Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

Hello folks. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar. Anyway, yesterday, I stumbled across the article at Gay Niggers Association of America while reading up on the old Scientology ArbCom case, and noticed it seemed a little - biased. As such, I drive-by-tagged it (apologies), and after the tag was removed, attempted to make a few changes myself. I made one (admittedly incomplete) content edit, trying to swing the article back to a more neutral state. Another user, LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again. So, I looked through the edit history and associated contributions, as one does. I noted that LiteralKa almost exclusively edits articles related to GNAA et al., and so I Googled the username. Not at all to my surprise, 'LiteralKa' is 'Director of Public Relations' for the GNAA group. I didn't think that LiteralKa's editing of the article was in the least bit appropriate, so I dropped him a note about COI. LiteralKa and I had a brief talk page discussion, and we left the matter at that. However, I also had a quick look at his contributions, and spotted a few AFDs LiteralKa had been involved in, as well as a history of 'owning' the GNAA and related articles. I'm going to make the following claims, therefore:

• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) is the Director of Public Relations at GNAA.
• Therefore, LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with regards to the GNAA and related organisations, and is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect.
• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has recently created some particularly pointy AFDs, both of which have the acronym 'GNAA':

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry
• I wanted to close these as 'disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point', but I think it'd be best to let them run. There's also Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, which LiteralKa has shown an interest in.

• There seem to be a host of SPAs, meatpuppets and potential GNAA members who edit GNAA articles, for example:

• Prozak (talk · contribs)
• 24.57.119.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• TrollHistorian (talk · contribs)
• NPrice (talk · contribs)
• Murdox (talk · contribs)

In short, then, I'm asking what we can do about this. Ideally, I'd like to get editors with a COI, like LiteralKa, to leave the GNAA article alone so that sensible, uninvolved folk can work on it. Some sort of topic ban? Community-endorsed? The Cavalry (Message me) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ban all forever. Don't forget snaphat (talk · contribs). See also this after I opposed the recreation of the GNAA article in February.  Diego  talk  22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That LiteralKa is associated with GNAA is not at all news to anyone who spends time at #wikipedia-en, where LiteralKa is a regular. As far as IRC members go, he has recently ranged from mildly constructive to mildly disruptive, but has previously had a history of being banned from that channel and socking to get around that ban, and spent a few days as the single most disruptive troll that I've seen in IRC space in the time I've spent there, which is nearly a year.

What does this mean for actual Wikipedia? It means that LiteralKa has proven that he has access to effective proxy services and is more than willing to sock. I would not be surprised to find that those SPIs are his sockpuppets, although it is likely that they are untraceable. At the very least, Murdox is also on IRC from time to time, so the two are either socks or meats. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the logical extension of that argument is that everyone on Wikipedia is secretly a sockpuppet of one dude with a lot of time and proxies. This is less of a matter of Wikipedia Administration and more of a witchhunt. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you just accused snaphat (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet when all he has done is vote against one of your articles. LiteralKa (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The vote is perfectly fine, and I'll leave it clear to you: I did not know of the existence of an article on mixed-breed dogs at the time I created the quiltro article, so I created it, believing it was some kind of "different" race when it is not. Snaphat's vote there is perfectly fine, yours is too; however, it is obvious you both are part of that so-called, racist organization I won't bother to spell.  Diego  talk  04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you're going to have to provide evidence that he is a member of the Gay Nigger Association of America before throwing accusations around. We've been over this before. LiteralKa (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple, user that edits very, very sparsely from 2005 votes in an AfD shortly after the director of public relations of the troll organization votes, too. Since there are no public records of who the members of the organizations are, I have no more proof than this.  Diego  talk  05:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, that is the flimsiest argument I have seen from you yet. Why would that have anything to do with the GNAA except for the fact that I happened to vote a little before him? If that's what you see as justification for banning, I sincerely hope that you never get the power to ban here. You should notify someone when you're accusing them on ANI, BTW. You're grasping at straws here, Diego. Give it a rest. LiteralKa (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and because you wouldn't notify him, I did. LiteralKa (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not related to GNAA. I didn't know it existed until the accusation. It is actually pretty clear who I am if you google my username. I'm not making an attempt to hide this information. snaphat (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore conflicts of interest exist everywhere because every single Wikipedia editor is involved with some other organization or interest, and they frequently edit topics of that nature. It's total hypocrisy for you to single out some who may be fans of the GNAA. death metal maniac (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note above user is User:Prozak. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say the AfDs should be procedurally closed. The ones that need deleting can be restarted with a nominator who isn't being obviously pointy. The AfDs weren't started in good faith, we should do the equivalent of order a mistrial. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would let the AfDs run. If the subjects were obviously notable, then speedy close would be reasonable, but they're not. Also, even if the nominations are pointy, the nomination statements themselves are reasonable in pointing out the deficiencies of the articles.. I don't see the point in policy-wonking this for the sake of it. Obviously if there is a sock issue on the AfD that needs to be sorted, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, the yearly GNAA infestation <yawn>. SOP as follows:

  Congratulate them on another successful op. Then nuke from orbit, salt the earth, close any procedures or related procedures started by GNAA puppets, Checkuser the bad guys, Get steward cover if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) it's the only way to be sure!

• Blocks all round, then? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They're not here to help build an encyclopedia. They're here for giggles. So yes, blocks all around. Let them get their kicks somewhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Get rid of the problem; yes.  Diego  talk  23:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. You're not assuming good faith on *ANY* of these accounts, and this really seems like a campaign against anyone who's commented in an anything-less-than-negative light on a GNAA-related article. I don't feel I've done anything wrong, and while I cannot account for other users, what's mentioned here hardly seems to warrant a permanent ban. If you look at past votes, they are clearly two-sided, and those who "lost" are now just trying to execute a vendetta against those who "won". Many of the accounts that have been listed are legitimate editors who edit on a number of subjects, and have participated in GNAA votes... Light-editing does not make a user a SPA or sockpuppet. nprice (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh! I didn't realize this was a topic ban, and after a discussion on IRC, not everyone who's put in their input seems aware of that either. If we do this, we should at least do it by each "suspected" user account, based on its own merits. You can't just do a blanket-ban on a group of people you've arbitrarily grouped together because of a perceived connection. Each user should have the right to contest any actions done to their account, by their own merits. What's happened here is that a list of editors has been compiled who have legitimate edits, but few enough of them that SPA can be cited the moment they do something pro-GNAA. In the last DrV, there were plenty of "keep deleted" votes from accounts with the same status. If this happens, the moment any sort of block is placed, a certain editor who's pretty vehemently commented in this "incident", and HIS group are going to take advantage of the situation they've orchestrated to get the GNAA article VfD'd again. nprice (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • One more comment - if you block any supposedly pro-GNAA people from editing, as well as their detractors, who does that *LEAVE* to actually edit the article? Admittedly, it is very polarizing, and this would just arbitrarily unbalance things one way or another. nprice (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It leaves neutral editors to edit it, who edit for a hobby, rather than for a cause. Some people are interested in organisations like this without being a part of them - I studied sociology at university, as well as computer science, so I actually find it rather enthralling. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It also leaves the multitude of editors who are forever biased against GNAA as a result of the many deletion debates. You know this. LiteralKa (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "[literalka] is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect." I'd like to see evidence of this instead of accusations being thrown around. I have attempted to follow the COI guideline to the best of my ability. "LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" I'd also like to see evidence of how I made it pro GNAA. As for trollhistorian (talk · contribs), he hasn't edited since 2007, calling into question the amount of research that Cavalry actually did. LiteralKa (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're the PR man from GNAA. Editing in the interests of public relations is frowned upon. Why don't you follow Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance, for example? Why do you consistently remove the 'COI' tage from the article, rather than waiting for a neutral editor to come along? It's all a bit fishy, if you ask me, and you're damned close to being blocked for being a single-purpose account. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have been editing for years across a wide variety of subjects. I find such accusations baseless, offensive, and childish. Coming from an arbitrator, no less. I removed the COI tag because no specific issue was taken with the article, aside from "LiteralKa edited it" (see WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits (mainly no. 6).) Additionally, you're going to have to prove that I'm "editing in the interests of public relations," instead of just claiming that I am. I have worked to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article. LiteralKa (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• IDGI Firstly, the implication that TheCavalry has "never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar." is a pretty false statement considering that's he's commented upon it multiple times in the IRC. Secondly, I'd like to further understand why I'm not a "sensible" editor considering that outside of attempting to reboot the GNAA article in my own userspace (which earned me a quickly overturned block) I've never made anything approaching unsensible edits on-wiki. That said, I don't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of wikipedia's version of due process and most of my knowledge of wikipedia's various bureaucratic branches comes from being referred to them continually. I understand ignorantia juris non excusat, but I'd appreciate it if you made it a little clearer what I'm being accused of. TIA. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• NB: If anyone feels I closed this inappropriately, feel free to open it again. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see this section closed by an administrator, considering the seriousness of the charges you brought. Closing because there is "too much drama here" is bogus; what did you expect? You can't just open up a huge can of worms and then just say "Nevermind!" FYI, I am a totally disinterested party who has never edited or even read the article in question and has never had any dealings whatsoever with any of the parties involved, nor do I particulary care about the outcome of this incident, except that it be resolved properly and competently. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problem with someone who originally brought an issue to ANI deciding to withdraw it, whether they're an admin or not. Sometimes one realizes that a particular issue is generating a great deal of noise, and not enough signal to bother with. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine if that's the case here, but in the meantime, if Cavalry wants to close out what he opened, far be it from me to stand in his way. (Sidenote, I'm using the pronoun "he" in the non-gender-specific manner.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry is an admin. LiteralKa (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and have been since 2007, so I thought it perfectly acceptable to close it myself - but I digress. I think we all dislike it when this becomes a drama-board, and the last thing I want to invoke is drama. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly tempted to close the AfDs summarily, as their intent is intentionally disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really disruptive to put articles that were created with the clear intention of "diluting" the GNAA disambig page up for deletion? I figured I would leave it up to the community to decide if they were notable for this very reason. LiteralKa (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say that yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate "dilution". The other articles, whether their subjects are notable or not (and that's still arguable...elsewhere), all bear legitimately-named organizations which just happen to bear the same initials. I'm not an attorney, but this strikes me as a prime example of scenes á faire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Created by the same editor during one of many GNAA arguments, one of which was mentioned in an academic paper once and another had nothing but passing mentions in sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I took a quick look at the histories of these articles and was going to snappishly post a response to LiteralKa along the lines of "these articles have nothing to do with the 'GNAA' controversy; they were created in 2005." But I looked a little deeper (after noticing that both articles on completely unrelated topics were created around the same time by the same user), and I now see the point LiteralKa is making. (Geez, I hadn't realized that GNAA has been a topic of discussion here since 2005!) I still think it would be better if these AfDs hadn't been created or had been created by someone else, but for what it is worth, I now see a somewhat greater substance to them than I might have initially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we please start assuming good faith on my GNAA-related edits now instead of just assuming the worst? I try to follow the rules as closely as possible when editing related pages. Also, I created {{GNAA History}} so that people could read up on the GNAA-Wikipedia relationship in as much detail as possible. LiteralKa (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to be fair to you. In fairness to me and others, you didn't make this point anywhere that I've noticed either in the AfDs or in this discussion, though it is one strongly in your favor insofar as the issue of intent is concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That was because the point was made already by someone else. (In hindsight, though, I probably should have been clearer in the nominations for each.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I have a hard time assuming good faith based on the comments contained in the very diff you link above. And I'm still going to have to hold by my earlier comment: because the articles at AfD appear to name valid, albeit arguably notable, organizations or entities that just happen to bear the same initials as yours, you will have the WP:BURDEN of showing the articles were created specifically for (to use a marketing term) brand dilution. And having said that, I'll now step back and watch. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As LiteralKa has noted, those claims are also my own, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon my shoulders as well. The fact that many find the GNAA distasteful isn't a secret, and years ago, those who found it distasteful sought to push the Gay Nigger Association of America to the back of the bus disambiguation page. One of these users was Astronautics (formerly known as Silsor). On December 7, 2004, Astronautics expanded the disambiguation page with three entries that didn't have articles at the time. On April 2, 2005, an anon removed the articleless entries from the page, and Astronautics's immediate reaction was to create articles on the Guilford Native American Association and the Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry in order to ensure that entries couldn't be removed from the page ever again. Astronautics then decided to belittle the Gay Nigger Association of America by having it listed last: [1]. Astronautics even tried to push GNAA as an acronym for the Great North Air Ambulance Service. Another user involved in similar activities was Brian0918. Brian0918 supported the idea of listing disambiguation page's entries by their perceived significance. When the tables turned on him, he pointedly added an articleless entry listed alphabetically over Gay Nigger and made an equally pointy comment: "alright, then, alphabetical order is fine." When Sam Hocevar removed those articleless entries, Brian0918 took a page out of Astronautics's book and created a Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica article. Those articles weren't created out of good faith; they were created solely to belittle the GNAA on a disambiguation page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the most flattering description I've recently heard of Wikipedia is "the place people go to win bar bets", and that Wikipedia itself won't allow Wikipedia articles to be used as reliable sources, I'm fairly well convinced that no one is going to take ANY article found on Wikipedia as God's Own Truth™, so an argument regarding irreparable harm to ANY of the article topics under consideration here is, in my mind, laughable at best. And now that I've said all that, here's what I see as the acid test for this case. Are the editors in question willing to accept a keep outcome on any or all of the AfDs in question? And what, if any, would the overall effect be on GNAA, other than having to share space on a disambiguation page? Yes, this is a serious question, and I'd appreciate a serious answer. And on a sidenote, I'd like to thank Michaeldsuarez for taking the time to lay out a clear, concise argument supporting his position...even though there are some who won't agree with it, it's a refreshing change from the dramatics I've seen lately on various noticeboards. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to address the issue of OWNership, I'm pretty sure that I have abstained from editing the GNAA article as much as I used to once it passed the deletion review (ie. entered mainspace.) Before that, my intention was (and still is) to help develop a genuinely acceptable Wikipedia article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As an experienced editor entirely uninvolved with any disputes about the other GNAA, I think that this tempest-in-a-teapot is exceptionally unfair to the Guilford Native American Association. This is a solid, worthy organization that has existed for decades, and reasonable people may well disagree about its notability by Wikipedia standards. However, the Guilford group has done nothing that justifies its online reputation being dragged into this "inside baseball" dispute on Wikipedia. It is unjust and distasteful. They've had an article here for 5-1/2 years. Consider the impact on uninvolved people who stumble into this debate while looking for information about a group that was founded 25 years before Wikipedia was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the view stats, I'd reckon that doesn't happen much, if at all. LiteralKa (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So, if its only three parents of Native American kids with problems, rather than 20, that's OK with you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how one of them is me, and the other two are related to the page deletion, yes. LiteralKa (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google reports that there are an average of 36 searches per month for "guilford native american association". Our article shows up at the top of that search. The potential for collateral embarrassment to this group is real.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The "collateral embarrassment" you mention would be made no worse: its "relationship" to the GNAA would be no more apparent than it already is. LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you then agree the converse is also true...the existence of the Guilford Native American Association, and hence its article, causes no "collateral embarrassment" to GNAA? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'd like it to be known that I am not any way related to GNAA. I simply voted once on some article AfD of diegos. Since it is very easy to look up who I am, so there is absolutely no reason why this accusation should have occurred in the first place. What can be done about this? snaphat (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree here. I don't see that you're a part of GNAA in the same way as LiteralKa, and it's LiteralKa's conduct I have an issue with in any case - everyone else seems tangentially related, and I'm not 'anti-' or 'pro-' GNAA. The only reason I've issued a block so far is that NPrice (talk · contribs) turned out to be a reincarnation of a blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks you! I'm not concerned with what is going on here beyond making sure I don't wrongfully get banned or sanctions against me as I've done nothing wrong. snaphat (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry, can you please provide diffs of LiteralKa's alleged meddling in the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's revisions after your own revisions appears fine to me, and LiteralKa provide clear edit summaries. Can you please back your "[LiteralKa] stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" comment? Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not specific edits, because the edits themselves are individually small and apparently harmless - but they add up to have a cumulative effect. I find it amazing that he's removing COI tags added by neutral editors - and bizarrely citing Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits as a reason for doing so. Ask yourself this: Why is the Head of PR, and the 'Head of Wikipedia editing' (easily accessible through Google searches, seeing as 'LiteralKa' is the username he uses all over the internet, for everything), for GNAA, editing the article at all? This is a man who wrote - just four months ago - Jimmy "Babyrapist" Wales... convicted sex offenders known on Wikipedia as "Sysops"... forcefully ejaculating into MuZemike's pedophile mouth.... And let's not forget the wonderful quote that The Wikimedia Foundation refused to return our requests for comment. Saying only that "those dumb niggers" do not "deserve a fucking article". The man who wrote this is apparently an editor without a COI? Would we allow this from the Head of PR for any other organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a COI to me. Given his background, LiteralKa should not be editing the article at all. snaphat (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When LiteralKa removed that COI tag, there hasn't been any discussion about COI since the previous discussion on COI and neutrality concerns was settled several days earlier. Cavalry didn't make any attempt to re-initiate that discussion, and there wasn't any answer to my call for evidence. Silver_seren also noted the lack of further discussion. There isn't anyone who takes anything say on the GNAA website at face value. It's unlikely that anything said on that website will harm the Wikipedians mentioned. LiteralKa uses the GNAA website in the same way I use Encyclpedia Dramatica: To be funny and entertain visitors. LiteralKa didn't use those press releases to out anyone. Should we ban anyone who mocks Wikipedia on Encyclopedia Dramatica or the Wikipedia Review? Only one thing matters here: How does LiteralKa influence the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's offsite activity doesn't have any effect on that article, so that activity is irrelevant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I disagree, and I do not have to cite specific edits, because the conflict of interest is plainly obvious. Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article. This isn't about WR, or ED - bringing those sites in is a fallacious argument, and a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue with drama. The only thing that matters here is: should the Head of PR of an organisation be the main editor of the article for that organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article"? I'm seeing a revision by you from July 8, 2011. You added the COI tag on July 14, 2011, and that talk page I had mentioned had only ended the day before. As the PR Head, LiteralKa has the best motivation to keep the article neutral and free of crud from those who despise the group. Why don't you point out how LiteralKa made the article less than neutral? Can you? You haven't done so so far. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're talking about allowing PR reps to be the main editors for articles because you think they're neutral? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with ChaseMe: this is incredibly peculiar reasoning on MichaelD's part. PR heads, by definition, want to shape coverage of their subject to fit their own agenda, which is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If PR people were truly neutral, we wouldn't have 1/4 the number of UAA reports we get. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I have to counter Michaeldsuarez' argument. As the self-styled PR man for GNAA, how can LiteralKa not have a COI when editing the GNAA article? I will stipulate that WP:COI specifically states that a voluntarily-disclosed conflict of interest should not be used as a weapon against the editor. However, WP:COI is also quite clear that an editor should avoid making changes to an article unless it helps the project as a whole, and given both the size and the heat emanating from this discussion, I can't see any help to the project as a whole. In fact, based on what I'm seeing, his editing is damaging not only the GNAA article (due to inherent bias) but several other articles as well, simply because the names of the articles have the unmitigated bad fortune to create acronyms of "GNAA". Add to that the comments from the GNAA Web site quoted above, and to me it adds up to a fairly damning case, very little of which is circumstantial. And before I go any farther, I'm also going to stipulate that I do NOT have a dog in this hunt. I have no association with GNAA (in any of the incarnations under discussion...hells, in at least two cases I couldn't even pass the physical!), I have not edited any of the articles, and I have not participated in any of the AfD discussions. My focus here is to examine the core issue and see if there's any sort of mutually-agreeable solution that won't wind up involving significant admin (or higher) action. Sadly, I fear it may be too late for that last, but that won't stop me from giving it a go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI - "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." LiteralKa (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The COI template doesn't mention citations, and I can tell you right now that #6 doesn't apply in the case you're talking about. If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit, and you shouldn't be making it at all. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The way COI works is this way... If an editor has a COI but complies with all policies and guidelines, and other editors do not object to their edits, then we allow their editing of the main space of the article (we even encourage it, really). If, however, the editor is being disruptive (either through conflicts with all other editors or violating policies and guidelines), then that editor can be blocked or banned. If we can verify either through technical or behavioral means that sockpuppetry has been occurring, that seems to me a valid reason to do both in this case. -- Atama頭 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got no prior involvement with this article, but having read through this thread, I'll just add that LiteralKa seems to have a pretty transparent COI regarding this article, and as such should (at the very least) publicly make that clear; and preferably should avoid making any edits to the GNAA article at all. Minor edits are OK but not if they're controversial (and if someone reverts them, that's a clear sign that they are). Robofish (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This recent edit by LiteralKa is non-neutral and the edit summary does not accurately describe it.[2] Given the history and the ongoing problems, I think that LiteralKa and Murdox, listed as GNAA president,[3] should not be editing the article directly, nor should they be involved in AFDs related to GNAA. It would be sufficient for them to use talk pages to suggest edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that something is "non-neutral." It's another to say why. LiteralKa (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but my ADHD makes it very hard to follow the thread of a huge discussion like this without losing track of the argument. Could someone point out to me specifically which edits on the GNAA article are non-neutral or controversial, and why I need to be blocked from editing the GNAA article? My vague understanding of COI is that it doesn't apply if the edits aren't controversial. Murdox (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're editing an article about a group of which you're the president then you should really become familiar with the relevant guideline. WP:COI.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep avoiding the issue of citing specific edits and saying how they're POV? LiteralKa (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I've violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. In fact, I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but I don't see why this means I should be blocked from making edits to the page I feel are appropriate? By all means, if you could cite specific edits or lines of policy it would help me understand your position more. TIA. Murdox (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit removed text illustrating the perception of the organization's name as racist, it removed (sourced) information about the group's antagonism toward blogs and Wikipedia, and another mention of the intentionally offensive nature of the organization's name. Either you're being disingenuous about the slant you're trying to put in the article, or unable to recognize it, either of which is a very valid reason to ban you from further involvement in editing the article. -- Atama頭 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The "racism" was discussed later in the article. Same with the antagonism bit. Is there a problem with removing redundant material all of a sudden? LiteralKa (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that's true. The article does more-or-less cover it anyway. At the very least, it looks like a POV edit on the surface, and the edit summary was pretty vague (explaining that it was removing redundant statements would have been better). So I can see why Will might consider that a biased edit but I suppose it isn't. -- Atama頭 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In hindsight, a better edit summary probably would have helped. LiteralKa (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion, decision

I think the consensus above (among neutral editors) is that LiteralKa and Murdox - and any other editors who hold positions within the GNAA - should not edit GNAA-related articles, except to remove blatant vandalism or post requested edits on the talk page. The problems with their involvement in editing the GNAA article is plainly apparent. To that end, and to clarify exactly what the problems are, I'd like to propose that: "LiteralKa and Murdox are banned from editing articles related to the GNAA, except to remove blatant vandalism, remove BLP policy violations, or fix spelling and grammar errors. All other edits should be requested using the {{Request edit}} template. I think that this is more than fair, and is in line with current community views on this level of COI editing. It also allows LiteralKa and Murdox to focus on improving other topics, while still allowing them to contribute to the article in question. I'd appreciate the viewpoint of neutral editors on this - ie those not pro- or anti-GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NB: Someone also suggested a full topic-ban, but I'm not sure if that's a bit harsh. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We're struggling to get neutral editors involved, so I've mentioned this proposal to a few people who have commented above - but no-one who is openly anti-GNAA. I've also contacted Lugurr, who might come over from simple to comment. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

LiteralKa has been permanently blocked and the consensus shaping up amongst the users who've actually taken an independent look at the evidence presented about my COI (instead of lumping me in with LiteralKa) is that it does not negatively affect my contributions to Wikipedia. Can we have this motion quashed already? Murdox (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support topic ban based on inherent WP:COI of editors in question. Their editing history, commentary here at ANI, and AfD nominations of articles bearing names that can contract to the same acronym (whether or not those articles meet WP:GNG), demonstrate to me their inability to remain neutral when dealing with GNAA. I would therefore suggest adding a "broadly construed" qualifier to the topic. The GNAA article itself, along with those nominated at AfD, will stand or fall on their own merits; my concern is the maintenance of the Wikipedia project as a whole, and allowing editors with a clear and demonstrated COI to continue down the path they've selected does more harm than good. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   In my defense, I would like to point out I have never ever ever put an article up for AfD at any point of my wikipedia tenure. I feel heavily that I'm being put in the same basket as LiteralKa despite an essentially spotless on-wiki record. Murdox (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Murdox, you're a single purpose account. Every single one of your edits has been GNAA-related - that's not exactly a spotless record seeing as you run the organisation. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm editing something I feel I can write for wikipedia about instead of doing what I usually do which is edit small gramatical errors and dead links as an IP. Murdox (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   No, but it's not a spotless record. Why not edit about things that aren't GNAA-related - 4chan, or LOIC, or the quite excellent tech-rapper Dan Bull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   I don't actually know much about any of those subjects except I think running LOIC and/or DDOS is illegal or something? I dunno. Murdox (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Could you explain why not banning me from AfD/DRV would be a bad thing? It's not a vote, after all. I'd just be adding my two cents. LiteralKa (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

2. I would Support restricting the editors to non-controversial editing of the articles, as outlined at WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and as proposed above by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I don't support a full topic ban because I don't see that evidence of actual disruption has been shown, in spite of the close affiliation of the editors to the organization. I support the restriction to non-controversial editing because our guideline suggests it anyway, and because other editors have objected so strongly, but not because of any actual behavioral problems that I've seen thus far from LiteralKa and Murdox. -- Atama頭 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, obviously, as nominator. I'd be in favour of a 'broadly construed', perhaps, but I feel that these editors could really help with hacker culture style articles, and I don't want to prevent them from doing so. I don't have a problem with them being involved on the talk pages, or in AFDs, because their comments there won't have a direct impact on GNAA-related articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, clear COI violations. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   If they're "clear" how come I have yet to see any edits cited? LiteralKa (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   The 2 deletion nominations are clearly listed at the beginning of the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   And this relates to me directly editing the article how? LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   It's not an article ban, it's a topic ban. In this case the topic includes articles that share the same acronym. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Including Gay Nigger Association of America! LiteralKa (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

5. Support something or other, maybe not the full topic-ban, but come on, I've come across the PR agents for an organization/person complaining at the BLPN about their edits being undone, the username is blatantly COI and, in general, it results in a speedy delete for the article in question and a permanent block for the user, so what's going on here? Personally, I find GNAA funny like 4chan or all of the other stuff that says "fuck you authority, control , Big Browzer and so on" but this is really OTT COI. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   The Pope clearly has a COI editing articles about Catholicism, the bush, you are beating about it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Good thing the pope doesn't have an account! LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Stop being such a gay nigger and take it like a man. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Please do not engage in personal attacks. LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Then don't set yourself up for them; not that I necessarily endorse it, but are you really surprised someone would say that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, do please stop engaging in personal attacks. It is not only hypocritical, but against policy. Simply put- it suggests much about the neutrality of the voter and doesn't strengthen supporting sides arguments in the least. snaphat (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, please shut up, if anyone could point out where the personal attack took place that would be useful, as contributors to Wikipedia, I assume that most of you do not take Wikipedian to be a personal attack, so saying 'stop being such a gay nigger' to someone who is the PR guy for the Gay Nigger Association of America can hardly be construed as a personal attack. Thanks but really this devolves into wiki-stupidity and pointiness. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Again, please no personal attacks. snaphat (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Again, stop talking through your hat and repeating yourself, there is no personal attack. (Unless you want there to be one). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Captain Screebo, you name called LiteralKa and told me to shut-up. I saw the warning on your talk page and the discussion on LiteralKa's talk page. I know that The Cavalry is already aware of the initial comment and such. snaphat (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Support; had this been raised at WP:COIN on any other issue (i.e. a company), there wouldn't even be a question. Perhaps these users should shadow Orangemike and see how he handles articles where he feels he has a conflict of interest; his way of dealing with it doesn't create this kind of drama, or indeed any at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Support only for LiteralKa. I took an extensive look through the article history for this year and see nothing Murdox has done wrong with regard to editing the article. However, LiteralKa is a bit of a different story. On the article, the only thing I see wrong was that he removed the COI tags. However, his deletion nominations for other GNAA acronym articles are why I am supporting this- those appear to be motivated by COI. If the latter hadn't been done, I would not support this decision. I would like however to voice my concern that anti-gnaa editors could try to have a field day with the article. I, myself, would rather he be allowed to edit the GNAA article and simply not allowed to AfD or edit other GNAA acronym articles. snaphat (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
8. Support only for LiteralKa; on the condition that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry can provide a neutral administrator or editor to protect the article. Although this looked like an interpersonal dispute at first, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has since shown me more instances than just the AfD of blatantly COI-inappropriate editing: edit-warring, COI tag-removal, POV edits; more breaches of trust than I can excuse. Although LiteralKa's edits are not inappropriate outside of the context of COI (indeed they can look pretty good; as I said in my erstwhile oppose vote, for a long time I did not know that they had a COI), they are inappropriate in the framework of COI good practice. As for Murdox, I know that he edits a lot on GNAA and little else, but these seem to be non-controversial cleanup edits, which I have a hard time supporting a ban for. Quigley (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Support, as the conflict of interest at hand is too great a conflict of interest. I'm also in favor of bringing in neutral administrators to enforce this. (I also support the deletion of the article, but I can't imagine a sufficient amount do. This is a joke and not worth our time.) hare j 01:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
10. Support full-ban as there is no way for Mr. Kaiser and Murdox to be a net positive to the encyclopedia; there's nothing to do in their defence.  Diego  talk  01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    You have been trolled relentlessly by the GNAA in the past, and thus are by no means a neutral and unbiased editor, especially considering the position you're taking in this discussion. Murdox (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    He's still entitled to his opinion, Murdox, as are you. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    Just trying to point out the possible WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    There is no COI because I'm not affiliated to any racist organization, AFAIK. You, OTOH, are affiliated to the GNAA; and no, I haven't been trolled relentlessly, and anyway, how would you know that? Oh, right... :-)  Diego  talk  05:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

