Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.24.211.105 (talk) at 22:38, 4 October 2011 (→‎Pressing Need: The it.wiki's freedom is under threat!!!). 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


    2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

    The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

    Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

    Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

    The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

    For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this
    checkYFuture time stamped to prevent archival. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Floydian's continued proud violations of WP:INCIVIL and WP:STALK

    This is going nowhere and as such is an inappropriate venue - such would be a user RFC or WP:DRN

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

    Despite being repeatedly warned on his incivility, User:Floydian has shown no interest in stopping. And despite being explicitly warned to by an administrator to avoid me, User:Floydian will not stop stalking and making personal and uncivil attacks on me wherever he follows me to. I've been very patient with this user for several months but it's now getting ridiculous.

    And as you'll see below, he has no respect of administrators who disagree with him.

    Starting with this user's multiple failed AfD's earlier this year that I was involved in, in which this user demonstrated some of the most egregious violations of civility I've ever seen, this user suddenly became obsessed with me, hounding me, showing up in discussions about articles that he had absolutely nothing to do with. Throughout his 7 month long obsession with me and interaction with other editors, he has demonstrated complete inability to interact properly with those he disagrees with. This list of his violations is long, but these are only the ones I've come across in just the few minutes of searching.

    Incivility

    • Here are just some of the amazing examples of this user's incivility at other editors and a couple to me. These are just some, starting from February into this month (September):
    "are you fucking blind?"
    "Use common fucking sense. That is a reason and an argument. Your vote is useless."
    "Fucking tards"
    "Way for two voters to change it to whatever the fuck they want to, because they're Admins. WHOO!"
    "Its admins like you who don't pay attention to the bigger picture that make doing things take twice as long.", "Thanks for wasting time by making assumptions."
    "wait...charitable? You're about as charitable as an insurance company!" , "Prove where I lied (but don't copy my post or I'll be an anal retentive prick because I have nothing better to do with my life)"
    "are you really that thick?"
    "This feels as fruitless as wiping a kittens nose in its pee to get it to stop peeing on the floor. If you can't be bothered to address basic points of debate, including but not limited to understanding what you yourself have posted, addressing points raised by others, and backing up your consensuses, then you are a waste of time."

    Hounding and Stalking (and more incivility)

    After the proud spree of incivility in the first few diffs above, Floydian began stalking me by showing up in discussions I was involved with that he had nothing to do with.[1][2]. He then showed up on my talk page, again regarding a topic and discussion he had nothing to do with, and just kept on hounding and baiting me, all on my talk page. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] He just wouldn't go away.
    In an apparent attempt to save face, the user inexplicably started an ANI against me for calling his behavior childish in the above exchange, despite him attacking me by calling me "childish" [10] and then "thick". [11] In that ANI, administrator Chris Cunningham/Thurmberward closed the ANI with no action but appropriately warned us to avoid each other.[12]
    Since that ANI last April, with the exception of one AfD on a road [13] (I have a long history of strong interest in transportation articles), where user Floydian strangely attacks my "honesty" [14], I have managed to stay away from him. User Floydian on the other hand has repeatedly violated the administrator's notice in his own ANI and has continuously been hounding me. Just after that AfD he dropped in on Talk:News International phone hacking scandal (a topic obviously having nothing to do with roads which make up a majority of his edits) right after I made a comment there just to counter my opinion. [15][16] (His opinion was almost unanimously out of line with consensus). After I made an edit related to the Hollywood Freeway chickens article [17], someone quickly started and AfD on it and he immediately jumped right in to advocate its deletion.[18] (with the exception of a SPA, his opinion again was unanimously out of line with consensus).
    The final straw came today after I created a stub for Hollywood Walk of Fame honoree George Hicks (broadcast journalist) where I removed a prod and began collecting citations to place in the article. Floydian jumped in out of nowhere and drops this foul language-laced attack on the article's talk page, the very first edit on it. When called on his stalking and his uncivility, his response was:
    "once again you just say a bunch of nothing, and do a bunch of nothing, at the same time. What a great contributor!"
    While noting that adding citations is always good to any editor, it's clear this user's sole motivation was to hound and harass me instead of improving the article. As of writing this user has made zero improvements to it. (I've made great improvements to it.) I'm tired of contributing and having to worry about his guy who is obviously monitoring my history page and has no sense of civility and boundaries, from jumping into articles I'm working on or discussions I'm involved with to throw attacks at me. My toleration for this is over. It's disruptive, immature and and at best extremely bad form.

    Conclusion

    What's terrible about his editor is that he thinks his uncivil behavior is perfectly fine.
    For the first two diffs above, when called on his incivility by several users [19][20][21], he not only didn't apologize but actually doubled down. His response was most telling about his view of Wikipedia's civility policies.
    [22]
    And he stuck to his proclamation.
    As administrator User:Fastily stated about his incivility in Floydian's failed RfA (have a read, it's quite amazing) which was almost unanimously opposed due to his incivility, "Many users have been blocked for much less." This user has been called on his behavior for the last several months by several administrators and users and yet he has not stopped. Clearly this user has not learned anything about civility in the last year. Nobody has ever been blocked for disagreeing with other users, but profanity laced personal attacks and hounding on this project should not be tolerated. Let's finally demonstrate that our rules against stalking, harassment and incivility are valued. Otherwise this user will continue with this poor behavior and others won't be deterred from it.
    Feel free to delve deep into the evidence, diffs and histories and come to your own conclusion. Thank you for reading.--Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Appreciate it.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been complaining about this for some time. Why was this not resolved in April? Doc talk 06:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my response in the ANI started by Floydian against me. It hasn't been resolved because Floydian has ignored that ANI closing Admin's suggestion for us to avoid each other. Also his incivility was not scrutinized there so he just continued with it. I wished this was all done, but alas.--Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're looking for a "civility" block based on a pattern of incivility - I wish you luck in that endeavor. Doc talk 06:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does a bunch of evidence from months ago show? I've actually taken many steps to improve my civility since a failed RFA in the late spring; I have completely cut out my use of foul language (though Oakshade would like to consider words like "hell" and "damn" as foul, we don't live in the 1950s), completely toned down my edit summaries, and disengaged myself from most drama (where possible). I still tell people when they are being poor editors, but that is far from incivility - that is factually based, and telling someone that the edits they make are doing more harm than good is not personal, its part of building a good encyclopedia.
    I'm assuming this report is a result of my posts at this talk page. As an aside, Oakshade regularly accuses people of OWNership, as you'll see in his generous collection of evidence, yet treats any interaction I have with him on articles he's created as stalking. Back to that article, Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia, makes no attempts to improve them, and fights vigorously against those who try to encourage him to include a source or write more than a sentence before hitting submit. Many of his articles are taken to AFD where the community's time is wasted for seven days because nobody wants to do the work that the initial creator should have done in the first place (WP:DEADLINE applies here in my mind). But I digress; after avoiding this editor for at least 3 months, I brought in a source to the talk page of their recently created article and asked them, for the love of god, to please include a source and do a little more research. The reason I found the page was because of the PROD placed upon it. Anyways, I don't feel Oakshade has any case here, and so I don't plan to reply any more beyond this once. Just the same thing as months ago, with the exact same evidence, and half a year of separation between then and now.
    And as a last point, you added just over 11000 bytes of data in the edit to make this complaint (though as has been mentioned, most of that is probably copied directly from the report in April). Meanwhile, you added 1300 bytes of content to an article. This provides a value many like to refer to as the content : drama ratio. For what really should be a non-issue, you have spent far more of your time focused on this than benefiting Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you have taken steps to improve your civility. I find the following edit summaries contradict that statement:

    I also find your response to this report contradicts that statement as well; Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia. I draw attention to the fact that my own ban history was gained through far, far fewer "incidents" and far far less serious reasons. I cannot believe that after the first list posted above, this user has not been blocked. Colofac (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If we can't point out when we think someone is not providing a net benefit, then slowly the encyclopedia will be taken over by entropy. I'm sorry if people take it personally, but perhaps those people should double their effort and prove otherwise instead of taking it as an insult against their character. It's not. It's an observation based on the concrete content that you submit in the form of text, nothing more, nothing less.
    The edit summaries you've cherry picked are certainly taken out of context. Perhaps read into them and the surrounding edits before jumping to conclusions? Please observe the history of that IP over the past 3 months and you'll see that yes, a rangeblock for their school is soon to be necessary.[23][24][25]
    And if you think calling such a persistent vandal a "dummy" is an attack or personal assault, well, then you don't have a lot of hours logged to Wikipedia. Dealing with clever vandals over the course of three months, regularly trying to mess the articles you've committed a lot of time to, then YES! You become frustrated! Calling a persistent vandal a dummy is well-earned on the vandal's part, and I can't lower myself to the social interaction of a McDonalds Playplace, treating even the most extremist of people as fine and dandy. Vandals are vandals, I'm sure the verbal pain I cause them will be absorbed. As for the first summary, that's exactly the problem with Oakshade - Sooner than taking a source that I offered, along with my observation of Oakshade's persistent creation of two sentence unsourced stubs instead of taking the initial time to create an infomative and sourced article, he accused my of stalking, acting in bad-faith, and reported me here. You tell me where the good-faith was broken in that chain. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but calling someone a "dummy" is very much a personal attack. For someone who feels they can talk about logged on hours, you of all people should know this. Short articles are not "dismal", in fact, would you post the links to short articles the editor has created on my talkpage so that I can edit them to make them better? Calling all their edits "dismal" is uncivil and bad faith. I'm gonna advise you to drop your line on "worth" and "benefit", it is shockingly arrogant and totally unnecessary. I would rather short articles than that attitude. Colofac (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very much surprised to see you attacking Floydian for incivility. Does this mean we are not going to see anything like this from you in the future (maybe I missed where you conceded that it was wrong and undertook not to repeat it -- it's hard to stay up to date when people keep purging their own talk pages), or are you just being hypocritical? Hans Adler 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, have your own history Hans. Things like calling people "pedants" for example. Hypocrisy can be called both ways here. Colofac (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are just being hypocritical. Thanks for the clarification. Hans Adler 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Because the way I see it, you decided to hound me first, despite your own actions. Hypocrite. Colofac (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In 2009? On Talk:Leeds by referring to a group of people you identify with as pedants? I couldn't help noticing that you were using Twinkle by your 8th edit. Anything to declare? Hans Adler 22:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I please block User:Hans Adler, User:Colofac, and User:Floydian for personal attacks on each other? --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a big leap of a judgment call, seeing as I'm not part of whatever they've got going on above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - This was archived due to 24 hours of no activity. It's restored here as this should have a definitive ending (block, warning, Floydian's behavior warrants no action, etc.).--Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No response means nobody feels any action is warranted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try, but there were already responses including two advocating your blocking, and while 8 days of no activity might be definitive, 24 hours isn't.--Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment tl;dr. This seems more suited to a user conduct RFC anyway. --Rschen7754 02:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment  At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 13#Birchmount Road, I stated about nominator Floydian, "Statements such as, "I very much doubt Oakshade's 'honesty' " should have led the closing admin to understanding the nomination in general as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the reliance of other editors on the statements of the nominator as misplaced."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This case is very depressing. Despite the stringent language in Wikipedia policies WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL, it appears that in practice no administrator is willing to enforce them. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, the entire state of the ANI board is very depressing. Loads of admins are little more than passive but arrogant couch potatoes themselves who fail to block even the most arrogant (ab)users like User:Floydian. I think a week-long ban is in order. I'm sorry, Floydian. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think you'll find it's because the vast majority of admins aren't going to issue a civility block unless there's a recent, persistent pattern of serious incivility, and (except in the most egregious cases) evidence that it has continued after at least one warning. At the moment, the evidence amounts to three diffs of very minor incivility (if indeed they are even incivil) presented by an editor who is not exactly averse to producing such edits themselves. If anyone wishes to open a user RFC then that is their prerogative, but this is going nowhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sorry for commenting here after the section has been closed, but I don't think it can go to the archives in its current state. The section was started by User:Colofac, a 'new' user of less than 350 edits. Here is an incomplete list of some ofthe user's activities so far:

    The point where I first became aware of this user (but did not get involved) was WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Flood of usernames with "NNU" and random numbers. Colofac opened that ANI report drawing attention to a large number of similarly named accounts of students of Jiangdu middle school in China. Colofac asked if there was a way to "stop this", expressing concern that the students might "try and push their vile propaganda through the site". In this context, Colofac had nominated an article with clear and obvious claim to notability for speedy deletion [29] and removed the automatically generated (by Twinkle) welcome message on the creator's talk page with the edit summary "removing unintended welcome. I'm not here to welcome." [30] This led to the user's first and so far only block. [31]

    I am not sure who this is, but based on the edits I am pretty sure it must be a returning user, most likely a blocked one. Maybe someone recognises this English nationalist from earlier interactions? I don't recognise him, although his attack on me with a 2-year-old diff suggests I have met him before under an earlier account of his. In any case this user is clearly not a net benefit. As far as I'm concerned further discussion can wait until the account has started editing again, but somehow it didn't seem right to keep the section closed after an admin has asked for insane civility blocks for everyone, apparently without any proper research.

    I have not examined the diffs presented by Colofac against Floydian in any detail, for a simple reason: If we allow incivility reports against 20,000-edit users (Floydian) by severely incivil 350-edit accounts (Colofac) to be anywhere near successful, we are setting ourselves up for extreme chaos. Hans Adler 12:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is User:Oakshade the same person as User:Colofac? The initial report above complaining of Floydian's behavior was written by Oakshade who has made about 11907 edits. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Two very different editing styles. I think Hans eyes just tricked him, but the rest of the post should be taken into consideration. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User 86.176.153.183 editing tendentiously and ignoring policy advice

