Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unused000702 (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 4 August 2011 (→‎G-Zay user conduct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    General support exists for an indefinite block of LiteralKa (talk · contribs) but not for a topic ban or block of any other editors. Other editors can be addressed in WP:DR venues at another time. This thread has outlived its usefulness; time to move on.
    The following discussion has been closed by Scientizzle. Please do not modify it.


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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Oh, and because you wouldn't notify him, I did. LiteralKa (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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![reply]
    • Blocks all round, then? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Cavalry is an admin. LiteralKa (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    WP:COI - "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." LiteralKa (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    In hindsight, a better edit summary probably would have helped. LiteralKa (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    4. Support, clear COI violations. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      If they're "clear" how come I have yet to see any edits cited? LiteralKa (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The 2 deletion nominations are clearly listed at the beginning of the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And this relates to me directly editing the article how? LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Including Gay Nigger Association of America! LiteralKa (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Good thing the pope doesn't have an account! LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Stop being such a gay nigger and take it like a man. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not engage in personal attacks. LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Again, please no personal attacks. snaphat (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      He's still entitled to his opinion, Murdox, as are you. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Just trying to point out the possible WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Support full topic ban, broadly-construed. Letting even a foot in the door will just lead to similar problems in the future. -- Ϫ 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. SilverserenC 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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. SilverserenC 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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: SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      3. You list no examples, so i'm just going to skip this. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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. SilverserenC 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Oppose WP:DENY is blatlanty broken in this thread... See the drama it generates? That's what User:LiteralKa wants us to do... Literally, we're feeding him... I support unblocking him unconditionnaly and i don't even care if you do run a WP:Checkuser on me... Just leave the article alone and leave him ALONE! --Zalgo (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I don't see any canvassing. Could you link to a specific tweet? LiteralKa (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" LiteralKa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then check the main account? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no. LiteralKa (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Check harder please. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Have you conidered that it's a spambot account, simply reguritating random webpages? GiantSnowman 20:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not that far-fetched considering the recent controversy over this. LiteralKa (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    LiteralKa indefinitely blocked

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

    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. SilverserenC 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    Hersfold: Is this an ArbCom-sanctioned block or one solely issued by you? ThemFromSpace 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arbitration Committee did not discuss this, it is not an ArbCom block. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      Yes; having undisclosed alternate accounts on a different wiki. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • Support block Wikipedia was being manipulated by this trolling organization as part of their internet activities. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose block Unjustified and The Cavalry has a clear agenda. incog (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose: None are blockable, "Cross-wiki sockpuppetry"? It would be a lock on the global scale. (Non-administrator comment) ~~EBE!@#~~ talkContribs 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • support GNAA members are expendable.©Geni 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support- I agree with Fluffernutter's reasoning. Reyk YO! 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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? EyeSerenetalk 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Don't feed the trolls.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      FYI The community at Simple English Wikipedia has implemented an editing ban. fr33kman 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block due to COI, cross-wiki disruption and because "On Wikipedia, members of the group created a page about themselves, while adhering to every rule of Wikipedia in order to use the system against itself." From the GNAA wikipedia page. I don't really think you could find a clearer statement of intent. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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


    • There are currently 4 more people opposing than supporting this block, if you count Ohms and Atama as being undecided. SilverserenC 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
    • I'm proposing a slightly weaker proposal that I think answers people's concerns Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yep, I'd want a permanent topic ban as well. GiantSnowman 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose, prefer the indefblock. Are we better off with or without him? I see no reason to facilitate such a disruptive editor. EyeSerenetalk 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Support, but only if the indef block doesn't stick. Reyk YO! 20:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Cav didn't propose the above counter proposal...I did, as a well-meaning editor (and not even an editor who could block you, not that I have any desire to at the moment). I never had any intention of bringing you into the counter proposal and agree that your edits, while somewhat troubling, are probably not as egregious as Ka's (no SimWP trolling, for one) and I think it's fair that you be decoupled from Ka unless proven otherwise Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should've made it entirely clear I meant the initial proposal Cavalry made. Murdox (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In favor of request as the issue clearly points more to LiteralKa than it does to Murdox. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Counter proposal

    I propose that we temporarily ignore WP:NOR and rename Gay Niggers Association of America to Goat Getters Association of America (GGAA) or Drama Makers Association of America (DMAA) because that's really the reason why they exist and I have to hand it to them, they've done a damn good job of it here over the past 5 years. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a forum for discussing disruptive anti-GNAA proposals at the expensive of Wikipedia. Murdox (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first time in my Wiki-career, I've wanted a like button. Oh wait, 👍 1 user likes this.. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 2 users like this. ...and now that THAT is taken care of, I really do need to ask how long this particular time-suck is going to continue. Surely everyone has better tasks on Wikipedia to devote their attention and energy to. I thought this would have been marked Resolved four days ago. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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) [reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Proposal