11. Support - based on the proposer's reasoning, and the precedents that have been applied to thousands of other editors with COI over the years. I am particularly unconvinced by Murdox' reasoning for not actually contributing anything to this project outside of the very area where COI is the strongest. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
12. Support only for LiteralKi, as Murdox' edits haven't been very detrimental. Perhaps Murdox can get a warning and a directive towards our COI guidelines. LiteralKi's COI is problematic, as evidenced by The Cavalry, so a topic ban is the common-sense solution. ThemFromSpace 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
13. Support only for LiteralKa. The sanctions seem perfectly reasonable, and just what we would expect from any other editor with a conflict of interest. However, I am willing to give Murdox the benefit of the doubt as their contributions seem to be within the COI guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
14. Support deletion and salting, and permanent community bans of all editors ever having defended any article with such an offensive title as to bring the project into such disrepute. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
15. Support there's clear precedent for this sort of provision, e.g. the scientology accounts. LiteralKa is welcome to become something other than a single-purpose contributor. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose you people are just looking to cause trouble. I see nothing wrong with what these editors have done with the article. They have kept a NPOV and cited all information added to the article. If we went around preventing anyone who had anything to do with a certain topic from editing, there would be nothing on this site. Kids in the sandbox (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - Struck, as user is linked by checkuser to hundreds of abusive sockpuppets. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose unless "adding citations to uncited statements" is added and "GNAA-related articles is defined as Gay Nigger Association of America, and Goatse Security." Additionally, as neither DRV or AfD is a vote, there is no harm in specifically banning participation in them. (Perhaps banning us from nominations only?) Why don't we ban all Wikipedians from editing Wikipedia while we're at it? LiteralKa (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose I've made this point before, but I've specifically endeavoured on the GNAA article to keep WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but by all means I don't feel WP:COI applies to me when I've already consistently shown that I can edit the article sensibly, uncontroversially, and without bias. A topic ban doesn't quite seem to follow the spirit of WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose I've watched developments on the GNAA article for a long time without knowing that LiteralKa or Murdox were connected to the organization, largely because their contributions to that article were not outwardly partisan or promotional. In fact, they are exemplars of what Wikipedians should be, in that they cited every statement, strictly adhered to NPOV, and calmly addressed the concerns of fanatical anti-GNAA people on the talkpage. Apparently there is some bad blood between old-time Wikipedians and the GNAA, and as a result, many Wikipedians tend to assume the worst in every action from these two users (such as their AfDs of obviously anti-GNAA articles created in bad faith). However, to uninvolved editors like me, looking at the presumed evidence with no prejudice against these two users, I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban. These editors, probably because of their outside involvement with the organization, are the only editors who would edit an article on such an unpopular group constructively. As long as they strictly adhere to WP:V and WP:RS as they have been doing so far, LiteralKa and Murdox's presence on GNAA articles is crucial to maintaining NPOV against the legions of users who would like nothing more than to have the articles deleted. See support rationale. Quigley (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Quigley, would you feel better if we nominated some uninvolved admins/editors to protect the article? There are several editors who'd happily volunteer and have talked to me about it privately, some of them are those who originally improved the article. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   That wasn't his concern: "I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'd still like his input as one of only two neutral editors who voted 'oppose'. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Two things. One: that's not the only "neutral editor." Two: it still won't change his opinion that I am "[an] exemplar of what Wikipedians should be" and that he "see[s] no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   All other things being equal, to have non-COI editors is better than to have COI editors, so your suggestion is good on the face of it. But to gain my support for a ban on those two, I need to see specific diffs of serious disruption resulting from the COI; ideally a pattern of disregard for the points at WP:AVOIDCOI. Quigley (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   @the Cavalry: Out of curiosity, who's the other "neutral editor"? You claim that there are only two. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose – Those in favor of the topic ban have neglected to provide specific diffs or evidence of wrongdoing. Instead of answering my questions, the Cavalry and others decided to focus all of their attention on one of my more tangential comments: [4], [5]. I've provided straight answers. When can I expect straight answers in return? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose The Cavalry has a clear agenda here, this is not for the benefit of the wiki. incog (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose. For fuck's sake, I used to be an admin here, I have tens of thousands of edits on several Wikipedias, including this one, yet I got banned from IRC for being “associated with the GNAA”. Will whoever is in charge of that ridiculous crusade please stop and start doing constructive stuff? Will I be also banned from editing Debian-related articles because I was project leader some time ago and my edits could be biased? Seriously, fuck the bureaucratic bullshit I need to cope with everyday. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Sam, this isn't an anti-GNAA discussion - it's a 'person X has a COI and refuses to accept so' discussion. I'd vote keep in an AfD, I just don't want PR people removing COI tags from the article. What I've suggested above is actually less strict than the COI guideline asks them to do. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes this is an anti-GNAA discussion, regardless of the original intent. Several of those GNAA acronym articles were created or protected by an admin who had a grudge against GNAA and probably me (he accused me of cheating at the Wikipedia chess championship, so fuck him, too). AfD'ing them is just attempting to clean up the polluted namespace, yet it is used as an argument to show a CoI. LiteralKa probably has every reason to care about the GNAA article's high quality and because it's such a hot topic no one else will probably dare touch the article. What is suggested here is simply to get rid of the people who care enough to research good material for the article, because most of the others were bullied out of it (need I remind you that there was a long “no GNAA-related discussion” policy on `#wikipedia-en` and several ops would ban on sight?). 2 months from now Diego, who of course has no CoI here, or other people, such as the ones who believe I should be banned from `#wikipedia-en` just because I’m “related” to those people, will AfD it. I'm not saying there is premeditation, but there will certainly be causality. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose Can someone explain to me where edits from either LiteralKa or Murdox have been BAD to Wikipedia in any sort of way. This is seeming more and more of personal opinion rather than an actual violation of WP:COI. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Changing my view to a support based on these comments, and per Quigley's notes in the Support area. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Trying to delete Wikipedia content solely because it shares an acronym with your organization is about as blatant a violation of WP:COI as you can get. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Well, let's see. One of them is going to get merged, and the other kept. I'd say that I improved the encyclopedia through those. LiteralKa (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Just because your abusive behavior wasn't completely successful doesn't mean it wasn't abusive behavior. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge your COI makes me more certain that a topic ban is appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Let's see, one of the AfDs was completely legitimate and valid. The other was in questionable territory, namely due to a severe lack of significant coverage, which the AfD fixed. LiteralKa (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The AfDs could be completely legitimate and still constitute a conflict of interests. If you have something to gain from the articles being deleted, you should have asked someone else to nominate them. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The AfDs don't fall under WP:COI, so I don't see what you're getting at. LiteralKa (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs." The warning signs have been presented and I believe they are convincing. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I should also add that WP:AVOIDCOI, point two, is pretty clear. Just because they're not in your industry, it doesn't mean you're not competing for the trademark 'GNAA' initials. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose for Murdox I cannot find anything he did wrong at all. Is there anything? It doesn't seem fair to me to lump them together. snaphat (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose There has yet to be any clear examples of a violation of WP:COI. Just because a user has a COI doesn't mean that they are not allowed to edit the article they are affiliated with. It just means that they are only able to make certain types of changes to the article and not to add material that advocates and promotes the subject. There is no evidence that either of the users in question have done such a thing, so this topic ban proposal is entirely fruitless and just plain vindictive. Silverseren^C 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Let me also note that the proposal seems to be some sort of attempt to restate the COI policy so that there can be more active punishment for any mistake in regards to the article. It is entirely redundant and, again, pointless. Silverseren^C 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   SS: Just so you've got a better explanation of what exactly ires me here, it's listed at User talk:Quigley#As requested re:GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Just FYI, I've added my two cents and rebuttal to CMLITC's points on that page. I understand you didn't want to clutter up the discussion page, but is there any reason you couldn't have made those points within this thread directly to Quigley? Murdox (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I supplied them to his talk page, rather than here, because originally they were directed as a response to Quigley's questioning. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The first thing I would point out is that practically none of the stuff listed there is about Murdox. You seem to just be going after him because he's a part of GNAA. As for your points in order: Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   1. The fact that the two of them edit around a set of articles doesn't mean anything if you don't have any proof that they are editing unconstructively within the articles. The reasoning for the AfDs has been explained and it is a reasonable enough reason. Thus, your point #1 lists pretty much nothing. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   2. I really don't think the "competitors" that COI is discussing means other groups with the same acronym. Again, the reasoning lsted by LiteralKa for the AfD nominations makes sense. So, again, this has nothing to do with COI. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   3. You list no examples, so i'm just going to skip this. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   4. The corporation thing is a minor quibble and would certainly seem like an edit war over something that has no real relation to the content in the article. As for the Prodego edit war, Prodego was completely and absolutely wrong there. He seems to think that sources from GNAA can't be used for basic information, like we allow for every other article on Wikipedia. This was already being discussed on the talk page as it is. The removal of the COI tag goes both ways. If you add it, then you have to list on the talk page what edits specifically are from a COI point of view. This did not happen and we do not perpetually have a COI tag on articles just because someone affiliated edits it. And the text removal, as LiteralKa said in the edit summary and on the talk page is already discussed in the rest of the article. Including it in the lede is both a weight issue and, I do think, a POV pushing of negative material about the GNAA. The only thing i'm willing to give you is the addition of the category, that was wrong to do. But the rest of your "evidence" is, to put it bluntly, utter crap. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   It might be "utter crap", but it seems to be a concern for the 13 users above - nearly all of whom are uninvolved. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Because what you're asking for in this poll is essentially what WP:COI says anyways, except it doesn't ban other actions, so people largely don't have an issue with it. However, what they're not considering is that this is just WP:CREEP applied on a user level. It's baseless and is extremely pointless. I'm going to be watching the article and the talk page after this to make sure that this isn't an attempt to make the article entirely negative POV-wise. It is well known that portions of the community dislike the GNAA and are constantly out to try and make the article negative, but not encyclopedic. Silverseren^C 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Could we identify an edit (aside from removing the COI tags, I won't do that again) that inserted POV? The only edit that people had problems with was explained and accepted as NPOV. LiteralKa (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the above comment to a comments section, rather than cluttering up the straw poll. In short, you are focussing too much on individual edits, and the individual edits aren't the problem: it's the fact that you have a COI. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I can't speak on LiteralKa's behalf, but I've shown straight up that I don't have a conflict of interest. Murdox (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to take your assertion that the President of X does not have a conflict of interest when editing an article about X. It is an unusual assertion. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The very thrust of WP:COI is that the specific affiliation does not matter, it's the user's conduct on-wiki. Quigley put it much more eloquently than I ever could, but the fact of the matter is that I would only have a Conflict of Interest if I put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards Wikipedia. I believe my behaviour on-wiki shows that: No, I have not put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards wikipedia. After all, I hardly have to worry about being "fired" from GNAA if I don't promote them on Wikipedia. :) Murdox (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you're mistaken: How do you know you don't have an unconscious bias? Several uninvolved editors have pointed this out to you, especially that your editing pattern displays a clear COI - but you're not quite getting the hang of it. Ignore the wording of the policy, for a moment, and think: If we can't trust the anti-GNAA members to edit the article without bias - even when they are editing for the sole benefit of Wikipedia - how can we trust you? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a really unusual case for me, and I deal with a lot of COI cases. Generally, when we deal with COI issues, one of two things are happening. Either an editor has a COI, but is still able to edit productively, and nobody objects. Or, the editor has a COI, and is causing disruption, and people object. This is a case where an editor has a very strong COI (the president of the organization no less) but no actual disruption has been shown, and yet a number of people are still objecting to it. I'm not sure I've ever seen this before. I think that a fair compromise here is the one proposed above, that editors with a COI be asked to restrict themselves to uncontroversial edits. Technically, anyone can be banned from anything as long as a community consensus is found for doing so. WP:BAN says that it must, or should be in response to repeated disruption (it's difficult to tell which) but we can possibly infer that multiple people saying "please stop editing due to your COI", and the editors continuing anyway, could be considered disruptive. This is a weird grey area for me. -- Atama頭 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why can't we let anti-GNAA editors edit the article if their edits are by all means NPOV and intend on improving Wikipedia? Quality and bias are measurable quantities in Wikipedian terms. Furthermore, my "editing pattern" is an incredibly vague term. I'd like to see which uninvolved editors have specifically taken issue with my edits and behaviour, and not lumped me in with LiteralKa's behaviour on-wiki. In regards to what Atama is saying, I understand it's a weird situation. However, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with what amounts to putting community consensus over actively improving Wikipedia. It would be much easier for me to understand where the oppose votes were coming from if I'd made grandiose, self-publicising claims on the article but the fact of the matter is I've utterly strived to play by Wikipedia's rules on this article because it's obviously an area which generates heated emotions. I'm willing to take into consideration other people's points of view, but I'm not willing to consent to a community-imposed ban for playing by the rules. Murdox (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

This account has been canvassing this discussion off-wiki. Could whoever is running the account please not canvass their supporters? This isn't a vote. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any canvassing. Could you link to a specific tweet? LiteralKa (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're reaching here. I don't see how a link to the New York Times or nads.org is canvassing? LiteralKa (talk)

Just here, July 26th at 1:31am. Links to shortcode ending in cPpM724, which links directly to this discussion. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" LiteralKa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Then check the main account? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Still no. LiteralKa (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Check harder please. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And this fails WP:CANVASS how? (eg. since when does posting a raw URL on the Internet violate any policy.) LiteralKa (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you conidered that it's a spambot account, simply reguritating random webpages? GiantSnowman 20:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry until or unless a bunch of meatpuppets show up out of nowhere to support with their brand new accounts. But if that does happen it would only serve to hurt the GNAA in this case, so I think it's worth mentioning here so that LiteralKa can prevent it from happening, if it's at all possible. -- Atama頭 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We've already had MeepSheep show up, and the GNAA article has started up on SimpleWiki in the last few hours, under a new user (no prior experience with wikis, judging by contributions) called 'Lugurr'. I'm also a little confused as to how the Tweet disappeared so quickly... The Cavalry (Message me) 21:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And you attribute... a tweet to a sockpuppetteer noticing something controversial on a large, public noticeboard and a guy deciding to create a cross-wiki article? LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lugurr isn't creating a cross-wiki article, he's just active on simple. You're saying that you don't know how the article on GNAA on simplewiki has started, that it's just a coincidence? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that far-fetched considering the recent controversy over this. LiteralKa (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The controversy is just on-wiki though. I'm trying to work out where/how Lugurr was notified of this discussion. He says it was ED, but I can't for the life of me find where on ED it was. I've just asked him if he recognises your username: if he does, then he's probably found it off ED, 4chan, or the like. If he doesn't, then I'm stumped. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And why would he recognize my nickname if you are concerned about a "Gary Niger" canvassing? Do I smell bad faith? LiteralKa (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination) as a disruptive nomination. Anyone who would like to re-nominate it for a good faith AfD should feel free to do so after a reasonable interval. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry, there seems clear consensus for a merge to Space Interferometry Mission and I've closed it according, choosing to disregard any possible incorrect motivation for nomination in order to deal with the article appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

LiteralKa indefinitely blocked

Full explanation here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am completely and utterly against this block. All of the reasons listed are not blockable reasons. There is a consensus for a semi-topic ban in this discussion, that is not a consensus for an indefinite block. It has yet to be proven at all that they have been editing disruptively in the subject areas. The use of an account with a different name on Simple Wikipedia, without using an account over there with the current name, is not sockpuppetry. Having to reveal a COI interest over there is one thing, but it is most definitely not enough for an indefinite block. This is an utter perversion of our rules. Silverseren^C 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Silverseren, I was against the block also until I looked at the talk page of Lugurr on Simple English Wiki. When asked if he was LiteralKa, he changed how he writes and lied about it.  snaphat ► 02:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well since you agree there was a consensus for the topic ban despite being against it, that can be enforced if/when LiteralKa is unblocked. However I don't quite follow how there would be a lack of evidence of disruption if there is consensus for a topic ban based on said disruption. Regardless, there is demonstrable evidence that LiteralKa is using these two accounts to create the impression of greater support for GNAA on multiple wikis, which is by definition sockpuppetry and disruptive. (after edit conflict) And per Snaphat's comments, the behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry with intent to disrupt is very compelling. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold: Is this an ArbCom-sanctioned block or one solely issued by you? ThemFromSpace 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee did not discuss this, it is not an ArbCom block. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold: I wouldn't necessarily say that it was to "create the impression of greater support for GNAA". It most likely was just to conceal COI.  snaphat ► 02:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support block A strict reading of WP:COI confirms that anyone can come to Wikipedia and promote their outlook indefinitely, provided some very easily satisfied and common sense procedures are followed. However, when such a blatant case of COI is revealed, and it involves an editor politely pushing their outlook to promote a trolling group over an extended period, it is appropriate for measures more strict that WP:COI to be applied. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Good block. Having a COI is one thing. Using undisclosed alternate accounts to lie about it is quite another. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Yes; having undisclosed alternate accounts on a different wiki. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Are you for real? This is somehow acceptable behavior for an editor just because the page on which he lies to an arb about his multiple accounts starts with simple: instead of en:? 28bytes (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Or to redirect the query; we somehow gained the right to block people for behaviour which happens outside en-wiki and does not negatively impact upon it? No, this is not necessarily acceptable behaviour - but neither is it our role to punish for it. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  The POV-pushing behavior is happening on both wikis; however, he's using the results of said behavior on this wiki to support his actions on the other. It does involve both wikis, and the disruptive editing he's put into this POV-pushing (bad-faith AfD's, POINTy moves and redirects, etc.) would probably be meriting of a block by itself if this weren't such a high-profile user. There are negative impacts on both wikis, although I will grant that part of the reason for the block here is to arrest the negative impacts on another. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support block Wikipedia was being manipulated by this trolling organization as part of their internet activities. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose block badly formed block reasons, don't justify a block (they may justify a topic ban). Points 1 & 2 of the justification do not support a block. 3.1 is a discussion of policy. 3.2 does not support a block. 3.3's rationale for involving the English wikipedia is tenuous in the most generous reading, and tendentious in a common reading. 3.3 is a rationale which ought to have emerged from the community; which it has not, and further, goes only to a ban from GNAA related articles. Let Simple Wiki clean their own house, and note any COIs for their editors on their own project. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Last time I checked, having an account on two wikis and undertaking the same actions with both is neither sockpuppetry nor a blockable offence unless those actions are themselves problematic. The case for an indefinite block has not yet been made. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Strongly support block. Editing on two wikis is not an issue. Being a little shit on two is. Hersfold's reasoning is problematic, but there are valid underlying concerns. Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not approve of what he has been doing here, but the topic ban is sufficient. I think there is not consensus for the block, Hersfold, so perhaps you ought to unblock DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The reasons for this block are thin, and it seems punitive. Is that the tone we want to set for this community? death metal maniac (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not punitive. It's intended to prevent disruption of multiple projects by a conflicted POV-pusher. He has now admitted to operating both accounts, despite denying any knowledge of LiteralKa (speaking as Lugurr) in the past. He is clearly trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, and is using his efforts to do so under this his LiteralKa account to bolster his efforts as Lugurr. In response to Ironholds above, no, this does not precisely fit any current definition of sockpuppetry, but if he were doing this on any single project he'd be blocked without a thought and nobody would be opposing it. Why should the global community be treated any differently? We're still all here for the same purpose - to build an encyclopedia - and regardless of the language, there is still a universal restriction against using Wikipedia to promote one's own (or any) organization. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Prozak is, I believe, closely affiliated with GNAA, or at the very least the related group who call themselves 'ANUS'. While he's entitled to his opinion, I would caution anyone against thinking that he's entirely neutral. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Good block. The pattern of disruption, promotion, and POV pushing has been going on quite long enough. Deceiving another community within the WMF is just icing on the cake of misconduct here. Courcelles 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block Unjustified and The Cavalry has a clear agenda. incog (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd dispute that - seeing as I've never interacted in any significant way with GNAA prior to this, and I think the community are well aware that I can be trusted to not pursue agendas. Unlike yourself, of course - no ulterior motive whatsoever. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - indef?! Really?! Maybe he deserved a block for his recent attitude + actions, but an indef is, quite frankly, ridiculous. GiantSnowman 20:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Good block. GNAA's mission is fundamentally opposed to ours. Personally, I'd support blocking anyone involved with them, regardless of on-wiki activity, but this is even easier, because of LiteralKa's on-wiki activity. As always, it's somewhat amazing how much time and effort of good intentioned productive users we're willing to waste on trying to accommodate people who are obviously not here to produce a respectable reference work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Valid block. I've given this quite a lot of thought, because my impression all along with this GNAA situation is that the GNAA editors were clearly trying quite hard to stay on the right side of what they understood the line of COI to be. Quite possibly they were doing so only so they could solidify their positions as GNAA-members-who-have-Wikipedia-status, to be used as needed in the future, but nonetheless they appeared to be trying to follow the rules. Their actions put them slightly on the wrong side of the line, but I think that was inadvertent on their parts, in that they couldn't restrain their admitted interest in bettering GNAA's reputation quite enough.

  My initial reaction to this block was that it seemed iffy and was probably right on the line between "clearly called for" and "hazy, but possibly for the betterment of the wiki, in a hand-wavy sense". The socking could have been another (more or less) good faith line crossing (devil's advocate in my head: "is there any rule that says someone has to use the same name on all wikis?"), but upon evaluating LiteralKa's actions as himself and as Lugurr, it seems clear that he was quite purposely using the second account to evade scrutiny. He knew that people were watching the LiteralKa account for trouble spots, and he chose to use a different account to attempt to get the GNAA article created on Simple while slipping under the radar. As a result, I agree with LiteralKa's being blocked, since this action of socking is a clear indication that he's not simply trying-and-failing to play inside the rules, but is purposely hopping across that line in the sand. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose block - the rationale is concerned with non-enwiki actions; this was a unilateral decision to block, whilst a discussion was under-way here, and there was no urgent need to prevent disruption. I say this despite my strong dislike of GNAA, and my belief that we shouldn't tolerate trolling. We should rise above it, and follow due process. This is likely to cause more drama than it prevents.  Chzz  ►  22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block - Just like the user above me said it. This is only going to keep the bitching going. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• This wasn't the greatest block (not the most egregious either, but it wasn't good). I wouldn't stand by it, but... <shrug>
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Ohms. Not the strongest reason to block someone, but nothing I would get up in arms about either. -- Atama頭 02:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the block to the extent it is necessary to enforce a topic ban. Having a COI is not blockable, but dedicating most of one's editing to promoting one's organization is. That said, if LiteralKa agrees to abide by a full topic ban regarding the "GNAA" organization, and makes otherwise useful edits, the block is no longer necessary and should be lifted. The concerns relating to other wikis do not seem to support a block on this wiki.  Sandstein  08:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: None are blockable, "Cross-wiki sockpuppetry"? It would be a lock on the global scale. (Non-administrator comment) ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• support GNAA members are expendable.©Geni 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin but I weakly support an indef block, and strongly support a block of 3-6 months and a topic ban where any further GNAA contributions mean an indef block Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support- I agree with Fluffernutter's reasoning. Reyk _YO! 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I am especially concerned about the usage of Simple Wiki. This is clear evidence of an intent to use any means to promote this group across Wikimedia platforms, including through the use of deception. Had there not been such deception, I could have accepted the below alternative of an indefinite topic ban, but that tactic makes it clear to me that this user cannot be trusted to edit in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure that this block is in accord with most of our policies, but it's definitely in line with one of them. This account is being used to disrupt both this Wikipedia and another one in multiple ways, and the sooner we stop it, the better off the encyclopedia will be. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - "cross-wiki sockpuppetry" ? Unified login is a feature provided as a convenience for people to link their accounts if they choose to do so. Did I miss a memo somewhere that made unification mandatory, and forbade differently-named accounts on different wikis? Tarc (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is using SUL mandatory? Of course not. When asked a direct question deception, however, is problematic. Courcelles 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Beyond the appalling deletion nominations, there's obvious intent to deceive above about how Lugurr (who LiteralKa refers to as "a guy") might have become aware of this conversation to create the Simple wiki article (timestamped in the 2100s, 28 July). I might support a topic ban (as proposed below) as well, but I am presently more concerned that such behavior demonstrates a strong commitment to COI editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support in preference to the more limited proposal suggested below. At the risk of repeating myself, do we really see this editor as enough of a benefit to Wikipedia that we want to keep them around? EyeSerene^talk 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Don't feed the trolls.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with the block of LiteralKa's "Lugurr" account on Simple, and I believe LiteralKa should be limited to accounts named "LiteralKa" for the sake of transparency, but Simple's business isn't enwiki's business. LiteralKa's activity on Simple doesn't have any effect on enwiki. Abd and Poetlister aren't banned from every Wikimedia project; they're only banned from the ones they've disrupted. I don't believe that LiteralKa's activity on enwiki warrants an infinite block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. LiteralKa is not naive and shows experience at gaming the system in his favour. His COI is clearly uncomfortable to other users independent of the nature of the topic, which results in distrust and a fundamental breakdown of the collaborative environment of the project. He has engaged in conscious manipulation and deception to further his causes. LiteralKa's presence is a net negative to the project and I am unable to trust that the user is able to rework himself as a net positive. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Though, I was part of the initial discussion, I didn't outright say whether I supported the indef block or not. The deception on the part of LiteralKa as "lugurr" is a clear indication as to the user's intentions here. While the deception wasn't written directly on this wiki, it paints a clear picture as to how the user plans to contribute to the project as a whole- simply to abuse the system to promote GNAA.  snaphat ► 02:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support stronglyI, and others, have been dealing with this person/organization and their sockpuppets over at the Simple English Wikipedia and they have caused quite a great amount of disruption. This person is obviously a troll and disruptive. For those who say no criterion has been proved, blocks can be issued for just disrupting the project(s), and is not sockpuppetry over and over also not a block-able offence? fr33kman 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  FYI The community at Simple English Wikipedia has implemented an editing ban. fr33kman 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to shut the hell up about the GNAA for at least two weeks.

While I admit to being pro-GNAA and enjoy a chuckle every now and then, this silly discussion is leading to nowhere except giving their IRC channel a laughfest. Let's all stop feeding the troll guise. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - Don't feed the trolls. (And I presume someone needs to support this.) CycloneGU (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they are laughing since I'm sure the PR guy didn't intend to get banned. Probably to hide weakness as this did not go their way and they probably don't want to admit that.  snaphat ► 00:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are currently 4 more people opposing than supporting this block, if you count Ohms and Atama as being undecided. Silverseren^C 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You want to run that count again, this time not counting pro-GNAA cronies who are obviously just a little biased? Also, having heard that GNAA intends to out a bunch of people, including me, presumably in response to this, I'm not feeling too charitable at the moment. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I’m curious. Aren’t anti-GNAA cronies a little biased, too? Sam Hocevar (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Would those supporting LiteralKa please review the highly deceptive language used by Lugurr where they pretend to be a semi-literate new editor who only wants to help by adding GNAA to Simple. See any talk page contribution at Lugurr's contribs, or just review the example at can you undelete gay nigger. I encountered LiteralKa at WP:Deny recognition (commonly referred to with its shortcuts WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT). My summary of the disagreement is at WT:Deny recognition#Purpose of this page, and it is not reasonable to expect editors such as myself to enter into lengthy discussions in such a topic with someone who is at Wikipedia to promote GNAA—in retrospect, the image that LiteralKa wanted at WP:DENY (see this edit) is exactly what a troll would want at Wikipedia's DENY essay. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    I guess I'm "supporting LiteralKa" (yuck!), but my main concern with this is the whole cross-wiki thing. I'm concerned that this new power (as far as I'm aware, blocking users based on their activity outside of the site is completely new) is not something that is good for all of us. I'm sympathetic that a couple of you are apparently feeling embattled here (hersfold apparently is, at least, based on the comment above), but an easy solution to that is to step back and let someone else take care of things. There doesn't appear to be any shortage of administrative interest here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    Ohms law, I was uninvolved until a week ago, and Hersfold made this block as an uninvolved administrator - neither of us has, so far as I'm aware, had any involvement with GNAA-related topics or discussions prior to this week. The situation was discussed on the functionaries list and in the checkuser IRC channel. I stepped back - as I was involved - and Hersfold, an uninvolved administrator, stepped in. The potential for 'outing' has only become apparent since the block was made. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    I don't know about outing (and really, I don't know or care much about the GNAA stuff... I had read about it, offsite, a while back [the topic is held up as an example, by the way], but my level of caring about hate groups and hate speech is pretty slim). The only aspect of this that worries me is blocking another user for what they (supposedly) have done elsewhere (another wiki in this case, but the principal is easily applied to other web sites). Additionally, the impression that Hersfold is feeling embattled is from his own statement above.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    If by embattled you mean "generally annoyed that any time a high-profile user gets blocked for reasons they've had coming to them for a while massive drama breaks out" then maybe, yeah. I've had no previous involvement with GNAA and frankly have tried to avoid the matter entirely - as many understandably would. However, when the issue of this disruption came up on the functionaries list, I offered to issue the block as a) an uninvolved administrator b) a non-arbitrator checkuser and c) someone who doesn't really care if he gets trolled on-wiki. From what I can see, making this block was necessary for the benefit of this project and Simple English Wikipedia, even though the primary reason for doing so (the cross-wiki socking) isn't strictly covered under policy. The majority of the opposition to this block appears to be either supporters of GNAA or those who have not really looked into the situation enough to see beyond my admittedly somewhat unusual reasoning. Those supporting for the most part appear to have answered the basic question to be considered when reviewing any block: "Would allowing this user (in this case, the Director of Public Relations for a self-avowed internet troll group who clearly intends to edit with a conflict of interest) to edit the project be, on the whole, a net benefit to the project?" I believe it is clear from LiteralKa's edits that the answer is no. His efforts at deception at Simple Wikipedia, which involve the English Wikipedia, only further compound the issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm proposing a slightly weaker proposal that I think answers people's concerns Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Counter Proposal for LiteralKa

