Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

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

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

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

== June 2011 ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tokerdesigner banned for one week

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to alleged "threats from Tokerdesigner":

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

followed by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term harassment by Haymaker

User:Haymaker (formerly known as Schrandit, in case this is relevant) has been stalking my edits for months. I've asked him repeatedly to stop, yet he continues.

Diffs of stalking:

(This is a fairly conservative list. There are other pages which the user likely followed me to, but I'll assume on probably unwarranted good faith that he had them watchlisted due to having made even the most insignificant minor edits in the far past, got there via another editor, happened to see the deletion discussion in the list, subject was recently dead, etc. Also omitted are pages where the user likely followed me there and subsequently disputed with me over content, but where the user's first edit was not a revert of one of mine, and pages where the user's edit was anything but a straight revert with absolutely no other changes. You may imagine for yourselves the number of articles that could be added to the list without these caveats, particularly the last couple. It's also more than possible that I've just overlooked some.)

My first encounter with this user was, I believe, at Crisis pregnancy center, which I began to edit 16 November 2010. This is after I made the first edit in the subsequent list, but before Haymaker reverted it.

Times are UTC -5 hours.

Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, and where there were no intervening edits between mine and his

• CatholicVote.org: I rephrase a sentence 13 November 2010 15:37. Haymaker restores the prior wording 18 November 2010 00:52.
• Political positions of Ron Paul: I rephrase the term "pro-life legislation" 23 November 2010 09:28. Haymaker restores it 23 November 2010 18:48.
• Eclipse of Reason: I add a category 3 December 2011 02:10. Haymaker removes it 3 December 2011 03:56.
• Maafa 21: I add a category 3 December 2011 02:38. Haymaker removes it 3 December 2011 03:56.
• American Freedom and Catholic Power: I remove a statement 5 January 2011 14:30. Haymaker restores it 6 January 2011 07:08.
• Catholicism and abortion: I rephrase a sentence 20 January 2011 01:54. Haymaker restores the prior wording 20 January 2011 5:51.
• The Reader: I remove some paragraphs 20 January 2011 20:54. Haymaker restores them 20 January 2011 23:43.
• Ensoulment: I rephrase a sentence 21 January 2011 03:10. Haymaker restores the prior wording 21 January 2011 04:04.
• Priscilla K. Coleman: I make some changes 3 February 2011 11:37. Haymaker undoes them 3 February 2011 12:26.
• Joseph O'Rourke: I change a word 5 February 2011 02:36. Haymaker restores prior wording 5 February 2011 04:03.
• Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?: I remove a tag 23 February 2011 17:27. Haymaker restores it 23 February 2011 18:34.
• Natural family planning: I rephrase a sentence 3 March 2011 03:16. Haymaker restores the prior wording 6 March 2011 01:08.
• Albert Mohler: I restore the phrase "what he calls" 4 March 13:34. Haymaker removes it 6 March 2011 01:13.
• Abortifacient: I restore the word "erroneously" 13 March 2011 14:38. Haymaker removes it 13 March 2011 15:54.
• Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute: I rephrase a sentence 25 March 2011 16:45. Haymaker restores the prior wording 25 March 2011 17:44.
• Abortion in Chile: I remove a few sentences 2 April 2011 23:17. Haymaker restores them 4 April 2011 02:44.
• Political positions of George W. Bush: I rephrase the term "pro-life legislation" 27 April 2011 10:50. Haymaker restores it 27 April 2011 11:57.
• Pro-life feminism: I remove the phrase "Laury Oaks states" 4 May 2011 17:05. Haymaker restores it 5 May 2011 13:15.
• REAL Women of Canada: I remove several phrases 26 May 2011 01:48. Haymaker restores them 26 May 2011 06:03.
• Category:Anti-pornography activists: I remove the category Women's rights activists 5 June 2011 00:47. Haymaker restores it 9 June 2011 00:44 (today).
• Maurice Duplessis: I rephrase the term "pro-family" 6 June 2011 14:36. Haymaker restores it 9 June 2011 00:44 (today).

Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, but where there were intervening edits between mine and his

• List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church: I restore a phrase about medical necessity 2 March 2011 19:00. Haymaker removes it 6 March 2011 01:06. Couple of intervening edits; one was related, but did not remove or substantially alter the disputed phrase.
• Jane Russell: I remove the category American pro-life activists 4 March 2011 02:24. Haymaker restores it 6 March 2011 1:12. A number of intervening edits, none related to her position on abortion.

I'd like to state, though it should be obvious, that the correctness of the edits is not at issue here. Many of the older edits of mine are ones I wouldn't make today. The reason this is at ANI rather than somewhere for handling content disputes is because in each of these cases, and in others, I was stalked there by Haymaker.

Diffs of warnings: [6] [7] [8]

Additionally, if you look at the user's contributions for the past couple of months, a rather indecent proportion of them are content disputes with me; many, again, on pages to which he followed me.

In conclusion, this hounding of my contributions has been going on for over six months now and continues to this day, and it's really starting to bother me.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Haymaker made good faith edits, left edit sums and engaged in discussion on Talk pages where appropriate. You mentioned that presently he is engaging you in content disputes. Well, I think that that is par for the course particularly when editing controversial articles. My reading of WP:HOUND is that the following you around must be accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior". Do you have diffs for any of this behavior (the "important component")?

A number of the edits in question are instances where you changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" or similar. Does this seem unnecessary to you? Lionel (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explicitly said in my report, in order to stave off unhelpful comments just like this one, the substance of the edits is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Haymaker is and has been following me around in order to inhibit my edits since November. You could also read WP:HOUND again, which certainly does not require personal attacks, though if you want tendentiousness! oh, it's there. Take a look. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Yes, I glance at your contributions, kinda like how you appear to follow at the contributions of everyone you have ever had a dispute with. Do you want me to run up a list of pages you had never edited before you say me or a half-dozen other editors you seem to dislike edit them? It would be wikistalking if I followed all your edits with the aim of causing you irritation or distress. Don't flatter yourself. The above edits were not contributed with any thought as to how they would make you feel, they were contributed to make the encyclopedia better. - Haymaker (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what, the fourth time you're trying to get me blocked on those same diffs? If no one found any wrongdoing the other times, why would you think it would work this time? Don't think you can distract everyone's attention away from your harassing behavior. It is wrong to stalk other editors regardless of whether you personally think it's okay. Your personal belief that you are right does not exempt you from the rules. And these desperate repeated attempts to get me blocked, with no new evidence, don't really do much for the impression that you're not trying to have me out of your way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you always refute arguments that I have not made? Do you take some joy in it? You have followed me (not to mention other editors) to more articles, you and I are cut from the same cloth on this issue and that link proves it. - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if the link "proved" that I had stalked in the past, which it clearly doesn't since you've tried more than once to get me blocked with those diffs and no one has found any wrongdoing, the diffs in my list are from today. You are still stalking. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In my reading of WP:Hound my attention was drawn to the phrases "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work", and "...disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This is presumably what Roscelese is referring to, since these complained of actions clearly both inhibit Rosclese's editing and diminish the enjoyment of same. As Roscelese has requested that Haymaker stop stalking them (and in issues like this, it is the perception that is important and not the intent - so the argument that they are not stalking does not suffice) and the behaviour has continued, I consider that takes this into the issue of harassment. In any form, it is disruptive. Like civil pov pushing, following another editors contributions and reversing them - regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales - is counter to the collegiate and respectful editing environment advocated here. I would suggest that, if consensus is found, that Haymaker is warned that further wikihounding of Rosclese's edits will result in an interaction ban.

