the current topic ban nor I have broken any 1RR rule nor my last edit even became an edit war nor a disruption, so precisely it seems here I am going to be re-judged and re-punished for already handled and past things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand why you got the first topic ban? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do. And currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user. The case with Factchecker is an example: instead of answering his very rude personal attacks, I have invited him to disengage from me and as he did not, then I have reported him to an admin to handle the thing. If this is your concern, let consider that I am not harping in Factcheker-s PAs here but the fact is: 1 day after he was warned because of his rude behavior calling me "dishonest person", then he came here to this ANI calling me again a "dishonest person". Actually I have not mentioned his PA-s here before he came here again to call me again "dishonest". Perhaps I must not ask if some users are stalking me, but the fact is: this is the 3 or even the 4 time the very same users open this ANI-thread using the very same pretext ("by editing eugenics I have broken the euthanasia ban"), and after that pretext is rejected then they bring again already handled and closed cases against me. So, I have to repeat: Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article, so I have not broken the ban. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just so you know, I was strongly temped to ignore everything you wrote after "I do." I read it, but it was useless and spammy and repetitive and I wish you hadn't wasted the text. Please don't do that again. Second question: WHAT led to your topic ban? Please be brief be concise and stay on topic this time, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I have already answered: currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user which were the reason for the ban. And yes, I have understood those reasons. Proofs> certainly I have not PA any user although I have received some very provokatives comments. Certainly I have got my last blocks because I broke the 1RR rule as I was not used with that rule but I was being very careful not to engage in edit wars but discussing my edits at the talk pages. And you can check that after the ban most of my edits are at talk pages discussing the changes instead of editing the articles. A -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So short version (which I would have very much appreciated you sticking to) would be "editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user" - yes? And then you claim you haven't done that. Because accusing other editors of stalking, and lying, and so on, is not being rude??? A simple yes or no will do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No and yes. I have expressed my concerns and I asked if opening 4 times the very same thread with the very same wrong pretext is not stalking me given the fact that the user who opened this thread was warned by one admin, because the non-involved admin also found in the past that this user was stalking me. If I wrote that some user was lying, it was due the very hard pressure that means to be answering this very same thread to the very same users once again, but I have refactored my comment. And at any rate I also think that it is not fair to let some users to continuously PA me and let other users to re-open this ANI thread using the very same wrong rejected pretext, again and again and again and again, whereby finally it desperates me and I write a wrong word which is then used as an excuse to punish me. I have patiently answered those concerns again and again and again. You can check that I have not written any PA against any user at any of the mentioned ANI threads dealing with the very same thing. So, finally, perhaps deseperated I lost a word ("he is lying") that at least is less rude than some words I have received also here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

He asked a question. That's not a "wrong pretext" no matter how much you ABF. He got a short clear answer, too, which is more than I'm getting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But this same question was already answered 3 times and he was aware> editing eugenics is not breaking the euthanasia topic ban. Why to ask here again? Will any edit, I do at eugenics, trigger this very same thread again and again? Should I keep quite each time it happens? At any rate if that is not a pretext this time I was invited to came here to answer again the same question and I was put again under the same pressure. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in question did mention euthanasia, and moreover, mentioned it in direct comparison to eugenics and as part of a general eugenics program. Just because I decided to cut some slack and not treat this as a violation does not mean it isn't very, very borderline, and another admin - or even me on another day - might have ruled that it does violate your ban. Every single time someone thinks you might be violating your ban, they can come here and ask. And if they ask 100 times, you should come and respond here, by explaining how your edit did not violate your ban. NOT with what's wrong with the other editor, or who is stalking you, or who is lying, or any other speculations or attacks on other editors. Simply with whether you violated the ban, and why or why not you think that. This is part of being under a topic ban. You are under this "pressure" because your behavior and editing have led to sanctions, in this case a topic ban. It is not the fault of the person asking the question; it is your fault, for your poor editing behavior previously which led to your topic ban. Do you understand? A yes or no will suffice. If the answer is no, then a brief question here about what you do not understand will be answered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have patiently answered the question, the past 3 times it emerged, without any PA nor even asking if it was stalking. I also rejected to answer a question of some user who openly asked me if I considered euthanasia to be a form of eugenics or viceversa and then he came to the ANI to ask if eugenics could be part of the euthanasia topic ban if I thought that eugenics is euthanasia. I also have been very patience rejecting insults like "fucking idiot", "imbecile", "stupid", "dishonest". If I deserves that sort of pressures at any rate my patience should be considered and not solely two wrong words at this thread because I thought the question was already answered enough times and the criteria was enough clear. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you any new insults to report? If so, provide diffs. Otherwise, your beating of this dead horse is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In this same thread Factcheker call me "dishonest" and diqualified my reading and language skills[3], while one day ago he was warned to stop calling me precisely with the same very terms. But given that a ban is being triggered because of my alleged "combative attitude" it should be noticed that you have not mentioned nothing at all about me being really so patience about those rude insults and aswering very patiently 3 threads asking if euthanasia topic ban includes eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean "In this very thread Factchecker called me "dishonest" and disparaged my reading and language skills. I believe he may have a point; it is clear your English language skills are not quite to the level we expect of editors, if your posts here are any example. I am sorry you find this information painful to read; however your lack of skill at written English is quite plain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the thing and being unfair. He was warned not to refer again to my language skills for he used that excuse to call me "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "giberish writer" and he abusively and repeatedly edited my user page although he was warned to stop doing so. If a ban against me is now considered because of my past, it is proverbial how these past insults and disruptions are now being forgotten and you simply say: "he has a point".But let aside the language skills, are you legitimating him to call me "dishonest" also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that your difficulties with English may be contributing to your problems here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Claudio, I only began calling your editing "dishonest" after our most recent discussion which revealed conduct which I consider to be clearly dishonest. To be specific, you deleted an article sentence with the edit summary "that is not siad by the cited sources". When I discovered that it was, in fact, stated verbatim by the cited source on the cited page, I chalked it up to the language barrier, although in retrospect that seems to have been too generous to you, as no failure of reading comprehension by a reader who uses the Latin alphabet could explain a failure to see an exact replica of the article text in the source itself.

The picture got much worse when you revealed your actual motive for removing the material. I quote:

The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months.

Leaving aside the question of whether you were right in claiming this (which I really don't think you were), it became clear at this point that you had misrepresented your edit. To be specific, you were making the edit based on a very thin (and I think, questionable) argument; but instead you pretended that you had a rock-solid justification (because surely, "it's not in the source" is one of the most rock-solid justifications of all for removing article text). I find it impossible to believe that this was not a fully calculated attempt to disguise the nature of an unjustified and very POV-pushing edit. There's just no rational explanation that I can see that would explain why you acted the way you did.

So, that's why I called you dishonest, and you have not even attempted to prove me wrong. Instead, you go on and on about how I'm persecuting you and shouldn't be believed because I cursed at you. This, too, seems a bit dishonest, though not in the unambiguous sense that the other conduct I just described appears to be dishonest. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, after you referred to me using expresions such as "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "gibberish" and "someone who does not deserve friendly manners", I have decided that chatting with you would be a waste of time and a occasion for unproductive and uncivil discussions and for more personal attacks against me. Ironically my efforts to disengage from you and to keeep away from uncivil discussions were not seen here but solely my sole rude word asking if I was being "stalked". At any rate, my edit was finally reverted by you and I did not restore it to avoid any edit war, thus another of my efforts to avoid edit wars but also an effort not considered here in favor of me. At any rate I explained to you that I could not find that claim was in the source because for me it seemed a matter of opinion while in the article it was presented as a matter of facts. Perhaps the matter is that I can not understand how can be said that Sanger does not tolerate bigotry with some people while at the same time this Sanger expressively and openly considers this people to be an inferior race. Surely I have a different comprehension on what does mean tolerence. For me just saying and admitting that some people is inferior is a matter of bigotry. That was my "stupid reasoning" which led me to think that it was not a fact but an opinion, while the WP was presenting it as a fact. At any rate, instead of discussing the thing and instead of using the existing means for an eventual content dispute, the thing was bringed immediately here at the ANI. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you really saying that you think "that is not siad by the cited sources" was a clear and honest way of saying that you think the source was stating a matter of opinion which should not be reflected as fact in a Wikipedia article? Do you see how an editor who simply took that edit summary at face value would likely refrain from investigating further—rather than logging in to Google books and reading through pages of some obscure text—whereas if you had raised the "opinion vs. fact" rationale then that would have given other editors a clue that the issue was not quite that cut and dry?

It seems to me that this was either just as dishonest as I think it was, or that the language barrier is a bit steeper than I had thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For me the source does not say that "Sanger does not tolerate bigotry", but for me the source says that "for the author Sanger would not tolerate bigotry". So I summarized: the source does not say that. If it was a mistake at any rate I answered your concern and explained my reasons and I did not restore my edit when you reverted it. Thus another overlooked effort from my part to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions and to explain and let correct my edits. Another effort also not considered here in my favor. So unfair. For the rest: you assuming my bad language skills and my defficient moral, is something I still reject once again to discuss due improductive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved comment, was reply to Factchecker in the Alternate proposal section. As it has ntohing to do with the proposal, I have moved it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Since the ban I use to explain any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and you also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). Despite your rude comments, I have even explained to you my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once you have reverted it. And you reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. But at any rate I have not restored it once you have reverted me and you opened the discussion at the talk page. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. So, these are some proofs that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussion about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unfair. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you remember your first reply on me in this discussion? For your information, you have stated there: "I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me". I call that an, to cite you, "unporductive uncivil discussion about the users"! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken into account the very large amount of times included the last 3 threads asking if I was breaking the euthanasia topic ban when editing eugenics, a lor of thread for which I have answered very patiently to anybody? It is unfair to judge me here because I used here a the word "stalking" because I thought your question was alreay answered before a lot of times. If that was a wrong word at any rate certainly I have shown a lot of disposal to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions despite of very rude insults against me and I have discussed every edit that emerged to be disputed. My last blocks were because I have broken the very strict 1RR rule for which I was not used. So, things in my favor should be also considered, do not you think so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked a normal question about the article Margaret Sanger. It does not matter that the same question was asked in relation to other articles. But every article is judged on his own merites, so checking on every article is possible. Unfortunately, you reponded by kicking and screaming, sparking an ugly discussion. You could also have waited to see what the answer would be... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could ask me about the thing instead of coming here to the ANI or you could just warned me about your concern and perhaps I would have reverted myself, or you could advise me to keep quite here at this thread to avoid any misundertanding. Unfortunately you did not. If there are no innocent, at any rate I am not incorrigible but elimination may be. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

grin Up until now you have most words of advice used as toilet paper! Do you really expect me to have hope for an improvement regarding your behaviour in the near future here on Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not expected from you nothing, not even about my behavior. I have demanded to consider not only proofs against me but also proofs in favor of me. That is something that is claimed to be guaranteed at any modern court, or for example the guarantee that the accuser is not also the judge, but I also realized that those nice procedural legal guarantees are used to be used as toilet paper. If that happens in the courts what do you think you can expect here at this community? But I remmeber that you have strong confidence in the legal guarantees around euthanasia there where it is legal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban

I suggest expanding the topic ban for ClaudioSantos to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all BLPs biographies of notable persons involved (however remotely) in such subjects. This would include editing any BLP where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article. Editor has combative attitude, a bad case of pointing fingers at others rather than discussing problems with his own behavior. Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP, or Biographies in general? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. All biographies relating to the topics, I should think. I welcome any feedback or other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support with some reservations. I think even with an expanded topic ban we'll be back here again, so I would advocate an indefinite block here. If a topic ban is put in place I think restricting all edits to biographies in his problem areas is warranted. AniMate 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  We can always indef if the expanded parameters don't have the desired effect. I have changed the proposed sanctions to cover all biographies in covered topics, not just BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for user with long term civility problems and an agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. In line with my comments above. If you're going to topic ban him/her from the only places he/she is interested in writing, why not just block or siteban outright?--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently it hasn't been mentioned whether this is keeping the current timeline, extending it or making it indefinite. Also have a problem with the Biography wording. With the wording now if he edits ANY politician page whether he is editing the person's view on abortion or not, someone can say he is violating his ban.Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re: canvassing: Just FYI, Claudio has canvassed at least 4 other editors requesting their participation in this discussion, all of whom were apparently chosen on the presumption that they would view him favorably (NYyankees51, Haymaker, Marauder40, Qwyrxian). MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  addendum: he has already been warned and has not canvassed any more since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  And I have invited also users who support the ban against me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not on Wikipedia you haven't. You've only asked those listed by Mastcell. After you received the note about WP:CANVASS, you told the editor who cautioned you that you had "asked by email some usred who are against me and who have asked for ban me"[4] which is conveniently something only you and the recipients can verify, as it is not available for the rest of us to view. I'm left wondering why the difference in venue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  How convenient. Please provide proof of that statement, or else explain why you should not be blocked for it. NW (Talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Tznkai, ask him to verify. And I did sent an email also to Marauder, but while Tznkai answered here the ANI supporting the ban against me, Marauder did not commented anything so I also left him a message at his talk page. I also left a message to Qwyrxian an uninvolved admin in the articles here mentioned (Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, etc.) but who have a vreal and good understanding to differentiate and reject PAs and insults. He already commented this proposal and it should be noticed that he did not supported nor rejected the ban but mentioned some points about it. Marauder and the other 2 users I left a message were users previously involved in all the content disputes I have been dealing with the topic eugenics including the article Margaret Sanger, so I think they could be interested in this thing. I thought it was not canvassing given that I did invite not only people who could side with me but people uninvolved and people against. At any rate, once I have been warned that it could be cavassing I still did not invite anyone else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - An outright ban seems unproductive, seeing his prior sockpuppetry. But a wide topic ban seems fair if it includes biographies of everybody actively involved or member of any related movement but excludes national politicians (if not involved/member). Half a year or a year looks a good term. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm one of the canvassed editors. As far as I can recall, my involvement with this crew so far has been the person mentioned above several times as having warned Factchecker for personal attacks. I have no opinion on whether or not this ban is deserved, but I do think that the phrase "however remotely" needs to be removed. "Broadly construed", as already used, is the standard wording, and "however remotely" would render this topic ban into an unintentional trap. That wording would almost guarantee that CS would cross the ban, because someone could say, "Hey, you edited an article of Person X; he used to work for Company X whose ex-CEO once gave a donation to Planned Parenthood,so that's remotely related, so you're in violation of your ban." Also, I'd like clarification on whether or not this ban extends to user space and/or article talk space. My opinion is that article talk space should apply, but not user space; I would like for the user to be able to safely ask someone whether or not a given article falls under the ban, since the limits may be difficult to see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems too harsh. I might agree with a short (i.e. one month) topic ban to allow for mentorship or adoption, as I proposed below. I think what Claudio needs is a full appreciation of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. As someone who has been down this road before, it is entirely possible for Claudio to reform without drastic measures being taken. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He is now serving a 3 month topic ban. Why just a month? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If an editor doesn't have an appreciation of Wikipedia's guidelines after the multiple discussions brought here, a topic ban, and multiple blocks for edit warring; you'll forgive me for being skeptical that they'll have a sudden change of heart. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I am an advocate of second chances, as well as an adopter. I would like for this editor to have the benefit of adoption before we start seriously considering indef banning.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The expanded ban proposed by KillerChihuahua is the very least that can be done to stop the constant disruption this editor has caused. Personally, I consider it lenient and would prefer an idefinite ban. The editor has a severe case of battleground mentality and there is little, if any, hope that he will improve, as his topic ban, his six blocks for edit warring and his statements here confirm. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to believe that Wikipedia would benefit from any such major expansion of a topic ban. In fact, the expansion would make this one of the broadest bans in the entire history of Wikipedia entirely. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And if I have edited any article related to abortion or nazism it was related to euthaNAZIa or eugenics. For instance, Aktion-T4 nazi euthanasia program and sections related to eugenics roots of Margaret Sanger at Planned Parenthood. All users here demanding a ban for me were very strong opponets to mention the actual links between Margaret Sanger and eugenics and racism but I wonder why they also support to protect from me the articles related to nazism as a whole? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rephrasing to add time; address concerns - ClaudioSantos is to be topic banned for a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. - Please comment below; if there are any tweaks or fixes to make please discuss. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I personally think one year may be a little harsh, unless you do something like one year if he doesn't agree to mentoring, 3 months if he does and abides by his mentors suggestions during that time. As for the biography section, I don't like the wording from this point on "This would include editing any biography where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article..." I am terrible at legalize editing but can it just be simplified to say something similar to "including portions of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The way he could edit say (just as an example) the Barack Obama page but he can't touch the subjects on abortion, eugenics, etc. contained within and/or add something about that to the page. If he just goes into a page like that an bashes the person or something like that, that can be dealt with separately.Marauder40 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I've changed it to "This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects, with the exception of politicians who merely mention their stance on Abortion, but including those who are active in listed causes/fields or are members of related organizations or have worked for same. " - basically using your verbiage, but changing "portion" to "section". Regarding the time, what about adding that he can apply to have the restrictions lifted after 6 months? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I personally think you can just end it at "This would include editing any section of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The rest of it would be included in that sentence and the sentence before it covers all cases, both the cases of biographies that directly deal directly with the said subjects, and any sections of biographies where the person isn't directly in the "industry" but deals with the subject in some way. As for adding applying after 6 months, technically someone can apply at any time. Not sure adding it will help. Just think 1 year may be a little harsh. In effect this is an escalation from 3 months to 1 year, figuring it would be better to go from 3 months to 6 months for this type of infraction, but violation again would cause indefinite topic ban. Marauder40 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: With the updated wording. Arguments that this is too harsh don't take into account the repeated pattern of combative behavior even after six blocks and a topic ban. I highly doubt it improves. The copious fingerpointing and deflection in this thread serves as a good example. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - based on the behavior seen in this AN/I thread, this seems an appropriate action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

• Comment — Again, I'd prefer to abstain from judgment on the actual topic ban, but I think it's important to state the following. My repeated core suggestion to Claudio, which has unfortunately both gone ignored and has provoked hostility in response (which I admit I have subsequently matched), can be stated as follows:

If Claudio finds himself locked in a dispute with another editor, and resolution of the dispute promises to hinge on either of the following:

1. Analysis of English text in a source, or

2. Understanding of WP policy as expressed in written statements of policy,

Claudio should consult with a native or other expert English speaker, and preferably one with very extensive WP experience, before persisting with a disputed edit, or even a drawn-out talk page discussion, which can be equally unproductive given a significant language barrier. If he does not do this, his good but still problematic English language skills will negatively impact both his reading of the source and his understanding of the applicable policy. These two manifestations of the language barrier would seem likely to feed off of each other and multiply the problems that result. The other perceived qualities that have led to this ANI, the topic ban, and other blocks, are a significant enough problem without this complicating factor. And it just seems that the language barrier problem would be the very easiest one to correct—if not in the way I suggest, then in some other way that leaves the door open to a productive editing future.