    Topic ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    NB: I did mention WP:Boomerang above. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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: [6] 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: [7]). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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.[9]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    In the first instance you were told that you had got the wrong end of the policy stick (on several different counts) by the admin to whom you complained, and you are repeating here an allegation that was and remains untrue: I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else but rather suggested that there are other places where you can contribute if you do not like the way things work here. The second example is quite astounding and various people picked up on it. The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. I could dig out more examples but right now am actually trying to do something useful here. There is nothing wrong with not understanding policy etc but when you start arguing the toss about it and you start passing on your lack of understanding to others then it becomes problematic. The idea is that you learn but, no, you are still now claiming, for example, that a cite request in an infobox is justifiable even though the article contained a cite; and you are still saying that you would prefer it if a historically certain was omitted because "it is a lie". You have been told time and again where you can go if you don't like the system but you more or less consistently refuse to use the options that are suggested to you, be they here on Wikipedia (RSN, DR etc) or elsewhere, preferring instead to keep rattling cages. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain this Sitush: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurmi&diff=prev&oldid=442109883  I hope this comment was in WP:AGF, and not because anyone with a different view is definitely WP:MEATPUPPET.
    Admins: If anyone is ever blocked, does the block makes the editor someone lesser than the others? I am not sure why Sitush feels that way - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yadav&diff=prev&oldid=441934534
                      Bill has a decent brain and doesn't need your wikipolitics corrupting him. You are the only one out of us four who has been blocked from editing and that is hardly a good recommendation for your advice etc, is it?    Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, about the first diff, [10]I have already said that I was only talking about one policy in there (WP:CIVIL). The other policy which came up was WP:CANVASSING. I think there is some misunderstanding there. I was talking about some other instance of canvassing and the admin appeared to be explaining something else. I don’t think there is a misinterpretation of policy on my part there. I wasn’t talking about any other policy there. Here’s the diff [11] of you asking me to go away from WP. (At least I interpret it in that way). And I think it was your first ever comment to me. Whether or not it is a violation of WP:CIVIL is for the community to decide. Salvio seems to more or less accept that it may be a violation, but seems to regard it as not serious enough to require a warning. In that comment, you are assuming that I don’t like WP:V and WP:RS, and asked me to go away because of that reason. Actually, I think the sourcing policy (WP:V) is excellent. Your assumption is baseless. I do not understand how you could assume something like that about me even without having had much interaction with me. I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else… I think you did tell me to go edit somewhere else. What you are saying seems untrue to me. About the second example, you have not yet explained what policy I misinterpret, and how. Various people pick on it does not mean I am misinterpreting any policy. About the third example The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. This is an untruth on YOUR part. If it is not, please show a diff to prove that I argued anything about it after it was pointed out to me that I had misread the timestamps. I had provided four diffs of reverts by you, and after it was pointed out that they were not within 24 hours, I had accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. There was zero argumentation about it. And where did I confuse 3RR with edit warring? About the cite request in the infobox, it was put up because the article DID NOT have any valid cite for the line which I had tagged [12]. You did put in one ref once, [13], but it was unsupportive of the material (i.e. a misrepresentation) and I reverted it [14]. Plus, you too have now accepted that it is not a good source, [15]. It is obvious that there was no source in the article which could properly support the material which I had tagged. Rubbish refs don’t count. The material has now been deleted. Why do you keep saying again and again that my tagging was wrong? I had said that the material in the infobox was a lie, and I can still say it unless you can show some proper source for that material. I interpret the WP:V and WP:NOR to mean that anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation. I interpret them to cover the lead and the infobox too. If they are kept out of the scope of these policies, these areas would be misused to insert unverifiable and OR material. We don’t want such things on WP, do we? How was my tagging wrong?-MangoWong (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not replying to you here any further regarding these issues. It is descending into another tendentious wikilawyering farce. If you believe that you were/are correct then feel free to carry on doing so. I will never change your opinion because you have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to change. If you are/were correct in your opinion then the community will deal with me as appropriate. Right now, I have better things to do here. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hmm, well I'm back and happy to see I haven't been desysopped yet! :D Though it seems some may have it on the mind... Anyway, I'm glad Cunard brought this here. I was planning to do so once I returned, and this saves me the trouble. When I first posted about the recreation on Timeshift's user talk, I was hoping to avoid even bringing the issue to MfD, not to mention escalating to ANI, SPI, DRV, or... ArbCom? Anyway, as for where I stand on the userpage issue: though the content on the recreated page is not as grossly inappropriate as the BLP-violation-filled tirade I originally brought to MfD, I still view it as a violation of WP:NOTBLOG. I recognize that it is Timeshift's prerogative to state any beliefs and/or biases that would influence xyr Wikipedia editing. I think that declaring bias in that fashion should be encouraged. However, I agree with Orange Mike that the content on Timeshift's userpage is extremely specific, to the point where it could only be used to state bias as it pertains to the subjects of the userpage. I understand that the line between acceptable and unacceptable amounts of opinion and bloggy content is fuzzy, but I think we need to find a way to decide clearly what is acceptable for Timeshift so xe is not forced to keep toeing the line until xe finds a version that the community can accept. Furthermore, repeated MfDs will do nothing but frustrate Timeshift and the community, so I think a preemptive decision should be made so that myself, Timeshift, and the rest of the people involved here can return to productively editing. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who supports initiating an MfD and as someone who has had minimal involvement, would you, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), initiate an MfD nomination for User:Timeshift9 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)? After several days of discussion, it is unlikely that the problematic user page will be resolved at ANI. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what's the plan here? To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree with GorillaWarfare on this. If we're going to enforce boundaries, we need to start by deciding where they are and writing them down. If an editor has strong opinions about an area in which they edit, I want them to disclose those opinions in their userspace. And there's also a discussion to be had about who will be in the userspace police. Will this be yet another sysop's job?—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the plan should be that either you hash it out with Shifty on his talkpage to get the page acceptable, or you raise an MfD and get consensus to delete. Real consensus, not merely a simple majority like last time. Shifty has shown that he is willing to address concerns that are raised with him. he has been very patient and polite and I suggest you extend the same courtesy, rather than trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. FWIW Shifty and I are polar opposites politically and have had many heated, spiteful content disputes over the years. I think it is the lesser of two evils that he air his political views on his userpage and get it out of his system, than him try and POV push those views into article space, as has happened in the past. --11:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

    Berean Hunter's Signature

    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.
    Signature is not violating policy, so there is nothing here requiring admin attention. Please join the ongoing discussion at WT:Signatures#Linebreaks if a change to the guideline is desired. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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.[16]. 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 [17], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    (←) FYI, if he replaces any space(s) in his signature with &nbsp; 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Crossmr, find some encyclopedic content to work on, would ya? sheesh.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    I've seen some concerning issues with signatures, this is not one of them. Ohms Law hasn't been disrupting this conversation with the linebreak after his signature, and Berean hasn't either. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the fact that it has disrupted discussion enough for someone to bring it up here is telling. Crossmr raises some valid points. Maybe if Berean would be willing to conform with the way most everyone else signs this issue can be easily settled, but we haven't heard from him yet. -- Ϫ 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So is the perceived disruption only due to the signature on a separate line? There are some editors who post each sentence on a separate line and never indent. Surely that would be more of a disruption than a signature on its own line. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Resolved
     – AfD is reopened. CycloneGU (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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:

    • 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: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] (again waiting several weeks to conceal his most recent edit from the opposing editors).
    • 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.