    User:86.176.153.183 has been trying to make Big Brother 2011 (UK) and List of Big Brother 2011 housemates (UK) into unencyclopaedic fan pages. A number of editors - Leaky caldron, Carl Sixsmith, LadyofShalott and myself, among others - have tried on numerous occasions to point the IP at the policies he/she is violating, both on the article talk pages and on the user's talk page. Shortly after a return from a 24 hour ban for 3RR violation, the IP blanked their talk page [32]. After being disabused of some WP:OWN misconceptions [33], the user continued to try to argue for including minor details ([34], for instance) despite repeated pleas to read WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ([35] and [36] to name but two). User also seems to have missed or ignored the indication that the relevant project page advises against the style he/she is trying to use [37]. The IP has tried to report others on various boards with generally predictable results, but even when editors drawn by this have given good advice [38], IP seems reluctant to learn [39]. We have gone from correctly assuming ignorance to trying to educate the user, but grown exasperated by his/her refusal to engage in any meaningful way in discussions of policy. Although at one stage [40] the user seemed to realise that social media would be a better venue for what he/she is trying to do, the attempts to turn the articles into fan fluff have continued. It seems to me that if the user doesn't indicate that he/she has read the relevant policies and agrees to edit in accordance with them, a topic ban until a week after the end of the series would be the best way to prevent further disruption. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Has anyone tried directing him to the BBUK wikia? He might do better over there. lifebaka++ 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to second what Dr Marcus Hill said... the IP is demonstrating a high degree of ownership over the content, at one point even apparently claiming to revoke permission for his editing content to be used on Wikipedia. He was humorously disabused of this notion by User:LadyofShalott, but needless to say, he purposely seems unable to get the point. Second the topic ban idea. Moogwrench (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lifebaka, I didn't know there was a BBUK wikia, but I more than once suggested that the IP editor either start one or find one that possibly already existed. Various editors have also suggested he use a blog or Twitter to post every tidbit he insists is critical detail about the show, but for which there is not consensus to include on Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 01:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editor is tendentious and combative. The enormous amount of trivia they are trying to add is disruptive and silly. Their claims of cabalish edit-warring by editors who know nothing about the show are indicative of the kind of ownership-mentality that is counterproductive. I would welcome a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A short block or topic ban would certainly have been appropriate at the height of his disruptive behaviour, including direct, personal attacks on me here [41] and here [42]. However, recent article editing activity might just indicate that a corner has been turned, although they are still hostile on talk pages. Leaky Caldron 10:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will endorse the editor's tendentiousness and unwillingness to conform to basic tenants of community policy after being pointed at them multiple times. I became involved when they posted a malformed post at DRN and tried to help educate the user as they claim to have "The Truth" and will not be talked down. Page is semied for 24 hrs so IP editor couldn't respond if they wanted to Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, as LC mentions, the editor does seem to have significantly calmed down in the last few edits. The mainspace edits are more clearly sourced and better written (though there are still a couple of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER debates, these are less clear cut than earlier ones IMO). Since the risk of damaging the mainspace pages seems to have passed, I don't think being shirty on talk pages is sufficient reason for a ban, so I'd now say give the editor a chance to contribute more thoughtful content. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it seems to take quite a while for the editor to learn, but it eventually happens. Witness the great number of times several editors (and Sinebot) had to tell him to sign talk page posts,but he finally did get it. LadyofShalott 18:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I had fun and games with this user back on September 9 (when the new series started) and had to get the page protected. That said fun and games have gone on for weeks since the unprotection is... completely unsurprising to me. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, disregard that. Different IP. Silly me. Unless they are the same user on different computers. But I'm not a sockpuppet hunter. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an outsider to this edit-war who has a long-term interest in Big Brother, I would like to make an observation or two.
    • First, there is noithing wrong with an editor blanking their own talk page. If something that petty is the first complaint that springs to Dr Marcus Hill's mind then he needs to step away from the keyboard. Seriously, how does it even occur to someone to complain about something so trivial?
    • Second, there is nothing wrong with an editor politely advocating for their position in the hopes of winning a consensus in the talk page of an article. That is what talk pages are for. We do not punish well-intentioned editors for arguing their case, especially when they do so in a fair and reasonable manner.
    • Third, I made a few brief comments in the talk page, and Dr Marcus Hill responded to one of them with what amounted to a blatant lie about the policies for Big Brother articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother. It now appears that he has tried the same misrepresentations of WikiProject Big Brother with 86.176.153.18 (and everyone else who is reading this noticeboard). Suddenly, I take everything he says in here with a very large grain of salt.
    • Fourth, Dr Marcus Hill complaint is rife with half-truths and rhetoric and I urge caution before other editors take the substance of his complaint on face value. Most of the diffs he claims exemplify the inappropriate behaviour of 86.176.153.18 are nothing more than that user making a point that Dr Marcus Hill disagrees with.
    • The worst that 86.176.153.18 can be accused of is bringing a little too much passion to the talk page while failing to fully appreciate the labyrinth of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. But, given the utter intransigence of a select few editors who disagree with his attempts to provide constructive input, I'm not the least bit surprised that his frustration is showing.
    • For my sins, those are are of my personal observations on this matter. For the record, I have had no previous interaction/knowledge of Dr Marcus Hill or 86.176.153.18 or anyone else who is contributing to the Big Brother 11 (UK) article. Deterence Talk 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot have read sufficent of the interactions this IP has had if you think that this IP has been polite in his dealings. I give you this [43] and this [44] as examples and if you had even read this section of ANI fully you would see that they are already referenced above, making your point about polite advocacy look rather ill-judged. I also think you are not WP:AGF in calling another editor a liar, which is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. Leaky Caldron 20:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If those are the worst examples you have, you need a thicker skin. As for me calling another editor a liar: he lied to me, so I called him on it. Deterence Talk 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he lied to me, so I called him on it" - what a puerile attitude - IMO. Leaky Caldron 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few minutes ago, you were complaining about the impolite comments of another user. How's that for irony? Deterence Talk 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling a fellow editor a liar is a clear breach of policy WP:Civil. Drawing attention to a childish reason for calling another editor a liar is just a straightforward fact. Leaky Caldron 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lying to another editor is a breach of Wikipedia's policies. I shouldn't need to point that out. I am disengaging from this ridiculous discussion before I become mired in more petty nonsense. Deterence Talk 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LIAR. Just because you believe somebody lied and breached the civility guidelines does not excuse you breaching them yourself. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bushranger, that is an essay that applies to AfD. It is not a policy. Deterence Talk 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Not only are you out of order calling him a liar per policy but your claim that he somehow misled you via this link [45] is erroneous. That link suggests appropriate content and does not include the non-encyclopaedic, "social anecdotes" (arguments, showmances, pranks) that the IP has been pushing against policy, including WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Leaky Caldron 21:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to WP:AGF and apply Hanlon's Razor here, not least because the whole discussion now seems to be moot anyway. The reason I pointed to the diff where 86 blanked the talk page wasn't to complain about blanking the talk page, it was because a lot of the pertinent warnings and instructions given by other users (and Sinebot) occurred before that blanking, though I can see how you might think that I considered it to be an issue in itself. If you read the complaint carefully, you'll see that it isn't about the user arguing, politely or otherwise, for changes, it's with the user ignoring policy advice and continuing to make the same arguments repeatedly even after being told several times why they were wrong. That's why I put in diffs to the advice as well. If you think pointing to a project page that says there's no agreement but then lists what is "acceptable" is a lie, you seem to be working with an odd definition of "lie". If you think there are any "half-truths and rhetoric" in my statement, I'd thank you to point them out - as you've seen, I'm quite happy to admit when I'm mistaken and change my mind. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr Marcus Hill, it is disappointing that you begin your thoughtful response by calling me "stupid" (for those who do not know, Hanlon's razor = "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity").
    • Regardless, you cited the authority of Wikiproject Big Brother to claim that the content desired by user 86.176.153.18 (I really wish he would get a proper Wikipedia name) is prohibited. That is not the case. Wikiproject Big Brother (which may even be dead as it has no members listed) states, "There is no agreement upon what should be included in a Chronology section, but the following seems to be acceptable:" and then proceeds to provide a non-exhaustive list of specific types of content whose inclusion is supported by consensus. It specifically excludes none of the content that 86.176.153.18 is trying to include.
    • Interestingly, Wikiproject Big Brother specifically states that the Housemates section should include, "Information to include in the section includes: ... Any major events that occurred in the house; that were due to, or involved, the said housemate." This STRONGLY suggests to me that content about showmances and fights/arguments, et cetera, is appropriate for the Big Brother article. This should come as no surprise to anyone who actually watches Big Brother as these "social anecdotes" (not my words) are what the program is all about. Especially the UK version, which is MUCH more of a social experiment than the game-show style of its American counterpart. Deterence Talk 10:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, Hanlon's Razor wasn't quite the right term for my intent - honest error and misreading, rather than stupidity, was my actual assumption. As for the rest, that's a content argument and doesn't really belong on this forum. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andy4190 (part 2)

    Resolved
     – User final-warned

    Part 1 archived by a bot. I'm not good at given hand-written warning but template. please someone warn him seriously for reliable source. He is either a expect in this field or a massive creator of hoax. Information of "hoax" Emmanuel Nonny, Afonso Carson and real person hoax career of Adriano Quintão could be found in his wordpress and community based transfermarketweb and soccerway (seems sometimes "borrow" information from wiki) and semi-user based (as they welcome data submission to admins) ZeroZero. If assume good faith, he is wrongly borrow the hoax information to build article (at least most of it was hoax) OR the information is true for some of his edits but as he is expert, no more reliable source.

    But if assume a vandal, please serious consider how to do. Matthew_hk tc 00:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He even claimed a "friendly" match existed in his wordpress. [46] (Bhutan Persiba Bantul) He either a expert (but with some reason made serious mistake to include hoax to Adriano Quintão) or pure humor creator. Matthew_hk tc 01:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is difficult to figure out exactly what your complaint is, and what your evidence. If you are claiming that Afonso Carson is a hoax, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afonso Carson doesn't seem to be going your way. Adriano Quintão was created two years ago, and has been edited by dozens of editors. Now, it may well be that Andy4190 is not a positive, but you have not given even remotely sufficient evidence to make that case. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed; I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. But please don't blank or partially-blank articles as you did at Afonso Carson while an AfD is in progress. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quintão this version is purely hoax. Estanilau Li seems a hoax(at least in 2011 squad of Balestier Khalsa no such people) and Emmanuel Nonny also no reliable source could verify. He added a lot information to Timor-Leste national football team for unofficial friendly but all "source" came from his blog, so if assume good faith he may be a expert in this field or purely a humor creator just like he did in Quintão 2 years ago. (or assume he just wrongly using hoax web material to build) Matthew_hk tc 02:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not verifiable" or "From an unreliable source" is not the same as a "hoax". Are you saying he is using a self-published source? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For Afonso Carson, the AFD already wrote Afonso Carson seems did not exist but "Da Silva" existed. All or most of the old content seems hoax or never verifiable. Matthew_hk tc 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    in good faith sense is self-published source for his wordpress. But as we can't find the footballers he created in real squad list, it is a hoax. But i said there is lots of hoax in transfermarketweb which people use it as reference, you can't assume he created the hoax (or did he upload the hoax to transfermarketweb too?). So, did someone good at English to explain to him some footballers he created was deleted and cleaned by no reliable source and little warning for hoax (as assume good faith, seems TP:BV not suitable) Matthew_hk tc 02:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    i checked his talk page. He created a hoax club FAST São Paulo (there is a FAST club in northern Brazil not São Paulo) and i remember he claimed East Timor has a friendly against this club. His blog seems a humor project. Matthew_hk tc 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW User:Carioca is a master editor of Brazilian football, which he could confirm FAST club never existed. Matthew_hk tc 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was warned for this edit (reverted and did it again in May) and he defence himself with his blog [47] But user:Banana Fingers replied Andy with the right source, seems Andy blog isn't a self-published source, just a hoax newspaper to support his fun. (East Timor use "enemy" Indonesia stadium? East Timor did not confirmed its home leg stadium until decided bt AFC in May, where he got the news using Indonesian one? From his brain? NO GOOGLE hit and google translate) Matthew_hk tc 08:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basically, we have an editor who
    • (a) creates hoax articles (at least two that I can count, I'm unsure how many of the articles of his that have been deleted were actually real)
    • (b) creates articles about real people full of hoax nonsense sourced to his own blog (as per Quintão above)
    • (c) creates unsourced BLPs about non-notable people (look at his talkpage)
    • (d) despite this, does make productive edits as well.
    • However, he has hardly edited in the last couple of weeks; I would suggest waiting to see if he resumes his behaviour. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    a person whose edits need sorting out to distinguish the true material from the hoaxes is not a net asset to Wikipedia. Perhaps he will stop, but at the least there should be a level 4 warning linked to this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, and I would've left one if I hadn't suddenly realised I was late for work this morning. I will leave one now. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good summary. I'm very bad on summary. Matthew_hk tc 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible legal threat