Further, since comment has been made, it is necessary to change the emotive "pro-life" phrase to the neutral (medically and legally, as well as linguistically) "anti-abortion" unless a source is being directly referenced. I wonder if this difference in viewpoint on this subject has to do with the issue complained of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the substance of the edits is not the issue. Haymaker would be wrong to harass me even if, content-wise, he were in the right. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is stalking, per Roscelese and LessHeard vanU. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So when I improve an article, if you have edited it in the past, my improvements constitutes harassment? - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If "the past" is one hour ago and the "improvement" (ha) is part of a persistent pattern of following my edits in order to revert them, as documented above? That's textbook hounding. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't duck the question, you said "the substance of the edits is not the issue." So what is the issue? Am I never supposed to edit articles you have also edited? - Haymaker (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - the substance of the edits is not the issue. The issue is that you have very obviously followed me to the articles after disputing with me on other articles. Don't make silly comments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Woa. I had forgotten that I am one of Roscelese's wikistalking victims. Ironic. I speculate that the experience was so painful I suppressed it. Haymaker's diff uncovered the suppressed memories. Horrible. Just horrible.

LessHeard, I detect a contradiction in your reasoning. You do cite the policy, in part, "for no overriding reason." But then you state, "regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales." You're referring to Haymaker's edit sums and content discussions on Talk pages. Well, a "valid argument" i.e Haymaker's explanations and discussion is an overriding reason. The policy is worded with a bit of foresight to remove the subjectiveness of these types of reports. It provides a test:

If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Haymaker's conduct fails this test. Apparently so did Roscelese's conduct as evidenced by Haymaker's diff. I'm generally opposed to double standards. How about you? Lionel (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can we get some more admin eyes in here before it becomes the Haymaker and Lionelt's Amazing Double Act echo chamber? We've been through this at ANI before. Even if wrongdoing had been found then, or the other times they tried to pull out the same diffs, that wouldn't be grounds to prosecute based on evidence that was over four months stale. This shouldn't be difficult: neither Haymaker or Lionelt is denying that Haymaker has been stalking me since he met me. They just think he should be exempt from the rules for God knows what reason. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, understand that I very much deny that I am wikihounding you. What I am pointing out is that your editing patterns are nearly the same as mine. If anything, your relationship with editors like Mamalujo, Geremia and Cloonmore is far more objecitonable than our present one is. If you consider my editing wikihounding, then you are in the same boat. - Haymaker (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, this is just factually wrong. Your near-pathological need to make false claims about me at ANI and other noticeboards reflects poorly on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sampled your diff list at the top, Roscelese, and I don't see that many examples of "stalking". There's a reason "User contributions" are listed on userpages; it's a feature intended to be used. Also, if you take a complaint against another user to ANI, I'm afraid you'll have to expect your own edits to be scrutinised, too. It's not for you to say what is and isn't relevant at this board, and your comment "As I explicitly said in my report, in order to stave off unhelpful comments just like this one, the substance of the edits is irrelevant" and similar, suggests to me that you have trouble understanding what ANI is for, and what harassment is. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

(edit conflict)So it's now considered acceptable user conduct to use one's account largely for the purpose of reverting one other editor? To follow them to completely unrelated articles solely in order to revert them, because they've disagreed with you in the past? To maintain this behavior for seven months? This is neither in the letter nor the spirit of WP:HOUND. As for my own conduct, I open it to scrutiny. Indeed, I have done so, and no wrong was found, so Haymaker's and Lionelt's repeated invocation of the same charge, which is now four months stale, smack rather of another form of harassment than a background check. Would you like to inspect my recent edits, given that the conduct I'm reporting is also recent? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So you accept that you have done EXACTLY what you are accusing me of and your only defense is that you think you haven't done it as recently? - Haymaker (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I've rejected that false accusation every time you've tried to pin it on me, as should be obvious from my responses. Don't think that you can make people believe I am saying something by falsely asserting that I'm saying it. But you respond to diffs of your harassment of yesterday with "Look, I accused her of harassment four months ago" - not "she was found to have harassed," not "here is evidence from yesterday of her own stalking," but an unproven accusation from four months ago that you've been bringing up in every forum you can - that's not going to let you off. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You really must learn to stop putting things in quotes that are not quotes. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that it's not a quote of something you've said. Have more faith in the intelligence of the readers. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You say there are not "that many examples". How many is enough? There are some real doozies in the list, good enough by themselves. Inane ones such as the Joseph O'Rourke series, in which there is no apparent thought given by Haymaker. Misguided ones such as the Abortion in Chile bit where the removed-and-then-restored Koch study gives a very flawed explanation of its statistical findings. In all of the diffs, Haymaker was absent from the article until Roscelese edited it. The substance of the edits is that Roscelese makes a change to an article and Haymaker sees the activity on her edit history, follows her there and throws a block in her path. That's hounding. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you call; AFD 1, AFD 2, AFD 3, women on the web, silent scream, SSM in the US, Schenck v. P-CNWNY, pro-life alliance, planned parenthood, Josh Brolin, homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, don't ask don' tell, emily's list, Christianity and abortion and circuit party, to mention some of the swath of articles that roscelese never edited before she followed me to them. If you think my edits constitute hounding, then without question hers do as well. - Haymaker (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bink - the Rourke example isn't a particularly good one. The edit I made was incorrect (the article at the time didn't source that claim, but it was later added). The issue there wasn't that Haymaker was wrong, but that he stalked me there. The Reader would be a better example - totally outside the content areas he normally edits, no attempt to discuss, no further attempt to edit article after reverting me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(Resp to Lionelt) I think you are mistaken in all matters; firstly in understanding of the term "overriding" - which infers a specific reason for taking such actions, such as concern over continuing violation of policy or guideline on the part of the other editor, rather than rationalising each individual action as editorial decisions. Secondly, in that the quote notes that if such behaviours are accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" it says that "it may become a very serious matter" (my underlining) so without such instances (and I have suggested that it might be considered disruptive, anyway) it is still a serious matter. On the third issue of double standards, my non participation in the earlier complaint by Haymaker upon Roscelese cannot infer my opinion in that matter - but the fact that you were the only party other than the principals to comment then, and to condemn the actions of Roscelese then when you seek to defend Haymakers similar actions now suggests to me that it is not only the memory of your own previous interactions with Roscelese you seem to have been able to suppress.

If it is decided that there should be an interaction ban on the part of Haymaker in respect of articles recently edited by Roscelese, I see no issue in also considering whether there should be a quid pro quo interaction ban on the same basis of Roscelese regarding Haymakers recent editing - any history of such infractions would certainly help determine such a case. In my experience (and I do have some) interaction bans are very nearly always mutual, to ensure that future disruption by having one party more advantaged than the other in any content dispute is not possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed article page interaction ban between Haymaker and Roscelese and others

Since it is apparent that there are legitimate claims of wikihounding on the part of both accounts (and I am taking the position again that it is the perception that is important rather than the intent) in respect of the other, I propose that there be an indefinite ban on either party editing any article page which directly affects an edit by the other, regardless of whether there are intervening edits elsewhere by other contributors. I would also expand this ban to any editor who is apparently previously involved in these issues, since I feel there is a risk of a continuance of this dispute by "proxy" if not addressed. If there is consensus, I or someone can determine a wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support because the poisonous interactions need to stop. Quigley (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Wholeheartedly support pending discussion of niceties. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per clear issues between editors. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the ban:

• Neither party is allowed to edit, in any fashion, any article created by the other party.
• An administrator or group of administrators will moderate the ban. A party who has concerns about an edit by the other party and cannot revert it should take these concerns to the administrator or administrators. (I take it for granted that questions about user conduct will also go to these admins.)

----Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Those concerns were to be incorporated into any agreed interaction ban, and I don't think them contentious (but I may prefer more diplomatic wording). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding proposed interaction ban

This concept intrigues me, I have some questions and some concerns and figure it'd be best to air them out.