    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)[reply]

    Still going against consensus and adding original research. Prime Blue (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has been warned. The "I will never stop reverting." comments are especially troubling. If the behaviour continues, he should be blocked. – Quadell (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he will revert the review table again. My bigger worry is the original research, as he still continues to add statements without sources. And if he actually does give a source, it's usual an interpretation where the information or person in question is not even mentioned – which is particularly problematic in featured and biographical articles. It's hard to trust him if he posts "false" sources that do not address the statements he wants to add, just because his earlier unsourced edits were reverted ([57][58][59][60] — [61][62][63] — [64][65] — [66][67][68][69]). That said, I have not yet checked some of the new references he has added yesterday, but I am also afraid I don't have the energy to police his edits in the future. Prime Blue (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of NOTCENSORED

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    AGF there. Wang is also a (rather common) Chinese family name... According to zhwiki, 7.25% of Mainland China population had last name Wang in 2007 census, and Taiwan's 2005 census has 4.12%. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not resolved. User:Jeffwang is now claiming that he is "retired", but will continue to edit. The two claims are mutually exclusive. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He hid my notification that I had reopened this discussion on his Talk page, which is his right, but the edit summary he used indicates that he will no longer interact with others. This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There really isn't much to discuss until we see if and how he continues editing. If he edits non-controversialy all is well. If he edits controversialy and then refuses to discuss the matter it can be handled then.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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".[70][71][72] To that end he has also been insisting that conspiracy theories are not fringe views,[73][74] and has now canvassed five editors he considers to be like-minded on this subject to support him.[75][76][77][78][79] 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)[reply]

    I've notified this user of the sanctions in this area [80] and made a note in the ArbCom log [81]. Gerardw (talk · contribs) has already spoken to them about canvassing as well [82] Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    They already got their big boom many years ago. Do you think they'd try the same spot with a newer building again NEway? I'd be willing to bet they head elsewhere in the U.S. now. Meanwhile, I wish these conspiracy theorists would shut the hell up already; they already tried to ruin our Olympics. I'm usually light on wanting to deal punishment (which is good because I can't deal punishment myself), but I say if someone is trying to push this kind of a POV regarding one of the worst terrorist attacks in history (both for victims and impact), then I just say ban the whole lot. CycloneGU (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy's behavior is definitely a problem. He hasn't edited (yet) since this discussion began. It would be good if several experienced users could keep an eye on the situation. – Quadell (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wonder Girls

    Resolved
     – reporting user confirmed as a block evading sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    [83]

    Extended content

    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)[reply]

    I looked at some recent changes. What diffs. in question are of concern? CycloneGU (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:DIFF if that remark has you puzzled. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problematic changes would seem to be these:
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [84] or would post flimsy sockpuppetry accusations on the article talk page [85]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Having looked at the article's history, I'd say that both editors should be blocked. However, if both parties are going to enter into discussion, maybe we could fully protect the article for a week to give them time to find some common ground. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [86] - 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 [87] 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 [88]. She then created Dlasta, and pointed the edit at Velasca and List of women warriors in folklore to it [89] and [90].

    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 [91], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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'sPonyobons mots 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As an initially involved editor, see for example [92], I have been monitoring this from the sidelines for the last couple of months. Although there appeared to be a slight glimmer of hope initially, Neptune's inability to take on board the slightest piece of advice is utterly disappointing. I agree with the above editors that Elen and Blade deserve kudos for their time and dedication and, unfortunately, Neptune appears to have tried everybody's patience and hasn't really responded to Blade's mentoring. As a huge drain on editors' resources and considering WP:COMPETENCE for example, sadly I believe there is only one solution, as stated above. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • There appears to be consensus for a block here - is there any uninvolved admin willing to enact it before the thread is archived? Note that Neptune has again started to create new, sparsely populated categories which will all need to be reviewed and cleaned up. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And that after I explicitly told her to run new category ideas by me... if no one has done it by this evening, I'll go through them and see what is and isn't salvageable. I'm almost tempted to tag them all G5, since she created them after she was told not to, but I think that'd be stretching it a bit as there was never anything formal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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.
    Now open at DRV, continue discussion there. CycloneGU (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been encouraged by User:Nick-D [93] to raise this here. My complaint is that User:The ed17 deleted User:Surturz/AdminWatch without warning, wrongly claiming it was an attack page.[94] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It is interesting how different people can have differing views on the same set of facts. The admin who moved the article didn't delete it, he saved it. As is, it was almost certainly destined for deletion. By moving it to user space, you have an opportunity to improve it. You can move it to article space at any time, but if you move the present version, I'll propose it for AfD as Original Research. I will be stunned if there is any substantial disagreement. That said, I'm sympathetic to the notion that admins have power, and we needs checks and balances. We have checks and balances, but they may or may not be sufficient. Summarily dismissing user space pages that document issues with admins is not something I support. I accept the deletion of attack pages, but we ought to be able to craft a distinction between factual summaries and attacks. (I'm commenting generically, I haven't reviewed this particular page to see if it does qualify as an attack.)--SPhilbrickT 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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 seautoncontributions 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • This discussion SHOULD be happening, but it should be happening at WP:DRV. However, just to answer the specific question posed by Avanu, 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)[reply]
    I'm not sure why it should be happening at DRV, except that we started by talking about Surturz particular page. However, the idea that admins should understand the leeway in this type of thing is something DRV won't address. Maybe we can address it at the Talk page for WP:ATTACK, but DRV won't solve the problem. DRV is just like jury nullification, but really there needs to be clarity in this. -- Avanu (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, if you are talking about the principles in more general terms, there are also better venues to have this discussion. Discussing how to address matters of genuine admin misconduct are absolutely and totally good discussions to have. However, this particular discussion isn't appropriate for this thread. Consider the following alternate venues for these important discussions:
    • Discussions about specific administrative actions (for example, the specific events that Surturz kept in his list) should happen HERE at WP:ANI, but in a new thread. This thread isn't appropriate for that.
    • Discussions about undeleting this specific page should happen at WP:DRV and not here.
    • Discussions about changes to Wikipedia policy or guideline pages should happen either at the talk page of the policy/guideline page in question (in this case Wikipedia talk:User pages or at the village pump, specifically Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Likewise, discussions about instituting new processes for dealing with bona fide greivances against admins are probably good discussions to have. But have it at WP:VPP, not in this thread.
    This thread, right now, doesn't serve any real purpose. So, Avenu, if you genuinely want to effect the sort of change you are advocating for, you need to use the channels which are going to make that change happen. This thread, right now, doesn't do anything for any of the possible proposals you have. So please, please, please. I am telling you: you should make the points you want to make. Just not in this thread. It isn't productive right here. --Jayron32 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that advice, Jayron; it seems like one of the best statements I've seen so far, with actual suggestions for how someone should proceed, and less of the simple 'not here'. I'm not particularly involved, I simply want to help see that statements that are made in the context of admin actions (not editors who happen to be admins) are protected more strongly than simply saying we can't openly criticize someone. This seems to be a very good case where we can see how the community recieves this, and while I don't intend on making such a page about 'bad admins' myself any time soon, I simply can't see where it really hurts anyone, especially in a case like we have here. Making a strict but loose definition at WP:ATTACK or WP:POLEMIC will be a challenge, but I'm sure the community can find a way. Thanks again, Jayron; with that, I'm done for now. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder to all that there is no "free speech issue" here, as Wikipedia is a privately owned website, and there is no right to free speech here. Everyone's participation is subject to the pleasure of the Wikimedia Foundation, which, for the most part, allows the users to set the rules which govern use. Therefore, if consensus policy is that lists of people such as the one under discussion here are not allowed, except under very specific circumstances, than that's it. You can argue that the policy ought to be something else, but you cannot argue against the policy on the grounds that you have a right to free speech. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:208.168.23.177