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

    You asked him to clarify after advising him that it was perceived as a threat and that the threat would lead to blocking. User explicitly refused to clarify and reiterated a specific condition required to satisfy him, which appears to reinforce that he is still threatening the legal alternative if he does not get his way. Indef-blocked. I left his talk-page unlocked for now should he choose to clarify an intent not to go legal as part of an unblock request. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How could you delete an article on a woman responsible for undying wisdom such as "If you take the time to look, you may find that somewhere next to every joke lies the truth." And there's more where that came from... [48]. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I agree 100% with the NLT block, but I also have to agree with Ron that AfD might have been more appropriate here. This seems to be a case where the subject isn't notable but the article does make a credible assertion of importance. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, was on the border as to whether there was a credible claim of importance. There was no solid info about the film, and so wasn't sure if it was a sufficient info for starring in that movie to be "important". In fact, I explained to Lovelightlaugh (by email, because that was how xe was communicating with me) that if we could show that the movie was notable, then that would be sufficient to keep the article past speedy deletion, but would still likely end with the person's article being deleted by AfD (I ran a WP:BEFORE search myself). The editor even gave me enough info by email to make the me think the movie is notable enough for an article, and I encouraged xyr to write it. So, given the comments here, I'll go ahead and undelete the article on the actress and take it to AfD; maybe someone else can find some news articles about her that I couldn't find. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that IoS is "borderline". The "cult film" Violent Blue she stars in doesn't have an article but the director does and so does one of his other movies. It may be that the movie is indeed notable but nobody has bothered to write an article about it yet. Notability is not inherited but "importance or significance" can be in some cases. However, it may also be that neither the director nor the other movie is notable but nobody has bothered to nominate them for deletion yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ironically, punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you (or Wikipedia) with legal action is criminally unlawful (obstruction of justice, contempt of court, etc) in most Western countries. I'm rather surprised that such a policy exists, let alone is enforced so ruthlessly. I have no comment on the present case itself. Deterence Talk 09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. In the case of the WP:NLT policy, the rationale is explained on the page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and being locked in a prison cell is not punitive, it's preventative ;-) Deterence Talk 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly prevents that prisoner from repeating the acts that got him in prison in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, Deterence, if you don't actually understand a policy or if you lack perspective -- and characterizing being barred from a private website as a "punishment" certainly demonstrates that -- perhaps you should be less free with the advice. You have less than 600 edits and yet here you are all over this page giving advice. Or, I should say, TRYING to give advice. Not the best approach. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Calton, I casually gave an accurate legal observation as I was passing through. Which was significantly more constructive that your patronising and uncivil use of a ruler to measure our contributions. Deterence Talk 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strange new meaning of "accurate" I was previously unaware of. You see, "accurate" implies that the words were not only factual, but have some relation to the topic under discussion. Your comments didn't have the slightest relevance -- making them not in the bit constructive -- and hence my correction intended to discourage even more casual and uninformed commentary from you was perfectly constructive. If you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to take the time to find out, you shouldn't comment: THAT is constructive advice. At least one long-term contributor was barred by ArbCom from commenting here after a long series of uninformed responses were deemed disruptive. Yours can be excused because you're new, but that defense isn't going to last all that long. --Calton | Talk 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright block review needed