Barring that, it's not my opinion that editing English WP should be open to any and all. Some baseline language ability, or at least a willingness to work around a very real language barrier, should be required, IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about Factckeher proposal: Since the ban I use to explain and discuss any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user as proposed by Factchecker now, so I am not against doing so. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and Factcheker self also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). For example, despite some rude comments, I have even explained and discussed my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once Factcheker have reverted it. And Factchecker reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. Due the ban I strive not to get involved in that sort of discussions despite the commenter deserves an answer about the content despite of the manners. So, these are some proofs showing that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussions about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unnecessary. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet more arguing about language skills and civility. Not helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, excellent example of a statement that flies in the face of the 5 pillars and founding principals of WP.Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Have you ever read WP:CIR? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry to offend, Marauder, but how so? You've got me curious. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Many of the best editors of WP may not speak English as a first, second, or even third language. I have been on several pages where someone that obviously had problems with English made an edit to a page that was correct, but may have had grammatical issues with it. I have been in talk page discussion with people where this also happened, including issues where cultural or grammar issues had to be explained. It seems like this pillar is being forgotten "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit...Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others.", yes WP:CIR exists, but language problems can be worked with with people that are welcoming, but not by people that are failing to AGF or give second chances, etc.Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC) However, according to WP:COMPETENCE, an editor may be working in good faith, but if their language skills prohibit them from properly contributing then that's simply something we can't deal with. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just putting it out there. Noformation Talk 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It seems some are making more of the language issue then there really is. Instead of taking things to talk pages and discussing it there, things got into a slow moving edit war with multiple people. People (on both sides) seem to be claiming language issues that aren't really there. IMHO, the language difficultly section of WP:CIR refers to people that barely understand English repeatedly inserting horrible English into the actual articles, not people that may have minor interpreting issues or being sloppy on the talk page/edit summaries. Marauder40 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Marauder, your previous comment is all well and good, but the scenario you envision presupposes an editor who is both able to recognize, and willing to work around, his language limitations. Claudio, on the other hand, reacts with negativity and even hostility at the mere suggestion that he is perhaps not Bill Shakespeare. Further, the existence or non-existence of other editors whose language limitations don't get in the way of their editing is really quite irrelevant. My suggestion offers a perfectly reasonable way that Claudio could work around his language issues and keep them from coloring disputes (at worst) and constantly making extra work for other editors (at best). FWIW, I have yet to see an edit by Claudio that didn't introduce broken English or at least very very bad grammar into an article. If every single edit he makes requires significant-to-massive copyediting, and if he can't understand the sources he is reading, or the policies he's supposed to be observing, it seems the simpler and more practical solution that Claudio himself make the effort to avoid such problems. Finally, this could foster the sort of mentoring relationship that we all need at one point or another. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you are exaggerating to make a point here, because I have seen edits he has made that don't have major grammar errors. The edit that brought this thing to ANI is an example. Approach can also help in the situations, instead of wholesale reverts, just correcting the grammar, or saying on the talk page, "Hey, you might want to phrase it this way instead." Don't attack with, "Grammar Nazi" (not an attack, directly from your user page) style attacks. I admit my grammar on talk page stinks, but I try to get it right in actual articles, but realize that sometimes people need to correct me. The example that brought this to ANI is a content dispute, not a grammar problem. Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) No, I'm not exaggerating, but it's not as if I've looked through his edit history. I'm talking about the edits he's made at articles at times when I was watching them. And actually, the edit that brought this to ANI helps prove my point. The sentence he added was only grammatically correct to the extent it was copy/pasted from the source; he added a single word and a comma which then rendered it in need of copy editing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I would wholesale revert for grammar. I reverted because he seems to have been lying about the source. And this is something I've brought to his attention before when he claimed something was simply not in the source when it clearly and obviously was right there in the cited source at the cited location. And you're way off-base with the suggestion that I am being a "grammar Nazi", too; we're talking about basic reading comprehension that has a critical impact on the way he reads sources and policies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC) First off, I got the fact that you are a "grammar Nazi" directly off your user page. I was using the example as an item that doesn't have a MAJOR grammatical error in it. Claiming things like that he is introducing "Broken English" or "very very bad grammar" in every article he edits doesn't hold up here. Like I said the reason for this coming to ANI isn't a grammar issue but a content issue. I personally think the language portion of this ANI request should be a non-issue.Marauder40 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC) That doesn't mean that my suggestion here is grammar nazi-ish. Indeed, the complaint about introduction of copy-editing workload (and some of it is, indeed, incredibly bad) is at the margin of what I've been talking about. Rather, it's Claudio's understanding of sources, understanding of policies, and the way he then reflects that understanding of the source and states his policy rationales to other. These are at the core of editing even where no content disputes exist, but become almost the only thing that matters when a dispute must be resolved. And I'm not even saying that some kind of sanction needs to be placed; but if anyone but me thinks this is a reasonable idea, I think they might be able to persuade Claudio to seek this sort of constructive advice on his own initiative. I have tried, but failed. That's it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Factchecker you insulting me is far from being productive or an attempt to improve my language skills. I have never rejected to improve my language skills and I take a lot of care when editing an article, but I certainly have rejected your very uncivil manners against me. And due the ban, I have to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions such as those you proposed to me. Actually, these my efforts to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions, have not been considered in favor of me in this ANI thread. Well, at any rate, your very first comment to me at one talk page was expressively saying that people like me should not be allowed to edit at wikipedia. Surely, we have a very different comprehension on what is productive and what is unproductive. Well, I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from my less mechanical native language, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering your very rude comments Factchecker. Above I also explained my last edit reasoning. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another alternate proposal

Simple: mentorship or adoption for ClaudioSantos. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This editor should be offered the benefit of mentoring/adoption. In the instance the disruption continues we can always revisit more stringent sanctions.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Feel free to offer to mentor him. He could use some help. The two are not mutually exclusive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plain useless. Subject has rejected all earlier issued advice, al least in deeds. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, now I remember that once after you read my position against this really noxious capitalistic reality, that for me deserves to be helped to die and to be abolished forever and replaced with a real Human Species, unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's nothing to suggest that Claudio is at all interested in mentorship or adoption. It's also worth noting that Yank and Lionel didn't show up here until they were canvassed. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I also worth noting that NotBW who opened this ANI thread did not show up at Margaret Sanger or to Eugenics at the United States, until I edited there. I do not believe in coincidences, do you PhGustaf? At any rate, actually I do have asked one user to adopt me so I am indeed interested in the adoption. I did not canvass Lionel nor asked him to adopt me, I have never interacted with him. All about an alleged canvass was responded above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely the combative behavior we are talking about. Fingerpointing and accusing another editor of waiting in the wings for you to edit so they can report you. A bit silly. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, are you talking about PhGustaf concerns about Lionel showing up here allegedely because I have canvassed him? I have not canvassed Lionel, although I was fingerpointed and accused of that. A bit silly, I do agree. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not when I responded to your comment. Regardless, that's quite enough interaction with you for me. Don't have the patience for the behavior you got brought here for int he first place. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Very unlikely to have any effect on the combative behaviour that has caused this editor to be topic banned and blocked for edit warring six times. If anyone wants to try it, feel free. But that is no substitute for expanding the topic ban. This user has consumed an incredible amount of time and attention already. I also have concerns about the canvassing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I do believe and practice adoption instead of abortion, even if I have to "waste" my time. But that's me who have nothing at all to lose than chains. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Very much doubt this would do any good, given the lack of behavioral change after previous blocks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose sadly - won't fix the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bad good dragosh98

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 year causa sui (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Over the passed few days, several editors at WP:WikiProject Football, myself included, have had trouble with Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs). He has a blatant disregard for notability guidelines. Many of the articles this user has created have gone straight to afd. Once nomminated, he has frequently removed the afd tags. In at least one instance, Horia Crişan, he has recreated deleted articles repeatidly. He has been involved in at least one edit warring dispute. Most importantly, all atempts to communicate with him, both in English and Romanian, which appears to be his native language, have been ignored. A quick look at his talk page will give an idea as to what the problems are. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You may find some previous discussion here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Problematic_user. I've given up hope for this editor and would support an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this user has never once communicated on an article or user talk page, aside from the original non-English note xe left on xyr user talk shortly after joining. The user has dozens of articles deleted, via prod, BLP-prod, and Speedy, and now some are going through AfD. If WikiProject Football is fed up with him, then it seems that even if some of xyr info is useful, the overall drain on resources is such that the user is a net negative to the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a one year block. The previous discussions here at ANI have suggested that a major part of this editor's problems is that their understanding of English is, at present, just not good enough to allow them to edit en.wiki articles without causing disruption. Making a quick assumption from the username and the editing behaviour, there's a fair chance the editor is a young teenager whose first language is not English. Doubtless they are learning English in school; if so then it's plausible that one year from now their English might be good enough to participate without problems. A year's break might also help with any other problems that exist aside from the language problems.

I'd also request that, if that's the route gone down, someone phrase an explanation of it politely and encouragingly, and put it on their talk page in Romanian. It's a good idea to make them understand that this is not a punitive block, and that they're encouraged to contribute to ro.wiki in the meantime, and to contribute to en.wiki again when their English skills have developed more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Are there any Romanian speakers in the house? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 year by me. If anyone can get through to him and get him talking, you are welcome to shorten it without my leave. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

==

and User:Wlkr999 ==

and User:Wlkr999 suddenly joined in the English Wikiredia. They seems to think that their own arguments and sources are correct, and then it should be achieved their own purpose in several articles of History of Korea [5], Timeline of Korean history [6], Template:History of Korea [7], and Gojoseon [8]. However, I believe that behaviors of two user was intentional distorting the truth about Korean history, and these actions is suppose to contempt for Wikipedia rules such as WP:EW, and WP:TAGTEAM.

especially violates the WP:PA by swear word to me as "Shut up Historiographer, how dare you to claim it is unreliable?".[9] I felt deeply insulted by him, and think it is That's pretty harsh for the other user. I hope and admin take fair action to

and User:Wlkr999 about these hostile personal attack, distorting the Korean history, vandals in Korea-related articles, and violate the several Wikipedia rules. Thanks.--Historiographer (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see several concerning things here. First, I don't see anybody talking on the article/template talk pages--and they (may be)/are new users, so they might have an excuse, but you're a long term veteran Historiographer, so you should know that you can't just try to keep an article in your preferred version just by edit warring.

Having said that, I am highly concerned that these two editors started editing only a week apart, and so far have a nearly 100% overlap: Wlkr999 has edited exactly 3 different articles/templates, all 3 of which Quendearn has also edited (Quendearn's only additional article is Timeline of Korean history. Plus, it rings some alarm bells to me that Quendearn's very first edit had the edit summary of "repaired a ref link; to be consistant with other cites of Wiki". It also bothers me that, when Historiographer warned Wlkr999 for disruptive editing (which may or may not be justified), Wlk999's response included the line, "BTW, I noticed many editing wars in your editing history"--note that this comment was made after Wlk999 had been editing about 1 week. Wlk999's first 4 edits were reverts of another editor. Of course, all of these things are explainable, but put together I'm suspecting off-wiki coordination, sockpuppetry, and/or a returned user coming back under a new name. I know we've had people blocked for bad behavior on Korean history articles before, but no names spring to my mind. Anyone with any more specific thoughts. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I am new here. If my sentence was too harsh and offended you, Historiographer, I would like to apologize.

Then considering the revision I made, I here need to statement the followings: 1. The refs I used: "Korea, Old and New" and "The Korea, A global studies handbook" are western academic publications (third party press, with Korean authors) and are the standard text-books in US universities on Korea study. The outer links I included are all from .edu sites and with specific authors who are responsible to. "Korea, Old and New", is considered to be "most reliable and useful" by journal of Korean Study (vol.16,pp 118). Anyone can use google scholar to search this book and can find out it has the most citations among the pubs on Korea history. Without any research, Historiographer judged my refs to be unreliable even after I had told him/her what those refs are. For me, such illogical behavior only implies nationalistic emotions and bad intentions. 2. Every sentence (Yes, every sentence) I added or corrected is according to or even from the refs I mentioned above. Historiographer undid many revisions of mine without providing any supporting facts or evidence. I hope admin could check all the edits between Historiographer and I and judge who is telling the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quendearn (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, as a new editor, you may not be aware, but admins don't do that. We don't arbitrate content decisions and pick the "right" answer (at least, we're not supposed to). Our "job" is to handle issues related to user behavior, along with some ancillary things like deletions and page protections. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, if Historiographer continues to undo all my revisions without reasons and supporting evidence as what he has done, what should I do? Who should I ask to conclude the "right" one? Quendearn (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "right" one to be concluded. You have to talk it out at the article's talk page. There's a tab running across the top of every page labeled "discussion" that allows you to discuss these issues. As an editor, you are responsible for reaching a consensus on the contents of the article with other editors. Please read up on some policy topics around content disputes, like WP:BATTLE, WP:CON, and most importantly, WP:WIN. You may also want to peruse WP:TALK, just so you get the hang of how talk page discussions go on. I think those will give you a good basis for resolving a content dispute productively. Remember that Wikipedia is foremost a community, not just a collection of facts. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quendearn, you are consistently claimed your sources are right in this page. Although original refs are written in a Korean language, contents of original version were not incorrect, irrespective of non-existent my Korean nationalistic view you said, and this edit-war is stated by You and Wlkr999. I did not refer about relationship between you and Wlkr999, which was already mentioned by Qwyrxian, however, there's something suspicious about its sockpuppetry. In addition, I have doubts about even 68.181.9.40, who revert to your controversial version. (68.181.9.40 sarcastic said as if 203.247.149.239 is me, but, examination of the facts proves the its correlation, and it is contrary possible that IP is somebody's sock.) There are still remained about your violate the rules of WP:EW and WP:TAGTEAM. What's your opinion about this?--Historiographer (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it should be needs to investigation of sockpuppetry, and admin judgment for his various violent on WP:PA, WP:EW and WP:TAGTEAM. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Historiographer, yes, my refs are accurate. I provided the evidence to prove the accuracy, and if you deny this, support your self by showing proofs. My account is logged-out before I noticed and therefore 68.181.9.40 was shown on the edit history page instead of my account name. There is no need for you to be suspicious. However, the Korean ip 203.247.149.239 did the same thing as you did to maintian your controversial version. Right after that ip said to discuss the revision of mine, you appeared and posted your response first time to my arguments. What a coincidence! I hope admin could investigate this sockpuppetry and Historiographer's violation of WP:EW for undoing without reasons and supporting facts. Quendearn (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report the activities of some editors – ethnic abuse and edit warring from the side of eastern european editors