LiteralKa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two month block and topic ban from GNAA articles. Block increased if he socks here or violates topic ban. As several editors have noted, he has done enough on this wiki to justify a block and topic ban Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Topic ban is indef and far-reaching, basically applies to anything tangentially related to GNAA in article, user, talk, or Wikipedia space Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - topic ban & shorter (but still substantial) block are much more suitable. GiantSnowman 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Question How broadly construed is 'GNAA articles'? Would it include, say, articles such as American Nihilist Underground Society, Weev, etc? Would it also extend to AFDs in the appropriate subjects? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I were the admin enforcing this, I'd attempt to keep him away from anything that could be about the GNAA. Certainly ban him from inserting anything about the GNAA in articles, and from talking about the GNAA in talk or Wikipedia spaces Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question – Will the topic ban be two-months long as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban would be indefinite and kick in when the block expires. No point in having concurrent block and topic ban Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'd want a permanent topic ban as well. GiantSnowman 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll support this. Having been reading about this since the thread began, and knowing his association with the organization, any editing on the subject is an unquestionable COI. I think a total block as suggested prior to an indefinite topic ban is a good plan. Though I laugh at how the topic ban kicks in post-block, as if saying he can edit the topic while blocked. Just say both kick in at once and remind on unblock, I'd say. Also, since user is already blocked, if this motion carries, the two months should begin from 00:51 (UTC) on 30 July 2011, when Hersfold enacted the indefinite block. CycloneGU (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe his disruption on this wiki, and that spanning across multiple wikis, is meriting of an indefinite block. I also don't see that he'd be that constructive elsewhere; the vast majority of his contributions would fall under the scope of a broadly-defined topic ban. Most of the rest is adding cleanup tags without making an effort to improve the page, nominating articles for deletion (often disruptively), or removing content from pages (sometimes referenced). I don't see that he's usefully contributed outside of GNAA topics, and even there using the term "usefully" would be quite a stretch. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't feel that we've blocked someone who could ever be a productive user. We must ask ourselves: will he go on to be productive, or will he go on to participate in low-level trolling (for example, trying to get the picture heading the 'virginity' article to the front page)? I cannot support an unblock for a user who takes delight in describing Jimmy Wales as a "babyrapist... a bald, worthless narc and a boldfaced liar-turned-power hungry manchild" - even if they did so in jest. He abuses Wikipedians he is in conflict with off-wiki and described two prominent editors as a 'pedophile' and a 'Jewish cripple'. Is this really someone who we want to let loose, even after a few months? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected, opposition to my proposal from the more blockist. I was never opposed per se to the indef block. I would note that we appear to be deadlocked on whether or not there should be an indef block or not, which is why I proposed this. If you're sure the indef block will stick, go ahead with an indef block. If it doesn't, my proposal seems like a reasonable alternative. And I agree with you that Ka is not a productive editor, which is why I'm confident that if this proposal is adopted he will either sock around the block, violate his editing restrictions (either of which would be pretty clear grounds for a indef) or leave the Wikipedia outright. So you'll get your indef block later if not sooner. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean we can make this decision based on what he might do. Just because we suspect he'll violate his topic ban isn't reason enough to indef. him now. We're judging based on what has already happened. CycloneGU (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just like to say, come on, speak English and speak truthfully, so many people pandering around saying "ooh I hope it doesn't violate wiki-something law" or "really, he only socked on another WP and blatantly owned the articles relating to his organisarion or their aims", come on, this is called playing the system, check the above 'dispute' with LiteralKa: people who will engage any and all methods to twist the rules while appearing to respect them. Until WP decides to stop being the tooth fairy to internet trolls (and vandals ;-) DENY, then WP will be ceaselessly rammed up the arse by this type of behaviour IMHO, omg, Darth Vader is my Dad, please do not nominate me for adminship, I don't think I cut it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Screebo, I take it you want an indef block. Don't blame me for being soft, Screebo...I'm fine with the indef block. Blame the lack of consensus for the indef block. And yes, some of the opposition to the indef block comes from his cronies, but other opposition comes from well-meaning editors. This proposal is merely to make sure that if the indef block fails, this guy doesn't fall through the cracks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Purple, sorry my comment was a bit late-night and rambling towards the end, but, yes after reflection I would support an indef block, I had a brief run-in with this user on this page which spilled over onto my, then his tp, and all I can say is "what a pain in the wiki". Tendentious editing, wikilawyering and so on, I don't really see how or where this user could make a positive contribution and they are a head honcho of an avowed Internet trolling organisation. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why any of those comments would matter if they were made off-wiki. Furthermore, if you're taking that line about slander you may want to go ahead and block everyone on wiki who's ever contributed to EncyclopaediaDramatica. Murdox (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support AFAIK operating a different account on another wiki hasn't ever been considered abusive sockpuppetry. Indef-blocking for this is setting a bad precedent. A 2-month block for recent disruptive behaviour is OK, with the indef-topic ban resuming afterwards. ThemFromSpace 18:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, prefer the indefblock. Are we better off with or without him? I see no reason to facilitate such a disruptive editor. EyeSerene^talk 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted above, indef block as I can see no possible change of attitude for this individual, a self-avowed (and deceitful) internet troll, as witnessed by the Simple English Wiki incident. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I perfectly see where you're going, and agree it's doubtful he will ever contribute meaningfully. I'm just saying "If there's not a consensus for an indef block (and there may not be), do this instead, because something obviously needs to be done Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but only if the indef block doesn't stick. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Support – I don't agree with blocking LiteralKa, but if everyone else is adamant in their conviction to have LiteralKa blocked in some form, then a limited block such as this is the best alternative. The two months will give LiteralKa to rethink his role on Wikipedia and contribute constructive in the future. If LiteralKa fails to do that, he may be reblocked. I suspect that there'll be plenty of eyes on LiteralKa's contributions in the future as a result of this discussion. If what we're preventing is COI, then a topic ban should be enough to prevent a COI from manifesting itself in GNAA-related article. I also disagree with barring LiteralKa from GNAA-related discussions. Any GNAA discussion will have many eyes and ears and a variety of participants. It's unlikely for a single user to manipulate the discussion without notice or suspicion. We also shouldn't be afraid of a user who could deliver compelling arguments. If an argument is compelling, then there must be some degree of correctness or rightness in it. If someone is afraid that LiteralKa would successfully defend the GNAA in a deletion discussion with a compelling agrument, then that someone is also afraid of free speech or situations where they're not in control. LiteralKa may be barred from editing the article directly, but he shouldn't be barred from participating in discussion. In addition, if LiteralKa is forced to use the talk page whenever he wishes for the article to be modified, then they're already doing a good job of removing most of the leeway LiteralKa once enjoyed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional support as second preference to an indef block. If - and only if - the indef block is overturned, I support this proposal. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: This Proposal

Every single piece of dubious editing The Cavalry has produced thus far has belong to LiteralKa. I'm quite unhappy about the consistent use of the term "they" used throughout this debate to refer to edits made by LiteralKa (whether those edits are contentious or not, I decline to comment). I'm not sure whether the implication is sockpuppeting, whether I've performed edits I actually haven't, or that we operate as one "Hive Mind". Were I to assume bad faith, I would assume that this is an attempt to mar my standing on Wikipedia to people who don't actually check the edits provided as evidence. Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to assume good faith but between rough consensus from the discussion made above and the fact that the point of dubious editing is presented to LiteralKa I'm going to formally request my name be stricken from this proposal and we come to a consensus about what to do RE: LiteralKa's possible COI. Thanks in advance. Murdox (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem: There is no such thing as the "Gay Nigger Association of America" except that someone came up with the GNAA troll, and others liked it and joined in—the only thing known for sure about GNAA is that its supporters like trolling. By definition, assume good faith cannot work with trolls because even when they look like they are contributing positively, it is likely that they are just pursuing a line to further their interests. There is no reason to imagine that any help for the encyclopedia would arise from spending more time discussing trolls. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User ClaudioSantos (again), personal attacks

Disruptive user ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making numerous personal attacks against other editors, likening them to "buffoons" and "donkies". When reproached for this, he simply claims, in broken English, that this is how people interact in Spanish (namely, with insulting epithets and pejorative metaphors).

I quote him here:

"Your last comment is what we call here "un ladrón bufón" (a burglar playing also as a buffoon)." [6]

"[In referring to another editor] We say "un burro hablando de orejas ("a donky speaking about ears")." [7]

I will not go into his extensive history of disruption, right from when he was an IP-hopping editor. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You state he's using multiple accounts. Have you opened a sockpuppetry investigation? That seems to me the next logical step to take. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, AFAIK he is only using the ClaudioSantos account now. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if he's socking or not? Uncivil editor is uncivil. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So this didn't go to WP:WQA...why, exactly? That seems a much more apropos venue for the issue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because of exasperation with this user. He started off editing as an IP on Action T4 and reduce the pace to a shambles, despite the repeated intervention of admin TeaDrinker, who could not control him. He posted messages in ALL CAPS AND BOLD again and again on the Talk page, claiming that wikipedia was conspiring to murder people. Eventually he registered an account, which was blocked, and now another account, ClaudioSantos. As ClaudioSantos he is engaged in numerous edit wars on euthanasia-related pages, for instance:

1. Trying to insert the word "murder" onto Dr Jack Kevorkian's page
2. Trying to put an Infobox Criminal on Kevorkian's page
3. Trying to delete nearly all of the content on the pages Suicide bag and Exit International
4. Trying to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism "euthanasia" to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia.
5. Etc etc .. too much to go into here.

Bottom line is that this is a highly disruptive, bafflegab-generating, intensely POV editor who is harming the project in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. His egregious insults were the final straw. So I guess this is more, in the end, than an etiquette issue, and I should have said so in the beginning. This is really an extension of a previous incident on this noticeboard → here A search for "claudiosantos" on this board raises several other incidents on this editor, lodged by other editors (not me). Jabbsworth (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See also his list Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jabbsworth, who reported me here becasue alleged PA, he is currently being involved in a WP:WQA as another user feels Jabbsworth has been personally attacking him[8]. Few days ago Jabbsworth was unblocked after being permanently blocked due 6-sockpuppets. His 6 sockpuppets has also a long record of edit wars. Just one day after being unblocked Jabbsworth got another block due edit warring. I have also felt rude his comments remarking the users' religion[9][[10] and language[11][12]. And more than one user expresively asked to stop that sort of comments. It seems that as he is against my position on euthanasia then he encourages other users to report me to the ANI. Ironically the above user who complaint about Jabbsworth rude behaviour was in the past encouraged by Jabbsworth to report me to the ANI to get a block for me ate the euhtanasia articles. For my comments: the above comments were clearly explained in the respective talk page of that article, those are spanish expressions, adages, proverbs used to explain certain situations, and I expressively said that I was not referring to the users but to the situation, precisely "a donkey speaking about ears" is a proverb used when someone accuses or remarks faults allegedely commited by another people while he himself is commiting those faults, it is like a donkey speaking about other's ears. I do not know what is the respective english expresion. But after all I know why Jabbsworth did intrud in a conversation between me and another user just to encourage the other user to report me to the ANI because of my proverbs. Look my last editions on Euthanasia or in Richard Jenne and in the respective talk pages, to realize what are my real edits, all well sourced and all my efforts to argue in the dispute resolution there using reliable, verifiable references, etc (See for example this or this). For a change, it seems Jabbsworht is just trying to resolve the dispute through eliminating me out of the field. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. My own etiquette case involves a user who cannot produce any evidence of a PA, other than that I quoted his misspelled word with a (sic) next to it,
2. My recent unblock and puppet case involved me using multiple accounts to try to avoid persistent wikistalking and even real life stalking, and the evidence was accepted by Arbcom, so do not raise it again.
3. I have made no rude comments on anyone's religion, merely highlighted that some of the POV edits on euthanasia are coming from the religiously motivated (which everyone knows is true),
4. Likening people to "buffoons" and "donkeys" is not excused by claiming cultural differences. Perhaps, since you are a native Spanish speaker, you should take your insults to the Spanish version of wikipedia where nobody will take exception? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct link to that earlier IP-case mentioned is this one. It is a case out of 2009, so I have no idea what is the worth of it in 2011.

Secondly, Jabbsworth a.k.a. Ratel a.k.a. TickleMeister has a particular disrespect for people who's first language is not English. Referring to other peoples spelling mistakes is extremely annoying and, to my opinion, a PA. By the way: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Jabbsworth. There Jabbsworth disruptive and annoying style of editing is discussed. No matter what happens, he claims to be the innocent victim and the other guys is the bad boy.

Thirdly: it is just a content dispute. To my opinion ClaudioSantos is strongly against euthanasia, while Jabbsworth is strongly in favour of it (to the extent sometimes that he is promoting it).

In my opinion, the only way to solve this dispute is giving a topic ban to euthanasia related articles to both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos. (And I would accept one too, if necessary) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment above comes from someone who believes I am "promoting" a non-profit by adding the number of staff and names of key directors to the organisation's infobox on the organisation's wikipage. Is this a sane viewpoint? You do the math, dear reader! Jabbsworth (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is adding this picture neutral or a provocation? I take it as a provocation and POV-pushing... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You Jabssworth subtracted to the equation that NotBW is also reverting your attempts to publish in wikipedia parts of a manual to commit suicide, which is one of the well known purpose of that organization: to teach how to commit suicide. And NotBW not solely warned that is not the purpose of wikipedia to teach how to commit suicide, but he also (plus) warned that it also could bring adverse legal consequences for wikimedia foundation, because assisting suicide is against the law in most of the United States including Florida. Perhaps readers know more than subtract. Notice that NotBW never suggested that Jabbsworth's point of view was insane or illegal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Three month topic ban proposal

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

---

Note: This proposal has now passed the bare minimum 48 hr discussion period and may be closed by any uninvolved administrator who believes there is a consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for community consideration:

Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed, and banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, for a period of three months. Any checkuser-verified sockpuppetry used to evade the ban by those users during the ban period will result in a six-month editing block on that user. Either user may make minimal reports to uninvolved administrators should they observe a topic ban violation by the other party that is not responded to, 24 hrs after the violation and in absence of any administrator reaction, but may not discuss it further after notifying of the diff and the applicable ban.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic and interaction bans based on observed exchanges between editors both at WP:ANI and on the Euthanasia talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree unless the ban specifically relates to Euthanasia and its subpages (ie Voluntary euthanasia, Non-voluntary euthanasia etc). This is, in fact, a proposal I put to ClaudioSantos myself, suggesting to him that we only make arguments on the Talk pages diff. Of course, he declined. But do not extend the ban, for me at least, to articles I have defended with consensus support, such as Jack Kevorkian, which ClaudioSantos has tried to vandalise by calling the man a "murderer" and changing his Medical Infobox to a Criminal Infobox, etc. For heavens sake, don't punish someone who is defending the Project from this sort of rubbish! Likewise, don't ban me from pages like Suicide bag, because this page is now under attack by an editor with a grudge against me (Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) who is trying to have it reduced to a stub on specious grounds. And at least leave access to all Talk pages. Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's not editing on the topic, there's nothing to have to defend (and others editing in consensus can do usual work on it). The proposed ban includes talk pages as both you and ClaudioSantos have had aggressive head-butting sessions on those. It's just better for both of you to step away from the topic and each other, and work on something else for a while. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok George, if that's what you want. I'm only trying to improve the euthanasia space, which has been sorely neglected and recently messed up by people with political or religious axes to grind. But there are a few good editors getting involved now too, so let them at it! Please consider topic banning Night of the Big Wind too please, as he's been fanning flames from the get-go, and he has invited one above as well when he said Claudio and I should be banned, "and I would accept one too, if necessary". That's an admission that he's been heavily involved in the disruption. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen much disruption involving Night of the Big Wind, but if others feel he should be included then the case can be presented. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A ban will not change that it was a jury who condemned Jack Kevorkian as a murderer so I was just editing the thing based on reliable sources. And be aware also that you Jabbsworth publicly attempt to pressume and publish my alleged religion, my country of location, as you have done repeatedly is a sort of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT. You Jabbsworth were already warned here. Your double standars are proverbial as I have noticed with my proverbs but also was noted by NotBW -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down and discuss constructively here, ClaudioSantos. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the NY Times link in Claudio's post. -- JN466 05:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• strong support A classic tracert more or less confirmed my suspicion that you might have a conflict of interest in the whole Euthanasia-sector and Exit International. But is still only a suspicion. To me it seems a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. Okay, we're going to have to give you a chance to reword that there, because I just read that comment as saying that an entire country has COI and shouldn't be editing certain pages. That's an inappropriate remark to make. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This better? (after 3x bwc) Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Although Jabbsworth is not bound to publish his private information, does not should he let the community clearly know if he has a relationship with Exit International as it could constitute a COI given his clearly strong and biased engagement in that article and in Suicide bag which is also related to that organization?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to comply. I have absolutely no relationship to Exit International (a non-profit, BTW). I am guilty of owning a copy of The Peaceful Pill Handbook though, and like the vast majority of people, I support the concept of voluntary euthanasia, because I've seen people dying in agony, despite painkillers and hospice palliative care. I have no desire to force my religion down other people's throats, forcing them to die an undignified and horrific death because my god or ideology dictates it. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at any rate you are trying to force your POV on euthanasia here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• But first, would either Night of the Big Wind or ClaudioSantos do Wiki a favour and go to Jack Kevorkian and fix the claim that at least 17 patients who suicided "could have lived indefinitely". Might be OK for a newspaper to say people can live indefinitely, but Wiki hopefully has better scholarship than to perpetuate such an absurd statement. Moriori (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It was not NotBW neither me who added that sentence to that article. But at any rate, if eternal life is your concern may you should read that sentence literally. As "living idefinitely" strictly does not mean "living forever", but precisely: an undefined time. I now have to wonder if killing is precisely defining life's lenght. Whatever. You Moriori perhaps should also find absurd the wide spreaded slogan: "right to die", as if someone could be forced to live forever. Should it be rewritten "right to not live indefinitely"?. Whatever again. What I certainly have to write here is that the "right to live" is also a quite absurd statement that -nevertheless- had to be included into the law, precisely because people are indeed being killed. For example, in the German Weimar Constitution, there was not explicity a "right to live". But this apparently natural and self-evident right had to be included after WWII in the German Constituion and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because of the 60 million of murders, included those commited by doctors under the guise of euthanasia during the Nazi regime. Perhaps it should be noticed here that also the informed consent binding medical doctors, was also not a gift from the good doctors, but it was included into the law because of the indeed coercively medical practices in the nazi europe, but also at other places like the forced sterilizations in the United States. Excuse my non-indefinitely long response. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - CS seems to be edit warring again already on the Jack Kevorkian page. Let's end the disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit warring? For restoring a quote trimed by Jabbsworth just because a medical chief was critic to Kevorkian? In a paragraph with balanced pros and cons? A paragraph that was accepted by consensus with NotBW?. You must be joking or are you biased yourself? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You are up for a three month topic ban on the articles, and in the middle of that you've made the same edit three times [13] [14] [15] in less than two hours, reverting two other editors. Regardless of the content, that's edit warring. If it's that important, the best thing for both of you to do is to just leave it for some other editors who's not about to be topic banned. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, half of Kevorkian's "Legacy" subsection is occupied by a scathing comment from a man who runs the palliative care unit in a Catholic hospital. It should have been completely removed because it is nothing more than mean-spirited sniping, and has naught to do with his legacy, but I left some of it in to satisfy Claudio. That was not good enough for him. It's his all or nothing, take no prisoners approach that's making editing anywhere in his vicinity toxic. What's the Spanish word for "compromise"? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have read it properly, Jabbsworth. In fact the guy said plain: I like the way he stirred up the debat, but his methods were wrong. Then you should not chop away half of it. Page protection is requested to stop another of your editwars, but at least that is better then the page protection you have requested on Suicide bag to protect your own edits from evil guys. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Full Support I've protected three articles fully for 2 weeks because of the two and edit warring. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ask admin to be fair in order to be constructive Hey George, above you asked me to be calm. But I think it is absolutely not constructive that Jabbsworth have been referring publicly to my personal info, my "religious agenda", my "incomprehensible grammar", my "tenuous grasp of English", my "broken english", my "poor reading comprehension", and just here above referring to my edits as "vandalism", "rubish", etc.; and I am not the only user concerned (he said "grudge", "insane point of view", "bloody minded" referring to NotBW, etc.). In more than one opportunity I have complained about these disruptive provocations to you George, but I have got no response at all. So I also find far from being constructive that again and again you solely ask me to calm down, but again and again you let that sort of things pass, without not even a shy demand adressed to Jabbsworth about his disruptive, provocative and rude behaviour to the oher users. It seems a clew of certain sort of bias from you. If you would at least attempted to stop that sort of comments perhaps I would not had to publish mine nor to defend myself from those PA's. To get an objective panorama you also should have read my edits during the last days. For example you should take a look of Talk:Euthanasia and talk:Richard Jenne, wher I have been just providing sources and arguments, thus making strong efforts to argue and avoiding Jabbswroth provocations. While Jabbsworth again and again was solely "replaying" my comments with provocations and nothing else. So be fair to be constructive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree: I propose a complete ban for Jabbsworth. He needs and interaction ban with everybody here. It is proverbial Jabbsworth ability to hunt wars and disrupt users. Jabbsworth is now also engaged in a clear war not only against me but also against another user, just because Jabbsworth attempts to force by any mean his pro euthanasia agenda and attempts to eliminate any obstacle including opposite users. Take a look on his last comments to NotBW and his warring edits on the respective articles. For me is clear that Jabbsworht is now provoking and attacking NotBW. Just a couple of examples: Jabbsworth is expressivelly telling to NotBW to "stay away from the articles I (Jabbswroth) have created"[16], and Jabbsworth uses his usual provocative PAs, such as referring to NotBW as "risible","pathetic","pointless", etc.[17]. I found Jabbsworth very agressive against the people. Jabbsworth deserves a ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're cherry picking comments off talk pages, out of context, which is typical. Anyone interested enough in this subsection is advised to look at the edit histories and talk pages of Suicide bag and Exit International to see how User:ClaudioSantos and User:Night of the Big Wind are tag-teaming to revert and destroy perfectly good articles, mainly because I am trying to expand them. They have added no data to these articles, merely tried to remove information (cited to RSes). This kind of battleground activity should be strongly discouraged. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Jabbswroth you think that you are the victim here. You Jabbsworth in two weeks got involved in two wars with two different users (and NotBW used to be your wikifriend who you encouraged to ask for a topic ban against me!). And anybody can take a look into your pass accounts (Ratel, OzOke, TwikleMeister, etc.). It is proverbial how you get involved in similar wars against other users in the past, same modus operandi: stressing and disparing user with PA's, references to his grammar, edit warring, in order to put them out of your way. Yes Jabbsworth of course you believe that you are the reasonable guy as well as you also think that "nazi euthanasia started with reasonable premises" as the first murder was commited against a boy "born blind, ill and idiot" (sic!). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't just think I am the victim here, I'm sure of it! Jabbsworth (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, therefore so few minutes later you disqualified another user's (Hemshaw) comment tagging it as "ridiculous" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To both of you (J and CS) -

At this point, you're both behaving disruptively both here and elsewhere. Again - please calm down and knock it off while this is being discussed. You're both approaching the normal blockable point for disruption.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please George for the sake of objectivity, show me clearly where did I allegdely edited disruptively at AFD Richard Jenne or here, and why it is understood as disruption. I have kept very cautious at AFD Richard Jenne referring solely to arguments. And here, I do not understand if you mean that notifying PAs and provocations here is a disruption, while it is the legitime and appropiate place to do so, precisely to avoid reply PAs and provocation elsewhere. Am I wrong? What should I do if the provocatioons and PAs continue? Should I keep silence? Is it drisputive to ask this? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the list would be the majority of edits you made responding to or interacting with Jabbsworth. Pretty much every response you've done in the last several days. If you think you're being reasonable in the way you are handling this, you are missing something fundamental about assessing your own behavior, and your competence to keep editing Wikipedia at all is in question.

Please stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite easy and quite unfair to accuse someone saying "the majority" because "yes". If you think you're being unbiased, fair and reasonable in the way you are handling and judging this, you are missing something fundamental. Therefore I will voluntarily ban me of any further interaction with you George. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Recommendation: block Jabbsworth for block evasion and other abusive sockpuppetry, temporary topic ban for others

While Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) was deemed to have had a legitimate reason for sockpuppetry on his second case involving TickleMeister (talk · contribs), it begs the question of the account ever having been legitimate at all. As the account was created less than 48 hours after Ratel was blocked for sockpuppetry, the TickleMeister account was always a block-evading sockpuppet, never eligible for any unblock on the basis of additional future sockpuppetry.

Even the first TickleMeister sockpuppetry case rings of habitual abusive sockpuppetry. A new account AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk · contribs) was created on July 27, 2010. The following day, TickleMeister tried to negotiate his departure in exchange for an improper external link. I suggest that there is sufficient evidence of abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion to block Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) at the minimum. I am unsure if this is a matter for more stringent action.

As for any other editors who have engaged in edit warring on Euthenasia-related articles during this maelstrom, they should be encouraged to accept a voluntary topic ban of sufficient duration to allow tempers to cool. (The 90 day period seems to be a good ballpark figure.) Should the relevant editors accept the topic ban, page protection should be reviewed.Novangelis (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had behind the scenes negotiations with Arbcom on this issue, and some serious stalking issues are involved, unrelated to any of the articles under discussion. You are not privy to what was discussed, so your call for a ban is completely ill-advised. Nor is it part of the current discussion either. I believe you have written to admin Georgewilliamherbert by email in an effort to lobby to get me banned because of your long history of wp:OWN at aspartame and related articles. I have deliberately kept away from aspartame and aspartame controversy because of the hostile atmosphere there, which does not allow any editing that is not favorable to a product with which some editors have intense hidden COI issues (which I raised here at ANI, see log). In fact, so much well sourced data was excluded from those articles that all the excluded data had to be moved to another wiki, namely SourceWatch, see aspartame. Readers please note, almost all data on that linked page was excluded by user Novangelis from the wikipedia page. IMO your input here amounts to wikistalking and harassment. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your baiting me will not work. I seriously doubt that ArbCom ever approved your creating the TickleMeister account two days after you were blocked for sockpuppetry in a !vote as Ratel/Unit5. If I'm wrong, ArbCom can correct me.Novangelis (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not meant to bait you. I'm defending myself with the truth. Let others see what you have done at the aspartame articles, and look at the screeds of excluded data, and decide themselves. If the cap fits, wear it. As for Ticklemeister, as I said you are poking your nose in something you know nothing about, and I'm not going into all the private details on this forum. Drop it. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On point - and please stay on point, everyone - Jabbsworth seems (to me) to be moderately confrontational but not disruptive in general in other areas now, outside the conflict with CS. The former sockpuppetry has been reviewed, acted upon, and the current account's status reflects admin and arbcom's most recent judgements in this matter. There's no call to re-re-examine those prior incidents per se.

If there is a broader pattern of disruption outside the disagreements with CS, that rises to the level of administrator attention, it will become evident shortly after the topic and interaction ban becomes effective.

People are surely aware of the history and will be closely scrutinizing all editors involved for some time.

Other admins may see this differently, but I am not willing to act based on the current situation (beyond the in-discussion disruption mentioned in my last message above, and more generally the topic ban which is the focal point of the current disruption). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, it seems for me that you are biased George. The interchange between Jabbsworth and NotBW, where Jabbsworth has been calling NotBW "risible","pathetic","pointless","if you do not like me then stay away from the articles I built", "insane point of view", "bloody minded", etc. and where two articles Exit international and Suicide Bag were involved in edit wars and had to be protected, evidently that denies your point of view George. Jabbsworth is currently behaving very disruptive and extremely agressive with other user than me. And I do not mean to be rude by saying this: but as long as you do not see this, you are encouraging his disuprtive behaviour. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I think the Arbcom procces should be published and publicly scrutined, as the unblock affects a lot of users who has been affected by the serious disruptions provoked by Jabbsworth sockpuppetry. Prime facie wikipedia clearly claims that sockpuppetry is a serious breach against community trust. Perhaps the lack of clearness is the reason that I find very difficult to believe that this sockpuppetry, clearly used solely to evade a block of 55 hours and to edit warring could be allegedly an attempt to avoid stalking. Why then he returned with his sockpuppets precisely to the article (Aspartame) where he was being stalked, if he was so wishful to not be identified and stalked?. Also I do not understand how it is allowed to someone to use 6 times sockpuppet even for avoid wikistalking. Why did not he warned the arbcom about the stalking before? why just wait until the 6 time? I At any rate, community deserves to know the process as the unblock affects the trust of the community. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a question: who consider you to be "the others". I guess Claudio, me and several others? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Back here

I requested the return of this case. The archive bot was quicker then the final decision. And something has to be done to solve this nightmare. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I retrieved it from the archive as the history will show. It appeared to be an unresolved case where a poll was taking place, and I saw another one like this go into the archive yesterday. 24h isn't a good archive timeframe for things like this. I'm not involved with this poll and have no opinion, but I've tagged it to stay a few more days in case the final decision isn't made immediately. CycloneGU (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We are past the 48-hr minimum community enforcement discussion period (actually at around 96 hrs) and any uninvolved admin can action the proposed community sanction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, but nothing had been enacted yet so I simply brought it back for enacting. When it's enacted, the enacting admin. may remove the stamp at the top of the thread keeping it from archiving for now. CycloneGU (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest to modify the text so reports (after 24hrs since the violation and is not acted upon) are to be posted at WP:AN3 or WP:AN/I, and the interaction ban is exempted for the purpose of notifying the user with strong scrutiny on the actual text used to notify the other party. The filing party may not post to the report afterwards, and the responding party may freely respond on the corresponding report. In addition: (1) Frivolous reports constitutes a violation of topic ban (reports that are not accepted, but are not deemed to be frivolous, may still be exempted if community deems it so); (2) Blocks due to this topic ban shouldn't be just flat 6-months, it should be modified as 1st offense constitutes a 6-month block; subsequent blocks may be longer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've enacted the topic ban as noted above. I enacted it as it was initially endorsed, as that was the version that was approved by community consensus (the only people objecting to the ban proposal were the subjects of the proposal). Any modification to the ban should be done only after a new proposal, if it gains similar community consensus. -- Atama頭 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat

• Marina Poplavskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Margopera (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I think this constitutes a legal threat.

I have sympathies with the article subject, regarding their concern; however, I think that legal matters should not be dealt with on-wiki, and therefore the user should be blocked, simply to ensure their concerns are dealt with appropriately, off-wiki.

I see two concerns in the post;

a) declaring our photo to be "against the law". I know of no policy/guideline reason that the photo would be removed, as it appears to have a valid copyright status, having been taken at a public event - but, I would find it challenging to even discuss that with the user, with the apparent threat of legal action. If there is a legal reason the photo should be removed, that needs to be discussed off-wiki. If there isn't a legal reason, then we could discuss it in the usual manner (I could advise on policy/guideline, suggest FFD if appropriate, and so on).

b) In relation to Facebook, it says a Wikipedian "has violated my rights and, by opening facebook page under my name. I believe it is called "identity theft" - something which is unlawful and will be prosecuted." - although this is not a direct legal threat against Wikipedia, it is a legal threat against a Wikipedian. Again, making any further discussion of the issue very difficult.

I empathize with the article subject, and certainly want no punitive action, but I do not think this matter can be sorted out on-wiki, with "legal" looming over us. If I'm over-reacting, please do let me know, and I'll accept that.