A - I figure administrative pages would be exempt from this?

B - How about talk pages?

C - I've edited a lot of articles over the years, 3,947 to be exact, which of those couldn't Roscelese edit?

D - How do we nominate other parties to this ban?

E - Would there be a time cap?

-Haymaker (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As proposed, only article pages. As for the rest, I would opine; Changing other peoples edits to talk pages is generally frowned upon, but discussions (civil, etc.) is to be encouraged unless it is apparent it is recruiting others to change the other editors contributions (i.e. the proxying question). Roscelese can edit any of those articles edited by you, but they cannot change any one of your edits (unless really old, possibly, after talkpage discussion?) and vice versa. You would make a request to ANI to review the edits of any party which appears to be conducting similar wikihounding and that editors relationship to both parties will be examined, and if there is consensus (and they are not blocked indefinitely) they could be added as parties - again Roscelese can bring the same complaint on any editor. No time cap, initially. If all named parties can work out an agreement then a suspension or lifting of the ban may be made, but I would think that if agreed such a ban would need to be in place for a minimum of three months before being suspended (if only to make apparent to both parties it is in their interests not to risk further sanction). I would also add that if both parties now agree to such a ban, and the wording of same, then there is no need for outside consensus. I would be happy to admin such a ban, and perhaps parties to the ban could nominate one sysop each to make the ban better transparent and fair. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Further, if you both agree to an interaction ban with it being reviewed by 3 admins then any issue about extending the ban to other parties would be addressed by the admins initially, only referring to ANI if there is not unanimous agreement between the sysops (in all other cases, only two admins need agree), LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ros has followed me to many AfDs and other administrative discussions to oppose my suggestions. Could she be barred from doing this in the future? - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that AfDs are listed publicly and also sorted by topic, and especially given that one of the AfDs you claim I followed you to was an AfD of an article I edited, I doubt you're going to be able to present enough evidence to justify this restriction. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you don't want this but for the purposes of an effective interaction ban it is needed. I'd also like an initial term of 3 months. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I want it; you can't just demand it and expect to have it granted without any evidence justifying its imposition. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't need you following me to every AfD and RfC I take interest in. I have weighed in on fewer of them in the past months because of you. If we want this to be productive I don't want to have to deal with you on that front as well. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're that afraid of people disagreeing with you, you shouldn't be seeking out contentious topic areas. If you're going to ask that an editor who just happens to oppose your POV-pushing be forbidden to vote in these discussions, you'd better have some behavioral evidence backing that request up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All evidence presented to you so far has been dismissed. I see no reason in hunting for more. Ros has followed me to several administrative discussion and I have abstained from more to keep her out of them, I would like to be relieved of this burden under the terms of a interaction agreement. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed out to you that if an AfD is listed on the AfD page, which (as is obvious from my edit history, which we all know you stalk) I read regularly, the claim that I followed you there is at best, silly, and at worst, an attempt to get me punished by spreading lies about me. I also pointed out that among your supposed pieces of evidence was an AfD for an article I edited - and indeed, now that I look, where I cast the same vote as you. Because apparently if an article I edit is nominated for deletion, I am to refrain from commenting out of respect for your fragile feelings, even if we agree. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Query. I'd love it if Haymaker were forbidden to stalk and harass me, but I would make one suggestion for this interaction ban, without which I'd be slightly less eager to support it. Particularly because we edit in often-contentious topic areas, there should be a mechanism by which we can get a quick, uninvolved, and authoritative perspective on edits that we ourselves are forbidden to revert. So, for example, when Haymaker makes this edit filled with POV and synth, or I make this mistaken edit based on the absence of a citation for the fact in the article, Haymaker and I should both be able to come to an admin (you, LessHeard??) who will moderate the ban and decide if the edit should or should not stand. (Rather than a noticeboard or RfC for every little thing, which would be the other alternative - I rule out 3O because of the strong likelihood that the third opinion would be provided by a partisan of one party or another.) An interaction ban would be super but there would need to be something in place to make sure that articles aren't damaged as a side-effect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if articles created by one or the other of us might just be made off-limits. If Haymaker adds a frivolous tag to an article I created, the current terms of the interaction ban would stop me removing it, but it's also an attempt to wipe my eye by making my article look bad. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Queries regarding other parties actions should be directed at one of the supervising admins in the first instance, who may then intercede directly or refer it to the others for consensus - or to the article talkpage where there is the possibility of getting uninvolved third party opinion. Any edit to an article that was created by the other party, other than typo correction or reverting vandalism, would be considered as directly changing a previous edit and is not permissible - however, creating pov forks that the other editor could not challenge would also be considered as hostile to the interaction ban (indeed, any edit made anywhere in article space which could be considered as being inflammatory to the other party would not be allowed). However, it would be hoped that the supervision of the ban would not become a shopping list of complaints - the chances of getting admins to ride such a merryground would be severely compromised. Should a voluntary topic ban be placed, the terms would be open to variation and addition (or reduction!) as circumstances dictate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - I don't anticipate that either of us will have to resort to this means often, since I don't go about making edits specifically to annoy Haymaker and hopefully he will behave the same (ie. I don't go about changing "X is pro-life" to "X is anti-abortion," since I know he likes the encyclopedia to reflect the former wording, and I hope that he won't take advantage of the interaction ban to continue pushing the term "pro-family"). But I did feel there should be some established way to deal with problematic edits that we can't revert, particularly on low-visibility articles where they are unlikely to be reverted by another editor. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ros, you do go about changing things from "X is pro-life" to "X is anti-abortion" and you have been on a crusade to strike the term "pro-family" from this website. At present the vast majority of WP articles, templates and categories describe persons and organization that oppose abortion as "pro-life". Ros has attempted to change many of them to "anti-abortion". I want to make sure that I am not entering into a compact that would allow her to make all of these revisions while myself and others likely to monitor these article are locked out of opposing her. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not true, and you should be ashamed of yourself for adding one more false claim to the laundry list of false accusations you regularly level at me. Would you like to prove it with a diff? One would suffice. It wouldn't even have to be recent. I doubt you'll find it, since I've always maintained that people and organizations are to be described as "pro-life." I also doubt that any user who isn't here to push a POV will object to the removal of "pro-family," which is a meaningless propaganda term, though Haymaker's comment and past behavior do indeed seem to reflect a desire to push it which could become problematic. Thoughts, LessHeard? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to try to deny that you have tried to switch those terms scores of times? - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorically. Find one article where a person or organization was described as "pro-life" and I changed it to "anti-abortion." That's what you said I do, so you should be able to name an article where I did it. Otherwise, don't make accusations for which you have no evidence. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Karin Spaink, along with the scores (possibly hundreds) of other times you have tried to switch these terms across the encyclopedia. I'd love to have ros off my back but I'm not going to enter into something which lends her an undue hand in her terminology crusade. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And is that a person or organization? No? I didn't think so. Since you couldn't produce even one diff as an example, how can you expect anyone to believe your ridiculous claim that I have made "scores (possibly hundreds)" of such changes? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're not going to accept evidence than there is nothing I can do about that. You have changed the term "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" across scores, possibly hundreds of articles and lunched on other similar crusades of terminology. As greatful as I would be to find myself unburdened by ros I would hate to do so at the cost of giving her a free hand to pursue this narrow agenda. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You make an accusation against me that directly challenges a comment I made. I ask you for a single diff that proves this accusation. You refuse. I ask you again. You provide a diff that doesn't prove the accusation, while claiming that you could, if you chose, produce hundreds of diffs that prove the accusation. What about this seems well-thought-out to you? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have presented my concerns and suggested ways forward. You have offered nothing but criticism and derision. I see no point in continuing this discussion. - Haymaker (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good. Now that you're dropping your long-shot requests, I presume the original terms LessHeard set out will be the final ones, then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We were discussing the terms of a possible voluntary interaction ban. As you seem uniquely incapable of collegiate discussion we have since arrived at no terms and have no expectation that we will. You have demonstrated a impressive disinterest in laying out workable terms and I have no reason to believe you would follow any that were agreed to. - Haymaker (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad you feel that way, because that's likely to lead to an imposed interaction ban in which you can't discuss terms, rather than the state of affairs in which you can blithely go on stalking me which you may be hoping for. I suggest you make the best of the situation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering your attitude, I have. I have moved through this discussion with good faith, I have been cordial, I have offered suggestions and for it I have been spit upon. After 3 days I have seen no indication on your part that you interested in coming to a workable agreement or that you would follow it after. - Haymaker (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to include Binksternet and PhGustaf as third parties to this proposal. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "third parties". Referees? I do not want to be a referee. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, Hay, when you bring up other editors here, it's required to notify them. You didn't and I notified Bink.