    Resolved
     – No further action needed here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone look into 208.157.149.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and persistent vandalism at Special Forces. The article is ideal territory for those with a POV to push and boys own favourite super hero's. But User:208.157.149.67 is editing against consensus, has not provide a cite when asked and continues to re-inset material of doubtful quality. I suspect the other IP users are the same person by their editing history on the article. If nothing else can Special Forces be protected. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would recommend reporting them to WP:AIV KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks taken there.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    John254 sockpuppet suspicions

    Recently, there has been some off-site discussion regarding whether certain users might be sockpuppets of User:John254, a banned disruptive editor. One of the most suspicious accounts is User:Cbrick77, who has extensively commented at the Cirt-Jayen ArbCom case. This user account has less than 250 edits, the first of which was on April 20 of this year. The account holder claims to be (1) a new editor and (2) 16 years old, both of which I find highly implausible after reading their contributions. We know that John254 has a history of using sockpuppets to disrupt Arbitration cases; he was banned when he was discovered using both John254 and User:Kristen Eriksen to argue both sides of the same case. He later used another confirmed sockpuppet, User:Chester Markel, to open the MickMacNee ArbCom case and make various proposals, before he was discovered and again blocked. Now we've got another new account making extensive edits to Arbitration and making questionable claims about his identity... do I hear quacking? *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, the best way to handle this is by WP:SPI. Sure, checkusers who could look into the issue DO check this noticeboard as well, but the advantage of using SPI is for filing purposes: keeping all of the sockpuppet reports and checkuser checks in one location makes it MUCH easier to track a sockpupetteers behavior and make it easier to spot trends. If we just have sockpuppet discussions on this board, we can of course resolve the case for the specific sockpuppet account, but that resolution doesn't help the overall situation. For that reason alone, I would recommend starting a formal SPI case. If you wish, you can link that case from here so we can have the discussion at the SPI case page. But I really think that sockpuppet issues (excepting in the most obvious, simple cases) should be kept together, and this one is complex enough and onerous enough that we should be keeping this under one file. --Jayron32 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Cbrick What evidence do you have to support your claim that I am a sockpuppet? You provide no proof except my constructive edits to an arbcom case and that I am 16. Neither prove anything. I haven't been disruptive, far from it. I am active on both the English and Latin wikis (on the Latin wiki I am trying to organise editors to improve the chemical element articles) and added content to commons. Is that the actions of a sock puppet? I would like proof for these accusations beyond being new, being active, being young, and being constructive. Cbrick77 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • All I'd add here is that, in general, when someone is accused of doing X, if they are innocent of the charge, generally react with such as "Don't be ridiculous, I would never do X". Whilst guilty parties generally react with "Why do you think I have done X?" or "What evidence do you have that I have done X"? This is a general sociological point, not a Wikipedia one. YMMV. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You turn up and comment that you write scripts , just like User:John254 and then you focus on an arbitration case involving User:Cirt , just like User:John254. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not mean that single purpose accounts should involve themselves in disciplinary proceedings against other editors. It seems to me that for a user to be able to offer informed opinion and analysis, they ought to either have had interactions with the parties or to have significant experience editing the kinds of pages that are at issue in a given case. For example, since this is a case about CofS and BLPs, credible workshop proposals will come from editors with a history of editing articles about CofS or a history of editing BLPs. Non-credible workshops should be removed and copied to the user talk page of the proposing editor. There is no reason to clutter the workshop with proposals from non-credible editors, whether or not they can be proved to be sock puppet or bad hand accounts. Thatcher 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I totally agree, well said. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask for proof because no one has any. I write scripts, so what? Most of Hollywood does and as I said on my talk page, I do it through a program, script frenzy. My script frenzy user page is here. I had to validate in April so that winner bar means I do write scripts as cbrick on script frenzy and I did it in April. I doubt john did that. Because I am focused on the arb case on the en wiki doesn't mean I'm not doing anything. On [la.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Cbrick77 the Latin Wikipedia] I have been working on translating and creating infoboxes for the elements. I am not a single purpose account. And I have offered my best input as an uninvolved editor to the arbcom case. I aspire to be a clerk or even an arbitrator and before throwing my hat in the ring, I felt it would be best to get experience with arbcom cases and show I can offer valid thoughts. In conclusion I have done my best to contribute to this encyclopedia. I have source BLP's and have worked to revert vandalism. I have contributed to la.wiki as well as this one. I am not a sock puppet and I am 16. And rob, if you agree that inexperienced editors should not comment on arbcom pages, why were you so supportive of my proposal and my evidence and my input into the case. Cbrick77 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I found Chester Markel's participation odd in the MickMacNee case. Equally well, for a 16 year old, as I've written off-site, the editing history of Cbrick77 is equally puzzling. Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should run a check user then... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am directed as an experienced contributor to assume as much good faith as possible, but the quacking is deafening WP:duck. I am also supportive of the comments here and at other locations that arbitration cases are not correct places for uninvolved inexperienced new users to focus their energy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eraserhead1: My editing pattern is confusing because I most often hit the random page button and see what ways I can help.
    @Rob: Well why didn't you say that before? If you think I was focusing too much on the arbcase for a uninvolved inexperienced new user, tell me that, I'm always willing to listen to friendly suggestions (as such, I'll try to be less involved in the ArbCom case). If check user would be best to clear my name, I'd be willing to have it done (not like I have a choice, but I'm assuming that volunteering would get it done faster). Cbrick77 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A user whose 5th edit is this (note the edit summary) is either (a) not a new user, or (b) incredibly quick at picking up citation templates, referencing style and projectspace tags (WP:URBLP). Having said that, I edited as an IP for quite a while and picked up quite a bit of this stuff, so .... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across citation tags and styling from WP:URBLP as well as WP:REFB(linked to from WP:URBLP) and studying other article styles of citation. If I remember correctly, I learned about WP:URBLP from the notice box above the watchlist, that or I saw an edit summary in recent changes with the link in it. Either way, I clicked and decided to help since I'm good enough at googling things. Cbrick77 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Other possibilities:

    User:Cbrick77 is a CleanStart editor who would rather not make that public.

    User:Cbrick77 is an undercover ArbCom agent probing the editing climate to gain information relevant to some ArbCom cases.

    Count Iblis (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to mention another possiblity. It may be that an Arbcom member wants to participate in the ArbCom case and wants to do that anonymously. If this is the case then it's quite likely that User:Cbrick77 = User:Coren. Count Iblis (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Checkuser needed /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Count Iblis, I appreciate your alternative suggestions as to whom I could be, but they are also false. I am not a CleanStart, nor an undercover ArbCom agent (I didn't even know they had those), and I am no arbitrator. I am simply another editor who, through an unfortunate series of events, has landed himself in this situation on his first and only account. Cbrick77 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Iblis, if you really do think this user is a sock of Coren, the correct course of action is to open an SPI, not make random accusations here (oh, he might be Coren, or an Arbcom plant - and what exactly is one of those anyway - or he might be Greta Garbo, who knows). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibilities are just possibilities, not per se something to be concerned about. And that also applies to the thread subject of whether User:Cbrick77 is User:John254 or not. Because even if this were the case, as long as User:Cbrick77 behaves in an exemplary way as he's done so far, Wikipedia is better off with him contributing here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but you see, no. If Cbrick77 were a sock of John254, he would be blocked immediately, so it is important to establish whether he is or not. Hence the request to the OP to file an SPI, as the Checkusers have all the background info. On the other hand, randomly accusing an editor of sockpuppetry, without any intention to file an SPI and have someone actually investigate it, has been established to be a personal attack. Consequently, the advice to you has to be to either put up and file the case, or shut up and withdraw the allegation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia suffers from OCD? The "personal attack" charge reminds me of my aunt who has OCD, when I joked about her floor not being 100% clean. It was as if I had made her floor very dirty (like throwing dirt on the floor) and then forced her to clean it. :) . As far as I'm concerned, Cbrick77 is an excellent editor, whether he is Coren, Greta Garbo or someone else, until his actual edits prove otherwise. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Hathorn concerns

    For reference: Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · count · logs)

    Through discussion at WT:DYK#Billy Hathorn and elsewhere (links to current and past discussions follow), it has become clear to me that this user is editing in a disruptive manner in the following ways:

    • Mass creation of articles on non-notable topics, mostly biographies.
    • Widespread insertion of copyrighted and plagiarised text, both cut-and-paste and close paraphrasing.
    • Ongoing uploading of images of copyrighted works of others marked as "own work".
    • Tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" - Billy Hathorn has been active on Wikipedia for years, and across literally thousands of articles. Despite repeated warnings to his talk page and past discussions, Billy persists in adding copyvio and plagiarism, using unreliable sources, creating masses of articles on non-notable topics (mostly biographies), and uploading images of copyrighted works of others as "own work".

    Links to past discussions:

    I am not sure what the best solution to this is. Given that Billy Hathorn has been a long-time editor who has persisted in these disruptive behaviors despite years of requests and warnings, I think that at the least, he should be banned from article creation. To the extent that he wishes to create new articles, he should do so in userspace, and have them moved to articlespace by someone else (who should, in each case, evaluate them against all of the above concerns before doing so). If there are additional remedies to be taken, I leave it to others to suggest them. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cmadler, thank you for taking the time to research and bring forward this chronic problem.

    @ Daniel Case: I don't see how what "usually gets people discussed here" is the issue; that there is no evidence of him not being uncivil does not make his editing any less disruptive or damaging to the Project. In fact, based on what I've seen, his editing is more damaging than an uncivil personal-attacking editor, as he has created possibly thousands of poor stubs that have flown under the radar and will not likely ever be cleaned up, and those have included BLP vios.