The above all came to my attention from Wikipedia:BLPN#Marina_Poplavskaya. I'll add a note of this thread over there, and inform the user of this discussion

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting long and some of this is outdated, so I've collapsed this top portion. More can be collapsed if needed. CycloneGU (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, I think you're right although I'm not super knowledgeable about this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I think blocking might be overreacting, she's being polite towards Wikipedia and hasn't made any further attempts to edit the article. I don't really see what it would achieve other than probably alienating her. She's not a wikipedian and not really interested in our procedures, she's just waiting for us to resolve whether or not we're going to remove the photo. But I don't have any experience myself of this kind of issue on WP. Aegoceras (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) putting on photographer's hat I don't know how European laws are set up, but United States case law has found that publishing photographs that were obtained through violations of law is unlawful. While the festival may have been a public event, if an admission fee was charged and paid, a contract was entered into, where the person paying the admission fee agreed to be bound by whatever restrictions on behavior the festival organizers had in place...including a restriction against photography. So the complaint could be found to have merit, at least in an American court. Insert standard "I am not an attorney" disclaimer here. With all that said, no matter whether the complaint has merit or not, my 2p is that there's a definite WP:NLT in place against a user of Wikipedia regarding the publication of that photograph. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, N5iln; I agree. I had similar thoughts re. the legality, or otherwise - but don't think we can, or should, discuss it on-wiki, unfortunately.  Chzz  ►  15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) It's complicated by the fact that it isn't just the photo (and its uploader), there's a separate a legal threat (albeit due to a misunderstanding of how those Wikipedia-based automatic Facebook pages work) against the editor who created the article. It's all a bit unfortunate. Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Not a proof of anything, but that photo was taken using a Canon EOS 5D, which is quite a sizable DSLR. If the festival bans taking photos indeed (and AFAICT it's at least partly open air, and the picture seems to be outdoor), I doubt he could smuggle that so easily. Taking a photo of a person who does not want it published might be unethical, but I believe it is legal in most countries. No such user (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The question in this entire situation is whether indeed there was a rule prohibiting photography. I guarantee you images at musician's articles such as Taylor Swift, Beyonce Knowles, and Bruno Mars (among many, many, more) were all taken in concert venues where photography was forbidden. The question is whether this image qualifies as fair use for helping understand the subject, and whether the subject (who is obviously here) is willing to allow it for that purpose and only on her biographical article to help readers understand the subject (her, in other words). If she is still adament about the use of the photo, I'd be curious if there is a fair-use image that we CAN use. Some of you may not be familiar with Jackie Evancho, but that image is a fair-use image submitted by her own mother. It appears on her Twitter as well (which her mother also uses, I've seen tweets saying "This is Lisa"). So if she is willing to submit a picture we can use, that clears the entire issue and the other image is deleted immediately without question. If she doesn't want a picture on her article at all...well, we can't promise that, a fair use image can still appear at any time so we have to determine whether this image can be acceptable. CycloneGU (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Its got a commons licence, was taken by a user, it seems fine to me. Perhaps ask the uploader was photography allowed at the venue and allow him to retract the picture if he wants. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I've already notified de:Benutzer:MatthiasKabel, but he hasn't edited since mid-June. No such user (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Also notified to his account here - User_talk:MatthiasKabel#Ani_-_pic - I support blocking for the legal threats.Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The Jackie Evancho image is not "fair use" at all. It has Commons license. There's no justification for "fair use" in the case of Marina Poplavskaya. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oops, I better clarify. Seems I got the two mixed up in there. I meant as in it's being fairly used in an article on the subject in the case of Evancho. My question rather was meant to question whether the image of Poplavskaya is being fairly used or whether it ought to be removed. Because the image was provided to us by someone who took it, general fair use rules don't apply. CycloneGU (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I see what you meant now. I thought you were referring to Non-free fair use. Anyhow, it would be good to get some adminstrator input here concerning the original issue re WP:NLT. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC) This is not a legal threat. It's the copyright holder stating her opinion that we are infringing on her intellectual property rights. Nowhere does she actually threaten to sue us, but actually politely asks us to remove the image. We ought to take that request seriously and consider it. causa sui (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC) To me it reads as a legal threat, albeit reasonably politely worded. However, before taking any sort of action against the complainant, it would be best to find out if the complaint has merit, which you all are already working on it but have not resolved yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I think opening a deletion discussion at Commons will be helpful in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with you re the subject's photo concerns, but the concerning bit was: "I hope you can sort out this matters, since, I suspect the same user, who opened this page, has violated my rights and, by opening facebook page under my name. I believe it is called "identity theft" - something which is unlawful and will be prosecuted. [18] (my underlining). Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC) "Copyright holder" is a difficult term in this case. The person who took the image is technically the copyright holder of the image and has released it into the public domain. The image is suggested to have not been allowed to be taken in the first place. That is more of a legal route and would have to be verified by a ticket stub or something that explicitly says photography is not permitted at the venue in question. At this time, I don't think we have anything to worry about, but then again, I'm no legal expert. CycloneGU (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) - Nominated for deletion discussion at Commons - here. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Note that the opinion at Commons is that the image was taken in a public place at which there is no evidence that photography was not permitted. The uploader has confirmed that he took the picture himself, and has several others taken at the same time to confirm this. That being the case, there are no compelling grounds to remove the picture from the article at this time. I appreciate that the subject is being polite, and might even give us a picture that she prefers, but she needs to take this offwiki and through OTRS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Please have a look at deletion discussion at Commons - here, I've a uploaded a photo which should clarify the situation at this event. MatthiasKabel (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Well that simplies it - how can she possibly say the image could not be taken and cannot be posted? Perhaps she thinks the image casts her in an unflattering light for some reason. Either that or a troll is impersonating her. CycloneGU (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know it's her?

I have no problem with BLP subjects discussing their concerns about their articles, images etc. but Margopera could be anybody. The account could have been set up by a "trollz and lulzer" trying to cook up a little drama. IMHO before any action on such an article or image on behalf of a BLP or corporate subject is considered, the subject should be prompted to contact OTRS so their identity can be verified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why requests for removal of because of ownership of the copyright go to OTRS, where we can deal with claims of ownership properly and confidentially. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just speaking as one of the previous editors of Marina Poplavskaya, I don't believe its an imposter, though obviously the procedures for identification have to be followed. BTW User:Dr. Blofeld just left a message on User talk:Margopera asking her if she wants to supply another photo - should this be reverted? Aegoceras (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the talk page I agree that it most likely is her but prompting her to contact OTRS is not pointless process wonkery. We don't want to send a message to potential troublemakers that they can get articles and images deleted/protected by impersonating the subject. We need to be all but certain that they are who they say they are and the best way to do that is through OTRS. Alternative ways of determining their identity is if they state their intentions on a blog or website known to be under their control and which predates the WP article in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not imo - the simple questions are often the best. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and backed the good doctor on the statement over there. CycloneGU (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2nd legal threat

Margopera has just made another comment on their user talk page [19], asking that we please remove the page, but saying [it] is my right to use further protection of the law.

I suggest (again) that we block the user for legal threats; I note that, above, many people earlier agreed that a NLT block was appropriate for the original comment (though some disagreed), and I think this thread has drifted from the request up top; I'm concerned that, in all the speculation over the legality of the image, we're entering the murky world of providing amateur legal opinions.  Chzz  ►  10:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer simply the photo. She now wants the whole article removed because she did not give permission for it to be created and the creator didn't coordinate with her first. I left her another message [20] urging her to use the OTRS system and directing her to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. I have a lot of sympathy for her. She doesn't know how Wikipedia works. She doesn't even have personal web site, by her own choice. Quite the opposite of the usual publicity seeking I see all the time in WP articles about (and alas, often by) current opera singers. Anyhow, if she has to be blocked, please do it gently, if such a thing is possible. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We've seen this kind of thing before, where a user doesn't want a wikipedia article about them. It's important to be certain that the user's real-life situation is notable and doesn't violate any wikipedia rules. If it meets the criteria for inclusion, then the article can stay, and the user has to be indef'd until or if they retract the legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. - This is a clear legal threat. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Fully agree it's a legal threat, even if it is bluster like with Harold Covington which I got myself heavily involved with. Not in the mood to repeat that yet as it seems she hasn't read anything we've said. Can we e-mail this user? CycloneGU (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A block would violate WP:BLP. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? Legal threats are not allowed. Now, if the article violates BLP, then it should be altered or deleted. But unless the user has a clear, legitimate grievance about the article, then the user must be indef'd until or if they retract the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could Count Iblis - or anyone else - please explain the above comment to me? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with Bugs. WP:BLP requires unsourced negative or contentious material to be removed from an article, no matter who brings the material to the attention of others (or removes it). The "contentious material" in this case is a simple photograph, which by all appearances was lawfully obtained, appears flattering to the subject, and is appropriate to the article in which it appears. The only person apparently considering it "contentious" is the person described in the article. Using a legal threat is not the appropriate procedure, as I'm sure most if not all commenters here can agree. The prescribed action in the event of a legal threat is an indefinite block of the user making such a threat, the lifting of which is contingent on retracting the threat or resolving the legal action. WP:BLP doesn't enter into that equation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem as Baseball Bugs already mentioned some paragraphs above, is that the BLP is herself getting involved here. Then, the BLP policy mentiones that the BLP should be given more room to deal with problems than we would allow other Wikipedians: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material." Now a NLT violation as happened here is no big deal and we can igore this. In general you wouldn't do that, because the consensus about legal threats is to have zero tolerance on legal threats. But the spirit of the ArbCom Ruling is that BLPs editing themselves should be given special consideration. Count Iblis (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. WP:NLT is a bright line, and I can't see any exceptions being made because a BLP subject happens to be less than flattered by a particular photo or paragraph. If such exceptions were to be made, we would see a flood of politicians, actors, athletes, and celebrities in general diving into a frenzy of removing unflattering material from articles about them, and tossing legal threats around with impunity simply because "special consideration" is given for BLPs, under a particular interpretation of a particular ArbCom ruling. I also think you're interpreting that passage far too broadly in this case, because the BLP subject is NOT trying "to fix what they see as errors or unfair material"; instead, she's using a threat of legal action to remove one photograph she is unhappy with. NLT doesn't give any "wiggle room." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way forward is for Margopera to have an email exchange with User:Mdennis (WMF) (Maggie Dennis or Moonriddengirl) to clarify matters. A block doesn't seem helpful. Mathsci (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I should read user pages more often. I had no idea they were the same as I've only encountered her through the volunteer account. But yes, might be worthwhile to inform her of this thread. CycloneGU (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I've asked MRG to comment here. CycloneGU (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to interact with this one as a volunteer. :) In my opinion (in that capacity), we would better serve this BLP subject and Wikipedia if we can encourage her to stop with the legal threats and start working within processes, as well described to her at her talk page by User:Voceditenore. If she continues with legal threats in spite of our efforts, then we might have no option, but I am mindful of the Board's BLP Resolution in urging us to treat "any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and [encourage] others to do the same." We may not be able to make her happy, but we may be able to at least give her the sense that she has been heard and her viewpoint respected, thus living well up to that whole "patience, kindness, and respect" bit. Alan makes a good point about the bright line of WP:NLT, but I think we can almost always find wiggle room, if there's a good reason. :) That said, User:Count Iblis, I really don't think a block would violate BLP. I've seen BLP subjects blocked for such before. Sometimes they won't be talked down. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that such people can be blocked if necessary. I just interpret that particular paragraph in the BLP policy as saying that if you can afford not to block, you shouldn't even if other Wikipedians would be blocked. So, basically a higher threshold for blocking for people who have just arrived at Wikipedia and edit or raise concerns about their own BLP. Count Iblis (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NLT. User has other channels they can use to rectify this situation. --John (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and she will undoubtedly be ever so much easier to handle when she utilizes them, because that won't escalate her unhappiness at all. *sigh* (Not much point in saying I object to the block, given that I objected before you did it. WP:NLT, at least, recognizes that a block is optional, even if typical.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, she did say, and I quote, "this is my final letter". It sounds like she wasn't going to comment further at Wikipedia NEway. But I agree, in case she tries to now, this will just escalate her and basically, if she wasn't going to carry the threat before, she might now. CycloneGU (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

More Posting

All right, if the way this is typed is any indication, this is not her, but a troll. I'm going out on a limb here. Until we can identify that it's really her care of OTRS, I'm going on the belief it's a troll. I'm not going to pay it any attention and recommend we let this thread die. Selling photos for 50€ each outside the event? PLEASE. Pay this troll no attention.

And if I am in fact wrong, I am ready to retract that comment. But I wonder if a sock check is appropriate. CycloneGU (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and retracted the comment above not because I've heard a confirmation saying it's her, but because I have wrongly jumped to a conclusion before learning all the facts. I did this on my own without anyone suggesting I should do so. I feel it's the right thing to do for someone whom it sounds wishes to try to work with us, and is taking the step to verify with OTRS. As for the photo; that is still up for debate regarding its legality, but I think the community has spoken regarding their views. CycloneGU (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It didn't say "outside a festival" - xe indicated that a photographer who was "kicked out from the signing session", later sold pics on the web. [21] Chzz  ►  23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a very nice response to my e-mail, fwiw, and she has followed recommendations to contact OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Once the OTRS confirms it's actually her, I'll happily retract the comment. The last post at the user page just sounded trollish more than anything else, hence my concerns. CycloneGU (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, similar comments were made about User talk:Orly taitz, but she turned out to be the real Orly Taitz. Some Wikipedians still don't believe it's her, though, and are demanding additional evidence. :) . Count Iblis (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The last comment is a little bit strange. Neither I was kicked of by security, nor I sold any of my pictures ever, I'm just a hobby photographer and a volunteer for wikipedia. I can't also remeber anybody else was kicked of. But I feel sorry, if she doesn't like to be photographed. At least I use my real name also. ;-) MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Article subject, NLT, DOLT

Placeholder. Please don't close this thread, yet; I want to add something, but don't have time right now. Should be within 24 hours, easy. Collapse the done stuff, if you like, but please leave it on ANI for a little longer. Ta.  Chzz  ►  00:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Now added, see below. Thx,  Chzz  ►  10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll put a 48h stamp at the top of the section. I think we should keep this up as it sounds like we might have an OTRS confirmation of who she is. CycloneGU (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's lessons to be learned from this. And I still think the better option would've been a block, at the beginning of this thread; I think it'd have been a fairer, more drama-free solution. Once any subject starts talking about legal action, it puts editors responding in a very awkward situation.

I knew it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say "No, it is not illegal to take a pic at a festival" - because IANAL. And for the same reason, I'd have to be very careful discussing the other aspects of the article after the user appeared to threaten legal action against another editor.

Realising blocks were not punitative, I thought the best course would be a block, - with no ill-feeling intended - and then for the subject to discuss it off-wiki. I wish that had happened. Instead, several users started to debate the legality, or otherwise, of the picture.

Then there was a second, clear legal threat. The user had been warned for the first. So I re-requested the block, but it didn't happen, until 8 hours later (and plenty of admins saw the 'red flag' I posted). Instead of a block - despite nobody arguing it wasn't a legal threat, and several directly agreeing - we had more comments about the person. So, yes, I do consider the subject with "patience, kindness, and respect" - and the most patient, kind and respectful way to resolve their concerns would've been a block, then off-wiki discussion - where we could have explained how things work, without escalation, without a need to discuss it in public, and without the subject making comments that they might later regret.

It is indeed unfortunate that we have to block in those cases, but I do think that NLT is a policy that we should enforce. Chzz  ►  10:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

She responded very well to a personal e-mail and might have reacted somewhat better to an initial explanation of why she should not threaten legal action other than the template, which isn't the friendliest approach. There's a difference between an entrenched POV pusher who tries to use a legal threat to control an article and a panicked and upset BLP subject. I believe when we have the opportunity to help avoid escalation of that kind of unhappiness, we should take it. I think WP:DOLT, which you referenced in your header, offers very good advice in its nutshell: "When newcomers blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." I'm inclined to agree with Jimmy's take on this, too: "Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually." This woman's legal threats are almost certainly based on a misunderstanding of law and it's not likely that we will be able to satisfy her on all points, but often people just want to be heard. Giving them an opportunity to calm down reflects well on us, and her comments were safely contained at her talk page, where she was being patiently addressed by people who may have been able to talk her down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For the same reasons mentioned above, a NLT ban did no good in any case. She was merely posting quietly within her talk page, so what were we keeping her from doing since she wasn't editing anywhere else? CycloneGU (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

The editor withdrew the legal threat, so I unblocked. --John (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. It sounds like she wants to work with us. I'll go ahead and retract my statement earlier in that case. I've also attempted to answer some of her questions below the unblock. CycloneGU (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Marina Poplavskaya is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Poplavskaya. The AfD was not initiated by the subject, but by another editor in an apparent good faith attempt to "resolve" her complaints. But I'm not sure this is the most appropriate way to handle the issue. None of the normal criteria for deletion apply and it's liable to simply entrench opinions and create a permanent record of the whole kerfuffle. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is probably not going to help. :/ User:Jclemens is handling her OTRS correspondence; hopefully, he'll be able to help her find appropriate means of resolving some of her concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Just saw this per MRG's note on my talk page. I will try and get back with her tonight. Shame that no OTRS agent (including me!) saw this and connected the dots earlier. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami mass renaming script pages to alphabet pages, when they are not alphabets

In the move log one can see that this User:Kwamikagami moved several articles called X script to X alphabet [22] This is incorrect for many. No proper discussion took place, no move reasons are given. He is just moving. Also he deleted a dab page at Arwi which distinguished between the language (or call it dialect if you like) and the script. But interestingly the Arwi article has a subsection on the script, i.e. Arwi itself is not the script. Please can someone stop the article moves and page deletions? Please see also his talk page and this section at Editor assistance/Requests where other users complain about the moves. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Even more disturbingly, User:Kwamikagami engaged in the discussion at WikiProject Writing systems about his first move of 48 articles, and then proceeded to move another 20 messages, without discussing the moves with anyone. Moves which he has repeatedly defended without apology to the community, and which he has not reverted, knowing the furor it has caused. At the editor assistance request, I've been informed that this is part of a larger pattern of disruptive moves for this editor. I would appreciate an admin removing his ability to move articles until the RfC at WikiProject Writing systems has completed, and any other assistance (eg, a stern talking to) that can reasonably be rendered. VI_WS ^talk 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"I would appreciate an admin removing his ability to move articles"—You do realize that the only way to do this is by blocking him? I don't think a block is warranted at this point. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe step one would be to remove his Admin rights. So he can at least not delete articles to make way for the moves. And if he goes on with moving, yes please, block him. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just staring at the edits, it seems he'd be making double redirects as well... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are fixed by a bot within a couple hours. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

With Arwi, I was responding to comments on the talk page suggesting that it's Tamil as used by Muslims but not a separate language. Basically, Tamil written in the Arabic alphabet and used for religious purposes and consequently with a lot of Arabic loans. Calling that a "language" would seem to be an exaggeration, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary. It could be, of course, but no-one has provided anything that I see. It doesn't have a separate ISO code, for example, and much of the time we don't accept things as separate languages even when they do. It would seem that the prime definition of "Arwi" is how it's written, so separating the script would be unwarranted, and in this case a WP:CONTENTFORK. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to discuss content issues. You deleted claiming "G6. Technical deletions. Uncontroversial maintenance..." - By this you violated WP:ADM : Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; ... They are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved. WP:INVOLVED Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize he is an admin - that changes things. He certainly doesn't act like an admin. The fact that he takes it upon himself to undertake drastic changes without consensus is a huge red flag for me in any administrator. These are supposed to be people who resolve and mediate conflicts, not cause them. I guess I request a conduct review for a suspension of admin privelages, then. Is this the proper place to make that kind of request? VI_WS ^talk 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else as disturbed by the fact that Kwami never divulged the fact that he was an admin as I am? How does someone this deceitful and clandestine even get admin privelages in the first place? VI_WS ^talk 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a fairly prominent box on his userpage that says "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify)." If admins went around starting every conversation with "I'm an admin and I want to do X" the natural reaction would be that we were using the implied social context of being an admin to win debates. I'd much rather admins not brag about their status since it is plainly displayed in the user list and not a secret to anyone. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that the original act of moving 48 pages is the sort of thing that I would expect an administrator to do, carrying out what they considered to be an act of cleanup, and say something like "Oh, I was just doing some administrative cleanup and thought this would be uncontroversial", making it much less of a transgression. Also the continued moving after that point isn't just the act of someone who doesn't understand community consensus, it is someone abusing their power and knowingly acting against the community consensus that they are tasked with upholding. This conflict is not about the original moves, it's about the Kwami's continuing disregard for the effort to form a consensus, a fact that is all the more disturbing given his position. VI_WS ^talk 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can move large numbers of pages; I don't see abuse of admin tools here unless kwami made moves only an admin can do (that is to say, deleting pages to make way for the move), and even that is not an abuse of admin tools if there was no prior dispute about naming. (It would be if he did that sort of move as part of a move war, but the first time is fine; as far as I can tell, it was only after the moves that anyone complained). Furthermore, in the message above I don't see the OP listing any specific examples of articles where kwami's "script -> alphabet" move is problematic, and the EA discussion linked to seems to have been started at the same time as this one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there was a prior dispute about naming, which Kwami participated in, and then proceeded to move 20 more pages without consensus. That is the behavior that concerns me. I don't know what tools were used to do that, all I care is that Kwami acted in a way that he knew to be contrary to consensus and has neither apologized for his actions, nor reverted them. I happen to believe that a position of trust demands a higher standard, and Kwami has consistently fallen well below my expectation of the standard of conduct for an editor, let alone an admin. VI_WS ^talk 04:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just browsing through Wikipedia when I stumbled upon this discussion. In my humble, honest and neutral opinion, as per common rule of Wikipedia, editing, or in this case, moving pages which are controversial must be accompanied by a discussion and a proper consensus from the Wikipedia community, and this rule applies to normal users like me and also to administrators as well with no exceptions. Guidelines are there to be followed, observed and obeyed because if left ignored, arguments such as this one will definitely arise. I hope that everyone will keep their cool and a proper consensus can be achieved. Good luck and peace, be cool always. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While "Kwami has made a series of bulk page moves" is not exactly an uncommon ANI topic, in this case I can't see much in the way of a consensus that he's wrong to be making them. There's an open discussion about it and he's said he's fine with them being moved back if there's consensus to do so. As such, I don't see that there's much in the way of abusive use of tools going on, even if the moves did involve some housekeeping deletions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While Kwamikagami may or may not have abused his tools, some of the comments in this ANI thread bear witness yet again to his abuse of the trust vested in him as a sysop. Thus is not the first time he has made contentious, unilateral, board-wide edits to linguistics pages in the face of serious protest. This ANI started by User:Bogdan Nagachop and the comments by Usr:VI are only the tip of a behavioural iceberg. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we move all of these back? One example is Sinhala script (a good article) being moved to Sinhala alphabet, despite the fact that the article still says "Sinhala script" throughout the article, despite that Sinhala is an abugida and not an alphabet, and despite the fact that there was clear consensus on the talk page that "Sinhala script" is preferable to "Sinhala alphabet". This was certainly an abuse of administrator tools. Kotakkasut is spot on in his analysis. Can we move these articles back? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I said that I would not do so myself, but I believe Kwami has had the opportunity to revert his bad-faith moves, and has proven that he is not willing to do so. I would certainly appreciate anyone taking it upon themselves to revert them until we have a consensus opinion at Writing Systems. VanIsaac_WS (VI) 18:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with tendentious editing?

The thread below, up to Fowler&fowler's msg at 18:58 is copied from WP:AN per their advice. MangoWong and Thisthat2011 are two contributors who have been arguing tendentiously across numerous India-related articles, at the India project, at the Article Titles project, here at ANI, at NPOVN ... and probably in other forums also. A third contributor in this loose group is Yogesh Khandke but s/he is currently on a one week block.

How do we deal with a situation as ridiculous as, say, the goings-on at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_45#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna
• Talk:Kurmi#Source_for_Shudra
• Talk:Nair#Lede_section
• Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni#Overlinking (this was Yogesh Khandke alone)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Please_look

In their attempts to either censor Wikipedia (by, for example, objecting to inclusion of shudra in the Kurmi article per the above thread), or push an India-centric POV over Wikipedia's NPOV ethos (as in threads regarding article renamings for Ganges and Gandhi), they are raising the same issues time and time again but rarely have a policy-based argument to substantiate their positions. Indeed, they appear often to misunderstand policy but are fluent in the systemic bias argument. I acknowledge that there is such bias, by the way, but that is a wider problem & will not be resolved by going round in circles on a few articles here and there.

Edits such as this one demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, seemingly in an attempt to wriggle out of having to acknowledge the list of 15 sources presented to support a statement that MangoWong objected to.

There have also been examples of rather poor advice such as this being given to relatively new contributors, and various instances of undermining the integrity of the project.

This is occurring on a daily basis and it is wearing people out. Well, it is certainly wearing me out. There are surely far better things to do than run round in circles dealing with people who rarely present sources to support their opinions, wikilawyer to an extreme but in a way that totally misrepresents policy, and simply will not drop the bone, How does one deal with this situation? The list of examples of the tendentious repetitive disruption would be truly massive & the idea that I would have to compile the thing is daunting.

I've gotten so confused and hassled dealing with these contributors that I've been making errors of my own, btw. Eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_comments_on_Hindu_Jatis_related_discussion. Keeping track of all the repetition etc is a nightmare, but feel free to boomerang me. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is still being discussed at India Related Topics. I would suggest to excuse the shortcut that Sitush has taken to take the topic on this noticeboard before discussions elsewhere are done with, before issues can have chance as suggested by Sitush to boomrang. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have brought in an ANI on Sitush for wasting phenomenal amount of my time with unnecessary arguments, accusations, proposing things which he is not serious about, edit warring on minor issues, claiming policy says x, when it does not, putting up unnecessary warnings on my talk page, trying to revert my edits by inserting garbage sources, claiming myself agreed to things when I did not, etc. etc. etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that despite having unsuccessfully tried before to get support at ANI and other places for a perception that there is admin "incompetence" etc, Thisthat2011 is still persisting in the trend even after receiving a notice for this discussion - see here. TT is entitled to the opinion but it is counterproductive to keep carping on about something that has already been reviewed by numerous independent observers at ANI. Mind you, since they would mostly also have been admins I guess that this is a part of the Big Conspiracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only Big Conspiracy I see is the Big Bang. The rest are details. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just found an example of Yogesh Khandke's recent disruption on a FAQ page, although I note that he subsequently self-reverted. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC) :Sitush, this discussion should be taking place at WP:ANI, not here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Boing! said Zebedee thought this would be the best venue when I asked a while ago. Can I just copy/paste the entire thread? - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, cut and paste this thread there. I'll add my bit there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about MangoWong, but Thisthat2011, in my view, has become a disruptive presence on Wikipedia. Whether his knowledge of written English is truly poor or he feigns ignorance, I do not know, but he has been handled with kid gloves for over two months now. In this time, however, he hasn't learned much. His posts are both repetitive and vague in the extreme, seemingly blithely unaware of the prevailing Wikipedia standards of logic, reasoning, citing, precision, prose writing, and even reading comprehension. Talking to him is akin to talking to a child who keeps asking, "Why?" in response to every answer. It is only so long before the parent gets exasperated. I don't know if he needs a topic ban in the manner of Zuggernaut, some kind of supervision by a firm and very patient mentor, or a week-long block in the manner of Yogesh Khandke, but he needs to be given some message from the community. He has wasted an inordinate amount of time of a number of productive Wikipedians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My experience of Thisthat2011 is more or less the same as Fowler&fowler's. Discussion is utterly frustrating. Every answer is responded to with yet another question which just goes on and on and on. His posts demonstrate a complete inability to understand basic arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with Thisthat2011 as have Fowler and Paul Barlow. I have had lengthy (very) discussions with him on two occasions, wherein I have seen the same points being stated and restated, and where he tries to repeatedly insist that there is some consensus. Lynch7 19:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am yet to get any answer on why sources related to legends etc. on Hindu Jati pages are required as per strict standards of Wikipedia, when the legends/classifications etc. are religious in nature. As far as "a notice for this discussion - see here", let me know where I have mentioned anything against admins after that as well. I don't know from where Paul B is giving his opinion from suddenly. About ML and Fowler, the feeling is mutual. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the discussion are going on, I would also like to suggest a standard like WP:KnitShA meaning "Knight in the Shining Armor", where secondary sources are not presented till some time when all editors have a go of opinion in the absence of RS, and then a Knight in the Shining Armor will present the source to corner glory while an editor will be remarked upon just to demand RS in the absence of consensus. I can cite an example here, shows kind of arguments that keep going on and on and see where and who has presented sources and who has argued without sources. Calling me tendentious would be incorrect in such a case. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, is it really wise to introduce here proposals here that you have raised seemingly ad infinitum in other forums? It is practically one of the definitions of a tendentious person (see 2.9). I note an interesting thread around this diff where you mention the "knight" theory, one of a series on that article talk page where you and Mango (by self-confession, at that time editing as an IP) tied up a lot of the time of people such as Paul Barlow & Bwilkins. Your current Hindu Jati sourcing hobbyhorse seems to be appearing on all sorts of tangential forums.

You refer to the diff that I had previously mentioned regarding your attitude to admins. If you look at the timing then you will see that your comment occurred after I had notified MangoWong and after you had acknowledged receipt of my mispoted notification to yourself. There have been no such further statements probably because it has been raised here and also MangoWong warned you off doing so. But you (and IIRC MangoWong also) have for some time had a predilection for this type of "biased admin" comment. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, till now hardly anyone has given a clarity on how strictly RS standards are to adhere to on topics related to Hindu Jatis, though perhaps there are some diffs that explicitly are stated by Sitush/others about how Hindu scriptures like Puranas are not to be considered for the page because ... etc. I wonder why such exactness is required on pages related to Hindu Jatis, where many legends/beliefs etc. could be related to ancient texts and where Hindus might well have to go through the maze of issues including english-translation-of-texts, their relevant RS explanations, even proto-religions etc. to clarify details of beliefs and legends. And so this topic comes here too, along with the tendentiousness allegations. If this is not done properly, you will definitely find many people logging on Wikipedia just to point out how incorrect it is as per beliefs/legends and will be subsequently be disappointed on finding out that each of them have to prove God along with rest of the issues discussed above to make their point clearer. That is why I had mentioned the topic on India-related discussion board, which was cut off immediately and mentioned in two boards ANI and AN. An example of similar page, according to me, could be Catholic Church, where religious legends are not ignored on/similar pages.

As far as 'biased admin' part is concerned, I would like to clarify that admins should have pointed out how these pages could not have to be so stringent in the first place, a position that otherwise will emerge regardless according to me. This is high time someone makes it clear.