Second, you and I have had little or no interaction to ban — we have undone some of each others' edits, but that happens. Most of this undoing had involved what I (and the community, from the results) perceive as you habit of replacing sourced neutral terms with politically weighted ones, as in your current attempt to call a politician "pro-family" when he died more than twenty years before the term assumed any of its current meanings.

You are trying to use this proposed ban as a means of silencing everyone who has recently disagreed with you. That is not good faith. PhGustaf (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. Most of our interactions have been collegial, even those that have not were not particularly troublesome. What has been troublesome have been the interactions between you, me and ros. If there is to be an IBAN third parties are going to be mentioned. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Presently, as I understand it, we are discussing setting up a voluntary interaction ban so to avoid the strictures of a standard imposed IBan as linked by TreasuryTag below. This would not be something where we can "volunteer" other people into; if others wish to be included that is fine, and it might be possible to get community consensus to include other parties to a voluntary ban if agreed by the existing parties - the alternative being that they are banned under the standard terms noted. It may be that if a voluntary ban provides involved parties with the opportunity to edit without the previous inconveniences distracting them, that other parties may wish to sign up (there is a first time for everything, I guess). However, I think we should proceed with putting in place a working agreement between Roscelese and Haymaker first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not everything needs to be established right now, and it's more than possible that with the interaction ban established between me and Haymaker, issues with other editors will go away. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to pass a bill so that I can read it later. If this is just me and ros, cool. If there are going to be third parties it is only fair to them to mention it now. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Any additions of parties will be with the consent of all parties concerned. If other interaction bans involving the parties here now are enforced by community consensus, even under the same terms, then those are dealt with separately. I know that this varies what I said before a bit, but I am hoping that we are getting close to agreeing something and I don't want to jeopodise the chance of getting people back to editing at this point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We can at least agree on 3 months then? - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What will be different in 3 months time? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Many things, hopefully there will be a collective cooling. I like the concept of sunset periods, if an agreement is productive but still required it can be renewed. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although I would be wary that there may be a sudden release of 3 months pent up "corrections" to the other editors contributions... However, per AGF I would be happy to include such a time limit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The standard terms of an interaction ban are set out at WP:IBAN. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have never seen that, and I have helped set up and admin a couple of interaction bans. As it is apparently standard for imposed interaction bans, I think having an agreed less strict ban between parties is possibly more enticing for the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued POV editing contrary to consensus by User:I.Casaubon

I.Casaubon (talk · contribs) created a slurry of articles likening discriminatory practices in various Middle Eastern countries to apartheid, in part intended as a "corrective" to the article Israel and the apartheid analogy. After I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Bahrain as "delete" in particular, he recreated it unilaterally within a couple weeks. I deleted it again per CSD#G4, and warned him not to recreate it. The deletion was subsequently endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27.

Within little more than a month, he reposted it again, at Bahrain and the apartheid analogy. I speedy deleted it and SALTed it (accidentally used the wrong rationale in the summary; sorrynow fixed), and left this comment on his talk page. I don't have time right now to deal with this any further (the real world calls), but I think a block is probably in order, and the rest of his recent edits need to be reviewed for his POV soapboxing on this topic. postdlf (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO it is an extreme sign of bad-faith and deception to try to slip in the same article via a different name, presumably to get past those who have the old title still on a watch list. This should go to WP:AE for a lengthy, if not indef, topic ban. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Was this the subject of an arbitration? (that's the only thing WP:AE can enforce.) Outside of the AFDs, I don't know anything about the topic's WP history (or this user) at all.

As to why he posted it at a different title, I had SALTed the original title after he recreated it there. See also this discussion, in which the one commenter told I.Casaubon that he thought an "apartheid" section was inappropriate at Human rights in Bahrain, which I.Casaubon inexplicably takes as support for recreating a separate article notwithstanding the prior deletion discussions.

For other related AFDs on similar articles by the same user, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid (the first I closed, and the only one in which I posted a deletion rationale), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Saudi Arabia. The Bahrain one is the only one that was taken to DRV, more about my speedy deletion of its recreation that I.Casaubon claimed was supported by new sources; deletion was nevertheless endorsed at DRV. It's clear that I.Casaubon knew that there was an established consensus against these articles, and that absent a DRV go-ahead, he couldn't recreate any of them.

So I propose a block for one week. I think it might be appropriate to discuss a topic ban as well. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an AE matter, I think, because the only applicable case would be WP:ARBPIA, and this issue does not involve Israel. On the merits, I agree that persistent circumvention of the outcome of a deletion discussion, by repeatedly republishing the deleted content without addressing the reasons for the deletion, is disruptive editing. Consequently, I suggest that I.Casaubon is topic-banned from the concept of apartheid as applied to other matters than the historical system of apartheid in South Africa. Any short block would be merely punitive.  Sandstein  15:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that a review of the recent I.Casaubon SPI report may help ? It seemed like a pretty compelling case to me. It was declined. I've asked for an explanation here and I assume the declining admin will provide one at some point. I think I.Casaubon is a sockpuppet of a topic banned user. I also think it would be better if they were allowed to continue editing outside of the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, King of Hearts did not actually decline the CU, he just archived the investigation. HelloAnnyong declined it with the rationale: "Historicist and all of their socks are stale, so there's nothing to run a CU against." Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand that rationale. We were once blocking legions of Grundle-socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600, but there's been none since last year. If another suspect pops up today, we can't use the old Grundle2600 evidence/information? Tarc (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A  Clerk declined at SPI means simply that a checkuser is not useful in the particular circumstances. It does not imply any conclusion as to the behavioral evidence. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. The CU was declined by HelloAnnyong. That's fine. There was no conclusion as to the behaviorial evidence which includes a direct link between accounts via an IP. The entire case was simply declined without explanation. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban as Sandstein described is probably the best way of dealing with this, regardless of any sockpuppet issues (let's not bog down this thread right now with that issue).

Though regarding Sandstein's view of a block, a topic ban can only be enforced by the threat of a block, and so why would it not be appropriate in response to a repeat violation of deletion policy and consensus? Unless you somehow get advance warning that someone is about to recreate something, no one could ever be preventively blocked for recreations because you would always be catching it after the fact. I think a block now should be viewed as a deterrent to further misconduct, though ultimately not as important as a topic ban. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the creation of a lengthy "apartheid" series of articles, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid, a case from 2007. The case closed without a decision (I believe because the arbitrators were unable to agree on an outcome, though I wasn't on the committee at the time), but much of the workshop discussion seems strangely relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Orc (Middle-earth)

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

Because of the previous bad faith edit and admittedly also because of the arguments in the summaries I stepped then in, reverted that change and dealt out another vandalism warning. Edit warring itself may not be vandalism but the IP had a previous record of disrupting Tolkien-themed pages (article on The Hobbit films) and the IP's edit summaries were showing no good faith either so I decided to remove also the following changes by 68.205.7.47. Which brought me the accusation of being biased [9] because I like Tolkien's theme (WP:Vandalism: Edit summary vandalism - Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged). Because of this and because the IP went still on I reported them to AIV – although I did not explicitely report the "nerd" thing there. Meanwhile 1966batfan (talk · contribs) and Bluefist (talk · contribs) had also reverted some of the IP's continuous changes.