    Ken keisel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I had previously blocked User:Ken keisel for 1 month for copyright violation, but his edits on his talk page since the block have shown that one month is not likely to be sufficient, so I upped the block to indef until he figures out how to work within policy. He has previously had unblocks declined for the one month block, but since I changed the block to indefinite, I'd appreciate it if someone could take another look. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been in dispute with Ken keisel on the Don Chadwick article, but I think the block is good. Keisel cannnot grasp the problem of copyvio, as shown in his long history and in his recent reverts to Kokosing Gap Trail, restoring text taken largely from this trail guide page. Indef block should stand. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Ken keisel claims that he was the original author of that text, and that the trail guide swiped it from Wikipedia. As I mentioned on his talkpage, Archive.org shows that there was a page there before he created the article, but does not show any content until 2 years afterward -- at which point the text is credited to a third party.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare this with the discussion at User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 4#Request to be unblocked, where he unquestionably used text directly from a published source, but claimed he was just repeating uncopyrightable facts -- which he just raised again in his defense.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he's not grasping that it's his presentation of the facts that is problematic not the facts themselves. --Blackmane (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. And he just claimed again that Wikipedia text was not copyrightable under fair use law, even after I pointed him directly to Wikipedia:Copyrights, specifically calling out the "text of Wikipedia is copyrighted" bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarek, I took that into consideration. Here is an archived webpage from three weeks before Keisel created the Kokosing Gap Trail article, showing that the Knox County Convention and Visitors Bureau had already mounted a webpage discussing the Kokosing Gap Trail. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine does not have the specific Kokosing page from that time, or the server is down. Keisel should go to OTRS with his previous authorship if it exists as he says it does. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block. I've been following this, and find his argument completely spurious. Yes, sites do mirror Wikipedia text without accreditation, but they swipe the whole thing, not two paragraphs. No reason to believe that the copyright notice, which covers 2001-2010 is fraudulent. Ken Keisel appears to have no understanding of what copyright is, looking at the bizzare post above his unblock appeal, in which he interprets the Washington Post saying "facts cannot be copyrighted" as meaning that he can copy a Washington Post article verbatim, even though the Post explicitly makes it clear that what it means is he can use it as a source for an article, using it as a reference." It's encouraging to note that the WP understands Wikipedia policy, but gives me no faith that Ken understands copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I think that text was from OTRS, not WP. Matt Schudel was the WP employee who responded to Ken keisel, and that letter was OTRS's gloss on what Schudel's letter meant for Wikipedia purposes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      OTRS#2011080310013936, if I'm reading the message correctly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well. But the underlying point remains - while you cannot copyright facts, he seems utterly unable to grasp that you can copyright the way that you say 'em.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on a second. If what Ken says is true this is an unacceptable solution. I do not question Sarek's initial block, as clearly with the information available it appears that Ken made an obvious copyright violation. Ken also needs to understand that when someone removes text based as a copyvio he needs to slow down and make his arguments or provide his proof and have the matter settled in his favor before reverting. However, it is not impossible at all for that website to have swiped a paragraph that Ken originally wrote from Wikipedia. Our editors aren't the only people who plagiarize, and yes people plagiarize sentences, paragraphs and other pieces of larger works all the time, not just entire works. What is Ken's recourse here to get this sorted out. Someone ought to be helping him find the proper channels to do so. If Ken is making this up then I think he ought to be community banned, but if he is telling the truth I don't see how this is acceptable at all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If what Ken keisel says is true, the VisitKnoxOhio webmaster took existing text about the Kokosing Gap Trail and replaced it later with text they copied from Wikipedia. This seems improbable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd find that to be extremely unlikely (at the very least). It should be noted that the editor in question also has a history of pointy editing in addition to copyvios. The shame is that he has been a good and productive contributor in the past; I have no idea why his Wikicareer has decided to spiral the drain, but I reluctantly have to support the indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarek, that's faulty logic on your part. It has been established already that the text in question is a short paragraph, which is small fraction of the text on the current website and only part of the version you linked to above as well. It could easily have been added to what what already there in an update. It absolutely does not have to have "replaced" existing text. I agree with Bushranger that the scenario you have presented is unlikely to have happened, but then again it's based on a premise that is by no means a sure thing. I have no idea if Ken is telling the truth here, but we really owe it to the project to help him prove it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that in the email from Professor whatever that he's posted on his page, the prof says "In your message to me, you don't distinguish between the facts and the expression of the facts, but I'm assuming you know this crucial difference. You can use the facts, ideas, etc. from the Post obituary, but not the exact wording, unless you're provide attribution and insert quotation marks." Shame Ken hasn't got that little nuance - the prof goes on to say he is "surprised the Wikipedia folks didn't look at their own entries on the subject". Since we are all perfectly aware of this fact, one can only wonder what Ken told the prof to start with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And one can only wonder what the professor thinks of Wikipedia as a result of whatever was said... anyway, regardless of whether or not the text on the website was "stolen from Wikipedia" or not (and I find that highly unlikely), the fact remains that, unfortunatly Ken shows no signs of clue regarding copyright policy. Until clue level rises, I don't see how an unblock can be possible. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined the unblock request. If he spent the same amount of time providing proof that he is the original author that his is trying to say we're wrong, he'd likely be unblocked. Because of the wikilawyering around this, I have my doubts. If he was the author, he'd simply just prove it and move on. At this point, because his misunderstanding of a) copyright, and b) process, we need to protect the project - and unfortunately, this so far means indefinitely - based solely on ken's own writings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bwilkins how can he prove it? I don't see how anyone has presented him with a way to do so. I agree with your decline, BTW. It's the right thing to do, but the other right thing to do is to help him understand how he can prove it. Like I said above, if he's lying I'd support a full out community ban, but we really ought to give him the opportunity to clarify this one way or the other. So how can he do that?Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now where you suggested he submit an OTRS ticket about this. I hope for his sake that he does. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Griswaldo, you might want to look at this edit from the day before he created the Kokosing Gap Trail article, and compare it to this page from Archive.org, dated one month before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? That's a clear copyvio, but it from another entry altogether. I thought it was well known that he made some copyvios in the past. Did he argue that he did not copy that website? I see that in his edit he listed it as a reference, which tells me that back in 2008 he clearly didn't understand the copyvio policy. That's not good, but what does it have to do with this case, in which he swears he wrote it first? Has he acted like this recently in any cases where there were clear copyvios? If so those cases would be pertinent hereGriswaldo (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    One thing to keep in mind is that, regardless of the copyvio status of this particular article, this editor has shown exactly zero clue when it comes to copyright and Wikipedia. And he has a history of being extremly combative (including mass-bombing cn tags for already-referenced information on multiple articles when he didn't get them edited the way he wanted, and calling the removal of said tags vandalism: one example, [49]); and also has had significant issues with WP:OR and WP:RS (example here). This is a long-term issue, not one where he used to not understand copyright or suddenly is having a bad month. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, even if the trail's website did swipe the content from Wikipedia: given his comments about that article, I'd be concerned about it being WP:OR itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are all fair concerns but they aren't the type of thing one deals with at AN/I. Sounds more like fodder for an RfC/U something I suggested to Sarek once before regarding Ken. The reason he was blocked was because of a specific incident. Ken has been editing since 2005. Before Sarek blocked him he had been blocked once before, in May of this year. If he has been seriously violating policy for years then the system has failed us all, and yes that needs dealing with now but not by indeffing him for one incident. I also don't like the idea that an admin issues a block, asks for review of the block, then takes it upon himself to up the length of the block after review. If you have reason to ask for your own block to be reviewed, then its best to let other admins handle matters from here on out. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As a non-admin I'm not going to comment on the block, but as an experienced copyright investigator I will comment on some of that issue. Part of the issue here appears to be whether the editor is the original author and so it may be of interest to people that the text currently found on the website in question is essentially the same text that was present on that website in 2001 (although at a different location). Long before the text was introduced here. If I were dealing with this as a copyright investigation I would remove the material on the basis that it was an infringement and ask the editor to follow the OTRS procedures if they do indeed own the copyright. In the meantime the material would have to remain removed to protect wikipedia. Dpmuk (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely. The problem is that this makes it clear that Ken was not telling the truth, which is extremely unfortunate. People do get confused about copyrights, but this now appears to be something else entirely. Too bad.Griswaldo (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have opened a contributor copyright investigation on this user: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111004 (anonymized because of real name issues). MER-C 04:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent Vandalism For At Least Two Years

    Resolved

    For at least the past two years and I'm sure much longer, IP's have been adding DJ Nihilist to a long list of pages dealing with electronic music [50] I have been patrolling these pages for years now. After returning from a very long break I discovered that many articles once again had DJ Nihilist added to them. I searched and removed all mentions of this person from the project. This morning less then 24 hours later this occurs [51], it's constant and on a number of pages. If I report the IP and get the IP banned will change. If we protect the pages within 12 hours of the pages being unprotected they will be vandalized again. I have spent countless hours patrolling and reverting whoever is behind this. Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • After a look at their recent edits and their block log I've blocked them for three months. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Offhand, just keep playing whack a mole. The IP's been locked out by Drmies. If they reappear under a different IP, lock that one out as well and possible semi the the articles as well. Tabercil (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very long term pattern of vandalism. Abuse filter? causa sui (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think causa has a point. Blocks are there to prevent damage to wikipedia but judging by the previous pattern of vandalism I don't think an IP block is going to do the job here. I think an edit filter is probably the best option. basalisk (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly agree. "DJ Nihilist" should not be difficult to filter out. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Filter has been made OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article name on DE with BLP issues

    Need some advice here - we have an article on EN for Aja (entertainer) and we don't have a reliable source for her real name. The problem I have is that the article on DE is under her alleged real name (and no, from what I can gather from the Google Translate version of the article they don't have a reliable source for it either). So anyone scanning down the list of links will see that name, so we can't link to it. We can link to DE:Aja (Pornodarstellerin) which is a redirect to the proper article, but the link maintenance bots keep changing to the BLP violation...

    Any advice on what to do?? Tabercil (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IMdB gives her birth name as Barbara Holder and July 14, 1963 in Tampa, Florida, USA as her date and place of birth. That's the same as the deWP--the deWP has the practice of not specifically sourcing inline if there's an obvious source, such as that. Unless contradicted, I consider IMdB sufficiently reliable, The usual place for a question like this would be the Reliable source or the BLP noticeboards. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    261 films as a porn actress? Ouch! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that there is general agreement that IMDB is not a reliable source for any personal information in BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS/IMDB Doniago (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, if IMDB counted as a reliable source I wouldn't be here raising the issue... Tabercil (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd question if she's even notable enough for an article period... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    She qualifies per WP:ANYBIO - "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", and Aja won the AVN Best New Starlet award in 1989. But that's getting away from the issue of the recurring BLP problem. Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ian Cairns

    {{[[Template:Compromised doppleganger account indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)|Compromised doppleganger account indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)]]}}[reply]