About this diff, the source I do not believe was RS, and the issue was settled long time ago, which you have missed, immediately after mentioning RS for the same content. It is therefore incorrect to say that the discussion was tendentious at all for anyone. Although User:Sitush gets the exact sources needed to make his point, I would like to point out that he leaves it half explained for the other side to do the explanation part very well as per understanding of the rest of people/admins. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About "attitude to admins", you have yourself stated that "There have been no such further statements probably because...", bordering on assumptions that I almost did it after warning which does not mean anything. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any thoughts regarding how to deal with MangoWong's ludicrous wikilawyering etc? An example already referred to being [such as this one this]. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

Thisthat2011 is topic banned from India-related articles for three months. Basically, he needs to learn how to collaborate with others by practicing on less emotionally-charged (for him) topics first. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal or already decided? Will I be able to log in and follow topics of interest in my watchlist, without edits/discussions - if this can be clarified as well please. I was going to reply of above post by Sitush, but if I am already topic banned, I am not sure if I could. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a proposal. You are entitled to comment on it. A topic ban would not stop you watching but it might stop you from commenting even on indirectly related/unrelated pages. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than introducing a topic ban on ThisThat2011, my impression is that it may be enough to advise them to study the TPG closely and to not to get involved in too many articles at the same time. The way I see it, I think ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints because of not having read, or not having internalized the TPG. Secondly, I think ThisThat2011 has been trying to do too many things at the same time. Spreading oneself too thin does not seem like a good idea to me. Thirdly, I agree that ThisThat2011 be advised to stay away from contentious issues for some time. The way I see it -- getting involved in too many disputes, without having internalized the TPG, spreading oneself too thin--seems to be the reason that ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints. ThisThat2011 may also have become worried because Sitush seems to have been behaving in a way which would suggest that he could get admin support for whatever he wants. This can have an unsettling effect on some folks. Besides this, I would like to be allowed to give some friendly tips to ThisThat2011 on how to formulate comments on the Talkpage. These are already there in the TPG, but still....Having studied the TPG multiple times myself, I think I might able to go some distance there (although I do not see myself as a "master" of TPG, to be clear). Secondly, I too am having complaints with Sitush's behavior. I would request that they too should also be examined.-MangoWong (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You questioned my behaviour here in the thread you started on 22 July and which rambled on for several days. Questioning it again, so soon after a prior thread, seems likely to be tendentious unless you are going to stick to issues which have arisen since that thread closed. However, I will accept with whatever the wider community thinks of this. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

NB: I did mention WP:Boomerang above. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is perhaps a difference between WP:Boomerang and Boomerang. WP:Boomerang is more social than the other one. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MW, it is rather disingenuous that you, of all people, are offering helpful suggestions on TT2011, given that you are the other problematic party addressed in this thread. I would also be quite leery of any offers of yours to mentor folks, as you have a terrible habit of playing Iago and trying to sweet-talk other editors into edit warring for you (most recent example: [23] where he refuses to take his sweeping allegation to ANI, but in the same breath nudges a rather bewildered but well-meaning new editor to go ANI Sitush). For any outside party curious about MangoWong, note the man's Contribution record: he spends almost all of this time wikilawyering on Talk pages, and even on Talk we have barely seen the man offer so much as a citation, or even specific refutation of any citation he disagrees with. All he does it toss around policy names, even when corrected by uninvoled editors for mis-using those policies to push POV points. He also has this obsession with removing the word "Shudra" (labouring class in Hinduism), but rather than discuss the matter professionally will hurl accusations of oppression, ignore all evidence that the term is used by academics, and even refuse to use the word, typing instead "S*****", which I submit casts some doubts on his ability to approach the topic in an NPOV manner (example: [24]). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That I have too many talk page contributions is because I am having a dispute with folks who would go through great lengths to revert citation tags, (tags which they could never provide cites for). Moreover, they have a penchant for irrelevancies and even argue about stylistic issues which can be settled by the MoS. And that newbie was quite frustrated at that time. All his proposals were being rejected for quite some time. He was even being given a week's timeframe for replies (and was expected to wait for that time). etc.-MangoWong (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three months might be too long. I would support an initial three-week topic ban on Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs) from India-related topics, with the clear understanding that he would face stiffer penalties if he went back to his old ways upon his return. Hopefully, the topic ban would force him to work in areas where he is not so emotionally invested, and give him some perspective. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I want to make clear that by "India-related topics," I mean topics that have some bearing on the history, geography, culture etc of the Indian subcontinent. In other words, pushing the antiquity of Indian mathematics in the History of Mathematics article, even if the region of antiquity, such as the Indus Valley Civilization or Mehrgarh), is in present-day Pakistan, will be considered a violation of the topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had the same experience with Thisthat as Fowler, Paul, and Lynch, I would support a three week topic ban (agree that three months seems excessive). This [25] thread at Talk:Mathematics says it all. He made some highly POV edits to the article, they were reverted, he edit-warred, then spammed the talkpage with irrelevant crap. A real time-sink. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that a three week topic ban will do it. Thisthat has been warned and advised on numerous occasions since registering and there has been no change at all in their behaviour. This is one of the latest contributions, which I can make no real sense of at all. However, I will go with the flow provided that Fowler's "stiffer penalties" condition is acknowledged by Thisthat as being serious rather than just some throwaway remark. TT appears possibly to have some difficulties with the language, and so I would like it to be crystal clear. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From my limited interaction with Thisthat at Mathematics articles, I would support Fowler's proposal for a three-week topic ban and for the same reasons. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on extensive experience with TT in a very short amount of time, I would definitely support a topic ban of some sort, but agree with Sitush that TT has a long, long history of this exact behaviour throughout his entire time here regardless of topic. Dig his Talk page, and he's been told the same things for the same misbehaviour the entire time. However, a 3wk India ban would buy Sitush and me some breathing space, and after that I would anticipate WP:ROPE coming into effect more than any real change out of TT. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not opposing the proposed topic ban, I would not see much use for such a topic ban unless it would provide ThisThat2011 an impulse to study the WP:TPG. I don't see much value in a topic ban if it is merely meant to be punitive. Unless things are explained, the same thing is sure to get repeated.-MangoWong (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support for 3 week topic ban. I think we all agree that a punitive topic ban is unacceptable. This issue, though, isn't really punitive; it's the fact that ThisThat2011 is, for one reason or another, not understanding how to properly interact with other users on article talk pages. This behavior is disrupting the ability of editors to improve these articles across a wide ranch of topics (though all within the bigger topic of Indian issues). While I've been a bit on the fence, after looking back at some more work today, I'm inclined to offer support for a three week topic ban on articles, talk space, and user talk space discussions related to India, broadly construed. It would be ideal if TT2K would use this chance to edit other topics and get a feel for what its like to edit in a less disruptive manner. Whether or not xe does that is up to xyr. Upon the expiration of the 3 weeks, TT could come back to India articles, and should xe demonstrate no improvement, it would likely be necessary to extend the topic ban, perhaps indefinitely. It's possible that it would help for ThisThat2011 to have a mentor (before and after the topic ban), though I don't know if anyone would be willing to do it. Note that, MangoWong, you would be an exceptionally bad choice as mentor, given how close you also are to the subject matter; I'm afraid your influence would likely lead TT down the wrong path. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

TT has been referred to the various guidelines on more occasions than I care to remember. It has also been suggested on several occasions that xe might benefit from contributing to articles in which xe has less likelihood of a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, neither of these numerous suggestions have had any impact at all. If a topic ban causes TT to (a) explore other areas of Wikipedia and (b) actually take on board the various advisory comments about behaviour then all should be well. If it doesn't work then TT has a fair idea of what to expect next. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Referring to guidelines is generally not sufficient unless specific points are shown. One is unlikely to find the specific point in a longish guideline. It is also possible that one may ignore to read through the guideline entirely. I don't say that it is good to ignore reading TPG. But it may have happened. And suggestions that eds with an Indian background should entirely stay away from India articles seem "not serious" to me. Nevertheless, I agree that ThisThat2011 should work through WP:TPG. And I was only offering to provide some "friendly tips". Nothing more.--MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide him friendly tips as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I went through the both the Kurmi and Talk:Kurmi pages last night I believe that both user:Sitush (the original poster of this thread) and user:MatthewVannitas are too inextricably involved in the dispute there to be truly objective in their views here. In my view, the overseeing admin here should not factor their posts in the overall decision. I still support a three-week topic ban for user:Thisthat2011. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is up to the closing admin but, frankly, is very peculiar statement to make. Of course we are involved, so were you, so is MangoWong, so is or was practically every person who has commented here. That, surely, is the entire point. This is not an issue about one article, it is an issue that has spread over many, many articles, talk pages etc. - 2.125.226.61 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) That was me, got logged out for some reason and now the edit window looks odd also. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. I was not involved in the India caste-related articles. It is my view of course, but judging from the discussion there, I believe you and MatthewVanitas are not entirely guiltless. You are both pushing for a certain point of view there, and apparently in are in a hurry to see it through. MV says as much in his post above: that three weeks will give him breathing room. This, I'm afraid, is not about his comfort. By pushing to absolutely have "Shudra" in the lead you are unnecessarily stoking the flames. Most academics, by the way, don't consider the Kurmi to be Shudras as you seem to have it in the lead. In any case, I'm aware of the problem now. Whether MangoWong or Thisthat2011 are there or not, you'll have me as a stumbling block if you insist on having "Shudra" in the lead with the kind of shabby evidence you have thus far collected. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Who said it was just caste-related articles? You have said here that you have had unfortunate experience(s) with TT: the issue extends beyond caste articles. As for the content stuff, well, you need to read what has gone on at the specific articles in full, as it seems to me that at least in one instance you have not done so. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the "breathing room" comment was not "let me get my way on Kurmi while he's gone", it was "can turn my back on Kurmi for half a moment to work on other articles without TT2011 demanding attention." Let's leave the content issues at Talk:Kurmi, but hope to see you there. Getting back to behaviour, I would dispute "guilt": Sitush and I are trying to show an array of complexities, TT2011 just likes arguing and MangoWong is convinced that a term that appears in academic literature is too obscene for polite company. Though I'm not perfect, I feel in the right here, but am open to critique. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Another proposal

I don't support that MatthewVanitas and Sitush be barred from India related topics, specially caste related stuff. They have brought forth a very important part of Indian history. Though S and MV have very little knowledge about India, but they will learn overtime. They seem to be engaged in disputes with everyone on India related topics. I would suggest that they work under the supervision of someone like Fowler&Fowler who has a lot of experience about India. Fowler&Fowler can help them improve the articles. I hope that Fowler&Fowler will agree to such a proposal. MatthewVanitas and Sitush want to improve te articles, but due to their limited or no knowledge of the topics they end up damaging the contents. I hope they don't get punished for:

• taking ownership of articles
• biting the new comers
• POV pushing, etc.
• I hope these guys don't get WP:Boombrang.

I know they may not be involved in such practices, but due to their limited knowledge of the topics they seem so. Nair, Yadav, James Tod, Kurmi seem to be distorted beyond recognition. There may be other India topics, but it takes a lot of time to assess the damage. I know they are trying to improve the articles, but are limited in their knowledge. I hope that having a good mentor will help them come up to speed. Qxyrian is another editor who may benifit from such a mentorship. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I too have the strongest impression that the articles have a weird look. They seem to be in complete contradiction with reality. I too have suspicions that ownership has become an issue. And the James Tod article just wont look like unmalicious.-MangoWong (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What?? Okay, be calm, be calm... Let me just try to say this as simply as possible. I have not personally talked to a single editor on Wikipedia who does as much in depth, detailed research as Sitush. Period. I have no idea where either of you got the impression that any sanction against Sitush or MV is in any way recommended by anyone. Saying Sitush (I know less about MV) has "limited or no knowledge" either proves you haven't paid any attention to the article talk pages in question, or are simply being intentionally inappropriate. I've known Sitush to read dozens to hundreds of pages out of books when other editors read only the one paragraph they could see on Google books. A simple glance at Talk:Kurmi demonstrates Sitush showing more intricate knowledge of the sources than everyone else on that talk page combined. While there have been times over the last few weeks where Sitush has come to speak abruptly and strongly, this is only due to the extreme POV warring being carried out, the extremely malicious off-wiki claims, and an amazing amount of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your concerns here, Nameisnotimportant, are extremely misplaced. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify: I'm sure there are other editors who do as much or more research than Sitush. Many of our articles are great and well-researched. I'm simply saying that Sitush is the best I've personally talked to and worked closely with thus far. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Conduct need to be looked into

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing

OK. Please explain this comment by MatthewVanitas - I would caution you against the goading of TT2011 and particularly MangoWong (fresh off a block). MangoWong has shown a clear pattern of trying to get other editors to fight his fights for him; note on Talk:Yadav he makes allegations worthy of an WP:ANI report, but then refuses to make them himself, but encourages you to make one. You'll note MW does very, very little constructive work on articles himself, but hangs about Talk pages adding hostility, and goading others into fights. To make an analogy: he's that guy at the corner pub sidling up to his "friends" and saying "Oi Ted, did you hear what that bloke said about your mother? You're not gonna stand for that, are you???" He's a cheerleader for conflict, and I'm probably remiss in not having an ANI on him already.

Qwyrxian:Please add the appropriate wikipedia policy that has been violated. What do you think of this???? You are an admin.

I am surprised. Admins please take this thing into consideration how MatthewVanitas is going about killing the reputation of two editors. This is gross misconduct. Please look into this serious misbehaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing 

Nameisnotimportant (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer to this specific instance of MW refusing to file an ANI yet encouraging Bill to do so above, and here's the diff again.[26]. If you look at the timestamps, it was this diff which led me to drop in to say hello to Bill and give him overall advice (its in the link you give but not copy-pasted here) including encouraging him not to let MangoWong talk him into filing claims MW had pointedly refused to file himself for whatever reason. I fail to see how this is "killing the reputation" so much as publicly stating concerns about the work of others in the context of telling a new editor that he's walked into the middle of a difficult and heated discussion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush has a long history of saying uncivil things. And you always keep trying to slander others in a direct/indirect way. Lots of users have been driven away by you guys (through incivility, stubbornly refusing to agree to anything, getting block on them etc.) and When I had put up that comment, it was because you had made an apparantly uncivil comment to the new user. I had said what I had said in order to inform the new user that he has protection + to discourage you guys from misbehaving with new users. If I find you saying uncivil things to new users again, I think I will do so again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas - I hope this will help you. I am not sure what all other policies may apply on the sweeping claim made above, but I hope this will not be repeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attack This section seems more relevant :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F

This repeated coming to ANI is becoming a serious drain of time. I hope at least something will be done this time.

I will assume WP:AGF and hope that Sitush and MatthewVanitas will learn from this, and possibly won't do this again. MatthewVanitas: I hope you will retract your statement, and if possible apologies to the editors. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admins: I encourage you to look into this repated behaviour. This is becoming a serious headache now. Fowler&fowler never had any interaction with these guys, still he got the picture crystal clear. Please look at Talk:Kurmi. They are into serious issues with him too. Please do something so that we can get rid of such useless time waste. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can agree a little bit that the message from MV is a little strong, but I don't think it crosses over into being a personal attack (other more objective admins may disagree, though). I think there is a very real concern with MangoWong giving advice to new editors, despite not having a clear grasp on our civility, reliable sources, or neutrality policies; thus, I read MatthewVanitas's comment as a sincere attempt to save a new user from getting bad advice. You're right, this repeated coming to ANI is a waste of time; this would be fixed if editors acted more like Sitush and MatthewVanitas, and less like Mango Wong and Thisthat2011--that is, if they looked at reliable sources, listened when others explained policy to them, didn't keep repeating the same thing over and over again, etc. Also, as always, other users are more then welcome to join us at Talk:Kurmi--i think having more univolved, neutral editors will absolutely help the situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: This reminds me of a famous quote:- 

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about."

I hope that this is not the reason that certain sources are termed as unreliable.

 Qwyrxian: What do you think user:Fowler&fowler was doing? He got involved in this mess because of Sitush. Actually, he is the one who had issues with ThisThat2011, but still he can see clearly. You have concerns that this is bit strong?? For how long things will be swept under the carpet. I have my doubts as to why would you think in such a manner. Anyways, it's crystal clear that gross miscounduct is happening, and things are just being brushed aside. 

It would have been OK if this unreliable sources phenomema was happening on Kurmi, but this is a major concern across all the topics these two editors have got involved into. Why so?

Admins: I have nothing more to add, and I would have not bothered to enter into this if not initiated by Sitush into this. I know nothing will happen to Sitush or MatthewVanitas even if every diff, proof, editor, etc. says otherwise. This entire situation around these articles due to the conduct of certain editors is grim and hopeless. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, aside from the unnecessary bolding, it is encouraging to see a newcomer with such an extensive knowledge of policies and guidelines even if they appear to be being somewhat misapplied. It may even be unique in my own experience, although the misapplication is very similar to that of MangoWong/TT2011 & so perhaps there is some scope to review the wording of the policies to which you refer. I am sorry that you feel myself and Matthew Vanitas are somehow above the system but can assure you that we are not - you either believe that or you do not, but either way it is in fact true. I am unsure where I have "initiated" you into anything. I did notify you of this thread when it started, but that was just a common courtesy. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying that I misapply policy. I don't believe that putting up cn tags in the lead or infobox is wrong. I don't believe trying to use the MoS to settle stylistic issues is wrong. Show me the policy which says so, and you will not see me do it again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The list is pretty long and often convoluted due to the tendentiousness etc. A clear-cut example is this. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Or this to a new contributor, which mis-states things entirely. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Or this which was a complete misunderstanding of 3RR. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The first example which you provided does not seem to be a misapplication of policy to me. I was saying some general things without citing any policy except for WP:CIVIL. I had cited WP:CIVIL because you had asked me to go away from WP, at a time when we had hardly had any interaction. Is it wrong to regard that as a violation of WP:CIVIL. The other things which I said were without citing policies and they were general things. Which policy did I misinterpret? I don't see what could be wrong in the second example. I am trying to show some argument to the new user. What is/is not fringe can be a contentious thing. I even warned the new user about it. It is something which can be decided only after a discussion. Even if my view in that matter be incorrect, I don't think that it is wrong to put up an argument of that sort. If the thing be fringe, we would not need to have it in the article. At least that much should be correct? In the third example, you show the 3RR. I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. After that mistake was pointed out to me, I accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. I did not argue that my reading or interpretation of 3RR is different and that it only is correct. Did I? That is not a misinterpretation of policy. I had accepted my mistake immediately.-MangoWong (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, you want to discount me as 'newcomer. It doesn't take long to figure out such things. Wikipedia is really easy to master, and that's the beauty of it. I won't boast about my IQ level, my scores in standardized tests, or my being an alumnus of one of the top 10 MBA schools, as these are unverifiable claims. Anyways, let's focus into the core policy violations that I have cited. Please feel free to edit my comments if there are issues with bold letters. I hope the issue is not with WP:BOLD. I sincerely wish that we all get back to important stuff rather than wasting time here.

Admins: I hope there is no WP:BOOMARANG for Sitush and MatthewVanitas for endlessly wasting precious time. I hope there is no ban on them for editing India related articles. Mentorship will definitely help them on India related topics. These are reputed editors, just that they seem to have very little grasp on India related articles. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant unnecessary bolding of words/sentences. I won't boast if you won't. <g> - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

I noticed on Alain Chabat that I have reverted the addition of Category:French people of African descent six times over the course of the last three months. The interesting thing is that the edit was made from six different IP's: Special:Contributions/69.118.16.247 Special:Contributions/72.43.218.181 Special:Contributions/96.233.206.47 Special:Contributions/98.15.136.61 Special:Contributions/98.15.136.61 Special:Contributions/76.15.106.121. When I checked other edits from these IP's, I found that each of these IP's was used on a different day for almost exclusively one purpose: to add nationality/ethnicity categories to articles. I think this matter needs looking into. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The negative is that if they are not editing now, we can't action them for anything. IPs are finicky like that unlike registered users. We see IPs changing height and weight in hockey articles all the time (I've had to revert at Nail Yakupov, a rare article submission from me, three times now), but the same problem applies. CycloneGU (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to find out who is making these edits. It seems clear to me that there must be more of this going on, perhaps even every day. This could be the work of a registered editor who prefers to make these edits incognito. Notice, that many of them have been reverted. This editor seems to have certain issues with Wikipedia categorisation based on nationality and/or ethnicity that may be traced back to somebody. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think there is a good case for semiprotection (especially with BLPs), one can make a case over at WP:RFPP - I find semiprotection a better way of dealing with this than IP blocks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, they will not semiprotect in this situation. We're complaining about a single vandal (at a time) on multiple articles. Protecting all of the articles for another vandal attack that could be in three weeks or three days is preemptive and not in practice. CycloneGU (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a long term issue, involving tens of pages about people, and very specific edits. It could be worth our while to get to the bottom of this. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Today we had Special:Contributions/67.82.171.39, doing the same thing. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's going to continue and we can't do anything about it. We protect these articles, next time the IP will go to other articles instead. It's impossible to keep them away. CycloneGU (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser suggests that if this is one person, he's editing from multiple pcs and mobile devices using throwaway IPs from multiple providers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. All the more suspicious. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical question. I sort of understand what you guys (and gals) can do with Checkuser, would, say, a hacker with a small botnet be able to reproduce this behaviour, would you be able to spot that? Oh yeah, to the OP, where are these IP edits coming from? Always the same country? (it's just Alain Chabat is a wierd sort of target, but then again there are so many agendas on Wikipedia we could be a stationer's). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(sorry that joke crossed the cross-brain divide, agenda in French = diary, and Elen I'm still wondering how Homer Simpson ended up being of French descent ;-) ) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Alain Chabat was just the page where I spotted this. Then I checked these users' edits, and found that they targeted some 10-20 articles every time. I feel confident somebody has an agenda here, and I'd like to get to the bottom of this. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Same country, but it's a big one. I dare say it would be possible to program a bot to randomly add categories, I'm not the bot expert. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

They are far from random, usually a step up or down from a specific category that was there before. And many of the categories have to do with the Jewish ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, 1 August 2011

Resolved

Doncram blocked for 3 months by Elen of the Roads — Ched :  ?  14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I reluctantly make this request for an extended block of Doncram for a serious of edits culminating in this one. Recent noticeboard archives are littered with threads related to Doncram's behavior, including plentiful remarks by him about others, as are the sections of WT:NRHP and various related pages. Time and again, Doncram's been brought up for personal attacks and for denominating disagreements as "lies" or those who disagree with him as "liars". The edit that I link above was made in the middle of a section in which he multiple times accused Elkman of falsehoods. Forgive the confusing narrative (perhaps you'll need to read the section to understand what's going on), but Doncram's continued "lies" and "liars" statements were the primary subject of the entire section, and he responded to these claims with comments such as the one I linked above, with statements such as the edit summary of "new accusation of being called lying, seems false." In other words: "you're telling a falsehood when you say that I say you're lying". We've already had too much tendentious editing by Doncram for a very long period of time, and threads like this are severely disruptive of the encyclopedia — among other things, this thread has prompted Elkman to take down a website upon which many of us in WP:NRHP depended, due to the ways in which Doncram has continued to speak. I've already issued Doncram a final warning, but since that time, he's made multiple statements such as what you read above. At the rate things are going, I suspect that someone or another will soon request arbitration. If for no other reason than the improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia, I believe that an extended block is needed. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I took Nyttend's statement about a warning that he links to very seriously. I replied this diff, including (1)I have not characterized Elkman as lying, ever, as far as I know. A lie is a deliberate untruth. Elkman's assertions that I have characterized him as lying, at my Talk page and repeated here, are false however. I think Elkman conceived the idea that I was calling him such during one previous wp:AN episode, when he described a Minnesota article he had developed in a way that I understood as him saying that he had misidentified a person as being an architect in that article. I do perceive the Isabella Ranger Station article as one where he was misled by ambiguous information in NRIS, i.e. that he put CCC into the article in the infobox= field, which I removed, as probably false. He agrees that was probably false, so I don't see why he should take offense. Nyttend seems to have accepted Elkman's assertion that I have characterized Elkman as lying. I believe I have not. Show diffs, or please stop repeating this, both of you."

Nyttend had the last word in that discussion, archived in full at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Isabella Ranger Station, and Nyttend did not choose to provide any diff. Since then, at the wt:NRHP discussion Nyttend links to, Elkman repeated these accusations, and I asked him to show diffs, and the edit that Nyttend leads with here is me responding, fairly I think.

I am not happy about being dragged to wp:AN discussions repeatedly, and don't think it is necessary for Nyttend to have opened this, rather than having responded in the previous discussions. I don't have time for this, but will try to return later to respond if needed. --doncram 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this edit is the one that pushed me over the edge. Doncram has long accused me of not knowing the difference between an architect, a builder, and an engineer. Now, he's accusing me of not knowing the year in which a structure was built, versus the significant year(s) listed in the National Register database. Basically, whenever I fail to use weasel words in an infobox or in an article, I'm being accused of lying. And, since I'm providing a database query tool that others use, I'm being accused of helping other users lie about content. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend's first diff and Elkman's diff are from one current discussion at wt:NRHP, perhaps easier to read completely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Architect vs. builder in the NRHP infobox generator. I don't agree with Elkman's characterization, here. It all relates to previous discussions, yes. I don't know what to say further. Why not discuss it there, in the discussion there. --doncram 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish that Doncram would recognize how his behavior affects other people -- and quit behaving in the ways that the rest of us find so disruptive. The recent three-week-long block kept him off the site for more than three weeks, and I think he has been somewhat more careful not to start battles than he was in the past, but it seems (based on confrontations here and elsewhere) that the time away did not cause him to rethink his behavior. (He has asserted repeatedly, for example in his complaints at User:Orlady/List, that the consensus conclusions of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs were wrong.) Elkman's taking his infobox generator offline ought to have shown him that his behavior has negative consequences, but it seems that it is only producing a new outpouring of words to the effect that he is being misjudged. I'd like to suggest a program of self-flagellation (or maybe self-slapping with a trout) in the public square, but we don't have a public square. Like Nyttend, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking him -- because I would prefer for him to stay at Wikipedia but change his behavior, but I don't think that we have any other effective means of preventing further disruption. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "why not discuss it there" — because everyone who frequents that discussion page lacks the technical right to implement the sanctions that I am requesting, except for people like Orlady and me who obviously are involved. I don't care what terminology you use: when you continually accuse multiple people of falsehoods in their words, it's no different from when you outright say that they're lying, and when you effectively tell them that they're lying when they say that you're calling them liars proves my point — either you just said that, and thus they tell the truth already, or you didn't just say that, and thus you make them true. My "this one" link is an example of the diff that you require; and please note that there's no way for me to continue a discussion if I already have the last word in it. Even if you think you're right in a situation, there's no good reason to persist to the point that another good-faith contributor becomes unwilling to participate: that's most definitely disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. Finally, of course nobody likes being brought to the noticeboards repeatedly; it's simply that your editing patterns have not changed since the previous discussions, and the fact that lots of different people are raising the same issues may mean that the majority of people who pay attention to your editing patterns are disturbed by them. The previous discussions were attempts to ensure that your editing did not go in certain patterns; since those attempts have not worked, I have started a new discussion to seek an admittedly-unpleasant solution that I believe to be the only one that will have a chance of ending this disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From an outsider's point of view, it would be awfully nice not to have to wade through all these Doncram-related threads on the noticeboards, but to do that either Doncram has to change his way of editing, or he needs to be blocked. Of course, multiple threads about a specific editor could just indicate that someone is being ganged up on, but there have been too many editors who have complained about Doncram's modus operandi for that to be the case. In addition, in reading these discussion, I don't believe I have ever seen Doncram admit to being at fault: everything is, from his perspective, caused by someone else's actions. Even without investigating every reported incident, it is extremely unlikely that this can be the case. It is much more probable that Doncram is unable to recognize when he is in the wrong, is unable to see the points of view of other editors, and is unable to change his behavior to alleviate the concerns his editing creates in his fellow Wikipedians. Those are hardly attributes which contribute to collegial cooperation, and therefore not indicative of someone who can fit into the Wikipedia mold.

Having said all that, I'm not convinced that an extremely long block is a good idea at this time. Rather, with the hope that Doncram can still be valuable to the project, I could support a block of a couple of months to give him time to reflect about his way of working and change it when he returns. If he exhibits the same problematic behavior at that time, then I would say a much longer block, perhaps even an indef block contingent on his asking to return with a pledge of change, would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• AFAIK this is my first post to the month after month (... after month, ... after month) perennial Doncram threads at AN and AN/I. While I don't see an individual post or thread that may be worthy of a block, I have to wonder when I see continual posts of "one" editor debating with multiple other editors. Perhaps any individual post is not "disruptive" in and by itself, but the conglomeration is a huge time sink that the project could well do without. The entire Doncram/NRHP subject gives the distinct impression of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is disheartening, and frustrating for multiple other editors on the project. I would strongly suggest that Doncram take a self-imposed hiatus from all things related to NRHP for a minimum of 3 months. I fully credit Doncram for his good faith, and admittedly good efforts to our project "en toto", but I fear at this point a break is indeed required. There are many other areas to work on throughout the project. I fear that if this advice is not adhered to, then indeed a much longer, and much more restrictive solution will be forthcoming. Cheers and Best to all. — Ched :  ?  04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram didn't get much attention, I'd like to see more of the normal dispute resolution steps taken before we go to a long block. However, would a topic ban for a couple of months seems a reasonable middle step? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm planning to submit a request for arbitration. This pattern of behavior has indeed gone on for far too long, and there have been multiple threads on multiple noticeboards with no end in sight. There's no way he would consider taking a self-imposed hiatus or adhere willingly to a topic ban. He'd just come up with a bunch of legalese and protracted policy discussion to explain why he should be allowed to skirt the edges of the ban. Sanctions by individual administrators haven't worked very well in the past; it's only led to larger walls of text and even longer sections at noticeboards. I hardly see where an entry in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct would lead to something more productive and more conclusive than any of the arguments that have already come up in the admin noticeboards and at WT:NRHP. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd be happier with a request for arbitration, more painful in the short run but "stickier" in the long run than if we just decide here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Arb requests take a long time, and can't usually be justified without prior dispute resolution steps. Personally, I'm in favour of blocking him for a couple of months here and now. If he comes back afterwards and does the same thing, we can go to arbcom, but it seems silly to bother them and go through all that rigmarole for something this obviously one-sided. Anyone with me? Ironholds (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think a short block at this point will change anything, except giving the editors who have been trying to clean up after him a chance to get ahead. I think the only thing that has a chance of changing anything going forward will be a full ArbCom case, where the various editors who are familiar with him can explain why they think his editing style is unacceptable, he can provide his evidence for why it improves the encyclopedia and why other people's behavior has been unacceptable, and ArbCom can determine the facts and remedies for all. Failing that, a community ban should be imposed, and I don't know if there's currently consensus for that, and I don't know if anyone who hasn't be following the issues all along is going to read through the wallsotext to decide.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd agree with the idea of a block for three or four months, with the proviso that if that doesn;t work, we've already decided exactly what to do next, so no more lengthy discussions will be necessary. I he comes back after a three-month block and does this again, I'd say OK, straight to ArbCom. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am firmly of the belief that it should not require Arbcom intervention where an overwhelming majority of good faith editors are in agreement that an editor is disruptive. As I have never seen anyone agree that Doncram is not disruptive for a considerable amount of the time (regardless of good work that he does do), I have blocked him for three months to reflect on his approach to editing Wikipedia. As it says on my talkpage, if consensus changes, please feel free to unblock without the need to consult me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

looks like the "topic ban" idea is moot now. — Ched :  ?  14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Article talk page and article both semi-protected indefinitely: 3+ months now.