However, Courcelles (talk · contribs) has declined the vandalism charges (see also the following comments) and accused me of edit warring [10]. Half an hour later he also revoked my rollback rights. He did block the IP for edit warring after they went on changing the article but he wrote on their talk page that "the accusations of vandalism above were completely wrong". So, while I made four reverts using the rollback tool I am still not under the impression that this qualifies as edit warring and/or content dispute and that vandalism did take place here: removing the aftermath of what began as a bad-faith edit ("nerd") made me think that I was right to do so and there are other editors who used rollback to revert the IP in the course of this incident. Most of the IP's edits may just look like simple POV pushing which is not vandalism but overall I am convinced that all those were essentially made in bad faith, trying to use "arguments", when the first bit of vandalism was removed by 4twenty42o. I'd like to have a second opinion in this matter after explaining it to Courcelles on his talk page. De728631 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user 213.89.48.81

Sports isn't my field, but 213.89.48.81 (talk · contribs) seems to be combining number vandalism, blanking, and some ethnic stuff ignoring Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted confirmation I checked a few of the stats he's editing on sports players and it is vandalism plain and simple, of an extremely misleading kind. Reichsfürst (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has bothered to block this IP. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice he's made a large number of edits in a very short time frame, I checked three random edits and they were incorrect, number vandalism, basically. So I went ahead and reverted all of the edits. If this was incorrect to do, please let me know and I'll change them back, but judging from this discussion, the very short timeframe in which the large number of edits were made, and the edits I checked for verification, it seems that all of the edits are simply to mess up the stats. - SudoGhost™ 11:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

However, the IP still has not been blocked. - SudoGhost™ 11:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A large number of the IP's edits are still the latest (top) edits on a variety of pages. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 3 days, to match the length of this latest spate of vandalism. Hopefully that will be long enough to convince them to give this up. -- Atama頭 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee and WP:ITN/C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original proposal, refactored to remove commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration

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

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

Archiving

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

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

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

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

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [13] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [14] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [15] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [16], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [17] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [18]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [19], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive IP

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

---

24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This anon is repeatedly and frivolously accusing editors of vandalism, stalking, personal attacks, etc. I've just reverted the anon's disruption in his userspace [20]; the anon was already explicitly told not to engage in this type of behavior [21]. He also strangely makes this posting yet sees fit to act as if he is uninvolved here. The last warning appears to have produced no useful results. Looking at the anon's contributions (24.177.123.74 9 Jan - 30 Jan, 24.177.120.74 30 Jan- 18 Feb and 24.177.120.138 19 Feb Till now - which does not substantiate the anon's claim that he has made 12,000 contributions to the wiki), block log, and the rich history of other warnings on his user talk page, long term resolution would be useful. Requesting for an admin to step in and deal with the disruption being caused by this IP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anon has continued being disruptive since my reversion and being notified of this ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you've been asked by an administrator to leave my user page alone, yet you continue to blank large sections of it. Please stop. 24.177.120.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

The admin said "Unless any content violates a policy"; as this is NOT permitted in your user space ("Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing"), and another user has repeated this concern. However, you have continued with this disruptive editing and it needs to stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

While removing the self-awarded barnstars, the dishonest userboxes, and the other phony distinctions the IP confers on itself was probably inappropriate, the IP's use of its userpage to create a "hall of shame" for users it's involved with disputes with is clearly misbehavior, much like this case [22]. In the context of its extensive block track history and track record of uncivil provocation of other editors, the page is just another excuse for disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the link User:Ncmvocalist offered, you'll find that my log is, in fact, acceptable if I'm compiling factual material for purposes such as preparing for WP:DR. Please ask me if I am. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

2 Questions: 1 for IP, 1 for Admins (from Avanu)

First question for the IP is, why is it so difficult to simply drop the strange attitude and seek a compromise with these other editors? In other words, acknowledge the community as a partner instead of 'acting out'.

Second question for the Admins is, despite having a problem with some of the IP's behaviors, the IP has made several valid points about the form of this 'trial'. Conduct should be above reproach on both sides, and if not, then why do we bother imposing a penalty on those who fall short?

Proposed: 24.177.120.138 temporarily banned

Resolved

 – 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is banned for one month for disruption. Suspected evasions by the use of other IPs or accounts should be posted here. I'm also deleting and SALTing the user page. Enough time has been wasted on this. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is community banned for a period of one month.

Note I've altered the section header and the proposal above, to note that this is a proposal, and not an action that's been taken. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per the above described persistently disruptive behavior. Shorter blocks have been tried[23], and haven't worked. Chester Markel (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMO, this isn't the appropriate forum for such a proposal; it should be taken to WP:RfC/U. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - pure disruption defines this person contributions, net loss. Off2riorob (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Off2riorob. Requiring anymore volunteer time/effort to be wasted on this is NOT ok; Wikipedia is NOT therapy. The anon is clearly here to play games and the only thing this exercise is accomplishing is exposing the vulnerability of the project. It's truly sad that we need to go through this hoop to accomplish what any administrator could and should have done by now. All appeals are to go to BASC, and the content that the anon has put in his userspace will be blanked (much like all of the warnings and block notices that were blanked from his user talk page). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. History of blocks and very uncivil behavior, hounding of at least one user, and continued uncivil behavior here. This editor seems more interested in WP:DRAMA than building the encyclopedia. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This IP contributes little to nothing and causes considerable disruption, apparently deliberately. They also have an account, but will not say what it is, just that they are "not currently blocked." Per Off2riorob, a net negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Yet another drama-producing editor who can't/won't edit under their actual identity. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support The blatantly false info on their userspace is offensive to those who try to edit here constructively. I can only agree with the "net negative" sentiments stated above. Obviously talk page privileges should also be removed for the duration of the block. MarnetteD | Talk 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Purely disruptive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note - The user has reportedly had at least 3 different IP's just since January, so things could get a little complicated. Regardless, the "enemies list" has to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Disruptive edits, edit warring blatantly false information onto their user page, refusal to reveal prior identities, and admission that their own edits are "25% trolling and 25% wikilawyering." [24] Dayewalker (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I reviewed their contributions and see a preponderance of constructive edits. Their conduct has not been perfect, but the same could be said of most of those voting "Support" above, as well as myself. I say this despite being in a current dispute with the IP (see "Wikipedia versus the Real World" subthread currently at ANI). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral at the moment, but hardly satisfied that this isn't a user that's already blocked. Anyone who comes out and admits that one quarter of their contributions consist of "trolling" should raise a red flag. I simply don't believe that the IP doesn't "remember" crossing paths with me, and this makes me suspicious. But how do you actually ban a user that switches IPs and has yet to be positively identified? The user should in no way be allowed to maintain a list like they've been attempting to create, and it would be nice if they would disclose another IP or two that they've used (though they're not technically obligated to and most likely will not do that). I'm pretty unsure that this is at a ban stage yet, but abusing the open-editing thing by avoiding scrutiny is something I've seen all too often. As is so common with blocked and banned users, there seems to be an issue of WP:COMPETENCE in understanding how to deal with those they disagree with. Isn't it odd how that happens? I think that essay should become at least a guideline when the pitiful one-sentence IAR policy is so often misconstrued, BTW. Doc talk 04:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It seems quite odd to have decided that a consensus had formed barely 2 hours after the original suggestion was posted. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If the guy's been editing for ten years but only using that IP since February, I doubt a li'l ol' one-month ban is going to stop him. He'll just use another IP or named account. Maybe he won't be as disruptive with the new ones and it won't be so blatantly obvious what the outcome would have been had it sat here for 22 more technical hours. Doc talk 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedian consensus is rarely so quick and decisive. But this case is rather obvious. If the editor creates a new account, but doesn't cause further disruption, we don't care. If he does, we can block/ban him again. Chester Markel (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: Involved editors should identify and recuse themselves from the above discussion