It looks in Wikipedia is the ideological group acting together. Its a strong meatpuppetry here and ideological canvassing. I speak about coordinated edits and canvassing of users: User:Norden1990, User:Fakirbakir and User:Koertefa. They often contact the skilled users User:Hobartimus and User:Nmate – this two users usualy dont edit Wikipedias article, but just a monitor users involved in the articles about eastern european topics, waiting for a their mistakes or provocate them by edit warring or wikistalking, contact admins (CANVASS) and write reports. This situation is a long term.

It is important. User Samofi is talking about 5 Hungarian users.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Little Entente was revived on Wikipedia. I don't care this kind of conspiracy theories, I'm not used to consult with anyone before editing. Sándor Rudnay was a Hungarian cardinal and noble of Slovak origin in the Kingdom of Hungary so I used his Hungarian name. The Slovak Uprising located in Hungary, not in Slovakia which established in 1993 (Before that an independent Slovakia consisted between 1939-1945, a puppet state of the Nazi Germany). --Norden1990 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A. User:Norden1990

Iam offended by his statements against Romanians: „It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself“ [10] „moved Hungarian Romanian War of 1919 to 1919 Hungarian–Romanian War: Ok, but this is a very unfortunate title, because there was an other enemy in Hungary: Czechoslovakia. On the other hand this article is a typical product of Romanian chau...)“ – he meaned chauvinism[11]

Iam offended by his statements against Slovaks and he is deleteing content in the Slovak related articles: „Slovak? No comment“[12] „Slovakia??? When?“[13] „moved Alexander Rudnay to Sándor Rudnay: He was a Hungarian of Slovak descent not a Slovak. He served in the Kingdom of Hungary, Slovakia established in 1993.“ [14] Slovaks were autochtonous nation in the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 and distinct Slovak nation durring the Czechoslovakia before 1993. Its ethnic related comments.

He is changeing the names of persons and geographic areas without discussion and consensus: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Hungarian names of the towns and vilages in the Kingdom of Hungary were official only between 1868-1918. In the clear Slovak person should be mentioned primary Slovak names of the towns and villages acording to Elonka´s experiment.

Moveing articles withot consensus and edit warring: [27] [28] [29] [30]

User:Norden1990 is highly disruptive user in the topics connected with Slovak history, he is not able to make a consensus and he uses the ethnic abuse if somebody doesnt agree with him. He is not disruptive only in the case of the modern Hungarian politicians.

User:Norden1990 I also would like to report the rude and aggressive behavior of this user who insulted me on several occasions (I was the chauvinist from [31]). Last time he insulted me on my Talk page [[32]]. He reacted to my warning about stopping to insult me with a post on my Talk page that ends with: ...So you can go to hell.... I believe that such behavior should not be condoned on Wikipedia as it goes against the very principle of cooperation among editors that makes Wikipedia possible. Octavian8 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

B. User:Fakirbakir

I feel a personaly touched by his statements and strong ethnic related abuse: „Samofi you are a Slovak nationalist user who hates Hungarian pages“[33] He was asked for a few times to delete it, but its still there: [34]

I apologised about it[35]. Moreover User:Samofi's only aim is to ruin my work. See the history of Principality of Hungary (speedy deletion, AFD, Renaming process by user Samofi). This page was created by me. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This statement is an agressive political personal attack to my country and to Slovak people: „The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society“[36]

I was new here. I admit it was a strong statement one and a half year ago. I was huffily because there was another comment about the 'good' relations between Slovak majority and Hungarian minority. Unfortunately it is not true in my opinion. But now I know I have to avoid this kind of behavior.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And here other examples of bad behaviour: „You do not understand his complain because you can not see your own troll behavior“ [37] [38] Propagation of „scientific racism“ as a modern theory and edit warring: [39]

I deleted my statement and I wrote this 'It was untethical from me":[40]. Moreover Turanid race was used by Hungarian anthropologists in the socialist era in Hungary. It had nothing to do with Turanism. I tried to explain to another user, because he had offended me[41][42]. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring mentality in the variouse articles and with variouse editors: User:Daizus [43] User:Samofi [44] [45] [46] [47] User:Iadrian_yu [48] User:Octavian8 [49] User:Wladthemlat [50] User:Yopie [51] Other users: [52]

It is all about content disputes.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Moveing pages without discussion and consensus: Allied intervention in Hungary [53] Royal Hungary [54]

If you examine the content of page of Allied intervention (1918-20), It had nothing to do with revolution of 1848. It was redirected to 1848. About the other article, the expanded page of Habsburg Royal Hungary was the missing link between Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle ages and Austria-Hungary. An admin tried to do the same thing before me. See its talkpage.[55]. Nobody tried to revert it, because it does make sense.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing: Principality of Nitra [56] Principality of Hungary [57] Against admins [58] „I know that page does not have to be exist as a full page I know why you supported him but.....Please keep your eyes on him“[59]

All is about content disputes because USER SAMOFI used pov statements and his only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Everybody questioned his sources. See talk page of Principality of Hungary or Principality of Nitra. About the 'admin' link I withdrew it and I wrote to the summary 'It was unethical from me'[60].Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Changeing the content without sources: [61] [62]

IT is content dispute again. And User Samofi knows well Great Moravia was annihilated in 902. It is historical fact. What about the names? In 1570-1711 Transylvania was ruled primary by Hungarian princes. They have a right to use Hungarian names.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir add a strongly negative contributions to Slovak related articles. He is not neutral and he is often involved in edit warring. His work consist with writing the synthesis. He usualy finds a nationalistic hungarian source what is just a minor theory. Than he is writing a new article like a synthesis to prove that this minor theory is right. His canvassing is based on ethnical selection: [63] - Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history...Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás) - it is ethnical based canvassing, it should be no place in wikipedia for this.

These are biased statements. "nationalistic sources". IF I use Hungarian academic works for sources It will be nationalist? Or Sources from English authors.?Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

C. User:Koertefa

His edits are usualy strongly anti-slovakian and anti-romanian. He is not creating a new articles but he usualy helps to other editors with edit warring after canvassing. He is involved ONLY in the articles where are often edit wars, so he came here only from the ideological reasons. Here is his history: [64] Its only edit warring and ideological warring at talkpages. How many of the new sources or sentences he added? How many articles he created? A planty of users make a disruptions but it should be balanced by benefication of wikipedia. In this case its only disruptions. He is changeing the names of towns against agreeoment that it will the Slovak names of the towns: [65] [66]

He is deleteing the names of the people with slovak descent: [67]

He is often involved in edit wars: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]

He vandalized my talk page for a several times: [75]

Contributions of User:Koertefa are motivated only to enforce his point of view and edit warring. He is usualy edit warring against my edits and edits of User:Omen1229 --Samofi (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• User Samofi is a "two times" banned user because of his editing in connection with Hungarian articles. His only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Now I see he has another aim to ban Hungarian users. I could not work properly because of his disruptive editing. check his history here.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE

Dear user Fakirbakir, please write about your edits, not about mine. I was banned for them - it was a case 2 weeks ago and 1,5 year ago. Stop to attack me: His only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Now I see he has another aim to ban Hungarian users. Is it possible that this user say this statements without a proofs? Its clear battleground mentality based on ethnicity/nationality. I dont want your ban, but you broken rules and you should awake it. And stop with attacks on my person coz this report is about you. With your last edits you destroyed my report with your addings in to my text [76]. This user is more and more agressive with his edits and he is not aware of it. --Samofi (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I destroyed nothing. I have signed my comments. You was banned because you did not sign your comments. You should not state untrue things.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you talking all the time about me? Its again your manipulation. When I was banned because I did not sign my comments? Iam waiting for a link (proof). You added the text into my text, so now its hard to read it. You cannot instert your text into mine. Please fix it. --Samofi (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: here is my brief defense. I start with stating that I do not keep personal contact with other editors, I do not belong to any "group", and I never abused anybody ethnically. I also think that both Slovakia and Hungary belong to Central Europe in the historical, cultural and geographical sense, so I am against calling this region "Eastern Europe", even though these countries were part of the Eastern Block. Regarding the accusations above: (1) I did not delete the real name of anybody, especially not a Slovak name. What I have deleted [77] was just a dubious statement about the (alleged) birth name of that person, since that claim was misleading and tried to hide a Latin translation. I gave a detailed explanation of my action on the Talk page of that article [78]. I made several contributions to that article [79][80], and I tried to improve many other articles, as well [81][82][83]. About (2) the so-called "edit wars" cited above: most of those edits are related to naming conventions. These edits were consistent with the usual historical naming conventions and the guidelines of Wikipedia. I only used the names that were appropriate for the historical period in question (always providing the modern names, as well). Recently, I only asked for mentioning the relevant historical name, too, in brackets at the first occurrence [84]. My edits were even consistent with the proposed naming guidelines of user Elonka [85], a Slovak user, by the way. I expressed that the editors of these topics should reach a consensus about the historical names, in order to avoid potential edit wars [86]. Moreover, I am committed to the improvement of Wikipedia, I usually give detailed explanation of my edits (edit tags, Talk pages), and I am open to consensus: for example, I was the one who added the claim that "András Hadik" had Slovak ancestry [87], after a consensus was reached on the Talk page [88]. Finally, about "vandalizing" a user's Talk page [89]: this was just a minor warning (which the user deleted immediately) since I felt that I was personally attacked, e.g., [90]. Therefore, I refuse the accusations given above, but, please, feel free to take a look at my contributions [91] and decide for yourself. All the best, Koertefa (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering sanctions