    I created the above account some time go as a doppelganger account to stop it being used to impersonate me (I am in the UK, and I am not Australian), and I deliberately forgot the password. Somehow, it has become activated today, and is being used. I am interested to understand how someone has done this - I can only think they have cracked the password? I would have no problem with the above account being indefinitely blocked - if that is seen as a way of avoiding the current situation. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Doppelganger accounts should probably be indefblocked at creation. causa sui (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Per the above, I've indeffed the account in question - the 24 hour bit was a misclick so I fixed it. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Much appreciated. Still confused about the password cracking though. Never mind - all sorted. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We now have the doppleganger requesting unblock - see User talk:Ian Cairns. Apparently, whoever has the doppleganger is editing the article about Ian Cairns, and claims to be that individual. How they got access to this account is unclear. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've turned off the "resolved" marker for the moment, as I am not sure this is resolved. User seems to be claiming in their remarks that they simply set up an account in the normal fashion, which shouldn't have been possible if it was, as the logs reflect, set up initially in 2007 as a doppleganger. Something's not quite adding up here. Either somebody is lying or we are missing an important fact somewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a checkuser report be worthwhile? If nothing else, it would confirm that User:Icairns and User:Ian Cairns are unrelated insofar as who is actually logging in and using the account. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've engaged the doppleganger in discussion, and they are more focused on the Ian Cairns article than the account - which is problematic, since we're trying to sort out the account. If everything seems aboveboard, and if checkuser (or whomever) can determine that this person just put their real name in and lucked into the password, then perhaps we need to give them this account, rename it (or confirm via OTRS the identity), then re-make a new "Ian Cairns" account to dopplegang - then immediately indefblock it, since it won't be editing. I still don't know how they got the password, though, unless it was something they lucked into. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The crux of this for me is this: how could it ever be possible for a user to believe they were setting up a new account, when in fact they were taking over an established account, albeit one with no edits? Either we have a very weird bug, someone is misremembering events or the currently blocked account hacked the account somehow and is a big fat liar. And since he dodges or brushed aside any inquiries into how he came to be using an account that was supposedly set up by another in user four years ago, its kind of hard to know what to think. CU may be of some help, or it may be utterly useless. I guess we could ask and see what they say. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Request  Done. [52]. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Beeblebrox, cross-posting result of my checks: [53]. As a non-technical opinion, I'm inclined to side with Icairns here. We could always ask Ian_Cairns to void the password on the doppelganger, and create a new account. AGK [•] 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ralph Nader and sockpuppetry

    (Copied from my talk page. See User talk:Eagles247/Archive 17#Ralph_Nader for more context. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    Hello Eagles. Once again, I request your assistance. User:Mystylplx is sockpuppeting on and vandalising the Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000 article. Here he talks with himself again to create the appearance of a consensus, as User:Mystylplx and IP 207.158.4.64:

    (cur | prev) 17:31, 2 October 2011 Mystylplx (talk | contribs) (2,335 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:12, 2 October 2011 207.158.4.64 (talk) (2,103 bytes) (→Third Party Voting Controversy) (undo)

    And where he repeatedly deletes sourced material:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&diff=453454733&oldid=453432527


    I'm tired of this repeat offender. Please assist.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.147.237 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ________________________________________

    I am supplying additional links which may be helpful:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.158.35.55 

       01:06, 15 June 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Music therapy ‎ (→Giving Wikipedia a bad name)
   01:00, 15 June 2011 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.216.228.53 

       00:39, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Matt Gonzalez ‎ (correction)
   00:38, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Matt Gonzalez ‎ (→On the board: edits)
   00:36, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)
   00:35, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Hermann Oberth ‎ (Oberth!)
   00:34, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) Dayton, Ohio ‎ (punctuation!)


    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SCFilm29 

       23:57, 21 June 2010 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)


    Of course, in each case we see the odd " Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)" edit. Also, the "On the board" edit to the article on Matt Gonzalez "happens" to involve "Wikipedia Idiots" and the author, while "Talk:Music therapy" is directed at the sister of the author. The same IP visited the web site of the author's sister just one day prior to this edit, searching two pages listing the sister's appearance on radio regarding music therapy. Also, take special note of the IP addresses for each. SCFilm uses 71-, i.e., home IP for "Griot," while 207- is the self-confessed "public" IP for "Mystylplx," which appears to have been done repeatedly:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=402117332

    From the Ralph Nader talk page: 

           IP 207.231.4.168, are you Mystylplx? 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

           Yes. That is me. Mystylplx (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

    Like his denial of knowing "Griot," amazing under the circumstances, considering the Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!) edit:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=402499673


    Certainly, one cannot reasonably deny these strikingly odd and obscure identical edits.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.147.237 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    This guy has been constantly accusing me of sock-puppetry and vandalism for a long time now, in many different places including my own talk page, the talk pages of others, and the Ralph Nader talk page. It amounts to harassment. Is there something that can be done? Mystylplx (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Repetition of ethnic slurs on talk page and edit summaries

    From edit summaries:

    (→Proposed wording for rfc: what context of you fucking jew bastard, uttered by our current democrat secretary of state did i leave out?}
    (→Proposed wording for rfc: Monkey God, rat bastard, Niggar, faggot, White nationalists)
    (→Trivia: typical fucking jew Indian)

    From the talk page:

    You fucking Jew bastard, Hillary Clinton
    • “f***ing Jew bastard” [The Times (London), 18 July 2000]
    • “f—–g Jew bastard” [New York Daily News, 17 July 2000]
    • “f****** Jew bastard” [The Times (London), 16 July 2000]
    • “f—– Jew b——” [UPI, 17 July 2000; euphemized fucking is one hyphen short]
    • “Jew bastard” [Reuters, 10, 16, 17 July 2000]
    • “Jew bastard” [The Washington Post, 18 July 2000]
    • “Jew bastard” [New York Daily News, 18 July 2000]
    • “Jew b——” [AP]
    Talk:Tea Party movement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Darkstar1st continues to repeat ethnic slurs in talk page commentary and edit summaries at Talk:Tea Party movement, for example here, here, here and there are other examples including in the archives. I politely asked him to stop, but he replied, "if i enjoy them, why try to remove them from the page?"[54] Could other editors please explain to Darkstar1st that this editing is unacceptable and could result in a block. TFD (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just like you actually can say "FUCK" on the radio if you're directly quoting someone, I'll ask if the person being quoted actually did say those words. They are not being used against anyone, they're apparently a direct quote of an important individual ... or am I reading it wrong? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of them appear not to be direct quotes, but amalgamations of things said by individuals. Either way I find them in poor taste, but I think that's not an issue in and of itself. What is an issue, from what I'm seeing, is the attitude he has towards repeating them, that he's doing it because he enjoys it, despite the clear disruption it is causing. At the very least a TROUT is in order, if not more.Griswaldo (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    if i enjoy them, why (am i trying) to remove them(the offensive language) from the article? which quote did i get wrong Gris? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From strictly a policy standpoint, the WP:BLP policy in particular, some of those contentious "quotes" are dubious or merely alleged — and as such, would not be found in Wikipedia article space, so probably shouldn't appear on talk pages either. Other "quotes" are incomplete snippets, or taken out of context to distort their meaning; also attributed to living persons, and thus equally inappropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    the tea party is not a blp and i am trying to remove the words niggar and faggot from the page, not add slurs which appears to be the opinion of the opposition to my edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if the article is a BLP or not. Any statements about living persons fall under the BLP guidelines. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    true, so why is niggar and faggot on the tea party article instead of the persons page, or better yet not at all, why is wp publishing these slurs in the 1st place? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be publishing them if they are inadequately sourced, sure, but there's no rule that "slurs" should not be published at all. This is not Whitewashpedia. It depends on the context. Paul B (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, Darkstar is trying get some of the discussed words removed. (as near-irrelevant to / undue in the article) One can't argue that it is an wiki-offense to use them in the talk page while at the same time arguing for their retention in the article! North8000 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of behavior is covered by one of the oldest behavioral guidelines: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Darkstar1st is apparently repeating slurs in order to impress upon everyone with how offensive they are.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is offensive that Darkstar1st continues to repeat these terms, as he has in this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note For decorum's sake I did not repeat Darkstar1st comments. However I am now posting his edit summaries above, which are typical of the phrasing he has repeatedly added to talk pages. Editors may determine whether this type of writing is acceptable. TFD (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really necessary to paste all that bigotry here? I'm sure anyone reading this page can find the comments themselves. Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added it in 9 hours after I posted this discussion thread and it appeared that no one had followed the links I posted. TFD (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, that seems a bit POINTY to me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about the postings by Darkstar1st, the subject of this thread?   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAA but I agree with you that those are also POINTy. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This has sort of turned into a interesting three level situation. So it's:
    • OK in the Article
    • Not OK in the talk about the article
    • OK (here) in the talk about the talk in the article.
    ?  :-) North8000 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue was raised here because that kind of writing isn't "OK" anywhere — not on the talk pages, article space or in the edit summaries. Repeatedly spewing just select words which, when presented by themselves after being extracted out of context might be considered offensive, is inappropriate. He's been doing it in edit summaries and on talk pages, and fortunately hasn't yet done it in article space. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It would seem at the very least that TFD has misconstrued DarkStar`s statement here if i enjoy them, why try to remove them from the page It would seem to me that DS is asking TFD that if he (DS) enjoys saying these things then why is he trying to get them removed from the article. And as these words are in the article, then it is obvious they will be discussed on the article talk page. Perhaps they ought be removed from the article and that would be the end of it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    TFD is saying that DarkStar appears to enjoy bandying them about on the talk page to be provocative. DarkStar denies that. Without seeing into DarkStar's soul it is impossible to know which of them is correct, but there is no misconstruction of a statement at all. The statement is Darkstar's denial. The words are in the article because they have been spoken by Tea Party supporters and are alleged by sources to demonstrate racism within the movement. Removing them would be to whitewash away legitimate sourced criticism. We cannot allow people to remove those naughty "bad words" from articles where they serve the explanatory function of showing that someone said them. That would be like removing references to mass murder from the Holocaust article because it is offensive to read about. Paul B (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That mis-characterizes the main debate/situation. But that's a different, much bigger topic. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who is familiar from having been on both the same side and opposite sides (e.g. at Libertarianism article) from Darkstar, if one is trying to read motivation from writing style, one must know how Darkstar writes. Throwing out the key (usually very intelligent) thought or example for impact, often with a frustratingly small amount of related words or discussion. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't. Unless you have some argument, your assertion is as empty as my previous sentence. I've read the last sentence of your second message several times, but still can't understand it. Is there a verb in there? I'm not being pedantic. I genuinely can't tell what you are saying. Both Darkstar and TFD maybe being disingenuous and pointy. Both may be entirely sincere. Either way, the The Last Angry Man's argument that the logical resolution would be to remove the words from the article is...wholly illogical. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The indent suggests that you are responding to my "mis-characterizes" comment, but it doesn't seem to be addressing it. Either way, I should clarify that my "mis-characterizes" statement refers to characterization of the main debate at the article talk page, not to the discussion at this noticeboard. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discrimination on Wikipedia