Quoth Wikipedia:Community ban: "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." (emphasis mine) As far as I can tell, at least half of the participants in the above discussion are involved in the underlying dispute. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This would mean something if the dispute was about article content. As far as I can see the involved are fed up with the blatant falsehoods in your userspace and general disruption on various noticeboards. They have every right to be part of the above process. MarnetteD | Talk 03:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I left out blatant socking. MarnetteD | Talk 03:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Prove it or strike. I'm not socking. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You said you've been here for 10 years, and your current IP certainly hasn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not socking. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Explain this.[25] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, copyediting? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If the IP user has no registered account, then editing from an IP is not "socking". Many people edit Wikipedia without an account. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It can be, if they admit to bad-faith activity, as the IP does in that link I indicated above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. That diff is an internal edit to my own comment on my own talk page. It in no way is an admission of bad-faith activity. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the diff shows both versions of the comment, and they are both bad-faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. They betray a delight in deception. Deception is bad-faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. It was a humorous response to an editor welcoming me to Wikipedia, yesterday. Your attempt to characterize it as "betray[ing] a delight in deception" is, itself, bad-faith. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You wrote the words yourself, so don't blame others for reading them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I blame you for mischaracterizing them, and attempting to mislead other editors. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been told otherwise... by good faith users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here, you know what? If the only point of contention is my collection of diffs of registered users blanking my user page, I'll remove it from there to here. These editors are clearly involved, and should not be participating above:

1. Ncmvocalist (blanking)
2. Ncmvocalist (more blanking)
3. Delicious carbuncle (added {{DynamicIP}} above page contents)
4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (removed entries 3 and 4 from this log)
5. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (removed link to User_talk:Off2Riorob)
6. Ncmvocalist (removed entries 3-7, link to User_talk:Off2Riorob)
7. Ncmvocalist (...again)

24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An unimportant and probably moot point, but I removed nothing from the page, merely added a dynamic IP template, which the IP user moved to their talk page. I cannot condone their behaviour here, but I supported their right to edit as an IP in a discussion above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Related question about userpages

IP users generally do not have userpages (perhaps largely because they are unable to create them for themselves). This user, who is not on a static IP, has both a userpage and now a subpage. I previously nominated another of their subpages for deletion because the IP is dynamic and likely to change, in which case it will no longer be the subpage of this user, but of whoever gets assigned the IP, which seems unnecessarily problematic. If the IP user does not want to have an account, that is certainly their choice to make, but they seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too, by having all the benefits that registered users have. I don't believe it was ever intended for IP users on dynamic IPs to have user pages or subpages, but before I propose a change to WP:UP, I would like to get a sense of what the community thinks. Thoughts? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally, IP users won't have user pages because they don't have the authority to create a page... except their own talk page. In the case of this IP, the user Ocaasi created the IP's user page for him, for goddess knows what reason, and then the IP was able to edit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is precedent for IP user pages. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, you're abusing it. I've asked Ocaasi to come here and review the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, as it would be very confusing to the new owner of the IP address. This current situation involves an editor who freely admits [26] they're been editing for ten years under a variety of identities, and I would assume IPs as well. I agree with DC that this appears to be a "have their cake and eat it" situation. As of right now, the editor is edit warring to keep a perceived enemies list on the page, when their IP resets, it will be certainly confusing for the new owner, and make it hard to assume good faith for editors working with that new owner. Dayewalker (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That's why I've asked for semi-protection, which will keep the IP's mitts off it and will allow it to be cleared of that junk. Ocaasi needs to come here and explain how the IP sweet-talked him (probably via e-mail) into creating his page for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I "sweet-talked" him with a {{helpme}} request on my talk page. WTF, yo, can you not assume good faith on the part of anyone? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Has that been your standard procedure with every one of your various IP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not here to be cross-examined by you. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey! It's Mark McGwire and the non-denial denial! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterizing my reversion of unwarranted blanking on my user-page as "edit warring" is... somewhere between hilarious and bad-faith. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here since I created the user page. I don't recall this situation and will have to check the diffs. But generally, I don't consider ip editors second class citizens and don't begrudge them use of their user pages. I assume good faith until given reason to do otherwise. If the ip is editing outside of community standards and being disruptive, block as normal. Frankly, I don't see what the userpage has to do with it. Plenty of registered editors have userpages and don't use them, or use them and are just as abusive until they are blocked. That's my thought on it off-hand. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Registered users don't float. Or at least the honest ones don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You created it on May 27th,[27] including a heading for Barnstars. What's up with that? Are you doing this kind of thing routinely? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Bugs, kindly back off a step. I was asked in the help channel (#wikipedia-en-help) to aid an ip in displaying barnstars on his/her userpage. I did so. I'd do it again. I assume good faith. Now faith has been broken. Now sanction if necessary. If you want to make this an issue, bring an RfC at WP:IP or WP:USERPAGE. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • You had no business granting that IP's request, for reasons stated by other users above. IP's float. They don't need user pages. If you ever again grant an IP's request for a user page, I may well take you to an RfC/U. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Show me the consensus against ips having userpages or I'm not really interested in this conversation. IPs sometimes float. I've had many for several months or longer. I don't accept declarations and threats, so do what you want, but if you want me involved, consider changing your approach. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
          • IP's often float. The IP in this case has had 3 just since January. You need to investigate an IP's behavior and duration before just blindly granting such a request. I've granted such requests myself - with IP's that had been around for awhile and appeared to be trustworthy. This one (who is now banned, FYI) was neither. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't see that request as a big deal. I'm not doing sock/checkuser investigations before dealing with ips who have no clear problems on that account and who ask in good faith for help. The userpage became a problem and now it is gone, but the user was the problem, not the userpage. I assume you don't object to ips having talk pages? And IPs can put editor hit-lists on their talk page just as easily. So what is the difference? The userpage is a red herring here, it wasn't the problem; the editor was. Fulfilling the help request was all in due course, as was this block. I think i'm done for this one. I will continue to help ips if they need it. And we'll continue to block them if they abuse it. I don't promise anything more than that right now. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My question is not about this particular IP editor, but about user pages and subpages for dynamic IPs in general. There may be a argument to be made that users editing from a static IP should have user pages, but allowing users editing from a dynamic IP to have them seems likely to cause issues when that user changes IPs (either by happenstance or deliberately). The Wikipedia software appears to be set up with the assumption that IPs do not have user pages: if I click on a username in their signature, I am taken to that user's userpage but if I click on an IP I am taken to their contribution list even if a user page exists; IPs cannot create their own user pages or subpages. This is not to suggest that IP editors are any less valuable than registered users, just a recognition that they have different permissions. Based on the result of the discussions here (deletion and salting of the IP's user page) I will suggest changes at WP:UP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason a dynamic IP should have a userpage. I can understand allowing a fixed IP to have one, but dynamic IPs should never have userpages, as they won't have that IP later. It's just impractical to try and keep up with a dynamic IP to move such pages around. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Making ED.ch pages on user after article dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured Sounds Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger

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

1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban of Sven Manguard on discussions involving user TonyTheTiger