NOTE: THIS IS ONLY ABOUT UNPROTECTING THE TALK PAGE! Not the article itself.

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher has been semi-protected indefinitely since April 29, 2011. That is three months. The main article page is also semi-protected. This means that no anonymous user can contribute here in violation of Wikipedia policies for three months so far in any way.

I asked for unprotecting on 25 July on RPP and was referred back to the admin that did it three months ago. That admin was unwilling to unprotect as seen here on 27 July.

Wikipedia:Protection#Semi-protection says

"Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time."

Can someone please unprotect this talk page? Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Because valid anonymous editors on a very high profile page are frozen out in violation of policy? Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is seriously going to be considered, then we should also seriously consider the unblock of Trowbridge tim (talk · contribs), which, from looking at the edit history, is the person responsible behind the semi-protection. –MuZemike 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PP. "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy." (Emphasis in original text.) Given the article's high-profile nature and the history of questionable (at best) editing from IP editors, I see more reason to maintain semi-protection than I do to remove it. If an IP editor wishes to make a contribution to that article, they can use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. MoMK needs to remain protected. It has at times been subject to full protection due to the contentious editing there. There has been some recent progress and unprotecting it would only serve to rekindle the fire. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not about unprotecting the aritcle, ONLY the talk page. I also cited that same thing which says Articles AND the talk page should not be protected at the same time. I want the TALK page only unprotected. Not the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Edit_semi-protected is for people to ask for the article to be edited. People can't even edit the talk page to do this. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PP does say "A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." It does NOT say "...may not be protected at the same time" or "...shall not be protected at the same time". If there is a clear administrative concern that calls for both to be semi-protected, admins would be doing less than their duty to not semi-protect both. Given the editing history of the article AND its talk page, it would appear that there is indeed a clear administrative concern regarding the integrity of both. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So for how long do we leave these users out in the cold? Quarter of the year so far. Half a year? A year? Two years? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A few weeks after the appeals process is over. That decision will have everything to do with what direction the article may take. It is currently on track to be decided this autumn.

I have no problem leaving them in the cold. History has shown that they aren't adding anything else to the 'pedia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I echo the sentiments of MuZemike, Berean Hunter and N5iln - seriously, unprotection at this point is a recipe for disaster. The sockpuppet attacks that necessitated the semi-protection included the posting of privacy-breaching information that required immediate oversight. Added to that, there has been quite enough misuse of the talk page even from autoconfirmed accounts; bringing the talk page off semi-protection during such a critical phase is more or less guaranteed to turn it into a swamp of personal attacks and a platform for unconstructive soapboxing. I speak from experience; this article and its talk page have been on my watchlist now for well over a year. The benefits of semi-protection far ouweigh the minor disadvantage of IPs being unable to edit - besides, if an unregistered user has something constructive to offer, they can always fill out an edit request. SuperMarioMan 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this discussion is focusing on one very-high-profile article. Wikipedia has over 3.6 million articles. IP editors are NOT being "left out in the cold". From a perspective of scale, they're being kept away from one very touchy pinhole. Just something to think about... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Leave it semi-protected. If any IP has a brilliant bit of sourced info that needs to be added, it's likely that info will be well enough known that a registered user can enter it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

other indefinitely semi protected article talk pages

This sort of protection is in violation of policy. I just figured out how to check, I think, and nearly no article talk pages semi protected. none of these are supposed to be.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ADisappearance+of+Madeleine+McCann
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ACarl+Hewitt

Anonymous users are supposed to be able to contribute. I wll ring that other admin too. Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From the past history of this, "valid anonymous editors" is a contradiction in terms. The topic area is rife with single-purpose-accounts as it is, and I would be hesitant to open the door to either random IPs or accounts that cannot even meet the ridiculously low threshold of being auto-confirmed. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So our masthead and all that says "anyone can edit" is secondary to our convenience? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. — Satori Son 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there of any other high profile article where we have for a quarter of a year locked out every single anonymous editor from any contribution at all? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would be quite pleased if this is the only article we have ever had to do this with. Just because we are rarely, if ever, forced to take such drastic action to protect an article doesn't make that action inherently wrong. — Satori Son 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember that "anyone can edit" is a double-edged sword; that also means anyone can abuse it, which was clearly been happening here. –MuZemike 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia requires article content to be verifiable and neutral in tone. There's way too much IP editing in the history of the articles in question that is neither verifiable nor neutral. As much as I'd like to assume good faith on the part of every IP editor that shows up on Wikipedia, history and experience have demonstrated otherwise...which is why Wikipedia has administrators and the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I would say it isn't convenience that demands semi-protection remain on these articles, but prudence. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also add, with Talk:Carl Hewitt, Hewitt himself has been significant disrupting that talk page. Unprotecting that page is tantamount to unblocking User:CarlHewitt, because he will sock to disrupt. –MuZemike 20:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(To play Devil's advocate here briefly) I mean, we could try lifting the semi-protection on said talk pages in hopes that those responsible for the disruption have ceased caring. However, I've personally seen that fail more often than succeed. –MuZemike 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These I just put out for discussion and comparison mainly. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if people participating in these discussions would at least pay lip service to the fact that excluding the vast majority of our editors from contributing to a subject is at least regrettable wherever it is actually necessary. Anonymous contributions to Wikipedia are declining faster than registered contributions [27] and that is not a good thing. causa sui (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see more constructive editing by IPs. WP:AGF holds more often than not. The problem arises when feelings run high, as in the case of the MoMK article. Soapboxing, coatracking, and even worse behaviors drown out the actual constructive contributions far too frequently when polarizing issues such as this case arise; even more so when what I call the "professional talking heads" (to most people, they're "pundits") start tossing their speculations around instead of being responsible journalists. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll grant that the worst editors are generally anonymous. We would expect that, since a person who is committed to achieving an agenda in a particular area of intense personal interest would not find it worthwhile to register or become part of the general "community of editors". On the other hand, a great many well-intentioned and prolific contributors to Wikipedia similarly have no intention of making themselves known to anyone on this noticeboard. If you want to see constructive editing by IPs I suggest you do some RCP for a few hours and consider what a terrible thing it would be to, rather than reviewing them individually using our extremely powerful RCP tools like Huggle, punish the innocent with the guilty and revdelete all the IP contributions you find in the stream. Effectively, that is what we are doing when we semi-protect a page for an extended period. I'll grant that sometimes that is necessary, albeit very regrettable, where deleterious IP edits vastly outnumber their constructive counterparts. But it is disheartening to see the idea tossed around that IPs -- real people, many of whom read a lot and don't edit much but have bought our propaganda that they can contribute at the same time as they consume -- need to be tossed aside. causa sui (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disagreeing with you. I haven't kept stats on such things, and I'm not sure anyone else does either, but I'm willing to bet I revert as many registered-account edits with Huggle as I do IP edits. And I'll flat-out state that it's most often the registered-account users who are the most egregious vandals. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the reports at WP:UAA or WP:COIN, either. Bottom line, without IP editors, Wikipedia wouldn't be half the size or quality it is today. But that begs the question: does an admin take the gamble and lift the semi on the MoMK article, talk page, or both, with the very real possibility of having to slap it right back on in just a couple of hours, along with a double handful of RevDels or full-on edit suppressions? Which approach is better for the Wikipedia project as a whole? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I would also like to see some of our more long-term semi-protected pages un-protected if we can. In fact, I know I proposed a couple times that we use pending changes (pardon my profanity) to help facilitate the un-protection of such pages and to see whether or not said pages can remain stable and as free as disruption as possible. However, PC is considered a bad word, mainly due to the chilling effect and stigma it brought upon the community. As a result, we're stuck with the "all or nothing" approach to page protection. –MuZemike 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merrill Stubing is missing a very important fact with regards to the semiprotection of the above pages and talk pages. The choice being made here is not a choice between letting everyone contribute, and letting only registerred users contribute. In these cases, it is a choice between letting registered users contribute and letting no one except the most disruptive contribute. If we unprotect those pages, in this case, we don't make it easier for level-headed, netrual contributions to occur, we make it so NO ONE can contribute in a constructive manner, because the people who wish to disrupt Wikipedia will take over those pages. These decisions are NOT made arbitrarily, and we aren't doing it to be mean or because we hate unregistered users. If there was a way to stop disruption at those pages that did NOT involve semiprotecting them, we'd be doing it. So, why don't YOU propose a solution. You don't like it; how do YOU stop the people who insist on monopolizing those pages and preventing good work from going on? --Jayron32 00:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

An idea: why not temporarily try a sub-page, like users whose usertalk pages have regularly been the victim of IP attacks use? Add a big notice at the top of the page that links (in some bright color) to a second page that isn't semi-protected. Yes, in almost every situation, this would be a terrible solution, because it creates a completely unfair two-tiered system. But we could use this as a temporary solution so that at least it would be possible for IP editors to contribute. Autoconfirmed users would need to monitor that page for 2 things: first, any useful comments should be copied to the main talk page. If the majority of comments turn out to be useful, we would do away with the two-tiered approach and unlock the main talk page. Second, any soapboxing, spamming, or outing would be immediately reverted; if that secondary page is dominated by such, we just shut it down to prevent ongoing problems. Would this temporary approach work as a semi-compromise? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

All this does is shunt the crap out of sight out of mind, like Talk:Muhammad/images does. Just wait until the trial is over, then the Knox-is-innocent offsite advocacy groups won't have anything left to come here and complain about, as she'll either be free or incarcerated for quite awhile. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's not going to do much to stop any blatant disruption, except move it to another place (which is why I don't really use my "non-autoconfirmed talk page" anymore). As far as the trial is concerned, though, who knows when that is finally going to end; it's almost been 3 years now, with no end in sight, and perhaps people (I mean, the public, not necessarily us) are getting rather impatient. –MuZemike 02:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While I am normally a zealous advocate of "IPs are human,"I also am uneasy with the idea of sub-paging, but would agree to it with some conditions. If the problem includes material that needs oversighting then putting it in a less-obvious pile doesn't help, but ff the page had text at the top like "this page is not for general discusion, and is blanked every 12 hours" or wording of that sort, and if anything other than direct edit-protected requests are indeed blanked (or revdel-ed, even). And this could be a time-limited trial, defaulting to "stop doing it unless consensus says otherwise." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be vastly preferable and would watchlist the subpage. causa sui (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that a subpage wasn't already tried, I thought it was the norm for mid to long term semi protected talk pages. Isn't there even a template for that sort of thing? Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

thank you. This is all perfectly plausible as explanations go. Herp Derp (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a temporary block of 74.177.46.240

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Penwhale. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP has removed the PRODBLP tag from Mar Contreras five times and removed from Fabián Robles three times. They have been warned twice on their User talk:74.177.46.240 page. Bgwhite (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

There is a disagreement at User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 (permanent link) about whether Timeshift9 (talk · contribs)'s recreation of User:Timeshift9 with blog-like material is in violation of the closes of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. I asked Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), the MfD closer, to review the situation. He wrote:

I'm on my semi-annual one-month admin tools break due to travel. That said, it does look pretty bad to me, and even if he didn't quite cross the line he's definitely deliberately pushing its limit, which isn't good. A "drama board" posting, as Spartaz put it, looks like a good idea before another MfD if needed.

Spartaz (talk · contribs), the DRV closer, wrote:

I think this is probably more Tim's field then mine. I tend not to involve myself too closely in editor behaviour issues because I really suck at that side of the admin role but thanks for the heads up. I'll watch what happens closely. I'd be tempted to blank and protect but that's quite an extreme action for a user talk page so I'm inclined to this going to a drama board for a discussion. Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else.

Would uninvolved admins and users review the user page and determine whether {{db-repost}} is applicable to the page or whether, as suggested by Spartaz, the page should be blanked and protected as an alternative? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The only substantive difference I see in the old and new versions is that the new one is "better written", and a little less polemical. But it's still an extended diatribe on a specific political point of view, which both the MfD and the DRV confirmed are not appropriate for a user page. This doesn't technically fall withing db-repost, as the text is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Nonetheless, Timeshift9 can't just keep recreating this political speech until xe manages to get a version past MfD. In other words, this could be taken to MfD, but it the community shouldn't have to argue the same basic point over and over again. For a userpage, some userboxes with xyr political positions, a few selected quotes...heck, even a paragraph of argumentation, I could handle...but this is far beyond that and clearly within the same general realm which caused and sustained deletion last time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm...wouldn't this fall under WP:NOTBLOG? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the MfD and DRV were both somewhat ambiguous, and that the user has waited some time and made some effort to address concerns, I think it should be sent to MfD. A not very dissimilar case currently at MfD is here. I think this is a matter of uncertain boundaries, for a contributing Wikipedian’s self-introductions tending to bloggy soapboxing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe another MfD is desirable. The community, in both the MfD and DRV, has rejected the content which violates WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Repeated recreations and repeated MfDs to exhaust the community's patience are unacceptable. The admin who initiated the first MfD was unfairly accused of "harassment and wikihounding", as well as "harang[uing]" User:Timeshift9. The admin was then threatened with an arbitration case.

User:Surturz/AdminWatch (WebCite) was created for admins involved in the MfD who initiated, participated, and closed the deletion discussion. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) were both asked whether they were open for recall. Support for defending the user page was requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics.

Owing to the sustained campaign to allow the repeated recreation of this inappropriate content and threats against those who have supported deletion, I ask that the page is dealt with without another contentious MfD. The page undoubtedly meets the spirit, if not the letter, of {{db-repost}}. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cunard, thank you for bringing this here, especially seeing as Gorilla is gone for a few days. First, the userpage is really unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor; Timeshift probably needs to move to a de minimus userpage. Second, Gorilla has been accused of "harrassment" and being a sockpuppet (or purposely colluding with sockpuppets) along with a threat of being dragged to Arbcom, all of which are plainly ridiculous. User:Orderinchaos, who is an admin, needs to cool it down. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just deleted that AdminWatch page under WP:ATP. It was only there as a threat, or at the least, intimidation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So any attempt to defend Timeshift9's user page is seen as contravening rules? why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position, but if I simply ask for involvement of editors at WT:AUSPOL I get hammered? How is it intimidation to ask whether admins are open to recall? An admin can block me with the click of a button, but for me to get an admin recalled would require WP:CONS and assent by the recalled admin - I think the assertion that I as an editor can in any way intimidate admins grossly misrepresents the power relationship here. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked, and except the wall-of-text feel to it, the actual content was much better than the version that was MfD'd. Granted, I -think- this is better suited for a sub-page that Timeshift can link to (instead of having it on his main user page), but that can be discussed. If you don't like it, Cunard, MfD is the way to go. {{db-repost}} won't work, as the material is vastly different than what was deleted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition... if this gets worse, then the community (or ArbCom) would need to look at related user conduct. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk p. if I'd open an MfD as a relatively uninvolved ed., but I think the improvement in this version is a good sign, and we should simply suggest he move it to a subpage , /Politics, and let the matter rest whether he does or does not. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection to User:Timeshift9 is primarily because the page contains the similar blog material and BLP-violating content rejected in the previous MfD. Save for this page being much shorter, I do not see an improvement. Moving the content to a user subpage would not resolve that. I have had no prior involvement with Timeshift9. In response to DGG's comment here, GorillaWarfare, not I, was accused of wikihounding Timeshift9. I became involved to notify Spartaz and Timotheus Canens to enforce the community's decision in the MfD. They have deferred it to the community, where all the uninvolved users save for yourself support initiating an MfD. Because I contacted the MfD and DRV closer, and because of the accusation by Surturz ("why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position"), I considered you to be a better MfD nominator. Instead of irrelevant discussion about editor behaviors, participants could focus on the applicable user page policies. I maintain that this inappropriate content must be dealt with. Would Qwyrxian, N5iln, SmokeyJoe, Penwhale, or The ed17, who support initiating an MfD, start one? You five are relatively uninvolved and a nomination by one of you will ensure that the debate is not tainted by discussion about users' conduct. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see an MfD initiated mostly because this discussion here, and on the user's talk page, would be better focused in an MfD. My general position is that if there is any reasonable dispute of the applicability of a speedy criterion (with exceptions), then the matter should go to XfD. (See the current discussion at WT:CSD). I think cunard is probably, but not certainly, right. The community may decide that the less bloggy userpage is within reasonable leeway. Years ago, it would. Over the years, Wikipedia has matured/hardened. Personally, I'd prefer to ignore non-effensive transgressions unless it causes trouble. However, I'd rather participate in a debate about policy and whether the page is OK than debate behaviours such as wikihounding. My ideal outcome? As per Surturz (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) paraphrased, "Shifty should [...] move the commentary to an off-WP blog site" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the people who want to discuss it will decide. I just add this to the list of examples that if you ask my advice or help, you will get what I think appropriate, which may not be just what was expected. And I think thats pretty true generally, at least at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that each user has his or her own perspective about a topic and interpretations of policies. As Spartaz wrote in his reply to me: "Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else." Cunard (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Timeshift is using his userpage as a blog. This is not encyclopedic content, it is only a microscopic fragment of Timeshift's ideological stance and thus give us little insight into any prejudices or biases he may have as an editor; it is a weak substitute for starting a real blog, and is in pretty blatant violation of the community consensus about his prior pseudo-blog. Like the previous version, my concern is not BLP but rather WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you want to opinionate about politics in Oz, do so in a real blog, not on our servers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alecmconroy

User has taken a break, let's leave it for now. --John (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all. The other day, I received a snide and threatening message from User:Alecmconroy. While the basis of the message was with regards to an unnamed deleted image, I felt the message was more of an attack directed at me than it was a request for clarification, so I dismissed it as a threat/sordid message I routinely receive from disruptive users. However, today, I received yet another threatening/condescending message from the aforementioned user. Within a few minutes, he attacked me yet again at a BRFA for a proposed bot of mine. At this point, I looked into the user's contributions and made several highly disturbing finds. Alecmconroy attempted, in bad faith, to nominate one of my uploads, and one of Masem's (he had a dispute with Masem earlier) uploads at FfD. Furthermore, as demonstrated in this dispute, he has a backwards and egregious misunderstanding of how media file policy and copyright is enforced around here, and is more than willing to disrupt the project to prove his point (e.g. attempts to change WP:NFC - when reverted, he is willing to edit war to keep it in). That said, I would like to respectfully delegate this issue to the community so that appropriate action may be taken to prevent further damage to the project by User:Alecmconroy. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 05:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC) There's a much larger context here, as always. In any case, I won't repeat any of the above behaviors or seek out the specific individuals. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Add to the above the upload of File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011thb.jpg, a non-free image reduced to a ridiculous degree so as to make it completely useless, obviously another WP:POINT attempt to lead NFC policy ad absurdum. This behavious really does need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I added a higher quality image that was deleted as 'not-free'. I made a very low quality one to see if that stuck. Again, note I didn't insert it into an article. Blurred images are not 'absurd' they're used in criminal cases all the time. What we have here is not an intimidating rogue user-- we have some major changes in how people are interpreting longstanding policy, and it's generating lots of confusion. If our struggling for clarity looks absurd or 'intimidating', there's a deeper reason. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Nothing has changed in NFC policy in the past several months, maybe even years, save for the actions of Delta, and that's only to the vigor to which NFC is managed. News press images used without direct commentary on the image have long been disallowed (since at least 2007). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Confirming Fastily's assessment wrt to me: Alecmconroy removed an image and then subsequently AFD'd it, but later described that they didn't want to see the image deleted (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 2 (first one, it looks like). Clearly trying to pick a battle in the WT:NFC but extending it elsewhere. Prior to today, I didn't have any interaction (that I'm aware of) with the editor. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) User:Alecmconroy just attempted to inappropriately change the title of this thread here -FASTILY (TALK) 06:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC) and do you seriously feel intimidated by me, Fastily? Do you, an admin with years of experience, feel 'intimidating' is an honest and fair summary of my discussion today? A text conversation between strangers and I'm "intimidating" you? If that's somehow true that I 'intimidated' you, I do owe you an apology. If I just bug you, you owe me an apology for conflating violence with debate. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC) duplicated posts collapsed here The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Add to the above the upload of File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011thb.jpg, a non-free image reduced to a ridiculous degree so as to make it completely useless, obviously another WP:POINT attempt to lead NFC policy ad absurdum. This behavious really does need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I added a higher quality image that was deleted as 'not-free'. I made a very low quality one to see if that stuck. Again, note I didn't insert it into an article. Blurred images are not 'absurd' they're used in criminal cases all the time. What we have here is not an intimidating rogue user-- we have some major changes in how people are interpreting longstanding policy, and it's generating lots of confusion. If our struggling for clarity looks absurd or 'intimidating', there's a deeper reason. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Nothing has changed in NFC policy in the past several months, maybe even years, save for the actions of Delta, and that's only to the vigor to which NFC is managed. News press images used without direct commentary on the image have long been disallowed (since at least 2007). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Well, the talk page disagrees. People forgot 'guidelines' aren't WP:OFFICE. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You just tried to justify your POINTy upload to Future Perfect as if it were a sincere endeavor...but it contains this line from you, "The project is dying, and people who delete images over copyright paranoia are A part of why we are dying." That is disruptive and doesn't help the project at all. How many new users might see that? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry-- expressing opinions isn't disruption. As for the dying-- that's not my prediction, that's in the numbers. If we stomp on newbies and delete their work, they won't stay here. If you look at the numbers, the exodus has already begun, don't take my word for it. We reverse that trend by holding a mirror up to ourselves-- by having this discussions over guidelines and how they apply to specific images. The discussions that ensue may be contentious, but they're not a disruption unless you choose to make them into one. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC) User:Alecmconroy insists on keeping a badly formatted duplicate copy of this thread [28] below. I'm going to stop reverting him lest I should breach 3rr. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry bout the formatting. Edit conflicts where text disappears just get the text added right back. But not trying to be intentionally 'badly formatted' about it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I didn't want to see any images deleted, I merely believed the guideline as currently written required its deletion. There's a difference. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You likely need to review WP:POINT to understand what not to do when you dispute a guideline. Enacting the negative action to demonstrate a point is a textbook example from that. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion is not disruption. That it proved my point about fair use is just sauce for the goose, there was no disruption to Wikipedia. If I momentarily disrupted Fast's controversial deletion spree by forcing him to discuss them, I take solace that his is not Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Block suggested for Alecmconroy This user has clearly been harrassing Fastily. Having made an unholy mess of this report, which he refused to cleaan up himself, he made a bad faith report at WP:AN3. He attempted to archive that report himself with a bad faith personal attack on Fastily.[29] In addition he tried to close this report on his own conduct.[30] I suggest some form of block for this ongoing disruption. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Support Please. Excessive violations of WP:POINT, WP:NPA. After all this, the user is still attempting to defend their actions. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I do defend my actions. Fastily behaved unwisely and rudely to me, I felt offended, and I sought ample discussion to alert the community to the problem. I've been threated with a block for 'poor formatting' once today by the admin I was in a dispute with me-- if you want to threaten me with a block for mere discussion too, I must confess to being little desensitized to threats of blocks and bans at this point. I did nothing wrong, and if I was incivil, it was extremely mutual. --Alecmconroy (talk) You have continued unjustified personal attacks, the latest being in response to an explicit warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise which you copied to his user talk page.[31] The disruption is meanwhile continuing elsewhere with edits like this.[32], refactoring the comments of others. This needs to stop. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Mathsci, this conversation is unlikely to serve any useful purpose. If you feel I have truly unfairly maligned Fastily, you may refer the matter to Arbcom which I will accept as a authority. If they conclude Fastily could, indeed, have blocked me for formatting, if they concluded made bogus claims about my upload, then I will apologize. If we don't block over good-faith formatting errors, if my complaints to 3rr and FFD were sincere not trolling, and if my uploads were made in good-faith, then Fastily will owe me an apology and a resignation. I doubt arbcom will have the time and I doubt Fastily would care to take the risk. But if you want a 'justice' from this, that's the direction you should look. In practice, it'll be a long time before I upload an image to EnWP again and perhaps it's time to find a new hobby. It's been a good decade. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You have disrupted WP to make a point. Your actions, including continued personal attacks and taunting, can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator. I have no idea why you mention ArbCom, before you have even attempted most forms of DR. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I mentioned it since you accused me of a personal attack without investigating the facts. You want me gone, I'm basically gone already. If you want me to apologize, you need someone I trust to convince me I was incorrect in my facts. And I don't inherently trust self-selected groups of admins. The outcome will be you will block me or ignore me or else I'll wind up deleting my account or ignore you. I will go on with my life creating, you will go on deleting, people will keep getting mad at you time after time after time after time until eventually they go somewhere you won't bother them. This is not a personal attack. This is not a disruption. This is a discussion about openness. If you don't like how I discuss things, take comfort in that our paths will likely never cross again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecmconroy (talk • contribs) You have repeatedly accused Fastily of lying (see the diffs above) and that is a personal attack / harrassment. One instance of that was redacted by FPaS on WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Yep. If he says I've been acting in bad faith in my discussions at other pages, that's a problem. If he says he can block me for 'formatting errors', that's a problem. The heading accuses me of near-criminal acts, that's a problem. If someone wants to redact those facts, I won't edit war over it. If someone wants me to retract those claims, file a RFAr. If you want me to go away, just be quiet and you'll probably get your wish. Why the continued questions? Are you hoping to mediate a resolution or merely to goad me into a satisfying block? You don't seem like the latter type, but it's not unknown on wikis. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Please take into account the warning from FPaS and de-escalate matters. That just involves toning down your language, dropping the accusations of lying and not mentioning ArbCom. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Oh please. Strong oppose to blocking alecmcconroy. This is ridiculous. Fastily, considering the work you do in the image deletion department (even, recently, right down to a daring request for deletion of Bishzilla's portrait..!, which fortunately you had to ignominiously withdraw after a snowball KEEP reaction), I would have thought you'd expect people to get a little hot under the collar sometimes. Perhaps it's unfair, but surely it comes with the territory? And as Alec says, you're a big strong admin, are you really that easily intimidated? And incidentally, no, Alecmconroy's attempt to change the title of the thread to something neutral was not inappropriate at all, see the instructions at the top of this page: "New threads should be started under … an informative title that is neutral." You yourself gave the thread an inappropriate, attack-mode title, and then you complain when Alec makes it strictly neutral. Are you that unfamiliar with ANI etiquette? To all: you're dealing with a useful long-time contributor in an extremely heavy-handed way, and I'm sorry to see it. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC). PS. I've supplied a neutral title for the thread, per the ANI page instructions. Please don't revert me, it's not right. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC). Well, no, we probably don't need to block Alecmconroy at this point, as long as he heeds the warning and doesn't continue with the image disruption. But, Bishonen, I must strongly object to your suggestion that this kind of behaviour just "comes with the territory" and that those of us admins who do image work should be expected to simply put up with it. No, no, no. Nobody did any harm to Alecmconroy. He made two or three poorly thought-out non-free image uploads; they were deleted through two regular FFDs; they were both extremely obvious, open-and-shut cases and it was all his own fault because he hadn't worked out the copyright status properly and lacked understanding of NFC policy; and most importantly, Fastily was merely the admin who happened to call the obvious consensus closure on those two FFDs. From there, Alecmconroy launched into a ridiculous spree of personalizing the whole matter into a conflict with Fastily, hounding him across multiple unrelated venues with insulting and belittling comments, and ended up with a rampage of WP:POINT moves. No, we should not excuse such behaviour so easily and dismiss it as simply somebody "getting a bit hot under the collar". If he is now offended enough to consider leaving, that's a pity, but I don't see anything "heavy-handed" about the way he was treated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC) This. My involvement simply started from trying to explain the legal and philosphocial relationship between Fair Use, the Foundation's Resolution on non-free content, and en.wiki's NFC, with the point that we cannot change what the Foundation laid out. This subsequently led to the questionable remove and deletion of my image. Now, if Alecmconroy came out earlier and wonders why his press photos were being deleted, several steps in the process could have been removed including avoiding this situation. Instead , as I see what led up to that, he was basically being retalitory due to images being deleted including disruption of others work (outside of talk pages). I don't think the block is needed now, but certainly there needs to be reminder that such actions are completely uncalled for, and if there is a legit grip with the reasons for removal of non-free content we can try to discuss it but our hands our tied to a degree by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not blameless here-- I've realized that this is a testosterone environment and have slowly adapted against my nature to work in it. I hope I'm not as bad as the portrait Fut paints, but I'd be the last person to know if I was. I can't speak intelligently about me, that's for you all to do. But the fair use deletions-- something has gone wrong here. I sense we'd rather delete an image than fix its tags. I sense that fair use is being used as leverage in pov-wars, with people using fair use to kill pics they oppose on pov grounds. We are clearly demoralizing huge swatchs of people with fair use deletions. Most of all, I suspect we're crippling our very own articles by this. When we can't show a picture OF testimony in a democratic government that has a semi-public license in a section all about that person giving that testimony-- something's broken somewhere. This should be an easy common-sense decision for us at the copyright level. Are we really having to argue over whether "The Sum of the World's Knowledge" can include historic pictures of legislative bodies? Whatever guidelines we use are failing the common sense test. an admin to intentionally deleting an image of parliament is almost like a reductio ad absurdum of how wikipedia bureaucracy can go crazy -- the mere fact that it happens is a red flag. The fact that it seems to be happening to others is a bigger flag. And then, of course, "cause we said so" just doesn't work on wikipedia. If you can't explain, in common sense, why something should be, people just argue about it until a consensus or a fight breaks out. Lots of people quoted me guidelines with obscure codes they know by heart... but nobody could explain why the article would be better if we deleted the picture... nobody even tried.... and that means something's broken, aside from just me. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Not often I agree with Bishonen, but oppose block for the moment, as this clearly needs to Go to RfM/RfAr, as neither side is showing signs of backing down. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 10:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) For my part, I'm not 'backing down', but I'm one night's sleep away from a good vanish. I don't expect this to go to RFAr-- they're too busy already-- the last thing they need is to see a two-bit php programmer who spends more time on code than content. I 'offered' to go through an RFAr if someone really wants an apology from me. I'm not 'backing down', but i'm not obsessed with getting an apology either. I don't need one-- I'm basically content to vanish-- it'd probably be good for my career :) The bigger issue is that if you obsessively delete fair use images whenever justifiable, people won't contribute images anymore. If you threaten people with bogus blocks, most people won't know it's BS, and they'll think we're ruled by tyrants. The "Fair Use Jihad" has to end, or we might as well all just move to Wikia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You appear to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia has similar goals and constraints as Wikia. This is utterly false. I understand you're upset about the removal of non-free content. But, we are not going to liberally include non-free content as Wikia does, no matter how upset you become. The WP:NFCC policy is deliberately strict, and Wikia has no equivalent on any of its projects to my knowledge. You assail Fastily for his deletions as part of a "fair use jihad". Yet, his actions are perfectly in line with the ideals of this project. If you can't grok our reason for being here, then perhaps it is best you take your talents to one or more Wikia projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I perhaps would not have been quite so blunt as Hammersoft above, but I must admit that the "Fair Use" or NFCC subject is indeed a contentious area at Wikipedia. I don't see that really changing much unless or until we stop using NF material all-together to be honest. On the other hand, I think perhaps Fast is being a bit overly sensitive here as well. It's perfectly understandable when an editor goes to great lengths to provide good faith offerings to the project that they will be upset when their material is deleted. I think that a "thick skin" is required with the territory we're discussing here, and I can't really see any violation of WP:NPA at the moment. Per the honorable Ms. Bishonen above, I am opposed to any block at this time. — Ched :  ?  14:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I mostly agree, though I don't think it's inevitable that NFC usage (and removal) will always generate ill will. Without casting any aspersions on whatever Fastily did or how he did it (I haven't checked any diffs and so only have Alecmconroy's irate characterizations to go by), NFC rules have often been enforced in a very heavy-handed way that is contrary to the general spirit of the project, such as through mass taggings and deletions, removals of images for easily curable procedural violations, etc. It seems that Alecmconroy genuinely doesn't understand the reasons underlying NFC policies, and invoking the Foundation doesn't help with that, but instead just adds to the authoritarian taint that has long been associated with NFC "enforcement." There are some very simple and pragmatic reasons why we don't push everything to the limit of legal fair use, and patiently explaining those would go a lot further towards defusing the hostility. We also need to show more sympathy for the work someone tried to put into to locating useful non-free images, even if ultimately we can't or shouldn't use them, rather than acting like traffic cops. Probably a good idea for anyone working in any policy-specific administrative area is to rotate around, spend some time starting or expanding articles or uploading images, rather than just doing that one administrative thing. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I would strongly recommend that before anybody jumps into the old "those evil mass NFCC enforcers" complaint routine, they should make themselves acquainted with the facts of this case. This wasn't even a matter of NFCC enforcement. Alec uploaded two images with mistaken copyright declarations. They were nominated for FFD on copyright, not NFCC, grounds by an unrelated third party. The fact that a fair-use rationale as an alternative wouldn't be able to rescue the images was mentioned but played a subordinate role in the discussion. Alec was duly notified of the FFDs, was actively editing while they were running, but chose not to participate. Both parallel discussions resulted in an obvious delete consensus, which Fastily merely carried out as a matter of routine. Alec then jumped on him without even taking notice of what had been said at the FFD, as if Fastily had made a unilateral undiscussed decision. No, I'm not willing to show more "sympathy" for people in such situations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC) "They were nominated for FFD on copyright, not NFCC grounds". That's the whole point. You should be taking an image request and finding an image. When users find an image on their own, you have to help them classify it properly. You have to fight for the good of the article. If I'm your problem, problem solved. If deletions are the problem, like all the talk page complaints suggest, then your problems have only just begun. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) If an image can't be fixed, it's supremely irrational to expect of admins to fix it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