    blocked for WP:NLT: there are articles which need improving more than this editor needs more clever commentary she can't reply to added to ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I am very much thinking on enacting legal action upon wikipedia for its constant racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. I am however a fair person and wish to give wikipedia a chance to redeem itself. So I will allow it to have a chace to communicate with me. I realize that if I decide to take legal actions my editing privileges will be temporarily shut down. I hope they will not take it down yet and will instead try to work with me. I know that the people on wikipedia are not intentionally bigoted and look forward to helping them to fix the problem.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, fortunately for some editors, wikipedia does not discriminate on grounds of ability. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing here anyone can do anything with. Can you provide some examples of the issues you're concerned about?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, "Here's your chance to fix this problem to my satisfaction or I'll sue you" is the very definition of the "chilling effect" WP:NLT speaks of. You are not permitted to wield that stick even as an "I'm thinking about it" threat. I recommend you retract that ASAP if you intend to be able to continue working with anyone here to solve the problem. We obviously all want to reduce problems; if that's your goal too, you should consider not raising the stakes. DMacks (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To Rainbowofpeace - you write as if the problems are systematic and obvious. They're not obvious to me. What are they? Explicitly. You also write of Wikipedia as an it. In reality, it's a them. There are thousands of editors, with views ranging across the whole political and social spectrum, most of whom try to suppress those views when they edit. SO, I'm not sure who your target is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have a specific problem, bring it up and it will be addressed (perhaps not in the way you like, but it will). If you want to rant about a systematic problem, use foundation-l, or a similar mailing list, where you will find many like minded individuals. If you don't want to do either of those things, then do nothing. Also the result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories seems reasonable to me. Listing people in that way is more trouble than it is worth. Prodego talk 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "homophobia" reference is pretty funny, given the fairly high-profile presence of gays on wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is not guilty of any of the ills claimed by the OP, but it is subject to those kinds of things from time to time, as a consequence of the "any bozo can edit" axiom. If he wants to get that rule changed, he'll face an uphill battle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Why are we even discussing this? Block for Wikipedia:No legal threats and lets move on. Most likely trolling.--JOJ Hutton 23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that accomplishes anything. Prodego talk 23:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      It is, however, strict policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The guy should be indef'd until or if he retracts his threat. What does it accomplish? It accomplishes stifling someone who might be attempting to intimidate other users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      A look at User:Rainbowofpeace shows that this user has had these views at least since setting up that user page in April last years. It's not a recent urge to troll that we're seeing here, but a recent urge to bring those views to everyone's attention. It would be nice to know where such views come from. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      In lieu of indeffing the guy immediately, he needs to converse here instead of taking a hit-and-run approach. He's been on for at least a year now, and should know better, but maybe not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • NLT-blocked. If they retract, no need to consult me first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No legal threats. If the user doesn't know this, he should. Dave Dial (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      User makes it clear in the initial post here that he is aware of it (or at least the block that would result, even if not appreciating the rationale or exact location of the bright line). DMacks (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The user makes it clear they knew they would be blocked for actually taking action. It's not clear to me they understood they would be blocked simply for threatening legal action. Of course, either way, the block was appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    {ec}RainbowofPeace I suggest you branch out to other areas of wiki. As a member of Wikiproject:Discrimination it's your prerogative to edit in those topics, but I wouldn't be surprised if focusing solely on such a topic isn't beginning to skew your perspective. However, on the point of the legal threat, that's definitely indef worthy. --Blackmane (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • A memorable unblock request(?) that should be added to WP:GAB as what not to do.[55] Threatening to sue the WMF to get your editing rights back demonstrates why this block was well-deserved. Doc talk 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Now I don't take the post that started this very seriously. But as most people who've had some business management experience, especially including HR, will know, if someone makes a good faith report of illegal discrimination through appropriate channels, and the organization involved responds by, say, firing or expelling the complainant, it could be subject to liability for retaliation. I can't say which, if any, civil right laws Wikipedia could be subject to, but I don't know that an automatic block in such circumstances would be a good idea. There are cases where we'd need to be more careful, even though this may not even look like one. If someone were to raise a sexual harassment complaint, though, particularly someone with particular authority was doing something with real-world impact, and a passing admin responded with an NLT-block, the best we could expect would be a convoy of bad press. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no "rights" here, what are you talking about? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We would have handled this situation differently if it were "a good-faith report of illegal discrimination", or if it were made "through appropriate channels". This thread, however, involves a threat of legal action on vaguely-specified, poorly-reasoned grounds. Continuing to respond is feeding a troll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request: Since I agree with the block, can you name me in the lawsuit? Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, gay and Mizrahi (odd that they speak Yiddish if they are Mizrahi and Sphardic)? This person probably experiences a lot of discrimination in real life. They went about dealing with the perception of it here entirely the wrong way though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 6 Tishrei 5772 04:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not that it matters, but I support the block. It had been a while since I read WP:NLT and it is quite clear, as a policy. Coming here to issue a legal threat and then continuing the same approach in an unblock request so blatant that it winds up in the 'Hall of Shame' leaves me shaking my head. Jusdafax 05:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Every so often we get one like this ... they're blocked, and we try to resolve their percieved issues with them directly - if they're pleasant enough to do so. If not, it's a downward spiral that won't be helped by smartassedness by anyone. I have reached out a sincere olive branch on their talkpage to see if we can reign them in. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors that keep asking the same question over and over, after it's already been answered multiple times, are typically just trolls - and I'm becoming convinced that the editor in question here is likewise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Troll or newcomer, who's to really say here? Although, I would suggest that the editor/their usertalkpage have now spiralled out of control, and I think that a friendly word to the WMF legal folks might be in order to take the discussion offline. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Trongphu calling others racist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)

    See [56] and [57]. Axxeua (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having read Trongphu's (lengthy) posts I can see no hint of him/her calling other editors "racist". Indeed, I can't even see where one could possibly infer that he/she was implying that other editors are racist. Making such a serious allegation, which appears to lack any substance whatsoever, appears wholly mischievous. Why was such nonsense brought to this noticeboard? Deterence Talk 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence is a borderline problem: "For many that supported delete they either think Vietnamese people is not important or have nonsense reasons. " That seems to say that if I were to go to delete that article, I would either be speaking nonsense, or I must be racist against Vietnamese people. However, the comment is pretty mild as far as such things go, so I don't see anything here to really be upset about. It's clear that Trongphu is not a native English speaker, so the comment may not have been intended as strongly as it appears; it's also clear that Trongphu is a bit (possibly overly) emotionally involved in the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of his comments at the DRV for the article were a bit...strongly worded as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After his further comment at the AfD that "Their votes are hatred votes not rational votes" I have warned him. I'm not going to take any admin action though, because I commented at both the DRV and AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm almost prepared to block him for the duration of the AFD for WP:DISRUPT and WP:CIVIL at this point ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd find no objections from me. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Trongphu for five days for continued disruption and incivility. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Cohler