    And no, copyright is not the only issue, so waiting for CCI to finish (which may never happen anyway) isn't the solution. There is use of non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, padding of articles with irrelevant information, and more. It's not only a copyright issue, although that is the most serious. There are many other issues of relevance and requiring admin attention, including but not limited to a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT after many, many warnings. Who gets to clean up all the messes if he continues editing? I get the impression that he is not a child, and not obtuse-- that he knows what he's doing wrong, and continues doing it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Wikipedia). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
      Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
      Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    History merge

    Hello, I was looking at Royal Canadian Mounted Police Foundation (which I reviewed via AFC), and a notice was posted requesting a history merge with another draft of the same page. I've finished the necessarily work on the page, and need the page history of the draft merged into the article. The draft can then be deleted. Thanks! --Nathan2055talk 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) already histmerged the article, which is actually in pretty poor shape and (IMO) should not have been accepted via AfC. Then again, I haven't reviewed any AfC submissions for a few months, so I'm probably behind on the guidelines there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the article is in bad shape, especially in the matter of sources, but the topic seemed like it was covered so I accepted it. It is ranked Start-class and has a several tags on it, so it should be cleaned up eventually. --Nathan2055talk 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No no no. The reviewer needs to clean it up before accepting the submission. AfC is not about leaving trash out for others to pick up. This is one of the reasons why I stopped bothering with AfC—there was always too much garbage going out that could have been resolved with a ten-second edit (removing the unsourced and poorly-sourced material so long as the remaining content could still support an article). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I found copied content (both copyvios from the external website, which is not compatibly licensed,and copying from other articles which was not attributedSame contributor, so this much is okay), and it's certainly not neutral: "This auction gives buyers the opportunity to purchase horses with wonderful dispositions. Many have been well trained and Hanoverian certified, from the world famous Musical Ride breeding program." Why don't the submitters have to correct these kinds of problems before they're moved into mainspace? </confused> --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They're supposed to—the submission should have been "declined" with a note left to the creator explaining the issues. Now I'm tempted to start helping at AfC again. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Digitalfrontier conflict of interest

    Resolved
     – Consensus at work here. CycloneGU (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Digitalfrontier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    This account appears to have been made only to resubmit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Digital Frontier after it is denied per the fact that it doesn't have enough sources. It appears the article itself may have been written in a conflict of interest. --Nathan2055talk 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, this does seem to be the case. – Quadell (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported user at WP:UAA. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked. ceranthor 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skyblueshaun

    Resolved
     – User has finally seen sense and removed the material from his user page. GiantSnowman 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to avoid bringing this anywhere, hoping it could all have been sorted normally, but whatever. Basically, Skyblueshaun (talk · contribs)'s user page violates WP:WEBHOST, WP:NOTBLOG etc., as it is just a record of his video game save. I advised him of this, but he ignored me, and continued to expand his user page. After waiting a short period, I advised him I would do it for him, which I did, but he immediately reverted me. I bring it here for some input/action. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    His response. GiantSnowman 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    MarshallBagramyan

    Hello, User:MarshallBagramyan in Mubariz Ibrahimov article, blanked a section about the person's death without constructive reason, while just putting link to Mardakert Skirmishes which does not fully cover Mubariz Ibrahimov's death. Here is the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mubariz_Ibrahimov&diff=442269490&oldid=442124795 Even though, his grammatical fixing of errors are considered fine but he still removed again, without construtive reason and now blames me for fixing his blunders. One more time section blanking noticed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mubariz_Ibrahimov&diff=442530605&oldid=442527162

    I ask admins to take action against him as he did not follow neither talk page rules or my warning and he already as far I know banned few times for his anti-Azerbaijani agenda. --NovaSkola (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already expressed my confusion regarding Novaskola's baffling explanations. I did not blank any section; in fact Novaskola's first edit reverted all my changes without distinction. My edits not only added about 700 kb of information but also adjusted several figures which had been inflated by previous editors. In two of his blind reverts he re-inserted the blatantly inaccurate claim that this soldier was responsible for killing 200 other soldiers in a brief skirmish, when the sources can't even agree if the number was perhaps closer to 5. He merely chose to cherrypick which edits he found fitting and which worthy of exclusion. Also, as stated on the article's talk page, I provided the details revolving around this individual's death, a fact which Novaskola apparently did not find important, but which I suspect has more to do with suppressing the rather controversial nature of his death. I find this report and its author's comments frivolous and find it all the more surprising that he is making unfounded allegations against me when they can better be ascribed to them. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not cherry pick, it is violation of Wikipedia's rules. By using section blanking, you wanted just like as some of your previous contributions to erase information about the actions that critical of Armenia. I am not going to waste my time and argue with you, I think it is enough for admins to check this user's background history to see how many anti-Azerbaijani actions has been implemented by this particular user. --NovaSkola (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I can confirm that Marshal Bagramyan did not do what NovaSkola accused him of. The subject of the article died in a skirmish that we have an article on - he added the link to the skirmish, and rewrote some of the text, he didn't blank the section. In fairness, it may have appeared that he did because of the quirks of the Mediawiki interface. NovaSkola seems to be coming at this with some sources which definitely have an agenda - Marshal Bagramyan's sources may be merely cautious, or they may have a pov as well. I don't know enough about the subject to say.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's oversights of swift deletion

    As an artist who has received a multitude of press (Washington Post, 3 variants of the BBC, Newslite, Reuters and many more), won a Guinness World Record, performed on large stages and played roles in film and TV - who is both humble and heart and a warrior for his art, I am appalled by Wikipedia's oversights of swift deletion. The page featuring me, not created by me, had 7 quality & verifiable sources noted below. Member KOAVF decided it should be deleted because he is a) a volunteer & b) he personally didn't find the article notable & c) the sources below were not good enough for him. What kind of thing is this, that real people achieving real goals are put down by those who don't even have the sense to do some research prior to 'deleting upon content'. I find this COMPLETELY UNFAIR, a chaos and an anarchy.