Okay, stop it. You've all talked quite enough now. I'll be looking into this at some moment when I find a bit of time for it, and I more or less expect I'll end up banning the lot of you together, unless somebody else beats me to it. I recommend you now make a brief statement each explaining why you yourself should not be banned, but don't bother talking any further about why the other party should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame. I edited a lot for the common good. However I can accept if User Fut. Perf wants to judge my future here. I am tired to work with editors like User Samofi and I know wiki loses a lot of editors because of this sort of problems. I do not mind...Fakirbakir (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I've not seen anything but disruptive and contentious editing from any of the above editors, and have seen no indication of anyone's intention to de-escalate their conflict in order to reach consensus. Right now, I would say that none of these editors is even close to being an asset to the community. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever checked User Koertefa's or User Norden1990's editing? They are very diligent editors. Norden1990 is a professional "biography writer".Fakirbakir (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support' block of all the squabbling editors here, per FutPerf. Maybe if they can only edit their talk page they'll stop making accusatory statements about each other and be willing to examine, and dare we hope? change their own behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain it? Was I disruptive when I created new pages (Pelso plate, Tisza Plate, Komlosaurus carbonis, Principality of Hungary, István Koháry etc) or tried to improve and rationalize a lot of articles especially in connection with Hungarian history? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you should wait for explanations of the other mentioned editors. This method is biased without them.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the third, maybe fourth, time this issue has appeared on ANI. Wouldn't editing in these articles come under WP:DIGWUREN sanctions? --Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

AH, I just re-read it to double check. Perhaps, the editors who are not already warned under WP:DIGWUREN should be placed on notice and the whole lot directed to WP:DRN. If that doesn't sort it out, then sanctions and blocks are the only remaining recourse. Fakirbakir, I should mention that Nmate has been blocked for a month as of yesterday so you'll not be hearing from them. --Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

May I point out the obvious? It is high time for admins to take responsibility for the mistakes they make. user:Samofi was indefinitely blocked already. It's safe to say that anti-Hungarian edits and other issues were covered under that block with the general term "disruptive editing". The the exact same admin who thought it was a good idea to unblock [92] the now banned user:Iaaasi Unblocked Samofi a few weeks later [93]. I estimate that user:Iaaasi wasted hundreds of hours from the lives of community members, and admins forcing them to detect, tag block sockpuppets [94] and various other disruptions. Iaaasi of course, being a proven Hungarian-hating editor intervened for Samofi so that Samofi could get unblocked. The now banned Iaaasi went as far as claiming previously unclaimed sockpuppets as his own just so Samofi could get unblocked [95]. So the community wasted a few hundred hours on Iaaasi after Iaaasi's unblocked, but what happened to Samofi? Well the except same thing with the exception of Samofi edits a lot less frequently. Iaaasi had thousands and thousands of edits, so he got banned relatively quickly, Samofi only has a grand total of 800 something edits over several years, a much slower rate. But it doesn't mean that he in general wasn't just as disruptive per edit, just with a lot fewer edits. He was unblocked by the exact same admin who unblocked Iaaasi. So a known and by admin confirmed disruptive user was dumped back on the community by an admin. No matter he was already indefinitely blocked for being so disruptive, let's just unblock him, while admins wash their hands of the consequences. Then surprise surprise, the same user, who was disruptive enough to get indeffed, has problems with other editors again! Who saw that coming? Who would have thought that he will be disruptive and attack other users, edit war and appear on ANI. Who would have thought that he would have a problem once again with Hungarian editors, when before his original block he already wrote "Its not good for Hungarians because majority of Hungarian inventors were Jews" and "Hungarian users are not neutral.". It seems like that this recent incident is nothing new and a direct consequence of unblocking a once already 100% proven and by admin confirmed disruptive user. I don't like how admins wash their hands of any responsibility when a problem surfaces that the admin corps itself created by unblocking irresponsibly and without due process. The solution here is to not unblock users like Iaaasi who are sure to cause issues further down the line (yes Samofi edits less often its a big plus and because of the editing rate difference Iaaasi was a lot bigger drain on the community). Hobartimus (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I wouldn't even be surprised if Iaaasi is somehow involved here, according to the user:Iaaasi user page, this user is known for "soliciting users by e-mail" one such case was a user from Slovakia who had a lot of manufactured "conflict" with Hungarian editors, over several articles, and made several reports and complained to admins about Hungarian editors (all under the directions of user:Iaaasi). one such report We also know that Iaaasi found it important to intervene for Samofi's unblock more than a year ago already. Hobartimus (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Let me also respond to the small part where I am mentioned after all that's why I was notified and called into this ANI thread. I am mentioned in a single sentence, User:Samofi writes that I, Hobartimus "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article", a statement which seems outright insane considering how I have over 12 000 edits and user:Samofi 835. This is so out of place that I started to think about it. Why would he write such a sentence?? If we consider user:Iaaasi "helped out" user Samofi in writing part, or all of this "report" as he wrote few dozen previous ones against Hungarian editors then the statement is not so out of place any more. User Iaaasi has hundreds of sockpuppets IP socks and accumulated thousands upon thousands of edits in the past 1.5 years or so. So from Iaaasi's POV, its not so insane to think that I Hobartimus don't edit that much because in the past year or so Iaaasi had more edits than me. He also owned over hundreds of socks and IPs so he would think of himself as someone who contributes a great deal under many aliases. But Samofi who has 835 grand total edits? It's impossible to think that he would write something like that by himself. He would never think that someone with 12 000 edits is not an active editor or that they "usually don't edit". So If Samofi wrote this report by himself its utter nonsense but the whole thing starts to make sense from the POV of Iaaasi and his countless thousands of edits that he made while he socked all over Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And here it is again. We don't care what other people have done; this is about your actions. The very fact that none of you can do anything but point fingers is the problem here. Quite frankly, it's not productive, and the project is probably better without the distraction. Future left you a very simple task above: convince us that you don't deserve to be sanctioned, without talking about why another party should. Hobartimus, you have failed at that simple task in epic proportions. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vanisaac I ask you to withdraw your personal attack comment above. Your statement above that I need to prove anything is incorrect, because I am not accused of anything. is a pretty outrageous personal attack and deserves an apology. Hobartimus (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)For others reading this, I suspect that user:Vanisaac didn't actually read this section of ANI that he commented above and this is why he didn't notice there isn't any evidence listed against me in all of this wall of text above. Therefore with no evidence listed against me I need nothing to disprove. I ask future participants that they read the discussions first before they comment on them. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is just the point. A simple "Hey, there doesn't really seem to be any actual accusation against me." would have been perfect. Instead, you took your opportunity to respond to drag this conversation back into tit-for-tat accusations that are the problem. Future indicates that he didn't even consider you to be part of this matter, and neither did I. I'm not sure after your responses above that that will ever be a consensus again. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What personal attack? Now you're pointing fingers at Vanisaac instead of addressing the original request. He's right; you talked about Samofi and Iaaasi, accusing them of POV pushing and apparantly being anti Hungarian; you don't see that you are making attacks, and Vanisaac is only trying to get you to respond to Fut.Perf.'s very simple request? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't referring to Hobartimus; I'm not even sure his name had come up before at all. I'll also emphasise that it wasn't me who put up the sub heading of "proposed blanket ban" up there. I certainly didn't propose any such thing; what I said was that I would be looking into everybody's conduct (and then possibly swing the DIGWUREN hammer, where appropriate, but on an individual basis.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec once again response to KC) The one where he didn't notice that there is no subsection titled "Hobartimus" and no evidence listed against Hobartimus. No diffs from Hobartimus. No nothing. user:Iaaasi is banned for his disruptions over a lot of CheckUser confirmed socks and IP socks. and I'm not accusing him of anything only stating facts, any of which I can back up with even more evidence if requested. It's all in SPI, tagged socks, etc etc. Samofi was indefinitely blocked it's also a fact not an accusation I will respond to everything if you have further questions. Hobartimus (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be a simple case of mistaken identity, not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the sub-heading, and I apologize if it is misleading. I was only trying to split it from the conversation of the third party, above. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will write about myself. My name was calling here for a few times with negative statements. Why I should not be blocked? My first experiences with Wikipedia were about 5 years ago with this acount. I was just a testing it, probably with the not so high level of the english language. I wanted to improve slovak related articles. In that time I was naive and I thought that we can write all sourced theories. In that time I firstly noticed that some opinions of majority or the singnificant minority of the scholars are hidden. Than I had a free time from Wikipedia - I had time to improve my language and watching the situation in Wikipedia. After that I saw, that Slovak related historical articles are written mostly from Hungarian point of view and our sources were ignored and discommend, I wanted to show next singnificant opinions of the scholars. In that time I was writing my diploma about slovaks in former hungarian kingdom, so I had a knowledge from czech and slovak historians about slovak history in hungarian kingdom. but my sources were deleted, so I started to be "agresive" and I was pushing this sources without consensus, but this deletion of my sources were wikistalking. I was relatively new after a long time without editing. I told some nationalistic sentences. In that time I was blocked for a half year. I was thinking about my behaviour and I was studying the rules of Wikipedia. I told to myself that I will not abusive to other users and I hope that last half year I was not. Also I was studying english and also hungarian sources about our common Slovak-Hungarian history. I told to myself that I will use mostly neutral english language sources which are in the majority or in the significant minority and the same thing I will expecting from the other users. But if they broken this "my" rule I broken 3RR, but it was a mistake and I was sorry about that. I was blocked for a week. I had again time for a thinking. I told to myself, that I will use talk pages and noticeboards to discuss a topics important for me. I will not edit impulsive - I will write a longer texts and thinking about them. I want to improve articles connected with Slovakia. Firstly I would like to fight against original research and in the second case against nationalistic abuse, because I know that human can change. I dont wish nothing bad to this users and I would like to cooperate with them in future but we have to respect each-other. I believe that I made a big progress in Wikipadia from the past time to the present time. You can see, that my "disruptive" edits of last months were associated with one article (Principality of Hungary) - so its not about ideology or nationality. Its just against original research and synthesis. My activity to improve this article was broken because of canvassing and not respecting of bold-revert-discuss cyclus. Iam sure that I can be useful in improving wikipedia and if is my behaviour still inappropriate I can be better in future. About my contacts with other users or sockpuppetry. I did not contact any user in the different place as here. I had 1 sockpuppet - CsabaBabba I told its me and it was a long time ago. From that time Iam "clean" :) So.. Positives: I started to more discuss, I dont abuse other users and I stoped to use a nationalistic sentences, Iam controling adherence of "no original research" and Iam looking for a users who should be reported in DIGWUREN... Negatives: bad history of my edits.. Thanx for reading. --Samofi (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And connect me with Iaaasi? Its serious attack and paranoid theory. Its no proofs for this. If there are a objective evidences I would like to see them. Iam individualist. --Samofi (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So long as you are here Samofi, you could answer a question I was wondering. What do you think, why did Iaaasi contact you through the Slovak wikipedia? Was that because people are less likely to notice it there? Also why did you write that I "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article" I have over 12500 edits and you have only have about 800. So why would you write something like that unless somehow you have a lot more edits than me. To me this is clearly something that Iaaasi wrote, I see no other possible explanation. Hobartimus (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont know that he contacted me or I dont remember. When I was last time logged at Slovak Wikipedia? I forgotten password.. It was a years ago.. I dont want to be connected with nobody. I never made personal canvassing or contacting of the users. As you can see, in this case I called all editors and I knew that some of this editors can say a lot of dirty about my past. But I dont live for nostalgic history, I wanna live for future. I would like to create something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Greek_and_Turkish_wikipedians_cooperation_board for Slovaks and Hungarians. There can be admin which will regulate us and there can be a few neutral mediators. All big problems we should discuss there - its prevention against nationalistic oriented edits. I told incorrectly "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article". If you were offended sorry - it was meaned that you usually remove the reverts, change few words or letters or translate slovak names to hungarian. Honestly how many a new articles you created or how many sources you have add? Iam sure it will similary number between me and you. When I was banned I wrote a long report about you (only in my pc), you are not so clean as you think but I did not report you here, I only mentioned you here. Last half year of your editation here you did not made a ethnical abuse, last time I remember an inappropriate comment about Matica slovenska so I think you changed a little. But you should stop to hunting people and more edit in the area of your interests. Now you should start to understand different opinions and respect them. Maybe new http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Slovak_and_Hungarian_wikipedians_cooperation_board will open the way for our cooperation. --Samofi (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And Iam surprised that so experienced and skilled editor as you talking about yourself, did not have an idea how to solve this problem. Really was the best way to solve this problem edit warring and writing of thousands of reports? If our historians and your historians have a different reflection of history why it should not be mentioned a both significant view-points? We need 1 admin and 3-4 neutral mediators. Controversial topics will edit only if all neutral mediators and admin find a consensus. --Samofi (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems continue.. User:Fakirbakir is not able work with good manners according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle I reverted edit which looks like a original research and opened discussion in talk page. He reverted my edits, without discussion and consensus because he is not able to dicuss and make compromises http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Hungary&action=history. User:Koertefa canvassed by User:Fakirbakir to the topic Principality of Hungary continue with ideological battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Principality_of_Hungary_-_synthesis_and_original_research.2C_no_sources_talking_about_this_principality_in_895 They continue with original research and they are not able to accept their mistakes and reach the compromise. --Samofi (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mostly uninvolved comment. I've had a content disagreement with Fakirbakir myself—at Allied Intervention in Hungary if you're curious—, but I have no idea what the above bruhaha is about. I found Fakirbakir to be reasonably responsive to criticism, and while I admit that I have not read the above discussion due to its WP:TLDR nature, I think Fakirbakir can be reasonably constructive. Please consider my statement as a mitigating factor if you consider sanctioning him. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