    Resolved
     – Checkuser confirms socking. m.o.p 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally posted about these two SPAs on WP:SPI but I'm not sure that the sockpuppet element is a problem, more that a sock is being used to hide autobiography. Attempts to ask politely have now been responded to aggressively on my talk page. This is what I posted at WP:SPI:

    1. In 2008 User:Cohler's sixth edit on Wikipedia created Jonathan Cohler, a straight copy and paste of Jonathan Cohler's official biography
    2. Cohler's next edit was at Talk:Jonathan Cohler stating that the User:Cohler = the subject of the article Jonathan Cohler
    3. Two years later Cohler added Jonathan Cohler to list of faculty at Longy School of Music
    4. On 26 Sep 2011 Cohler made five edits to Jonathan Cohler
    5. On 27 Sep 2011 User:Classmusic made their first edit - removing from the Jonathan Cohler page a Multiple Issues tag which made reference to Autobiography
    6. On 27, 29 & 30 Sep 2011 Classmusic made many contributions to both Jonathan Cohler and Talk:Jonathan Cohler. All but 82 of the 125 edits to Jonathan Cohler have been made by User:Cohler or User:Classmusic
    7. On 28 Sep 2011 User:Voceditenore wrote on Usertalk:Classmusic: "If you have previously edited Wikipedia under a different account/user name, make sure that you stick to only one of them for your future editing. There's more guidance about this here"
    8. On 1 Oct 2011, noticing that Classmusic had not given a reply to Voceditenore, I wrote at Talk:Jonathan Cohler: "Hi Classmusic - can I just check that I haven't got muddled, and that this is your new account, taking over the work you were previously doing at User:Cohler? The edit history of this page suggests so, but I wouldn't like to be making an incorrect assumption [on] this question"
    9. On 1 Oct 2011 Classmusic blanked both Voceditenore's warning from their own talkpage and my query from Talk:Jonathan Cohler. This suggests that Jonathan Cohler is using a sock to try to avoid being recognised as editing his own article
    10. On 2 Oct 2011 Classmusic implied in this edit that they are not Jonathan Cohler
    11. On 3 Oct 2011 shortly after Classmusic had made a few more edits of the Jonathan Cohler, adding links in references to positive reviews of Jonathan Cohler's CDs, User:Cohler put up an Account Retired template on their Userpage
    12. On 3 Oct 2011 in these two edits to the Jonathan Cohler talkpage I re-made my query if User:Classmusic was a sock of User:Cohler; User:Classmusic claimed this was a misuse of the talkpage

    As the situation is now, I'm very much unsure of what is the correct course of action. I think I'm trying to prevent autobiography and sockpuppetry but I'm being accused of trying to out an editor. almost-instinct 08:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    *"Attempts to ask politely have now been responded to aggressively on my talk page." If THAT is what you call aggressive, you need to step away from the keyboard and go for a walk. I'm not kidding. Seriously, my grandmother is more aggressive than that when she complains about "that rock music" I listen to. The most aggressive comment in his post is "It is really unseemly." I'm not even going to read the rest of your complaint if that is the sort of exaggerated nonsense you start with. Deterence Talk 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Comment struck: improper tone for this discussion. m.o.p 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The best thing you can do here is wait for an SPI report and see how that pans out. You're right in saying there's more than simple hearsay suggesting collusion, but it's not enough to justify a block for sockpuppetry.
    Technically, Classmusic is right in that the article's talk page is not the place to bring about sockpuppetry concerns. That's something you'll want to take up with either the user themselves or us. As for outing - I don't think you've done anything wrong. You're trusting your instincts pretty strongly, but sockpuppet accusations are valid if they're backed up. We'll just have to wait and see what the SPI says. m.o.p 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see my latest response to Almost-instinct (talk) here. There have been no substantive arguments on the Jonathan Cohler page ever. While I am new to editing here, I am interested in improving content as can clearly be seen by the edits I have made. My edits speak for themselves and they are largely uncontested and unchanged by Voceditenore or Almost-instinct. There is extensive independent sourcing on the page (much more than than is typical for a brief bio of this sort, I might add). But for some reason Almost-instinct has continued to bother me with these postings and accusations. I would like it to stop if possible as it is a waste of my time in responding to this. Thank you. --Classmusic (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Classmusic, Almost-instinct has full right to accuse you should they see fit - for now, you're not required to reply to said accusations if you don't wish to, though I would recommend it. After the sockpuppet investigation, we'll proceed accordingly. m.o.p 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser confirms sockpuppetry. Blocking the main account indefinitely and marking as a sock. I'll deal with Classmusic on their talk page. m.o.p 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD

    User:Cydevil38 is repeatedly reverting edits on the Korean particles article, and refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion by listening to the arguments of others. I have reminded the user repeatedly regarding WP:BRD, and that discussion on the talk page to gain WP:CONSENSUS is a better alternative to the slow edit warring that has been taking place (and slow edit-warring is still edit-warring).

    This user is repeatedly removing the Hanja from the page that I created a few days ago, which is disruptive and irritating. Long story short, the Korean language uses two writing systems: Hangul most of the time, and Hanja (in conjunction with Hangul) in certain circumstances, such as legal documents and published academic works (for example, the Constitution of South Korea is written in Hanja). I originally included the Hanja within the article as examples of text, so that the article would be more informative. To account for two different possible ways of displaying Korean orthography, the article contains example texts written in two lots: one entirely in Hangul, the other in Hangul-Hanja mixed script, in a similar manner to how Chinese linguistic pages are glossed with Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese, Serbian pages are glossed with Cyrillic and Latin alphabet, Mongolian with Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet and Mongolian script, and so forth. This user insists on eliminating all instances of Hanja, claiming that they are "unnecessary" diff, despite that it is well known even in Korea that Hanja is an indisputable part of the Korean language (see [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]). I interpret this as a form of nationalistic WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an attempt to downplay the usage of Hanja in Korean; no other editors have shown dissatisfaction over the content of the article except for this one editor.

    I have provided detailed explanations on the article talk page concerning my rationales for writing the article the way I wrote it; Cydevil38 avoids the question whenever he or she is able to, and makes the false assumption that I am trying to force Chinese language into the article (note that Hanja ≠ Chinese; one is a writing system, the other a language), which makes no sense at all (the Japanese language uses Kanji, but that does not make it any more "Chinese"). As a linguistics-related article, the purpose of the article is to inform with as much detail as possible, and inclusion of Hanja does not thwart that; rather it makes reading all the more educating. There is absolutely no reason why this dispute should exist at all; it is essentially a non-issue being inflated by one very stubborn editor. This user has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and as shown by their confusion between language and script, I don't think they have the WP:COMPETENCE to be editing a linguistics-based article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a bit more complex to separate the use of Chinese characters per se from both Korean and Japanese since both of those languages are in some way derived from Chinese, but that's neither here nor there. --Blackmane (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples of academic publications published in Hangul-Hanja mixed script:

    These are just the tip of the iceberg. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't be taking any administrative action in this since it might look like favoritism, but as for the content issue I think Cydevil38's reverts have no justification (there is no reason to remove what he is removing). It also looks to me like he has not made a genuine attempt to resolve the issue without edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ravishankar9853

    This editor has persistently uploaded copyright violating images (I can't give diffs because they have been deleted), has repeatedly been warned, and has continued today. I think a block is in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef. The repeated copyvios, combined with zero communication or attempts to address the concerns expressed regarding their editing, do not instill any faith that a time-specific block will be effective. Should Ravishankar9853 have a change of heart and decide to edit constructively and within policy, they can request an unblock. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IP persistently making unsourced, dubious additions

    90.201.251.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    I previously raised this IP's edits here. After the last block expired, the IP is still adding unsourced information ignoring warnings to source their edits and has made another false caption change [63]. It appears to be the same person editing from this IP throughout (another noticeable habit is capitalising everything in the infobox [64][65]) and I'm concerned this is long-term subtle vandalism by adding false information. January (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pressing Need: The it.wiki's freedom is under threat!!!

    I'm an italian wikipedian. I don't know if this is the right place where post the ad, but please read this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.82.213 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there is anything that the English Wikipedia can do regarding a law from Italy.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=453987948"