31.47.14.109 and BLPCAT

Resolved

 – IP blocked by John. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a short block may be necessary to get the attention of Special:Contributions/31.47.14.109. They have been adding information to the religion attribute in the Bashar al-Assad infobox that doesn't comply with WP:BLPCAT over and over and over again. As you can see from User talk:31.47.14.109 they've been given multiple warnings about this. I gave them a final warning yesdterday. There's a discussion section on the article talk page Talk:Bashar_al-Assad#Shia_or_not_Shia. The IP hasn't commented there. We've also put a prominent comment in the article to alert editors that the entry needs to comply with BLPCAT. The IP even removed that here. I hesitate to call the IP's edits vandalism because there's really no dispute that Assad comes from the Alawi community so from the IP's perspective adding religion = Alawite probably seems uncontroversial. It's apparent that it is much more difficult to find a BLPCAT compliant source that actually supports that. Assad self-identifying his religion as Islam is the best that I've managed to do. A short block and a few words from an admin are probably needed to get the IP to stop and understand that his edits have to comply with BLPCAT. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone ? The IP is still making the same edits. They aren't going to stop unless someone stops them. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. --John (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter's Signature

Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has flat-out stated that he's not interested in changing his signature, so I've brought this here. I asked him to refrain from forcing a new line every time with his signature as it unnecessarily added to the length of his comment. Essentially every time he comments in a discussion it is +1 line over what anyone else would generate. He comments 10 times in a discussion that's +10 lines of scroll just for his signature. His justification for this is that if he doesn't do it, his signature will sometimes "break". On the off chance that the comment he's written ends up putting him at the exact right spot at the side of the page, his signature will be split in two, and we couldn't have that.[33]. As pointed out at Wikipedia:SIG#Length Signatures have to avoid being long both in appearance and code. His signature gives undo prominence to his comment by making it longer than another editor making the same comment, and disrupts discussions by adding unnecessarily to their scroll. When I informed him of this, his response was to blank the conversation [34], which tells me he's got no interest in cooperating over this. This is a user who, otherwise, maintains extensive archives.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent consensus seems to be that a single line break in a sig is fine. I don't see a problem with it myself. 28bytes (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Linebreaks and the discussion on the talk page where they were told to take it would suggest otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread shows no consensus to force an editor to abandon the use of a single line break. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And it shows no consensus not to either. And taking each case as it comes, Berean hunter's reasoning for placing the line break is only because he doesn't want to "break" his signature in the off chance that the line length is within a very narrow window. In other words, he's constantly causing unnecessary scroll, placing his signature in a position of prominence on every edit for the tiny chance that his comment might fit a certain width on any given edit.--Crossmr (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not something to be overly concerned about. I agree that it's a little bit annoying and would prefer it if there weren't line breaks in sigs if only for consistency. However, it's only a minor issue and I don't think that you should let it worry you. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen worse. At least (1) it's got a link and (2) it's in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) FYI, if he replaces any space(s) in his signature with   it won't break no matter where it ends up on a page (I do that in mine), so he wouldn't need to add a linebreak to avoid that anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• The whole "unnecessary scroll" argument is silly, especially considering improvements to readability and ease of identity. It's just a weak rational to go dragging people into a dispute about, regardless.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Really? If he's heavily involved in a discussion, and commenting frequently he could significantly increase the physical size of the debate. There is nothing more silly then making a long discussion even longer simply because he doesn't want to fix/change his signature. As his defence raised for not changing it is weak at best, and the fact that Coren has now pointed out that he could change it so that it would prevent his signature from breaking, I can't see any reason he shouldn't remove the line break. And as someone pointed out they actually find your signature makes it harder to identify the poster. In a place where the signature pretty much always follows the comment, setting it apart actually breaks that expectation and makes it harder to identify. Yours is the same.--Crossmr (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Crossmr, find some encyclopedic content to work on, would ya? sheesh.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  What's to stop the user from simply hitting enter after making a comment, before their signature? It would have the same visual effect and is considered perfectly acceptable under our policies. The writing style of separating paragraphs with double newlines as opposed to single ones seems to have a much more significant impact on page length than a newlined signature. On readability and expectations, I think I'd be stating the obvious that it's a subjective matter. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Doing so in a threaded discussion like this will end up causing the signature to left-justify totally throwing it out of place, now if he then added the indents to line it up properly it would look the same, the problem is, it would still go against our guide-lines, whether one does it manually or makes it an automatic part of the signature. While double lines over single lines do contribute to the scroll as well, there is no getting around the fact that these two users are increasing the size of discussions with the use of their signatures, and for no reason. Just above we've got ohm's law giving us a whole 2 lines on a very short, and honestly unhelpful, comment. What it really boils down to is that we've got users who are unnecessarily trying to force prominence on their signatures and comments and in doing so inconveniencing other users in a variety of ways, both in increasing the physical size of the discussion and as someone else already pointed out causing confusion in trying to find out who it is that wrote the comment. This kind of signature creation also comes across as a little WP:MYSPACEY especially when combined with the utter refusal to change it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gagik Tsarukyan

Gentlemen, can I use information about Tsarukyan's very popular nickname from "The Times", Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, The Moscow Times and Routledge books? Erik1987ghazaryan deleting this info as wandalism.

In Russian Wiki Erik1987ghazaryan is a sockpuppet of two another accounts (see Russian Wiki Requests for checkuser). Razbirzti Guru (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you couldn't; I've reverted Erik1987ghazaryan, since English Wikipedia policy doesn't support his claims. However, please be careful to follow the instructions: you must notify someone whose actions you're discussing by leaving a note at their talk page. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Razbirzti Guru (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011

An IP-hopper carrying a grudge has taken to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011 to add frivolous checkuser requests against La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is in conflict with the IP. This IP was amongst those listed in the original report (filed by me), and I'm quite surprised it wasn't blocked (even for a short time) based on behavioural evidence. I have to log off now, but I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes or two. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have said many times I am on dynamic IP which is not within my control if it flips. Seeing how she likes to accuse people of sockpuppetry, why was La goutte de pluie's case of using sockpuppets to revert edits never brought up? evidence here and here202.156.13.11 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your IP is a StarHub IP; StarHub changes addresses every few weeks, not every few minutes. Your explanation is suspicious. In any case, I would have blocked the IPs (if not for behavioural conduct) for 3RR, but I would rather not use my tools since I am involved in the dispute. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:186.211.99.74 Edit warring

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Reaper Eternal. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

186.211.99.74 is still disruptive editing on the page The Eternal Idol. Still reverting after the final warning I gave to him. Should we give him an only warning, or a block? Also, I'm going to request a Page protection of that page. If you have any concerns, please reply here. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal beat me to blocking him. If he's the only IP editor causing problems, you won't get page protection, as blocking him will stop it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Lloydbaltazar

Resolved

 – User blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violation by Satori Son. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Lloydbaltazar#5th_warning_WP:3RR_on_separate_pages speaks for itself, although the user does not. User is non-responsive to a long list of warnings by several editors. Has crossed WP:RR, and keeps going. There is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lloydbaltazar History2007 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the welcome message on his talk, this has been going on since 2008. It's time for someone to give this person a clue. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure: do you mean to say "Has crossed WP:3RR, and keeps going"? Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that he has crossed WP:4RR now and keeps going. You can count it too. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is all the time wasted by all the other editors reverting him, discussing it & the time posting warnings, etc. And the user is the definition of "non-responsive". This just eats time from other editors that could be put to better use. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given the account a 48-hour block for blatant and extensive edit warring. — Satori Son 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can the AFD for Tropang Hudas 13 be reopened, speedy/recreation problem?

Can this AFD, which was cut short earlier today, be reopened? The article was speedied on request from the creator/principal contributor, then almost immediately recreated. Assuming there's no important difference between the current and previous version, it would be more efficient to resume the AFD, which had been running for several days, than to restart the process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did so, with my reasoning for deletion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As the closing admin, I have no objections to reopening the previous AfD. I merely closed it because the page creator had asked for a G7 deletion. Apparently, I was fooled... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

G-Zay user conduct

I have had various encounters with G-Zay, and have followed the edits long enough to think his contributions won't work out with that attitude: namely tendentious editing, adding original research, giving undue weight and going against community consensus. Just a few examples:

• Original research on Hiroyuki Ito: Following continuous notices ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) that sources will be needed for the designer's involvement in Rad Racer, Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy II, G-Zay keeps re-adding the unsourced content back to the article ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]), out of some personal fondness for him. Usually waiting a few weeks to make the edits go unnoticed.

• Edit warring on Final Fantasy XII: G-Zay keeps re-adding review scores despite consensus on the talk pages of the article and the project not to do so: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] (again waiting several weeks to conceal his most recent edit from the opposing editors).

• Adding original research/edit warring on Square Enix. Removed sourced content and added unsourced speculation. Undid multiple edits by users that told him to include sources ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]).

• Adding original research or misleading/interpreted sources: G-Zay usually uses sources that do not confirm the statements he adds to articles. For example Final Fantasy X-2 (not in source, unsourced, unsourced, not in source), where he sourced the development team with an Edge article that does not even mention the development team. Also used for Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy XIII. Again done after several notes to provide reliable sources.

• Unverifiable speculation and undue weight: Makes a big effort to put unconfirmed/wrong designers in articles for unreleased games, either unsourced or with misleading sources, such as in Final Fantasy XIII-2:
  • adds Toriyama and Sekito unsourced
  • adds Toriyama with misleading source
  • admits to his speculation
  • adds Toriyama and Sekito unsourced
  • adds Watanabe unsourced
  • adds Toriyama unsourced
  • adds Nojima unsourced
  • removes source and adds Watanabe unsourced
• Same goes for Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy, where he changed around the unconfirmed writers nine times ([65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]).

This is, by far, just the tip of the iceberg. After countless reverts by multiple users and many warnings on his talk page and several article discussion pages, I started a subsection about G-Zay's conduct at the administrator's noticeboard, where I suggested another chance to let him reconsider his editing practices. But four months later, he is still on with the tendentious editing and, much worse, adding original research and interpretations of sources to advance POV statements and speculation (if that wasn't bad enough, many of the edits with original research affect featured articles). He has had many chances to learn his lessons, and has shown more than often that he does not care about Wikipedia's policy concerning original research and consensus-building. At this point, I am just really sick of cleaning up his mess and talking at a wall, so I'd appreciate it if someone finally got him in line. Prime Blue (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Still going against consensus and adding original research. Prime Blue (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A Retired Educator Needs Assistance!

208 IP Addresses

1. 208.54.86.167 (talk · contribs) (questions edits)
2. 208.54.86.130 (talk · contribs) (questions edits)
3. 208.54.86.207 (talk · contribs) (questions edits)
4. 208.54.40.133 (talk · contribs) (sent letter to an editor to question my edits)
5. 208.54.39.134 (talk · contribs) (unsigned ip address on letter to an to question my edits)
6. A Wiki editor (who I wish not to out yet has been aggressive)

I am a New York editor with a non conflict of interest in the article for Marisol Deluna. However several 208 IP addresses in Texas suddenly appear, question my motives and revert information when Mrs. Deluna has been included. Simply and sincerely I have asked for many to use one account so that they can be contacted directly, reconsider focus elsewhere and/or work to improve her inclusion.

It appears to be personal. I have just learned by calling her design studio in New York that Mrs. Deluna in recent past reported a man to a Texas District Attorney's Office for harassment in her day to day life. He has since begun taunting her through Wikipedia since he is not allowed near her and a man has boasted about it as mentioned by another editor (with whom I do not know personally).

He is succeeding in questioning her credibility by putting doubt in other editors and readers who may not know her work well. (I do in New York and London) He rallied to have her page deleted. It was kept yet now has a banner questioning her inclusion on Wikipedia. Can this banner be modified to: {{Refimprove}} It is much less offensive and still allows editors to add to the article- Which I plan to do despite the constant uphill battle by the noted above.

I never rallied to have her article deleted! You are blatantly and openly lying in order to have a notability tag deleted that bothers you in its truth and you are pretending not to have noticed I was not the one who added or sugested adding it! Please someone verify my posting history and confirm this as I very much would like others to notice what is going on in that article!BbBlick (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies BbBlick. Simply, the IP 208 Addresses noted and the one from the "Literary Frenchman" (with a Wiki Account) are all from Texas and refer to people like me as "Deluna Supporters". I am certain their are many IP Addresses from Texas that edit this designer's inclusion. As another editor mentioned, they read through the mess created on Msnicki's talk page. Let's avoid doing the same here. I noticed you began to edit Marisol Deluna's article. This is a good faith sign. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to locate these IP Addresses if in coffee houses, libraries, etc? Thank you.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The list above all belong to a single mobile broadband provider in the US. Not having reviewed the edits in question, my first impression is that it's likely a single user who connects, edits, then disconnects in order to obtain a new IP address for the next edit. (Technical comment: it looks like a /17 CIDR range to me.) Another set of eyes would need to examine the IP edits in question to determine the likelihood that it is, in fact, a single user. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, if you visit the Marisol Deluna talk page I freely and openly admitted what my current and previous IP addressed have been since I started editing on Wikipedia. This after I and another editor were threatened with outing our real life identities and there was a huge rant against us. You can still see these accusations on her talk page which were never striked through or fully recanted. I am not pretending to be several people and my IP address changes by itself on a regular basis to no fault of my own. And I am editing from the same device. I just signed up for an account to end this speculation but stand by all my previous edits. Please also check this accusers edit history and her reverting my edits of several accasions minutes after I made them and repeatedly. More than four times in a row.BbBlick (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The notability tag isn't intended to be offensive, but if you think the refimprove tag is more appropriate, I recommend you suggest it on the article's talk page. I'll take a look at the IP's contributions and see if there's anything in there that requires administrator attention. 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. It looks to me like the 208 IP addresses belong to a single editor who's using a dynamic IP. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't pretend otherwise. We're certainly not going to try to track down the editor's personal identity. The editor obviously disagrees with you regarding the notability of Marisol Deluna, but I'm not seeing anything that would require administrative assistance in that editor's contributions; perhaps you can point me to a particular edit you think is violating our policies? 28bytes (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course! Which I openly admitted in the Marisol Deluna talk page before moving it to the accusing editors talk page when threatened with legal action by them.BbBlick (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear 28bytes, Under the various edits and disputes, he mentions that he is a Frenchman, a woman, a person with a literary background, unknown to her, stumbled upon her article, yet all the while is vested in her. I can send you links, yet know he is following my edits. He does not agree with me, however when it has served him, he has found plenty on Mrs. Deluna (such as FB and her husband's Flickr account) when trying to seek support from another editor whom he believed was an Administrator while trying to discredit me and other editors. One of which can be located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Msnicki.ElizabethCB123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

I NEVER said I was a Frenchman, or had a lirerary background, etc. You are openly lying! Find the link where I said any of these thingsBbBlick (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And here he appears again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna#Ongoing_Vandalism_in_Progress ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The banner is offense due to his taunting her about own her credibility. The words "or deleted" do not need to be there and are offensive to Mrs. Deluna due to his past threats and actions. The other banner would be more neutral and just as helpful. It was suggested to have it removed by a less than partial editor who seems to had realized of his actions yet went about it the wrong way by threatening to out him. The other editors were less than sympathetic (nor was I at the time) Yet knowing what I know now- I would like to edit in peace and not be marked. The man in question has labeled me and others as "Deluna Supporters"- Such as in "Them and Us". Can we please atleast have this changed? As for the IP Addresses- I understand you cannot block them. Yet how can this behavior be tamed? Or can it? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not add the notability tag nor did I ever suggest it go up. So the only reason you are bringing it up is to have it removed because it bothers you personally. More proof that you and LegalEagleUSA are the same editor or working together: you both had access to Marisol Delunas high school and college yearbooks, old newsletters that are not published in mainstream, had her entire private club membership info with many member only publications talking about her way before todays alleged phone call etc. Now you both claim to know of a man in Marisol Delunas personal life who has had personal conflicts with her and is editing her article, you even joined in your own talk page in the "outing" threats against "him". How could you possibly know this conflict has taken place and know the identity of the man (verbatin claim also made by LegalEagleUSA) when you claim "you don't personally know her" and also claim not to be LegalEagleUSA ? Please enlighten us! How could you and the other editor poses all this insider info long before todays alleged phone call where she shares with a complete stranger someone having a personal problem with her in Texas? How do you know the notability tag is offensive to her unless she told you personally, you are her, or are working together and being given this information?BbBlick (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

BbBlick- As written in my first entry on this Noticeboard... And I am not stating it is you: "I have just learned by calling her design studio in New York that Mrs. Deluna in recent past reported a man to a Texas District Attorney's Office for harassment in her day to day life. He has since begun taunting her through Wikipedia since he is not allowed near her and a man has boasted about it as mentioned by another editor (with whom I do not know personally)." (meaning the editor who threatened to out him- not me. I do not agree with his actions lack of tact) As for Mrs. Deluna, I spoke to her assistant by phoning her design studio (which was found on her company's FB Page (Marisol Deluna New York) and fully disclosed my identity as a Wikipedia Editor with an interest in her. What happened in Texas is not clear to me and is none of my business- You are correct. I am happy it is not you, as this would be unlawful behavior beyond Wikipedia and as mentioned in our discussion, her husband is an attorney as noted in the New York Times. As for the "Notability Tag", her assistant did not comment on it nor did I ask. I am the one with the question of taunting and it was answered as "Non Offensive" by other editors. I accept this. Please do not read into my words as we did all day Sunday and I will afford you the same. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that administrators cannot rule on content: whether to use the notability template or the refimprove template in the article is a decision the article's editors will need to come to an agreement on, on the talk page. An administrator cannot override the consensus there. Now, what an administrator can do is toss the blockhammer at anyone engaged in attempting to out other editors. Which editor is doing this? 28bytes (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why bring this up as a "charge" against me!01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)BbBlick (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can please read the two links provided. Two were done by 208 IP Addresses towards me claiming I have multiple accounts from multiple cities. The other was from another editor who agreed not to out him under his Wiki address and another 208 address, yet seems to support that there is some wrong doing and the discussion was closed. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In the first link, the IP says you are editing as Tinkerbell1989, LegalEagleUSA and WindyCityGal2011. Looking at their contribution logs, I can see why the IP is suggesting that. Are these accounts yours? 28bytes (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you notice the amount of personal information these individual accounts know about a subject they all claim not to know personally as well as all the legal threats they have made against myself and others for having had the "audacity" of editing the Marisol Deluna article not to her liking or having questioned their edits, I'd say at the very least they are a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or tag team of editors. Alteran1 confesed in a previous thread to having been asked by Deluna herself to engage in an edit war and accuse editors of having a personal vendetta for having edited Delunas article. The amount of bullying, legal threats, and outing threats displayed by proDeluna editors plus the confession by Alteran1 of having been asked by her to edit war with people editing her article proves that she is very much aware and engaged in the editing of her article. Please visit his edit history.BbBlick (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That is why I have brought attention to this link. I read over their reasoning and found it mirrored exactly what they have been doing. I only use this one account. Why have more? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to say that I placed the tag there not the IP, to alert others for the need to better source the article based on the outcome of the AfD, there has been no improvement in sourcing since the tag was placed there, the reasons for its presence are made clear. It is not there as any form of offence. {{Refimprove}} is not appropriate as the issue is references to establish notability. I also have concerns about the possibilities of socking here and came very close to starting up a SPI. Mtking ^(edits) 22:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

She knows who added it but was trying to pin it on me in order to have it removed or altered. She's checked my entire editing history. No way this detail went unnoticed!BbBlick (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

BbBlick- I did not finger point you as the editor who placed a banner on the article nor did I check the history of all of your 208 IP Addresses as you claim. The banner was placed in response and on the same day (by another editor) when a 208 IP Address, Aa1232011 and LegalEagleUSA (from Texas) got into a heated dispute on her page. Regardless, tonight I just added to that discussion page in a good faith manner to begin to rebuild it. As for being her, I wish life had afforded me her creative talent. Let's focus on our edits, as our behavior is beginning to appear here for the very reason I came to this noticeboard to avoid. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna was a mess of IPs and SPAs. I'm amazed there wasn't an SPI...actually it appears there was an attempt at something at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, now archived. Based on the few minutes I've wasted trying to wade through this multi-page fight (look at User talk:Msnicki), I wouldn't be surprised if there's inappropriate WP:SOCKing on both sides... — Scientizzle 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the user pages of some of the accounts in question, they seem remarkably similar and the correspondence between the accounts on Elizabeth's Talk page seems questionable.  snaphat ► 02:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Scientizzle, Only I have added to her inclusion and have countered an editor on my own talk page. I brought this us to edit more freely under my own account. Yet for mow, my grandchildren await. Thank you. (and sorry for making your head spin) ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mtking, You had every right to add the banner. Although you may have been directed to her page (or not) by a 208 IP address noted on a help board claiming he was being ganged up on. (Not by the accounts noted, yet others which also included me- referring to us as "Deluna Supporters") Since learning about the man that has threatened Mrs. Deluna off of Wikipedia, it should be known that not all motives are sincere- Especially since it appears to be from Texas. I am not an investigator, just seems difficult to edit on Wikipedia. I plan to add to her page, and will. Thank you and sorry for pulling you in. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you or anyone else decided this alleged man was editing her article but I find this story very hard to believe given all the other times people have changed their stories about how they found all this detailed and personal info. Can you link to where this wikipedia taunting was made against her is? Or where you claim I said I was French or a literary person? Really, you should provide diffs to the things you say for verification. BbBlick (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You needn't respond with "Dear this " and "Dear that"; we're all friends here. HalfShadow 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging words HalfShadow. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From my end, I do not intend to edit or comment on this article or its edits/editors at all from now on other than to answer questions if I need to defend myself. I do encourage admins or anyone interested in pursuing all these claims and check all our histories and take the appropiate action according to Wikipedias rules. Good night.BbBlick (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of NOTCENSORED

Resolved

 – Page is at MFD, no admin action needed here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could remember how I found this, but I was probably just idly following links. Nevertheless, User:Jeffwang/censor is a userspace-created fork of WP, called Project Censorship, "the project to censor inappropriate things on the English Wikipedia, for people who prefer it." This is a pretty blatant violation of policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and obviously, what is being censored is not objective, but subjective to the user's ideas. Could someone look into this and perhaps direct said editor in a more productive direction? MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While there's a presumption that "what happens in userspace stays in userspace", I'm thinking this runs afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Depending on how large that "side project" has gotten, perhaps it should be pointed out to them. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've sent the pages to MfD and notified the editor. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jeffwang. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user ID "wang" is a semi-subtle joking reference to what he's trying to censor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories

Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs) has been promoting the view that Al Qaeda's hijacking and crashing four airplanes in the September 11 attacks is the "official position" (which is also "regarded as a conspiracy theory"), and all other theories are "alternate conspiracy theories".[74][75][76] To that end he has also been insisting that conspiracy theories are not fringe views,[77][78] and has now canvassed five editors he considers to be like-minded on this subject to support him.[79][80][81][82][83] I've previously encountered him at a couple of other articles, where I found his behavior problematic, but it doesn't seem to be improving - on the contrary. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've notified this user of the sanctions in this area [84] and made a note in the ArbCom log [85]. Gerardw (talk · contribs) has already spoken to them about canvassing as well [86] Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

With the 10th anniversary approaching, it wouldn't be surprising if there was an upsurge in the 9/11 conspiracy theorist activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's too bad that 9/11 conspiracy theories grow faster than One World Trade Center, which now is not likely to be finished until 2012, almost eleven years after the event. Shame on everyone involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as well that it not be done by 9/11/11, as we don't need al-qaeda trying for an anniversary encore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DragoLink 08 redux

Based on a current AIV report,[87] I've found some long-term disruptive editing by DragoLink08 (talk · contribs · block log). For additional background, please see:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive698#User:DragoLink08
• User talk:DragoLink08#For the last time, navbox colors
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DragoLink08/Archive
• Toolserver edit count for DragoLink08

The account has been blocked twice, most recently for 1 week, but their behavior does not seem to have changed at all. I'm thinking this person needs a new hobby and am leaning toward an indefinite block. Any objections? — Satori Son 21:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to wait, they obviously have no interest in discussing their actions and have a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Two years of warnings and no change or even reply to messages since June 2009. User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, obviously. Thanks. — Satori Son 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As well as asking me, ask the word bubble in my head. Feels like 2 years of warnings, and still going. Is this really a vandalism or a disruption-only account? StormContent (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wonder Girls

If you look at the wikipedia page for "Wonder Girls" you will see numerous unsourced passages of gossip, rumor etc. There are huge chunks of that article which have no sources and which should probably be deleted. There is a well-sourced section titled "Controversy". This section has been up and running for weeks. It is extraordinarily well-sourced. The source is TWO undisputed newspaper articles (in English) from one of Korea's most respected and popular newspapers.

This is part of Korean and Korean pop-music history. A person could argue it is one of the "few" well-sourced sections of the whole article.

Apparently some folks believe this is information that might appear uncomplimentary to the pop group. History, however, is history. It is not for anyone using wikipedia to judge whether this trye information is good or bad for the group. It is history, purely and simply.

I am a relatively new user to wikipedia who is not an expert on how to use this system. I am hoping wikipedia will prove to me that might does not make right out here and that just because a few folks know how to game the system the truth can be suppressed.