tz database & lawsuit

• JulDes (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• TZ master (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Folks might want to keep an eye on tz database and the redirect at Thomas Shanks given the lawsuit mentioned in this Slashdot post. The User:JulDes and User:TZ master accounts seem a little odd given the timing and account creation dates, but I'm unsure if these may or may not be the same individual (and if so, maybe he just needs an explanation that using multiple undisclosed accounts while editing the same material tends to be frowned upon). The editing of Thomas Shanks (a redirect which had existed since 2006) by both accounts definitely seemed a little unusual. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser data suggests that these accounts are  Unrelated. AGK [•] 12:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Because two accounts have two articles they edited in common Wikipedia runs a checkuser? Another one that did edit both is:

• David Gerard (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log).

TZ master (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an overlap in the behaviour of your account and that of JulDes, so technical data was required to (attempt to) discern whether there was a connection. There was not. No such overlap in behaviour exists between David Gerard and JulDes or David Gerard and you. Regards, AGK [•] 16:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Overlap in behavior? I fixed what JulDes created. One can also construct "overlap" in behavior with David Gerard. He edited the two pages too. But there are certainly also differences, since he made the unsourced claim "apparent vanity article", something JulDes and me did not. Seems David Gerard either has limited knowledge, a hidden agenda or simply assumed bad faith on the part of JulDes. TZ master (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is racist

• Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) == Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That's right, you read rightly, we're racist. Or at least most of us are. How do I know this? Because Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) told me so at Talk:Antisemitism (warning, wall of text, near the end of the post). And what makes us so racist? What vile, detestable racist acts have we committed? Why, we've got an article on antisemitism that makes the incredible claim that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. I know, I know; it's hard to believe but that's what the article says. If that doesn't shock you enough, would you believe that in his valiant, and so far unrewarded, effort to eliminate this calumny from our pages, the only response he's gotten has been repeated (although sometimes impatient) requests to explain what reliably sourced changes he'd like to make? Can you imagine the injustice of it all? On top of that, a number of editors have (I blush to say it) intimated that his only interest in the article is to troll the talk page and annoy other editors with long, pointless rants that go nowhere and can't possibly improve the encyclopedia.

Now I don't want to be unfair to my fellow editor, but it looks as though the stress of this has gotten to him as he seems to have violated WP:POINT by removing a few thousand bytes of text from Islamophobia based on an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Check the edit summary wording not allowed in anti-Semitism, not allowed here. That sort of goes against WP:POINT, doesn't it? Now I know how trying it can be to edit here for someone who is right while everyone else is wrong, but he also, um, slipped a little bit and called not just the community, but a number of editors by name, racist just a few days ago. I think the continuous exposure to the racism here (everyone knows we're another Stormfront) may be getting to be too much for him.

Now, I was sort of hoping there was something we could do for Noloop to spare him any more of the cruel, unscrupulous, bigoted treatment he's been getting here and I got an idea while I was looking at his user page. If you look at this old version of his user page, he actually made an effort, about a year ago to leave Wikipedia forever by scrambling his password, but something must have gone wrong because he came back in August of this year. Since he's made it clear on a number of occasions how much he dislikes the place and how little it would bother him to be permanently unable to edit here, most recently in his post at the Antisemitism talk page linked above, do you think we could oblige him? I know he'd be a lot happier if we did, and so would everyone he interacts with here. (Note:relevant section at Talk:Antisemitism has been collapsed) Incidentally, his current user page mentions that he controls another account: Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I'm sure we wouldn't want him to be able to return under that account and be subjected to any more of the racist bigotry that's been directed at him until now.

Please! This editor needs our help! --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(I read the section-header and knew what this was about... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Let me get this right. After narrowly escaping WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop, Noloop came back on Mindbunny (talk · contribs) while evading questions about the connection. As Mindbunny they managed to accumulate a lengthy block log and ended up being indeffed. Then the indef somehow got lifted, somewhat inexplicably. (Jehochman wrote that "If Mindbunny pledges to avoid WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE behavior, and names a few articles they want to edit, I will reconsider my block.", but I see no pledge anywhere on that talk page.) Now they went back to Noloop...and now this thread. Did I get the history right? T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere, don't remember which page or if it was an email, I receive an assurance and decided to give them another chance, which obviously has not worked out. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That'd be the accurate abstract to this academic paper, yes. You forgot self-admitted sock "Frogwaves" and the announcement to sock s'more though, so that's an A- Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There's something that doesn't ring right here. Noloop's block log isn't the longest I've seen, but after starting a fresh on Mindbunny, they managed to accumulate twice as many blocks on that account, which was indef'd. That indef was then lifted and they're now allowed to go back to Noloop. Now, I know that having secondary accounts permitted as long as the two accounts do not work within the same sphere. However, judging by the contributions list, both accounts have been used to edit in the same area and been blocked for the same sort of behaviour in both accounts. This is a clear violation of WP:CLEANSTART, despite the connection between the two accounts being known. --Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Noloop. My reasoning is explained at his talk page[96]. As always, if there is consensus for an unblock or a shorter block, or some other problem with my block, feel free to revert or correct it. Fram (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we deal with Frogwaves (talk · contribs) first? that should be an easy call. And then it's on to Mindbunny. Nevermind... I see I'm late to the party... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those two alternative / older accounts are blocked as well, not because he did anything wrong with them now (he didn't use them recently), but because he isn't allowed to edit with those either while being blocked as Noloop. If there are other known accounts around, just let me know. Fram (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked in too much detail into the history of this, so will just make the general comment that a reasonably argued assertion that WP is biased, or even arguably racist - even if only due to systemic bias and its editor profile rather than deliberate malice on the part of individual editors - seems about as controversial to me as the assertion that most Holocaust denialism is antisemitic in origin or intent. Nor does it seem much of a reason to get upset, let alone kick off an ANI thread that now looks as if it will end in a ban. All I see here is the apparent use of a couple of accounts, a bit of edit-warring, a not-really-that-bad-relatively-speaking block record and utterly justifiable frustration with a lot of what passes for "editing" here. All the user seems to be doing, even on controversial pages, is asking for a bit of hedging and qualification when it comes to WP framing statements of interpretation as if they were definitive, uncontested fact. I know this is a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I regularly see editors who've been here for years posting truly awful content across multiple pages, which falls marginally short of vandalism but which gets left here as WP record; I'd rather we looked more often at turfing those people out rather than those who take a bit of a stand on what they see as matters of principle. Having said that, the user in question may be happier, as they say, in not being here, whether that's forced or voluntary. N-HH talk/edits 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Propose community ban