    1. ^ "10 strangest Edinburgh Fringe venues". BBC News. August 12, 2009
    2. ^ "Musician gets record for longest single title". Newslite. April 22, 2011
    3. ^ Season 3 Actors. Alias The TV Show. accessed August 2, 2011.
    4. ^ "A virtual first for the Fringe". The Scotsman. June 22, 2009
    5. ^ MacKenzie, Ian. "Acts flock to Edinburgh Fringe despite recession". Reuters. June 10, 2009
    6. ^ Ruh, Dennis. Oldenburg Film Festival. August 24, 2009
    7. ^ Scholer, Robin. "Mikhail Tank Wins a Guinness World Record and Continues Being a Renaissance Man". Studio City Patch. April 24, 2011

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillbetold3 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears this user is upset that an article he contributed to has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Tank (2nd nomination). The AfD is ongoing. It is a dispute over notability. No admin action required here. Singularity42 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Koavf notified: [95]. Singularity42 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. This user is the subject and he has removed the AfD tag from the article and sent me harassing e-mails (in case someone really needs verification, let me know.) This can be safely ignored as a crank. I've told him repeatedly that if he wants the article to not be deleted, he can establish notability through verifiable and credible third-party sources either in the article or at the AfD. Instead, he decides to spam my e-mail, post to ANI, and even e-mail Jimmy Wales. *sigh —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment "This can be safely ignored as a crank" is inappropriate. Not everyone understands Wiki-speak, and insisting that people follow Wiki-rules when they are essentially new to the entire process isn't very fair. A simpler approach would be to clearly outline what you feel they (or other editors) need to provide for the article to meet Wikipedia standards and give a reasonable amount of time, maybe 2 weeks, for them to provide what is needed. -- Avanu (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh to hell with that milquetoast nonsense. Someone who goes to the trouble to harass via e-mail deserves no coddling and certainly no over-abused WP:AGF consideration. Read standards and guidelines first, then create the article. Those are the kind of editors we need to work on retaining, not the ones that treat the click-on-a-redlink aspect of the project as a personal myspace band bio page. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A user who shall go unmentioned (not me) once said that he was fully in support of blocking any username with "truth" in it on sight... I'm wondering if he might have been onto something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't create the article, they are its subject. The person only has 11 edits. So I'm kind of asking for those of us who do know how things work to be classy and accept that not everyone understands how Wikipedia works and people can get frustrated with it easily. It is hardly 'milquetoast' to act like a decent host for a guest. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent Truthwillbetold3 a personal welcome and an offer to explain our arcane ways. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Avanu No, he's a crank. He wrote me a profanity-laden e-mail asking "what I've ever accomplished" and calling me names because I nominated this article for deletion. This isn't an issue of him not understanding policy (I received an e-mail from his representation simultaneously which was professional and respectful--that was an e-mail about not understanding policy.) He's mad and rude and is harassing me--you shouldn't give his complaints the time of day or else you will end up wasting your time as I have done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You might be right, but also it might be just a really poor reaction in frustration. Certainly not what we want to deal with, but understandable. I hope his attitude changes. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I sternly warned the user not to do that again. Even newcomers should be minimally aware that they cannot be harassing like that; this is not "wiki-speak", this is common sense. –MuZemike 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If he really is Mikhail Tank, then he's edited here before as User:Emperortank. An article on this topic was created and deleted twice in 2006, by him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Users AzureCitizen and Xenophrenic on Annabel Park's page

    A friendly request for administrators here to look at the editing patterns of users AzureCitizen and Xenophrenic regarding their re-insertion of currently disputed material on Annabel Park's wikipedia page.(Edits by AzureCitizen: [96]; [97]; [98]) (Edits by Xenophrenic: [99]; [100]) Administrators should also take note of the rapport that both users have with each other, especially from the correspondences both users have with each other on the respective user's talk-pages: [101], [102]Galafax (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to notify both of the above editors that you have filed a report on this board please. I would do it for you but I have to walk the dog before it gets too dark. Thanks --Dianna (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably didn't occur to Galafax that we should be notified; I will go and post a note on Xenophrenic's page shortly to make sure he's aware of it too. For Galafax, I'd ask that you please be a little more specific and let folks here know precisely what it is that you think is wrong with my editing patterns, or with Xenophrenics, or what the concern is with our rapport. The link to the first conversation thread you provided above indicates that Xenophrenic disagreed with one of my edits, saying it fell short of 100% accuracy. The conversation was respectful and does not indicate anything inappropriate or questionable in my opinion, so perhaps you could better articulate what your concern is. The link to the second conversation you provided above refers to several edits Xenophrenic and I happened to make at nearly the same time in Talk Page discussions; for example, compare here and here where we both made edits regarding the $100,000 offer made by Andrew Breitbart to donate to the United Negro College Fund. Could you clarify your concerns exactly, so as to make the most efficient use of our time here on ANI?
    With regard to your posting of diffs above for edits made by myself and Xenophrenic on the Annabel Park BLP, I would like to respectfully point out that you probably should have disclosed your direct involvement in a content dispute. As you know, you've repeatedly removed the portion about the Coffee Party considering itself to be an alternative to the Tea Party from the article in question, the most recent three reverts taking place in the span of 7 hours here, here, and here, as well as removing a 3RR warning posted on your talk page. Please note you were also reverted by a third editor here (The Magnificent Clean-keeper). I'm really not sure ANI is the best place to resolve this, especially if things are a bit vague, so perhaps you could elaborate more on what it is you're seeking here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A related thread about Coffee Party USA is available at DRN. 2 of the disputants (Galafax and Xenophrenic) are listed as disputants to that posting. Galafax appears to have neglected notifying Xenophrenic again with their posting (I've resolved that one). Seeing that this is the 2nd Coffee Party USA (broadly construed) with some of the same editors I'm thinking we may have a WP:BATTLEGROUND going on here and closing down one of the threads would be optimal to try and resolve this nest of issues. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Extremely serious and severe edit war commencing at "Sophie Scholl"