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof once more

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

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

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

2011 Israeli border demonstrations

Things are fairly lively over there especially on the talk page. Talk:2011_Israeli_border_demonstrations#Where_exactly_were_events_involving_Syrian-based_demonstrators? has the worst stuff but there is other material elseweher in the talk. I think there is someone using a series of throwaway accounts. Anyone want to watch the page?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also had my attention drawn to the hatted section.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say that other than one exchange, the heat actually seems pretty low given the topic area. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Notzrim

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

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

Thank you Mephistophelian for advising to ANI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

an anonymous editor I have a dispute with keeps making edits that are copyright violations

See this diff (the copyrighted source is also cited). I cannot block the user (User:218.186.16.226, among others) and I cannot revert the user because of a current content dispute with this user. It is not merely this sentence, but many others, I have reverted over the past few months (from several IPs). On that same article I deleted two revisions for copyright violations; 279 revisions were moved to Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions and then deleted for copyright violations. In short, the editor seeks to reintroduce copyrighted material over and over again, and this is a cause of especially large headaches. The editor seems to think that copying from government websites is OK, perhaps because of possible suspected employment by the government (see discussion above on Teo Ser Luck). This is not a new issue -- other government-linked editors will often copy entire paragraphs from government sites, using their exact language, onto Wikipedia pages and then format them accordingly. On the grounds of avoiding edit warring I do not want to revert this user any further, so I am asking for some immediate intervention. Thanks. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also in the past, the same user (or related users from the same party), also uploaded a large copyrighted image of Vivian Balakrishnan onto Commons and then would replace the completely free image we had of him with the copyrighted one, even when the copyrighted one was deleted, simply because the copyrighted one was an official government photo. I would like some immediate input into the matter. Thank you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

the recent 3 edits you made were from "he contributed" to 'his men contributed". What a great writeup...Apparently you couldn't rephrase in a better manner. More than one voice has voiced out about how the article in Teo Ser Luck isn't appropriate but you reverted it even when the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because this modified it from a revision that was too similar in language and style to a government source. Why did you feel the need to resurrect revisions that had been deleted for copyright violations, or re-copy from official sources, and why not elaborate with better prose? As you surely must notice, this page and other pages on government ministers routinely suffer from copyright violation issues. In the last hour or so I deleted two revisions (it was a non-controversial deletion) for copying from the website.

I will go ahead and delete the copyrighted revisions by the above user, if no one else opposes. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some of the edits the user has made they do seem to violate copywright and then he seeks to defend them by vociferously accusing others of violating wikipedia policy. Reichsfürst (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately for the IP, WP:COPYVIO is a Wikipedia policy. "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't going to cut the mustard here. The question, then, becomes whether it would be a more effective administrative effort to block a IP editor or simply semi-protect the article(s) in question for a finite period. I don't think this is something that can be ignored; copyright violation is one of the more egregious violations of policy, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am amused that you think I am behind a billion edits that you are trying to find blame for.

I am amused how you go around maligning people doing edits to be working for government.

I am amused how everytime you lose an argument, you blame government.

I am amused how everytime you lose an argument, you accuse me of violating wiki policy, knowing that I'm new here.

I am amused how you abuse your admin rights to revert even though time and again, I've seen someone issue you a warning that page is protected.

With regards to the copyrights materials, if that is true, I apologise. But your edits are twisting words not making them look less "copyrighted". If you are so capable, rephrase the whole paragraph, not twist a few words (from "he" to "his men" ) thinking that it makes the passage a brand new original one.

I have only reverted the last 3 edits. Not the 279 edits or the copyright photos you have been accusing me of doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm I'm not blaming anyone. The government has a lot of people and most civil servants would be too disgusted (and being too incorruptible) to do that sort of thing anyway. However, as can readily presented (no big secret among Singaporeans), astroturfing by a particular group, probably linked to the Young PAP, has been going around on internet websites, posting trolling messages, derailing conversations on purpose on opposition facebook pages -- distributed DOS attacks were conducted against The Online Citizen and Temasek Review at election times; during election time, unexplained anonymous removal of content was quite rampant. The suspicion remains that edits from government-linked IPs fit your editing pattern -- is this complete coincidence for you? And for the record, you have never replied to my sourcing questions. Wikipedia is not winning arguments. Wikipedia is about discussion and consensus, which you have, to great exasperation, not participated in. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1. You don't understand Starhub uses dynamic IP which does changes.

2. You don't undertstand that even if IP changes, I am still on the same gateway.. So how is someone using 160.x.x.x going to be me? 3. Flaming people to be working for government all the time. 4. Why don't you own up your mistake that you continued reverted even when page is protected? Speaks volume about your attitude. You are just out to win. I don't even know why you claim yourself to be an editor for Teo Ser Luck's page when you didn't even update anything factual about him. You just want a random blog article which made a short mention of him to be listed on his page. I am not the only one disapproving your edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Teo_Ser_Luck 5. I think you work for Temasek Review and you have serious anti-government issues. 6. If Vivian Balakrishan's page have serious copyrights issue, you shouldn't even be editing. it. You kept reverting the word "question" to "accusation", I don't see how that is an edit. 7. You shouldn't even be admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. –MuZemike 18:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Although this problem seems to be solved for the moment, let me make an important point that the OP seems not to be aware of. You cannot fix a copyvio by tweaking the wording to make it less similar. No matter how much you tweak the wording, the expression in the result will still derive from the specific expression in the original, making it still a copyvio; and the evidence for that will be present in the history. The only way to fix a copyvio is to delete the material and rewrite in one's own words. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, do you have a citation for that? If sufficiently changed, there is not copyright violation, expecially for expressions of basic facts, of which there is a limited number of possible permutations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he may be referring to WP:Copyright violations where it says Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure. If sufficiently changed, then yes, it does not become a copyright violation, but I think he may be saying that if there is a copyvio on a page, changing a few words so that it isn't a verbatim doesn't make it legit. - SudoGhost™ 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Even so it's no way to write an article, copying a text in and re-writing it. One must edit from the soul! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that's what Looie496 was saying. - SudoGhost™ 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I recognize you are using a metaphor, but it's a dangerous one: the soul in most traditions is not considered as being either rational or objective, but more closely related to imagination and emotion. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Randy in Boise problem on the ISS page

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

• Both Count Iblis [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] and RadioFan [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] disregarded the 3RR rule in that article. The concurrent discussion on the article's talk page appeared to be progressing, but does not justify Count Iblis' revert warring with edit summaries of "per talk". Both editors should have known better. Thus, to correct the behavior, I suggest at least a 24-hour block for each. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:TAR2C & User:GenoRocks

TAR2C (talk · contribs) GenoRocks (talk · contribs)

(Not sure which other noticeboard to take this to, so I brought it here. Feel free to refer me somewhere else if necessary...) After creating a number of articles that were speedy deleted, and making a number of article edits that were subsequently reverted, TAR2C began using their userpage to write a fake article (I assumed it was either a play on the username or was being used for experimenting). Nothing really unusual...

However, the GenoRocks user account was created today and pretty much begins exclusively editing TAR2C's userpage and linking it to GenoRocks's userpage. That seemed odd, so I left a message on GenoRocks's talk page to ask what their relationship was with TAR2C: [38]. GenoRocks has not responded to my enquiry, but has continued to edit TAR2C's userpage.