I am asking that the attempts to remove well-sourced information on that page "Wonder Girls" be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseaarthur (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at some recent changes. What diffs. in question are of concern? CycloneGU (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DIFF if that remark has you puzzled. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The problematic changes would seem to be these:

• 14:35, 2 August 2011 by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz
• 18:45, 1 August, 2011 by 184.75.69.218
• 14:39, 26 July, 2011 by 184.75.69.218

I apologize. I am very new to wikipedia. i think it's wrong that true information should be removed so that a wikipage becomes a "fan page". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseaarthur (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He seems to claim it is unimportant information and that consensus is against putting it in the article (from the talk page). It is under the heading "Removal of information that presents this company in a bad light". However, I personally don't see a consensus on the talk page and instead what appears to be a few other editors who are against not including the information ranting. He does make some valid arguments for not including the information though.  snaphat ► 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep in mind that wikipedia actually is moving away from controversy sections, for reasons of undue weight, and this particular controversy section really isn't that well sourced. It does have two sources, but hardly enough to justify it being a "controversy", and nothing to justify the weight given to it as a separate section. In addition the talk is a bit of a mess, and made worse by some sock puppetry (already taken care of apparently)--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be hugely surprised if this is not the return of the blocked sockpuppeteer who started this round of nonsense a few months back. I don't believe that an editor whose career here began three days ago has somehow stumbled across this dispute, that a newbie edit would know enough to so quickly turn up here, or that an editor with no prior history would start slinging personal attacks like this after my initial revert [88] or would post flimsy sockpuppetry accusations on the article talk page [89]. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage/Archive and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean pop music scandals for some background, enough to make WP:DUCK's application a good idea. There's no actual controversy here, just a disgruntled former employee using his 15 minutes of press coverage as a handle to keep bashing his former employer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed. Please also note a technical error in my comment above; this would be a new sock for an editor previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts; the master account is not currently blocked. I mistakenly inferred that the master account's block was still en effect because it has not edited since being blocked. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BilCat

Inclusion of material not supported by sources, removal of sourced material, abuse of tags, disrputive editing and personal insults. In fairness, I point out that a few days ago we were involved in a normal dispute on the talk page. Then today he has degenerated before the evidence of the facts. If he had not insulted me personally, probably I would be limited to request a third opinion. Here the history.--Enok (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just now saw that the required notification was not posted to BilCat's Talk page. I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the insults, as I was quite angry at that moment. Please not that this user has engaged in edit warring thoughtout this dispute, including removing dispute tags that I have added on several occasions, all without any consensus to do so on the talk page. I have tried to stick to no more than 2 reverts thoughtout this dispute, while the user has abused this on several occasions, and has a history of doing this. I'm not excusing my own behavior today - I lost my cool. I won't do it again, nor will I make any more reverts on the page in the next few days expept those to restore deleted content that is still under dipute. I again ask the user to referain from removing material while the matter is still in dispute, and I will report him for edit warring if he does it again. - BilCat (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• My 2 cents here, this is clearly a content dispute, you should head to WP:Dispute resolution (and the related WP:Dispute resolution requests) to ask for help instead of you (being a relatively new editor) pushing your personal view and refusing to get the point as stated by an established contributor such as Bill. As far as I can see, Bill has provided you with all the necessary explanation in the discussion page of Talk:Amphibious assault ship#Italian amphibious assault ship while you are still disputing them. Like I said, WP:Dispute resolution (and the related WP:Dispute resolution requests) should be your next stop. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the dispute, I have requested a third opinion on the special page. This is not the subject of this report. In practice there is no penalty for behavior of this user? On the contrary, who receives a long and interesting telling-off is me (on my talk page). Thanks. I hope you do not have in-depth about the history of that article, otherwise it would be sad. @Alan the Roving Ambassador. I'm sorry, I never used this kind of special pages. If I was calmer, I would have more accurately read the instructions. --Enok (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Dave1185 here. Normal content dispute which has become heated. Time to bring in some other opinions. I will support this process as best I can. --John (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:GenKnowitall

• GenKnowitall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Center of gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive106#GenKnowitall

This user's editing has been disruptive for some time and has recently gotten worse. This talk page comment, made a few hours ago, says that I should "perhaps" be executed, and it would be better for me to kill myself. I don't know whether it's really a serious threat of violence, but certainly it's going in an ugly direction fast and can't be allowed to continue. I recommend an immediate block; you can decide how long-term. I also recommend removing the comment from the talk page. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's Jimmy Wales he's suggesting should be executed, not you. It's flamboyant language, but hardly uncivil. If you've got edits where he's being actually disruptive - not just verbose - do post the diffs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's aimed at me or Jimmy Wales, I'm not comfortable allowing any user to openly fantasize about the death of any other user on Wikipedia, whatever language it's couched in. Is this really controversial? Melchoir (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's the equivalent of saying "you lot will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes." It's not a threat, it's a hyperbolic expression of his opinion of Wikipedia as a suitable source for students. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not saying that I'm convinced it's a threat. I'm saying that the language is uncivil to the point of disruption, and an uninvolved admin should step in before it escalates further. Melchoir (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it. I think he's probably said his piece. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Threat: no. Uncivil: no. Soapboxing: yes. Yeah, I know, talk pages are for article improvement and we aren't supposed to soapbox on them, but seeing how seldom he edits here, I think it would stir up more trouble to remove the soapboxing than it would to ignore it. Ignoring pontificating people is highly underrated, and unfortunately very uncommon, but I still recommend it. If actual disruption occurs, that would be another thing, but right now it's just complaining. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... I'm really surprised. I hope you're both right! Melchoir (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Neptunekh2

When I bring a problem to this page, you guys always talk me out of admin action, so I'm hoping someone can come up with another solution here. Neptunekh2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some learning difficulties - see her talkpage. She's been the subject of two previous reports Copyvio_edits_among_other_things_by_Neptunekh2 (Dec 2010) and User:Neptunekh2_-_long_term_competence_issues (May 2011). I tried to help her after the first one, and after the second, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights offered to mentor her. There's also User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2 and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2_back_doing_copyvios_again. I've tried to advise her [90] - anyone who works at one of the Help or Reference desks will be used to seeing her asking the same question in multiple places. She creates loads of categories that have only one entry Category:Fictional Americans of Belgian descent - I kid you not - but she's quite good at putting things into categories. She creates bad stub articles, then posts on the helpdesks asking people to clean them up, but they are about obscure subjects that no-one would think of eg Looty Pijamini.

Anyway, after a round of grief that involving getting about 10 categories deleted, and a copyvio, see User_talk:Neptunekh2/Archive_1 and Special:DeletedContributions/Neptunekh2, she discovered that Velasca from Xena:Warrior Princess was based on a real (legendary) character, an associate of Libussa. She created an article Valasca on 27th (here's what it said).

I'd rather got the ache by this point, particularly as Blade confirmed that he has had no success in getting her to communicate with him. I gave her a final warning [91] on 28th and, among other things, sanctioned her to creating articles only in userspace. She's got something of a bee in her bonnet about Valasca (or Dlasta, which seems to be a variant spelling of her name) though, because she went on to create User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta (deleted in the mistaken belief it was a copyvio). In the meantime, I suggested the topic would have notability issues, and that she should add a line to List of women warriors in folklore. She added this, which was reverted. She then added this to a random spot in the article on Velasca (the Xena character). She then created User talk:Neptunekh2/Dlasta/Temp, and asked at the Helpdesk for someone to expand it [92]. She then created Dlasta, and pointed the edit at Velasca and List of women warriors in folklore to it [93] and [94].

At this point, I'm fairly pissed off with chasing around over this, but feel I'm too involved to block her - if indeed this warrants a block. After all, I imposed those sanctions unilaterally. I'll notify Blade as well as Neptune of this report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)ETA [95], posted after being notified of this thread. I'm just finding it very frustrating. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I think some outside eyes are needed. I've been trying to get her to work on existing articles, but I haven't had much success. If there was something else I could do, I'd gladly do it, as I too enjoy seeing some of the obscure topics she frequents; however, I'm not sure what else I can do over the internet (face-to-face, I know exactly what I'd do, but it doesn't work in type). To paraphrase from what I've said earlier, I'd have no problem reviewing her contributions to articles, except I can't seem to get her to contribute much. If anyone has any other ideas, please tell me, but I'm at a loss as to what I can do short of asking for a block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I think what Elen was trying to link to was the creation of the Dlasta article. 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of you have tried and tried and tried, but we are still seeing exactly the same problems on which she's been given repeated advice. Your final warning was perfectly reasonable, but again you didn't get the acknowledgement you requested and she merely blanked your warning. You've both tried, but enough is enough. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads and The Blade of the Northern Lights should be commended for the time and effort they have put in to attempting to rehabilitate Neptunekh2, but enough is enough. Neptune's editing style, personal interaction skills, and poor communication have proven to be completely incompatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and it is now apparent that no amount of hand-holding and guidance will change that. It's time to cut the cord and block the account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of topic, but if that Dlasta article is really copy/pasted from a 1910 source then that's a case of neither copyvio (since presumably it's in PD) nor plagiarism (maybe... at least not any worse then copy/pasting massive amounts from the 1911 EB).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's never been a copyvio, as I've explained to numerous people now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

IP editor indiscriminately reverting lots of edits

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Satori Son for 48h. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at User:76.6.36.145? He's been making lots of reverts, some of which seem to be purely disruptive (eg, his edits at Mike Brown (basketball, born 1970).) Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Disruptive editor is definitely disruptive. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As a sidenote, was this IP ever reported at WP:AIV? Or just here? AIV would be the proper venue for dealing with such activity. I'll look at the AIV history, and if they weren't reported there I'll put it in myself. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, AIV is generally better for this kind of blatant stuff. — Satori Son 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of mediation?

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.

Resolved

 – there is nothing for admins to do here. Several admins have noted that there is no obligation on the part of anyone to participate in mediation, bad faith nominations can be dealt with by MedCom leadership without invoking admins at this noticeboard. Closing this down before it becomes another venue for the opposing parties to snipe at each other. --Jayron32 04:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

It appears that NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) is trying to start up a massive mediation case dealing with abortion by trying to drag anyone who's ever commented on the issue into the dispute. I don't personally appreciate his attempt to drag me into some process against my will, but I'm willing to let that pass. What concerns me is the attempt to do this at all after months of discussion on multiple article talk pages and an informal mediation attempt (which was apparently closed recently?) So, the question here is, to me, is what NYY51 is trying to here with attempting to name 50+ people to a mediation case something to be concerned about, administratively? Is the apparent unwillingness to deal with months of prior discussion on this issue worth any sort of administrative action? I'm very slightly annoyed about the notification right now so I'm just going to drop this note here and leave it to everyone else, but... I'm thinking that the answer to both of those questions is "yes", right now.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link to the mediation case (I am not affiliated with the case):Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opposition to the legalisation of abortionKeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Probably doesn't need any admin action right now; (a) there is no way a 50-person mediation is ever going to get off the ground, so a mediator will probably close that soon, and (b) it appears Steven Zhang is in the process of initiating an ArbCom case about this. Yay, an ArbCom case about abortion... now if you'll excuse me, I need to log off so I can get down on my knees and thank God I'm not an arbitrator. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of mediation that it's the last step in the dispute resolution process (except for ArbCom)? So, isn't the idea that if there's a dispute, and it's not solved through noticeboards, RfCs, etc., that it then gets taken to mediation? Mind you, I doubt that everyone will agree to join, so it's unlikely to ever get started, but it does seem like the proper process to me. Unless this topic was already brought to ArbCom and the person is trying to circumvent that? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is a request being made to arbcom now. I wasn't aware of that, but it doesn't surprise me. This is part of what annoyed me about the attempt to create a massive mediation case about this. Apparently, now I'm a party to this dispute because I participated in an RFC? That's just shitty. There's no way that I'm participating as a named party to anything that has to do with this, whether that occurs at mediation or arbcom. I've never edited the actual articles, and I continue to remain 10,000 miles away from any of them, for a good damn reason (case in point, right here)! That NYY 51 is simply trying to drag anyone who's ever said anything about any of this into some process... well, I'm aggravated about that. It stinks, and after looking at his talk page since posting this (to notify him) I see that he's already attempted to start two other mediation cases recently that have already been turned down. I looks like this is a person who is unwilling to live with our content on the issue, is not getting his way, and is therefore trying to drag anyone and everyone possible into the dispute.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• This thread is a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation and should be closed. If you think that NYY51 is misuing the mediation fora, speak to the MedCom Chair. NW (Talk) 03:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  NW, that's BS. I'm not a party to any mediation. You can't force me to be a party, and I strongly object to the attempt to do so both by yourself and NYYankees51, which is why I started this thread. There's no privileged here to be broken, simply garden variety disruption through the misuse of process. This, right here, is why the attept to name myself and more than fifty others to a dispute resolution process is disruptive.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Sure. The purpose of mediation, and by extension mediation requests, is to provide a forum where editors can resolve "good-faith disagreements over article content". This cannot be done if a user is brought to ANI after filing the mediation request to face accusations of misconduct. Mediators are well capable to determining whether or not an individual is abusing their processes, and banning them if so.

  If you don't want to participate, simply state on the mediation page that you decline to participate. Per the current policy, that will automatically end the request. NW (Talk) 03:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? As I understand it, participation in the mediation process is voluntary (actually, participation in anything on Wikipedia is voluntary). If someone is trying to drag unwilling contributors into the process, all they need to do is decline. Any attempt to suggest that participation is obligatory is misguided... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes as NW and ATG say this seem to be a non issue. If you don't want to participate, don't. No one can force you and the mediators are I presume smart enough to stop any attempts to trick people into participating. Similarly while it seems unlikely a 50+ person mediation is ever going to work, presuming everyone agrees to participate, that's up to the mediators. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh* Now I know how User:HuskyHuskie feels; he got harassed for notifying all the editors of each article in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. Participation in mediation is voluntary and it takes three seconds to remove the notification from your talk page. I simply invited everyone who participated in the informal mediation. If I didn't invite everyone, I'd be accused of canvassing. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  So that's it? Your misuse of the process in the first place and apparent refusal to deal with other members of the community (by way of being unwilling to accept the earlier dispute resolution results) is all worth nothing more than a <sigh> and the claim that it's all fine because the notification can be removed in "three seconds"? Well, that's just shitty. Did you ever consider... I don't know, asking before jumping right to naming myself and everyone else as a party? Geez... the self-involved nerve of some people. Anyway, I'm gonna try to go get some sleep. Don't worry, someone will probably just mark this resolved and it'll all be ignored anyway. Neverwinter, Nil, and Andy are already working on that above, so I doubt that there's anything to worry about.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you don't want to participate, remove your name. That seems much more expedient than creating unnecessary drama by posting here, when there was no admin action necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Please remember you are at WP:ANI, not WP:RFC or some generic dispute resolution board or User:Mediation Committee, and it seems quite clear no administrative action is warranted here at this time. AFAIK we generally avoid interfering in the work of the mediation committee and it's also still not clear to me why you believe the mediation committee isn't capable of handling this themselves anyway. It seems clear to me it's intended to be a somewhat friendly process and the mediators would generally go to great lengths to ensure they aren't wasting their time with people who don't want to participate and are also good at rejecting requests (and I would guess quitely letting someone know if their request was silly or not so quietly if it was bad).

BTW if you do want to take this to a more appropriate place I suggest you clarify some things. In particular, if this was your suggestion, it's not really clear to me how informally asking 50 odd people if they wanted to partipate and then filing a mediation request if it was felt it was accepted would be better then just filing the request and letting people accept or reject, no matter whether the mediation request was justified or a good idea. It's possible to only approach a few people, but that risks making things worse as people may take offence at being the first ones to be approached, which suggests they're seen as the stumbling block. Breaching it on a talk page may be possible but it sounds like this issue affects several related pages.

Note that you don't actually have to reject the request, ignoring it completely will achieve the same purpose. This compares to an informal question, where it's possible someone may intepret ignoring the request as meaning the person who ignored the question on mediation as having no problem with it (particularly if the informal question is poorly worded), so will file a request only to find they misinterpreted the response. In particular, from a quick glance thru the guidance to mediation I don't see any suggestion it's best to informally ask people before filing a request, except perhaps that since it's clear it's supposed to be a voluntary process, it logically follows there's perhaps no point wasting people's time including your own, if you don't have reason to believe the request would be accepted or approached in the right way. Oh and BTW, the fact there's evidentally an arbcom case coming up suggests to me this isn't just one user refusing to accept consensus from previous dispute resolution methods as your comment seems to imply.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass

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.

Resolved

 – User:FaktneviM blocked for one month

---

FaktneviM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously asserted his/her right to vanish as a means of heading off the consequences of discussion here at ANI relating to his/her harassment of another user, User:Jeffro77.

That previous discussion is at Archive 713, and it was allowed to go unresolved. There were a number of warnings listed in that discussion, including 3RR, Harass4im, refactoring (non-template) and personal attacks (non-template). I have, again, suggested strongly that FaktneviM stop posting on Jeffro77's talkpage here [diff: [96]].

FaktneviM has continued to post borderline personal attacks on Jeffro77's talkpage:

1. [diff: [97]]
2. [diff: [98]]
3. [diff: [99]]

By all appearances, FaktneviM has not "vanished", nor has he stopped. -danjel (talk to me) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

+ [diff: [100]]

+ See my other contributions.

Nothing of that is "personal attack". Avoid weasel words!

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, are you vanished or not? If you are vanished, please leave. Using the right to vanish means you leave, not that you limit your contributions to templates, or anything of the sort. If you are not going to vanish, we need to reopen that harassment thread. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What´s mean "leave"? I can´t leave absolutely. I am not able of it. Rather emotionally or sth. I don´t know what. // If you read also previous talk with Jeffro, (barnstar, further comments, time zone), we are almost! friends now. There is no harass. If it yes, so everyone on Wiki harass each other on their talk pages. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Jeffro about this before deciding if he considered you a "friend". Because it certainly looks like you are harassing him yet again, even though you tried to invoke your "right to vanish" before to avoid having to account for your actions last time this came up. This certainly doesn't look good. --Jayron32 05:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I said clearly "almost". And if you read that talk section, I clearly reveal there reasons why we can´t be friends (very close). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, in the archived discussion, you said, "I wanted to finish my Wikipedia account some time before these problems starts. However, problems with my pages was like catalyst for me and I had to (in fact, I hadn´t, but I want) end all my activities vigorously and conclusively. For that aim was some cleaning of my pages quite useful". Since you basically agreed to quit and vanish, the previous discussion concerning possible sanctions against you for personal attacks and edit warring was allowed to drop. If, instead, you intend to continue editing, those concerns need to be re-activated, especially in light of the fact that the diffs posted above are at least close to that previous behavior, if not quite at the exact same level. You have to choose: keep editing on Wikipedia and abide by its rules (including the possibility that you could be blocked if your actions are damaging the project), or quit Wikipedia. There is no in-between ground where you avoid scrutiny by simply decreasing the frequency of your disruptive behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I still want to leave. But I am not able of do it so fast. For my mental changing probably will need a month of so to wean away fully. I also stated I want to stop in Czech Wikipedia, but I am not able to stop contributing fully. When I asked for forever block, admin gave me only two hours for disruptive editing (I deliberately revert all what I want repeatedly ... so I hoped for some block ... but only temporal come ...) I know. This seems funny, but it is truth. I tried to finish, but I am not able to achieve that. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Stop with the Purple prose. Using the vanish right and then continuing on to avoid examination on issues brought up by the community is highly despicable. Either face the music, or vanish. You can start a new account if you feel that you cannot leave Wikipedia, but avoid the subjects you focused on with the new account. Phearson (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: I originally want to use vanish, but in reality this doesn´t help me. As you can see that I still editing. So no solution from vanish. I originally thought this would works. But it doesn´t. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any option how to factually leave?

Assuming that you genuinely want to leave, this time... I think you (FaktneviM) want: Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_Enforcer. Use it, now, or it will be hard to believe that you're going to assert your right to vanish. -danjel (talk to me) 07:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks interesting. But how to use it? And what if I would like to edit e.g. after year or whatever. You know, now I am thinking that I want to forever, but what if I change my mind in the future? If I could manipulate (e.g. with time limit) for my own duration to enforce wikibreak, that could be helpful. // And ... I realized you never "assumed" good will from me. You always assumed only bad. You only mock it. OK. I try to assume that you sincerely want to help me and not another mock. So, show me how to use it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I did see this [diff: [101]] before you edited it [diff: [102]]. "Dildo", huh? -danjel (talk to me) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That one made me spit tea all over my shirt! It's pretty clear that this guy has WP:COMPETENCE problems and is basically begging to be permanently blocked. Perhaps he is a genuine WP addict that desperately wants to quit. However, I doubt he has the language skills to implement WikiBreak Enforcer on his own. The instructions are quite intricate. However, you cannot consider the plastic implement comment as a genuine case of incivility, since it was instantly retracted. Probably the best course is to reopen the original ANI, and let the chips fall where they will. Now I've got to change my shirt! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop mock surprise, Vobisdu. It is uncivil. That word was only result of my plan to force you to block me or forever leave me free. Leave me alone and let me editing. Otherwise I will continue with insults due plan to force you do it. Leave me alone. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You saw it right. I am firm on that you never assumed good will from me. Since starting your intrusion to me, never. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know... I'm not taking offence. I just wanted it noted for the hilarity value. It's right up there with being called a "big fat meanie" by a kindergartener (which happens from time to time in my line of work). -danjel (talk to me) 08:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I used online translator for your response. :) However, I have no idea if it is joke or some kind of apology. Could you explain it?. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: FaktneviM makes the statement above that he and I are "almost friends", and Jayron32 has requested my input. I did attempt to develop a rapport with FaktneviM at my Talk page after the original dispute, and for a time, it was going okay. However, FaktneviM then took exception to a (sourced) statement I made at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Are Jehovah's Witnesses pacifists?. Please see User talk:Jeffro77#A barnstar for you! and its subsections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro, this was mistaken by him. I clearly stated word "almost" + ! (=exclamation mark). He falsely interpret that. // Otherwise, I am sorry you have to come again and solve another bullshits from User:Danjel who persistenly harass me. My edits on your talk page were only my feel real reasons. Sorry if you take it personally. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jeffro: In your opinion, has Fakt made any positive contributions to English WP? Is his behavior a recent development, or has he always been this way? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have only been aware of FaktneviM's edits since he began contributing to the Jehovah's Witnesses WikiProject, starting from around mid July 2011. Despite significant language difficulties, some of his contributions have been meaningful during that time. However, he becomes emotional and sometimes abusive when (sourced) statements are made that are contrary to his religious beliefs and his impressions thereof.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Vobisdu: I am so only when I am annoyed. // For so called "positive contribs" see my overall history, not only approximately last 10 days. // I said you directly - block me or leave me alone. I hate annoyances like from you and others here. Stop harass me and I will be more cooler. That is a recipe. Not nonsense questions as you did. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...and still continuing...

In regards to your edit just now [diff: [103]], while this discussion is still ongoing, how can I possibly make this clearer to you, FaktneviM?

STOP POSTING ON JEFFRO77's TALKPAGE -danjel (talk to me) 11:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can´t read it. It is too small. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

with whom. You also still continuing with this nonsense interfere to me. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, in regards to this edit [diff: [104]], STOP refactoring my content. -danjel (talk to me) 11:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I still wait for your apology. That even strengthens my irritation. Last try to cool me. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I literally was just browsing through, but this comment seems to be the nail in the coffin. FaktneviM has no intention of ever reforming. My vote, for what it's worth, is an indef block. VanIsaac_WS 11:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked several times for block, or leaving me alone. They just still try to offer me other options that I disagree with them. Only fully free (without persistent interfere of these mocks) or block. They still don´t understand my directives. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That is due my mental sicknesses. And partly with native nature, what is between two extremes "choleric" and "melancholic". Moreover I hate injustice and interference. That could always even streghtens my irritation. So far no apology from them, who did wrong against me. If they stop to interfere with me, that will be okay. Otherwise, I will have to force them to decide. (((I leaved from all three WikiProject, when I was active, as I wrote in previous ANI. So asking especially you and assess me with WP is unfair and irrational. =These 2 sentences originally to Jeffro))) I am convinced that solution for me is taking Wikipedia seriousless and just for fun like welcoming. Admins without human qualities are not deserved of me at all. As a result, they are two options. Other ways will results another pressure (not on you, but on these ANI) and they should be sure I force them to decide. No matter if with insults or with other ways. I am decided to gain full free or full close. I am convinced that solution for me is taking Wikipedia serious-less and just for fun like welcoming. Admins without human qualities are not deserved of me at all. ( mock+mock+mock = group of mocks ) Hate those mocks, who are similar like you. Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, folks, if you're going to block this pest, do it. You're just encouraging him with this ridiculous banter with him. He has threatened to go, come back, then deliberately provoked you to block him. Speaking as someone who edits at the Jehovah's Witnesses page where he has acted in a disruptive manner, I think he's a time waster and a general nuisance. I've seen other editors blocked for less. Just pull the plug and move on. BlackCab (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a month's enforced wikibreak. Perhaps he'll feel better at the end of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel I've been put in a slightly awkward situation here, as it's been said repeatedly that FaktneviM has harrassed me and given me unwanted attention at my Talk page. Those charges are partly true, and I have indeed found many of FaktneviM's comments at my Talk page to be inappropriate and/or unwanted. There has been some contact that was not unwelcome and, briefly, even cordial. The comments about FaktneviM in the renewed ANI suggest that he has annoyed me somewhat more than is the case. However, given FaktneviM's own comments suggesting his inability to refrain from less than friendly comments, I support the temporary block (for what it's worth) in the hope that, if he returns, he's able to start refreshed and able to better contribute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is also the worst faked "bad English" I've seen in a long while.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit by user:99.233.44.187

Can someone please remove this edit from the history. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (t) (c) 08:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block 188.80.207.217

Kindly block 188.80.207.217, as this user vandalized Andrés Iniesta after his/her final warning. Vibhijain (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done In the future, please report blatant vandalism to WP:AIV. Favonian (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a page in my userspace without warning, cause or consensus

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

---

I have been encouraged by User:Nick-D [105] to raise this here. My complaint is that User:The ed17 deleted User:Surturz/AdminWatch without warning, wrongly claiming it was an attack page.[106] I have since reinstated the page, and added my rationale for its existence. I believe due process would have been to seek consensus for deletion either on its talk page, or raise an WP:MfD. I would like User:The ed17 to apologise on my talkpage for misusing his admin tools. --Surturz (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like one of those strongly discouraged "shit lists" to me. Deletion of it without a prior MFD seems fine, although it would've been better to raise the issue with you first, or maybe here at ANI. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:44, 3 August 2011

It's definitely an attack page and should be re-zapped permanently. The user obviously has a copy on his own PC where the public can't see it. That's exactly the place for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:User pages, "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Doesn't appear to be preparing for immediate use to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• And I've deleted it again. User can take it to WP:DRV to get it reinstated - if they get a consensus there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the admins above and strongly agree with Surturz. I am not familiar with the specifics of the particular issues involved with the page User:Surturz/AdminWatch in terms of issues with particular administrators or topics or articles. But the idea of Surturz's page is sound, in my view -- that administrators have great power here at Wikipedia and with power comes the chance to abuse that power, and perhaps the only way that non-admins can possibly challenge past abuse by admins is to expose it in a user's userspace. And that's exactly what this user is trying to do. If it is seen as an attack page, I see it as a defense page since as we all know admins have much greater power here. The page can alert the community about errant behavior by a few admins -- bad apples -- who can spoil the whole experience at Wikipedia for others. I had a situation where an admin deleted a whole article I had written without cause or consensus by moving it to my userspace, claiming it was not yet encyclopedic, but it had plenty of references (70+) and viewpoints, and there was very little I could do. I feel the whole issue of how to rein in bad administrators is an unresolved one here at Wikipedia, but at the very least, it should be possible for users to challenge bad admin behavior in their user pages. An additional other way to challenge bad admin behavior -- is via google knols by exposing it and I encourage Surturz to use this option if the page is deleted again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This issue, as I see it, is about power and accountability. Both should go together. Since administrators have greater power, they must be held accountable, and perhaps the only way to do this is with publicity and exposure. The action just now -- in which Elen of the Roads deleted Surturz's user page about complaints with past administrators -- prevents intelligent discussion about this issue here. It's powerful people silencing critics. At the very least, the page should be REINSTATED so that others have a chance to comment on this issue and delve more fully into what's happening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If the user wants the page reinstated, they can request it at WP:DRV, where it can be subject to a community discussion. If an editor wants to call attention to malfeasance by an administrator, the correct venue is WP:RFC/U, not keeping a list of whines in userspace. If this is the article that was userfied User:Tomwsulcer/Terrorism_prevention_strategies then you need to read our policy on original research, as that's what the article appears to be, and that's why it was taken out of mainspace. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was the article I'm talking about. It wasn't original research. Rather, ONE admin thought it was, or perhaps objected to a few lines in it perhaps. Rather than follow normal procedures (tagging, AfD, discussion, deletion) it was DELETED without discussion and moved to userspace. It was a slick move to bypass proper channels. It avoided discussion. There was no debate. It was abuse by an admin in my view. And, for your information, I know well the difference between original research and what Wikipedia wants. My original highly-POV research about terrorism prevention is in a knol here known as [[Common Sense II; the mainstream NPOV view is Terrorism prevention strategies -- my userfied (read: DELETED) article with 167 references. The two versions are as different as day and night. Was the Wikipedia version perfect? Of course not, but nothing is, but at the very least, it deserved to be subjected to the same AfD that we do for all articles. Frankly, I'm kind of bored with the whole subject of terrorism at this point in my life anyway.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a page full of accusations without the ability to assess its veracity seems counterproductive. Second, if there is a problem with admin behaviour one would think this page is the place to comment and ask for advise. Or, if you are so inclined, nothing stops you from filing a RFCU in order to attract outside perspective on any alleged misconduct.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have been happy to thrash this out on the talk page in my userspace, but the article was deleted. I'm not entirely sure how the page was dissimilar to User:Nescio#Coincidence_does_exist. So far I have been advised to ANI, DRV, and now RFC/U. To get a page reinstated one must build consensus by collecting evidence of admin error and running it by other editors. But the very act of collecting that evidence is seen as a WP:ATP vio and the page gets speedily deleted. Yes, I am happy to raise concerns in an RFC/U but I'd really like to get all my arguments together first in my userspace. I'm at the formulation step, not the allegation step. I think doing it on-wiki is actually more polite - the alternative is to do it off-wiki and blindside the admin(s) in question. (In actual fact the original page I was trying to help get reinstated was User:Timeshift9!) --Surturz (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some legit cases where we allow "argument assembly" preparation in userspace (eg {{Userspace RFC draft}}), but if you don't clearly label the purpose of what the page is going to do and take action on it in a reasonable timeframe, it will otherwise been seen as an attack page and removed as per the above. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that. If I had been told first, rather than speedily deleted, perhaps I could have remedied the situation. This is why I have raised it here at ANI and have lodged a DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Surturz.2FAdminWatch. Maybe the admins have seen this all 100 times. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to explain it to 100 different users. Like I said, this could have easily been thrashed out on the talk page, and then perhaps the page get deleted a few days later. Nothing on there was so offensive as to warrant deletion without warning. To be honest, it seems like the admins are trying to tire me out with arcane WP processes. --Surturz (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've seen several people claim this page was an attack page, but other than saying "it is an attack page", could you provide a quote or basis for this assertion? I've looked at the page history and from what I can tell, the last version of the page doesn't sound like an attack at all. Before ruling against Surturz, please actually provide a rationale for how this page constitutes an attack. Primarily this should include arguments that show how the content on this page can "disparage or threaten" a specific admin (per WP:ATTACK). -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu. I see this as a free speech issue. It's important. We benefit when opposing points of view can be thrashed out publicly. Perhaps the hardest thing for all of us to understand is that criticism can be good -- when it helps -- when it's right -- since it helps us all to improve. To label criticisms of admin behavior as attacks and then delete it summarily without discussion is akin to warlords stifling reporters. Criticism is tough but necessary. Wikipedia benefits from open discussion, from criticism, from opposing viewpoints, from airing out stuff. It's how we all learn.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an attack page, but it starts with an incorrect statement: Admins, in general, are not accountable for their actions to non-admins. They are accountable: if an admin takes action that clearly falls outside allowed admin behavior, we have AN, AN/I, WP:RFC/U, and potentially to Arbcom. There's no single channel to place admin complaints, giving the appearance of lack of accountability, but it does exist, and just as the community !votes to make editors admins, they can certainly !vote to remove that priviledge. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion SHOULD be happening, but it should be happening at WP:DRV. However, just to answer the specific question posed by Avenu, WP:UP#POLEMIC says all you need to know on this issue. As I already mentioned at WP:DRV, there are venues for asking for a redress of improper admin actions. Admins who misbehave should have their feet held to the fire, but that needs to be done by community discussion at someplace like WP:ANI, and the singular opinion of one editor that an admin misbehaved is not itself a reason to override WP:UP#POLEMIC to maintain this sort of list. You don't need to establish that the page "attacks" others, you simply are not allowed to keep lists of stuff you think people have done wrong at Wikipedia in your userspace. Again, this is not about holding admins accountable. If you think an admin misbehaved, use the normal processes to ask the community if they agree. If they don't agree, then perhaps the admin didn't misbehave to begin with. But we don't know if the matter isn't discussed, and maintaining a private "shit list" in one's userspace is specifically disallowed because it doesn't represent any consensus opinion on a behavior, just one user's singular opinion. --Jayron32 14:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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