    Resolved
     – We're done here then, I guess? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP address 50.40.243.7 keeps removing content from the page above, so his vandalism got reverted 7 times. Gave him 2 only warnings, answered the AIV report for the IP address, requested page protection, and now i'm left with no choice but to report this to you. What has really gotten to the IP address?? StormContent (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The page protection has now been put in place by Materialscientist. --Dianna (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Either the IP needs to be blocked or Dayan Jayatilleka needs to be semied too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Semied that one too. The vandal was already IP-hopping again, and had been vandalising that article repeatedly over several weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    MarcusBritish and Jim Sweeney

    Greetings. I stumbled upon some user behaviour issues, and thought I'd ask for some more eyes and/or opinions. Due to a conflict in a thread at WikiProject Good articles, MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) made a run-of-the-mill personal attack on Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) here, who in turn requested (demanded?) an apology. Marcus responded badly, the details of which are all at User talk:Jim Sweeney#Abuse. That's when I saw the situation.

    Since Marcus had made several personal attacks at that point, I gave him a level-2 warning, which he blanked. In subsequent discussion between these two, Marcus continued to call Jim "contemptible", a "prig", etc. Jim did not make any direct personal attacks, but was not exactly acting like a saint either. All this is at the "Abuse" thread linked above. I gave Marcus a level-3 warning, at which point he stopped making direct attacks. In conversation on my talk page (User talk:Quadell#Hello) Marcus claims he has been harassed by Jim, and accused me at length of bad behaviour as well. Incidentally, another admin in good standing made an assessment of the situation here, essential advising everyone to not be dicks. Always good advice.

    I know that Marcus was making personal attacks, and I hope he has stopped. I honestly don't know whether Jim has done anything worthy of sanction or not, though I suspect not. I believe that Marcus's accusations against me are unfounded, but if they're not, I'd like to know if I should have done anything differently. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sergeispb-10 and the Norma Stitz article

    Resolved
     – 3-day block confirmed by Chzz. No further action needed at the time. CycloneGU (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This inexperienced editor has added a strange little anti-pedophilia paragraph to the article on fetish model Norma Stitz, over and over, despite objections from multiple editors. The disputed text, which doesn't seem to have any genuine relevance to the article subject, was originally added several times by an IP, leading to the article being semi-protected. Tabercil has given the editor a final warning (yesterday), but the edit warring continues. Sergeispb-10 has also issued a rather odd threat, which probably violates WP:NLT although it's impossible to take seriously: I think can to be scandal in the case of address to FBI [103]; and some of his other comments there accuse editors who disagree with him of "latent pedophilia's lobbying". There seems to be a bit of a language barrier here, but the main problem is that the editor is entirely unwilling to engage rationally.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He needs to stop acting like a boob. Seriously, there's a large language gapt here, and I'm not sure if he really understands what we are telling him. That being said, the rhetoric coming from him needs to be ratcheted down a few notches. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of a language barrier? He's posting incomprehensible gibberish. It's word salad. I don't think a WP:COMPETENCE block would be out of line. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of dressing goes best with word salad? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Raunch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a pickle to be in. I don't relish it. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lettuce move on SPhilbrickT 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll note I tagged it already. =P CycloneGU (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Well given the content of his edits to articles other than Norma Stitz, I'm suspecting he's Russian. The warning I gave yesterday was for 3RR and he's continued since then. Yes it is a day later but this editor started this back as an anon IP - see here. As such a 3RR block for that is perfectly justifiable and is exactly what I'm about to met out. The editor does seem able to add valid information (assuming the sourcing on those Ethopian-related article edits holds up), so I'm just going to give him a 3 day vacation. If the gallery thinks that's too long/too short, feel free to correct. Tabercil (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed this, and I believe the 3-day block was appropriate in this case. I added some comments to the user [104]. I think we're done here?  Chzz  ►  16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra eyes, please

    Resolved
     – Socking detected and blocked by DeltaQuad. CycloneGU (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Running through the recent-changes list this morning revealed what may (or may not) be an incipient problem. A "new" user, Danteas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has marked several other user accounts as sockpuppets using the {{sock}} template. A quick look in the SPI archives shows what looks like a mix of correct and incorrect applications of that template. Could another set of eyes look these over and verify whether someone's actually trying to be helpful, or is on some sort of warped vandalism spree? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I undid some, which didn't look valid. There were 3 'valid' changes, changing the sock-master from Ghost109 (talk · contribs) to Arisedrew, which accords with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arisedrew/Archive, so I left 2 of those, the 3rd had already been reverted as vandalism by another user [105] which I think isn't correct.
    The users only other edit thus far was to an article [106] which I undid for the reason in the edit-summary [107].
    So - not disruptive, per se. Unlikely a new user, but AGF applies, for now - unless others know of anything?  Chzz  ►  16:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've informed the user of this discussion, and explained my edits on their user talk page.  Chzz  ►  16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm As many courtesy notifications as I've done for others, one would think I could remember to notify another user when I start a discussion myself. Thank you for letting them know. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Blocked He's socking, See SPI. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bokan995

    Resolved
     – Blocked by Tnxman307. CycloneGU (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bokan995 (talk · contribs) is adding disputed sources (eg a travel book by a journalist) to Medes. Two editors including myself have reverted him and there is a discussion, initiated by me but with two other editors now involved, on the article talk page. He's been asked to contribute there but he simply re-inserts his edits, using edit summaries to assert that his sources are reliable. I've asked him a number of times to communicate but he has never responded on either user talk pages (including his own) or article talk pages. Although there is obviously a content dispute, the issue here is failure to communicate and edit warring - my last post to his talk page said "I am asking you again to use Talk:Medes to discuss your edits. Two other posters have responded to me there but you haven't. You really should not reinstate your edits without consensus now" which he ignored, simply reinserting his edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=443053249"