Given this level of deceit, the unblocks/reblocks, past arbitration issues, and the abuse of alternate accounts while the original account was indeffed, I propose a community ban for Noloop. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I'm not sure the part about abusing an alternate account while another was indeffed is right, but what did happen is egregious enough, regardless. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support As nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I guess sometimes sarcasm really is helpful. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Make it so Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - everybody deserves a second chance (and a third, and a fourth, and...), but eventually enough is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per The Bushranger. It's gone on long enough. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 15:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - user's net value to the project is a negative. One correction to the nominator's post though, Noloop wasn't indeffed when Mindbunny was being used...it was a botched attempt at a clean start. The community and Noloop would both do better if they parted ways. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Appears to be amply deserved. If I recall correctly, ArbCom has banned another user for making a career out of edits such as this. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support And nothing of value will be lost. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support A net negative for the project Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Do it nao. Oh Have Morser, in case you didn't see the above bits, Noloop = Mindbunny. --Blackmane (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per the above discussion, the above supporters, and common sense. Swarm 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I have defended Mindbunny in the past over his/her complaints about being repeatedly asked whether they were Noloop, assuming good faith. Unfortunately, the creation of said account in a manner that seemed to easily avoid arbcom sanctions, along with the constant battleground mentality, lead me to conclude that the user is not a net benefit to the project right now. I'd be more than willing to consider an unban in the future, but now is not the time. Kansan (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Disruptive and shows no evidence of plans to change. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry to interrupt the lynch mob at work, but someone needs to put the brake on this. There is nothing in this ANI report that warrants a ban or block, especially not the first cited diff, which simply shows, for the most part, the user perfectly reasonably arguing a point of policy/principle (correctly, as it happens) and which btw is far less of a "wall of text" than the first post here. The subject has not responded or been asked to respond (being randomly blocked doesn't help I suppose). If there is more or better evidence, bring it. And let the user have a say. N-HH talk/edits 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • First, I would recommend you use a less heated analogy, as "lynch mob" carries a very racial component in the US. Also, my vote is not based on this alone, which I agree is not actionable; but on the longer term concerns/questionable usage of multiple accounts alluded to above. Kansan (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that did occur to me after posting, especially given the topics at hand (it has far more general reference usually, especially in the UK .. and I can't find the strike option these days in the editing windows to cut it). Anyway, I get the multiple accounts point, but on what's here at ANI, the user seems to have been allowed them and been open about them - I don't see hard evidence of abuse of the accounts beyond each having block logs. I've got a block log, 100s of accounts have. All I see is a fairly combative nature and some - utterly accurate, in my view - criticism of WP. In response, this thread opens by citing that fairly harmless and mostly reasonable critical comment and then, at the top of this "ban" subsection, moves on to vague and unsupported accusations of "deceit" and "past arbitration issues", at which point everyone dives in to say "yes, block them, they're a bit of a nuisance". Not good. N-HH talk/edits 17:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
      • To strike out text, use the html strikethrough tags. With reference to the way Noloop/Mindbunny used their accounts, please refer to WP:CLEANSTART which explicit states that starting a new account is predicate on not returning to the same area of editing and continuing the behaviour that caused the issues in the first place. Noloop was the subject of an Arb Com case, which is generally the last resort to get an editor to straighten themselves out. If you go to WP:List of banned users you'll see a very large number of editors who have been banned for sustained levels of disruptive and tendentious editing, personal attacks, all of which Noloop/Mindbunny has been blocked for. --Blackmane (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin close an article RFC, please?

Resolved

The RfC at Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#Balance_in_the_Lead_to_the_1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War.E2.80.8E has been open just under a month, hasn't had new participants or arguments in a while, seems to have found a clear consensus (even if I, a participant, do say so myself) but feelings are being hurt in the continued discussion. Could an admin read the consensus, and close the RfC, please? Thanks. BTW, the point in discussion is very much part of the Arab/Israeli conflict, so wearing a bulletproof vest is recommended. --GRuban (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Shukran-Toda! :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for lifting of GA topic ban

Discussion moved to WP:AN

Since the 18th April 2011, I was given a topic ban [97] from the good article process on Wikipedia for nominating and reviewing articles with little understanding of GA policies, and furthermore repeating them when I had been told not to do so. I was also blocked, [98], for a week, as a harsh little reminder to abide by the rules; this block was ended early because I accepted mentorship from User:Worm That Turned. Since then I have been editing in almost every other area of the wiki, from article creation and deletion, from userboxes, through RfA and DYK. I also regularly help out at the help desk, and do a regular vandalism patrol. So this shows that I can, and have, kept my nose out of GA for six months and avoided further blocking. I have been in a few scrapes since then, including a misunderstanding of AfD closures and copyright issues. I am here now to ask for a lifting of that GA topic ban. This does not mean that the second it is lifted I will run around crazily nominating or reviewing with no respect for any guidelines; I am just asking so that if, at anytime in the future, I feel any need to, for instance one of my articles I have created could be good enough to take a review. I have also spent the six months looking at the GA process, looking at nominations, reviews, the criteria, rules, policies, guidelines etc, and promise on my not-currently-blocked user account's life to abide by them. You may also wish to review my contributions, and read the following links. My editor review, My contributions, [99], [100], [101], and especially here. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Did you run this by your mentor first? If so, what is his opinion of this request? 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC) He didn't, although he has asked Worm, myself, the administrator who blocked him, and the administrator who imposed the ban, to comment here. Worm takes the view that Rcsprinter has completed his mentorship so he's not technically Rcsprinter's mentor any more, although he's still happy to offer advice where necessary (and I think he intends to comment on this request in due course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I was trying to decide if I should comment here or move it to AN, since it's not really an incident. Anyway, comment here - Demiurge has correctly summed up my opinion, I "released" Rcsprinter back into the wild back in July, and I think it's commendable that he waited until now to put forward a request to have the topic ban lifted. He's come on a very long way since April (when he'd only been around a few months and made a couple of thousand edits) - to be a mature editor with over 11k edits under his belt. Yes, he made mistakes in the past and I'm sure he'll make them in the future, but I'd trust him to be able to good article reviews. I guess this request is largely to show the community has restored their trust him, and I'd like to see that happen. As such, I'd Support lifting the topic ban. WormTT · (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC) The copyright discussion on his talk page worries me a bit, to be honest. I haven't done any GA reviews myself, but I would think a solid grasp of the copyright policies would be a prerequisite to useful participation there, wouldn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Indeed, it's part of 1(a) of the criteria. However, I am confident Rcsprinter does understand copyright policies - he just prioritizes them incorrectly. Demiurge1000 and I are working on encouraging him to remember that copyright is something that is essential to all parts of wikipedia, at all times, and even if an article needs improving, a copyvio is not the way to do it. It may not have been the best time to put this request up, based on those discussions and there's only one person who can tell you why he decided to put it up now. WormTT · (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Per 28bytes, I have concerns about the Copyright issues as well as his recent issues with non-Admin AfD closures (particularly related to his reasoning for closure as it would relate to his reasoning when undertaking a GA review) , at this time I'd support a relaxation allowing him to nominate his own articles but would opppose allowing him to nominate articles to which he isn't the primary contributor or undertaking reviews of GA candidates until such time as he has some at least some successful nominations of his own articles to show an understanding of the criteria. This seems to be in line with the reasons he wishes to have the ban lifted and would demonstrate good faith both by him, and in him. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I think this is a good compromise; allow nominations, and if that goes well, expand it to reviews. (The "trial review" idea below also seems like it's worth trying.) 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I'm a little hesitant to support on a whim. Can we just ignore the ban for a minute and have them perform one GA review to demonstrate their competency? If it's fine, I'll fully support and I'm sure everyone else will. If (worst case) they somehow screw up, I'll be happy to simply step in and complete the review for them (I've done so in the past), and decide whether to oppose from there. Swarm 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I think Swarm's proposal is reasonable, support suspending the ban to allow one GA review, and reopen discussion upon completion. Monty845 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Rcsprinter123 asked me to comment here. Because the ban was imposed as a result of the community finding that Rcsprinter123 lacked the understanding of the GA process and criteria that is necessary to participate usefully in GA work, I think that a convincing demonstration how this has now changed would need to be part of any request to lift the ban. As no such demonstration is given here, I cannot support the request at this time. The proposal of allowing a trial review, above, seems reasonable.  Sandstein  18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC) The proposal to allow RCSprinter123 to nominate his own articles for GA should be allowed. As for reviewing others articles, the allowance of a one artice trial is reasonable, but another editor should also give a second opinion on the review. If this proves successful, then maybe a few more articles could be reviewed under the same conditions before a request to release this editor from the restriction can be allowed. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I have reservations based on very recent issues brought up on Rcsprinter123's talkpage (for some reason spread through 3 different talkpage archives). I'm not convinced he fully understands the seriousness of copyright issues, purely because these problems have only been in the last week, and I'd like to see positive edits in that area over a longer period. I commend his recent work to clear up problems that have come to light. The AFD problems seem to indicate that he still maybe needs to slow down a little and listen a bit more when he does get into "scrapes". He doesn't always respond when legitimate issues are brought to his talkpage; indeed he has no obligation to, but communication is an important part of GA. I would completely oppose a lift of the ban on reviewing GAs at this time, unless there is compelling evidence that he is able to do so competently. I don't have a problem with him nominating articles at GA, and getting some articles through the GA process could be a good way for him to learn the ropes. --BelovedFreak 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat

Jonathon Sharkey, who's primary account User: Jonathon The Impaler has been blocked in the past for making legal threats, was later unblocked after recounting his legal threats. Now, however, it looks as if Jonathon has returned to his old litigious ways, according to this letter he wrote to the POW Network:

"Wikipedia, which should be pulled down, already posted your BS lies - I will thank you for this. As you can see, they questioned my ever being in the Army. At least you helped with that. Thank you. My advise to you is, check with your attorneys, and ask them do they think you will win a Libel Per Se lawsuit. If they say yes, keep your stuff up about me. If they don't, you better recant and take it down."

That sure sounds like a NLT violation to me. Should we block Jonathon the Impaler again? Difluoroethene (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As I read that legal threat, it was directed at the source, and not at Wikipedia or any contributor. Why does that justify action? Monty₈₄₅ 22:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase "...which should be pulled down" a veiled legal threat? Difluoroethene (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I read the phrase as an expression of disgust with Wikipedia, but not a legal threat. Monty₈₄₅ 23:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He isn't even making these comments on Wikipedia. How would the administrators even take action against him? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As Alpha Quadrant brought up, these threats were not actually made on Wikipedia. Is this in violation of WP:LEGAL or not? – Richard BB 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

He isn't threatening Wikipedia, just the POW network. On that note, however, I don't think we should be using the POW network as a source for a clearly controversial statement about a living (... err ... undead?) person. I think we need to remove that claim until a more reliable source has published it; a newspaper, for example. --GRuban (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Jonathon_Sharkey#Ph.D._Claims. Sharkey just e-mailed William S. Saturn and told him that Wikipedia had a "legal obligation" to post what Sharkey wants us to post. If that isn't a legal threat, I don't know what is. Difluoroethene (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:DOLT. This is exactly what it is about. Sharkey is not acting as an editor, but as someone rightly concerned about his reputation. Give him a break. "Don't let policies like no vandalism and no legal threats lead to your editing cluelessly and adversely affecting some innocent person's life by your thoughtless action. Wikipedia has real life consequences; Wikipedia is not a video game." We don't have a legal obligation to write about his PhD, but that's beside the point, we do have a policy obligation not to write that he lied about it without truly excellent sources. I'm going to remove that poorly sourced highly controversial claim from the article per WP:BLP. I haven't done that often, but this is clearly called for. Don't restore it without a better source, please. As a side effect that should make the legal threats issue irrelevant, but that's not the point. --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• For what its worth (which given WP:OR isn't much, true), but I have been involved in military imposter investigations in the past, and the POW Network is highly regarded in this area. I'm looking now to see if their exposure work was ever covered by something that may pass a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Bambifan sock