I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry, so I haven't gone to SPI yet. While it's possible they are multiple accounts of the same person, it is equally possible that GenoRocks stumbled upon TAR2C's userpage and just began editing it with or without permission. I say that because one of GenoRocks's very frist edits to the userpage was to replace all of the content: [39]. Also, the style of editing isn't quite the same. If GenoRocks had responded to my question I wouldn't be bringing this here, but at this point I believe some type of administrative attention is required. Singularity42 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At first glance they look like two separate people, possibly classmates or the like. I don't hear much quacking from either account. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this one didn't strike me as being an obvious case of sockpuppetry, and not yet something I would ever take to SPI. My concern that brought me here was that if it isn't sockpuppetry, it's one user using another user's userpage as their personal sandbox, with no indication of permission, etc., which I would think is contrary to WP:USERPAGE. If GenoRocks would just respond instead of just continuing teh behaviour without explanation I don't think I would have raised it as an issue. Singularity42 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They're the same person, but I have no idea what they're doing. I've deleted their userpages since we're not a webhost. TNXMan 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

edit war at the vandalism board!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block review: Suckafree420

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share ramping / misleading information - Beowulf Mining

Beowulf Mining is the subject of ramping on various bulletin boards at the moment and this has carried through to the Wikipedia article, most notably with the companies official announcements of resource estimates (some preliminary) being reported as actual confirmed amounts. This misinformation/ramping is illegal in the UK where the company is listed, and I presume also in the US. I've placed all the details on the talk page - Talk:Beowulf_Mining. Trying to stop this has already taken up too much of my time, and my corrections just get reverted. Please can you stop Wikipedia being used for ramping/misinformation. I've been editing under the 213.246.*.* IPs 213.246.87.225 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the RNS statement does appear to have been reported in a misleading manner - I've given the editor a warning and will watch the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that pretty much the whole thing seems to be sourced to press releases from the company, I've nominated it for deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added Kallak Iron Deposit and Ruoutevare Iron Deposit to the AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I point out that this deletion request, apparently instigated by an anonymous editor admitting to using a range of ip addresses, can be as much negative promotion as the article was positive. This discussion might be playing into the hands of speculators in whatever direction, and quiet editing would have been much more appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, this might force the article creator(s) into bringing the article up to standards. It's mildly surprising how many articles get "saves" because of a flurry of editing once the AfD listing pops up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin for speedy close of AfD

Resolved

 – Closed pending outcome of other processes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism) (4th nomination) was opened by an editor who I happen to agree with on the substance of their arguments, but there is already an RfC ongoing *as well as* an ArbCom case. This editor previously blanked the Santorum (neologism) on BLP grounds, which again I agree with the rationale, but not the method here.

Would an admin please speedy close this current AfD? I feel it only clouds the issue and hurts the case for those of us who are trying to change it. -- Avanu (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Motaros

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Followup on earlier thread

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

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

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

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

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

Strange new users with same profile.

As I am doing new user patrol I have noticed strange new users created with same profile in last several days.[40] Can any admin look at this matter?--Shrike (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being followed/stalked by two editors

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

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

For added clarity, as noted in my reply directly to the editor who raised this issue in this diff [41], "I have explained the rationale for all proposed deletions on the individual pages. Generally subjects need to be notable as documented in reliable secondary sources to have articles on Wikipedia. For those that are not, and for which I can not find evidence of such reliable sources, I propose deletion and explain it as such on each proposal." As I imagine the user may be aware, they are free to remove a PROD if they disagree with it, as long as they address the concern. Also as noted by the admin whom the editor contacted to request assistance on this here [42], "...it might be a good idea to open up a wider debate and/or confirmation that we want essentially empty articles pointing to Wiktionary." (which was one of the speedy deletes I proposed as an A3, which was declined). The other deletions I have proposed were not related to this issue, they were based upon lack of reliable source coverage to establish notability as noted here [43] or lack of any notability claims at all as noted here [44]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting semi-protection of a user's talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abuse of TW anti-vandalism tool

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bio about me keeps accumulating demeaning and Defaming material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per MastCell on the BLP talk page, [45] because of sourcing problems, I would agree that the BLP be deleted or replaced by a stub. There is no wikipedia article on Marshall Protocol, just a redirect to the BLP. MastCell has indicated that this proposed treatment and the theory behind it have not been discussed at length in mainstream medical reviews (or none have so far been cited in the BLP). It is inappropriate to have a detailed dissussion of this topic in a wikipedia BLP unless independent reliable sources like that can be found. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I've removed[46] all information about the Marshall Protocol from the article to ensure that both BLP and neutrality are upheld. Chester Markel (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yotemordis and AfD

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

---

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

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

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

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

 Confirmed as the same user:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues with The New Angel

The New Angel (talk · contribs) has been uploading a series of non-free character images and generally doing nothing else with them. The same editor has also been creating a series of articles on non-notable characters from a single series, reverting all attempts to merge the individual characters and fictional groups into a singular character list under different IP address, all originating from Argentina.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] Because of this, the articles end up going to AfD as a result. The editor seems to have no interest in following Wikipedia's guidelines and even attempted to revert the outcome of one particular AfD, resulting in the redirect being protected.[55][56] The editor has also restored trivia and excessive amounts of non-free images that he/she adds to articles.[57][58][59][60] —Farix (t | c) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A few things...

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

Missed anything?

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami

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

First, in the course of the debate, one of the posters launched what I believe to be an egregious personal attack against me. [61] I refactored it, and it promptly devolved into an edit war with Tothwolf, who reverted several times before ceasing.

That being settled, he turned his attention to the {{afdanons}} template. As a casual observer would notice, the AfD has been flooded with anon IPs, egged on by postings in multiple topics on a message board to do so [62] [63], making use of the template not merely appropriate but the very situation for which the template was created in the first place. Tothwolf removed the notice, it was reverted, he removed it again, and - apparently unaware it had been up before - User:Yworo put it up afresh, with the edit summary "surprised no one had added {{not a vote}} despite influx of !votes from forum."

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

• Actually, as explained on User:Ravenswing's talk page [64] [65] I take exception to any editor removing someone else's comments, particularly while making false statements that they are "refactoring". [66] [67] [68] When I undid Ravenswing's removal of another editor's comments [69] I also linked to WP:TPO in the edit summary which itself states under "Removing harmful posts": "[...] This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

  I've also made it clear to Ravenswing [70] that mass-tagging good faith comments by others as {{spa}} which had !voted "keep" while specifically choosing not to tag similar !votes of "delete" from other anonymous editors is not helpful. This selective tagging of those whom disagreed with Ravenswing's position [71] makes it clear such mass-tagging was not done in good faith, and was instead done in an attempt to discredit and downplay good faith arguments and discussion from those with an opinion which differs from Ravenswing.

  In addition, Ravenswing has already made it clear that they will try to use anything they can to attack my character [72] [73] including by means of selective removals of material from a discussion thread on their own talk page: "Just not particularly interested." [74] "Still disinterested." [75] (and now, apparently even AN/I).

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

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

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

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

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

I just thought of this, but did you perhaps mean redact instead of refactor? There is actually a handy little template for this named {{nono}}. While I didn't undo your edit of the other editor's comments [76] perhaps you could redo your edit and use the {{nono}} template instead? --Tothwolf (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

UK privacy injunctions and BLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mail has previously tried to use Wikipedia as an injunction-busting tool [77] and mentioned that ETK's name has been on Wikipedia here. So what? Since Pauline McLynn is Irish, this was always likely to happen. I don't know what they teach at English law schools these days, but it obviously isn't common sense. Injunctions like this are unenforceable outside England and Wales, as Ryan Giggs showed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

user 94.69.228.49

IP user 94.69.228.49 (talk · contribs) has been adding the category:History of Greece to pretty much any remotely Greece-related articles today. I pointed out that this was counter-productive and contrary to the relevant guidelines (which I pointed him to), and the only response was blanking the talk page and calling me names ([78] & [79]). The additions of the category by themselves are mostly harmless, but then he moved on to edits such as adding that Constantinople was renamed to Istanbul "only in Turkey" or removing the History of Albania category from Cleitus the Illyrian, Malësia, and other Albania-related articles and adding the History of Greece category to places like Category:Thraco-Illyrian. Incivility coupled with extreme nationalist POV and apparent trolling around with categories. Constantine ✍ 13:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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