Saw this new editor appear and start editing some of the more common target articles, such as The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. At Rescuers Down Under, this editor specifically undid changes made just before by an anon IP. This is a pattern that Bambifan101 has exhibited in recent attacks, as well. I'm posting notices on both the IP and the editor's pages. --McDoobAU93 04:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are correct McDoob. A quick looks that this pages history [102] shows an edit made by an IP from Alabama here [103] that had a spelling error that was corrected by Victorious fan 2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple minutes later. That combined with the redirecting of pages that did not exist looks to be an attempt to get enough edits in to be autocomfirmed and that is the kind of thing that Bambifan has done in the past. Hopefully your quick notification will nip this in the bud before things get out of hand. MarnetteD | Talk 04:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's not necessary to post on every help desk or noticeboard. Please report any strong suspicions of sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First there is no reason to have removed my post. Second The only noticeboard that McDoob has posted this at is this one. Most importantly BambiFan is a long term problem who is also banned by the community. Action to stop this person from editing should occur ASAP, thus, reporting it here is just as viable an option as SPI and, experience shows, is often much quicker. MarnetteD | Talk 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Per WP:LTA/BF101, new abuse actions are to be reported here. If that is not the case, then I'll make sure to edit the long-term abuse report for BF101 accordingly. This was the first noticeboard at which I posted this notice, with the new SPI case being the second. Need to go post the SPI notices on the two suspected sock accounts. --McDoobAU93 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to mail Bambifan a gift box containing a boxing glove mounted on a spring. Night Ranger (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason that no admin action has taken place since this thread was started last night (my time.) Both Victorious fan 2011 and this IP 12.171.79.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Alabama have continued to edit in an unproductive manner. Since the WP:LTA/BF101 specifically states (in red letters) that editing by socks of this banned editor are to be reported here it would be nice if some response from an admin would occur either here or at the SPI filed by McDoobAU93. Thanks ahead of time for looking into this and for any action that you can take. MarnetteD | Talk 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually the lack of response simply means there's nothing to respond to. With an open SPI, there's really nothing for this board to add. SPI can take a day or so, so just be patient. If you see more out-of-bounds editing by this editor, please post the diffs - if the SPI is negative, we'll still have a record of what's going on, and it might invite some more commentary.. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP2E essay

This is a request for deletion of the Wikipedia:BLP2E essay that was created by administrator User:Toddst1.

At the top of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna article, there is an extensive discussion about how notable prior press coverage is complicating the BLP1E determination. The nominator redlinked to Wikipedia:BLP2E in what I believe was an attempt to acknowledge the issue and also an attempt at humor. This discussion is still in the article, but the wikilinks to BLP2E have since been removed.

Toddst1 subsequently created an essay by that title. The essay seems to be tailored to the substance of that particular debate and I judge its future value at zero. I believe that the essay has a POV slant that needs an NPOV edit, but editing this essay as part of a deletion discussion seems silly. The essay is a joke about a joke and severely misses the point. Moreover, by putting his POV comments in a redlinked essay when they should have been on the talk page, Toddst1's injected his POV into the deletion discussion in a way that is unavailable to other editors and in a way that I believe contravenes talk page guidelines.

I think that the creation of this essay by Toddst1 is an excellent example of gaming the system and I asked him to revert himself: User_talk:Toddst1#BLP2E_article. I think that he should delete this essay.Jarhed (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what WP:MFD is for. I don't really see any "gaming of the system" here; I have no opinion on whether the essay should remain, but I don't see how it harmed the AFD discussion, or "injected a POV" into the discussion (what does this even mean?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

By making his opinion on the deletion issue in the form of an essay rather than by placing it on the talk page, his edit was not normally available as part of the talk page discussion. It is unreasonable to expect deletion discussion participants to have to discuss a standard deletion in such a non-standard way. In addition, putting his comments in an essay gave them a color of authority, especially by less knowledgable editors.Jarhed (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the view that the subject of the article under discussion actually has notability for more than 1 event, I don't see a problem with the essay. Nor do I think its existence is problematically impacting the AfD discussion. In any case, as Floquenbeam says, the appropriate venue for discussion deletion of the essay is WP:MFD. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I suggested. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I would like to get this difference of opinion cleared up. I believe that creating this essay as part of a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system and that this type of edit should not be done by anybody. If this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do, then I would like to know that.Jarhed (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the creation of it was rather pointy, and would cheerfully enter in an opinion to delete if it goes to MfD. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of going to MfD, but I think that allowing editors to create and edit essays so that they are tailored for particular talk page debates would be a disaster.Jarhed (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it happen a couple of times, the idea/need/desire for an essay arises out of a discussion. Its not against any policy I have heard of - it would only be an issue if it was like naming users or attacking in nature or something like that but this one Wikipedia:BLP2E is none of those things. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know more about the essays you cite. Were they similiar to this one, so tailored to the argument that they could have appeard in a redlink?Jarhed (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What administrator action are you requesting here? It's not an attack page and isn't speedyable. If you think it should be deleted, send it to MfD. Otherwise, a discussion regarding the value of the essay should probably happen at the Village Pump or on the essay's talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples I can think of offhand are mbz1's Properly follow a proper policy essay created in response to an Arb Enforcement discussion, deleted as a bad-faith essay creation. Also, JClemens' Wikipedia:What is one event is created in response to a common point of contention in AfDs and DRVs, but its actually not so bad of a point. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To get pointy myself, any good point made in BLP2E properly belongs in BLP1E and was created as a separate essay precisely to insert an essay into the deletion debate. If the BLP2E essay has any value as a separate essay at all, the administrator could have waited until after the debate closed to create it in order to avoid improperly influencing the debate.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know if administrator Toddst1 action in creating this essay as part of influencing a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system, or if this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do. If this is not the correct forum to ask that question then please point me to the correct one.Jarhed (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Essays express the opinion of the creator - it would be no different if he'd posted the screed on his talkpage, as long as it's just expressing his opinion, and not attacking people that's OK. Now drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. If somebody has something they feel is essay-worthy, as long as it isn't attacking somebody, what made them feel it was necessary is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• In general, it is a bad idea to say "administrator so-and-so" when talking about purely editorial actions. It gives the impression that you are attacking the editor rather than commenting on the content. Editors have broad latitude to write essays about Wikipedia. It can help them sort their thoughts and share ideas. We do not want to cast a pall over that activity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on the essay

Inks.LWC (talk · contribs) is attempting to change the essence of the essay despite a discussion on the talk page citing Improving existing essays that recommends "When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it may be best to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view." The changes appear to be a thinly veiled case of sour grapes as s/he had weighed in on my comments in the AFD referenced above. I'm not going to edit war over it but it's clear to me from the discussion above and the actions here that this is another attempt to silence/neuter the essay and not at all constructive. Toddst1 (talk)

A revert is hardly edit warring - this whole issue is totally pointy and trivial. It arose out of a minor misinterpretation of policy or a keyboard error - blank the essay and move along is imo the most creative way forward.. FWIW - Imo - Inks version is much less pointy and is the more useful version of the essay - Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to "pile on", but in retrospect User:Inks.LWC is a pretty BITEy editor with respect to WP:DELetion. S/He surely came across to me that way the first time I met him. So, his/her action on this essay is not an entirely isolated incident. More likely it reflects on his/her philosophy. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks & edit-warring

Reporting this because I'm starting to lose my temper and I know this is an edit-war waiting to happen. I really don't know what more to say to User:Timbouctou. I used to think this was a case of antagonism towards myself solely, so a while ago I tried to settle any bad blood that might exist between us [104], but I'm starting to think this is more of a general behavioral issue. The fella arrives on the Social Democratic Party of Croatia article, removes perfectly correct and valid infobox entries without discussion or consensus, declaring that they "don't add anything valuable to the article" [105], and then just continues to revert-war to no end until his (new) version is on top [106][107][108]. He demands that I show a reason to oppose his removal of (undisputedly) valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information from articles, throwing-in a few unprovoked PAs into the pot [109]:

“ ..Your block log probably looks like Al Capone's rap sheet :-) 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Please do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever. ”

I guess the question is whether the "audience" will find my rants interesting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the f adjective because I was annoyed by your crap. You posted two posts on article talk page (after I started the discussion) without offering any argument whatsoever for keeping redundant crap in the party infobox and instead taking the ad hominem and patronizing route just telling me like a broken narcissistic robot with WP:OWN problems that you are that "this is not for me to pass judgement on" and that "I do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because I myself judge they add nothing valuable to the article". I invite any admin to take a look at the talk page and see if they can detect a trace of an effort on DIREKTOR's part to even begin achieving consensus before he came running here.

And for the record - the "perfectly correct and valid infobox entries" also described as "valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information" consist of list of four standard party wings which pretty much any party has, none of which has an article on Wikipedia; plus his own little inventions of putting in current chairman's predecessor, insisting that the party's non-notable spokeswoman must be listed and insisting that the party must have two foundation dates (unsupported by any source). NONE of the "valid, and accurate" information was referenced, and NONE of it is notable. When asked to provide reasons for the inclusion of such unreferenced, non-notable crap, he simply reiterated that I don't get to decide about it. Lovely.Timbouctou (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Timbouctou, unfortunately you do not get to unilaterally decide whether something is "non-notable crap" or not. And it is not. Making use of an infobox party wing entry to mention a party wing in an infobox is perfectly normal and notable information. But I guess since you've decided its "crap", its ok to revert-war to make sure the crap stays out. As for me, since I disagree I'll just take your "f adjectives" and be off then, shall I?

Can one really just edit-war and have his way? Or have people been doing things the hard way for the past couple years? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You tell me. You've spent more time edit-warring on Wikipedia than Mick Jagger has fornicating with teenage girls. Did it work for you? Oh btw, define "unilaterally". You keep screaming how other people are doing stuff "unilaterally" but whenever someone asks you for any kind argument-based discussion you just turn to name-calling and distortions. You've currently written four (4) posts about this topic and NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS OFFERED ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR OWN OPINION as to why redundant crap that no other Croatian party has in their infobox needs to be in SDP article. I'll take a wild guess and assume that you won't offer anything new in posts that will surely follow. Timbouctou (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Back to your corners, both of you. I just looked at the article, and I see absolutely no effort on the part of either of you to obtain consensus. What I DO see is that you're both at WP:3RR, and you're both way over the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA lines. Seafood all around, with an admonishment to follow the dispute resolution procedures for what is clearly a heated content dispute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)