Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

AuthorityTam

Unresolved

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [1], [2] and [3] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[4] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [5], [6], [7] and [8].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [9].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[10] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [11]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[12] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [13]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[14], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[15] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[16], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[17], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[18], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[19], and falsely attributing comments to me[20]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[21][22], after indicating something was only his opinion[23][24], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[25][26], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[27].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [28],[29]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [30] and "windbaggery" [31]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[32]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

• It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
  
• It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).
  

For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [33],[34],[35],[36]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [37]
Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [38] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam makes various out-of-context claims above about my past edits he's selected, most of which he accused me of back in 2010 based on his fixated efforts of trawling through my edit history for various edits from years before that, to which I've previously responded here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.

AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.

Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".

AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that the reason he doesn't properly address editor disputes at User Talk is because of a guideline stating, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do." However, AuthorityTam's constant belittling and attacking motives of editors with whom he does not get along absolutely constitutes interaction, and not in any way that can be seen as conciliatory. If AuthorityTam were to actually apply that guideline, he would stick to content, and rely on the merits of content-related arguments at article Talk pages, and he would follow correct avenues of dispute resolution if there are problems with editors. If he feels so unsure that his views can be supported on their own merits without making attacks on other editors' motives, then he should review the quality of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.

The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AuthorityTam is now also canvassing for support at an article Talk page. I see this has already been linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumption?? There's nothing to assume (or presume). AuthorityTam linked to this ANI from an article Talk page, with a false claim that other editors are trying to have him banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Fazilfazil, AuthorityTam has extremely weak defences to my accusations. He has provided a very lame and unconvincing excuse for repeatedly using the "aka LTSally" phrase; he does escalate arguments by constantly referring back to events from years earlier (often twisting comments and misrepresenting editors to inflame the situation); his level of invective, bile and taunting are proof that he makes little effort to collaborate harmoniously with other editors. I do not expect other editors to always agree with me, and I have disagreed with you in the past. Yet we remain civil and respectful. AuthorityTam treats editing here as a sport and craves conflict. That is the conduct I want him to stop. BlackCab (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading through all this again, it's obvious that AuthorityTam sees nothing wrong with his antagonistic and hostile behaviour, is completely unrepentant and very clearly intends to continue in the same vein. He refuses to put the past behind him and views historic offences as justification for more combative and inflammatory conduct. All this in a community that demands cooperation and collaboration to work properly. His ongoing comments and his responses in this thread strongly suggest personality and behavioral issues: where others try to identify issues and resolve them, he flails out with "you did it too!" accusations, refuses to engage with other editors and simply escalates problems. The initial trigger for this ANI notice was his strange "aka LTSally" tactic and despite the observations of others that it serves no purpose -- and my direct appeal to him to cease -- he has decided to continue to do it. The lack of admin involvement in this complaint is disappointing and AuthorityTam will almost certainly read this as a green light for more of his ugly and infantile behaviour. Where to from here? BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Though I am somewhat uninvolved in this discussion and haven't read the particular comment thatBlackCab has found to be offensive, I did run across the ANI and after reading most of it, I thought I would interject a comment as a personal observation. I apologize in advance, as at least two editors will likely find my comments to be somewhat offensive and objectionable, but in consideration of the setting, I will make them here only. I would have to completely agree 100% with AuthorityTam's observation that " For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia" as looking back at the edit history and actions of editors Jeffro77 and BlackCab they have demonstrated a Pattern of working as a tandem force in not only attempting to add negative POV spin to Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, but also in being disruptive towards other editors good faith, well sourced edits, which they seem to consider not negative enough to suit their personal tastes. Examining their edit histories, I have noted a pattern of both editors bringing ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses, accusing them of numerous offenses [39][40][[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. I could go on and on but it would be tiresome to look for all the instances where these two editors have worked in tandem to discredit and harass editors who they deemed pro Jehovah's Witness, either with reports to ANI or through reverting good faith edits with nonsensical excuses such as "too much detail" or "belongs on a different article page and not this one"(paraphrase) These two editors have shown a "historical pattern" of being both disruptive and also uncivil. Personally I think they are more than just a tandem working in conjunction(WP:Meatpuppet), I personally have a suspicion they may be the same editor(WP:Sock), but have no solid evidence to demonstrate this. I also have a suspicion they may be using several other user id's to give a false impression of consensus and to aid in the harassment of others on a continuous basis, but again an lacking in evidence to truly present such as an accusation, thus I have only my own suspicion to rely upon. As a very new editor I was even reported by these two editors, falsely I might add, for sockpuppetry the very day I established an account[52], because a friend of mine signed up for an account and used my computer to complete an AFD nomination I had started as a IP address. I explained to them the situation[53], but they reported me as a sockpuppet regardless, because their intent is to be insidious to editors they perceive to have a pro Jehovah's Witness stance. Personally I think these two editors should be at a minimum barred from editing the same page, talk or article, within a 31 day time frame. I further, think that consideration should be given to barring them from editing Jehovah's Witness related pages altogether, and quite possibly barring them from editing pages associated with religion in general is not out of the realm of being reasonable as they have demonstrated a historical pattern of uncivil behavior, as well as disruptive edit warring and WP:tendentious editing on these particular type of pages. Willietell (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If Willietell would like to examine each of the ANI complaints listed (of which I think I have only ever made one) he will find the complaints were about clear cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry and generally strongly supported by other editors. The JW pages have certainly attracted a range of very oddball editors over the years. His comments are ignorant in the extreme. He is very welcome to examine any edit of mine in the past year and report me for either uncivil or disruptive behaviour if he sees it. He is also very welcome to request an investigation into his allegation against me of sockpuppetry. His suggestion that Jeffro and I are the same person is fanciful. It's disappointing to see him offering unquestioning support to an editor who is so clearly working in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of collaboration. Evidently whether one is "for" or "against" the JWs determines whether one is a cooperative and productive editor or not, and whether one's appeal for improved behavior has any validity. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell is not "somewhat uninvolved" at all. It is unsurprising that Willietell has also come to attack my motives, and he is really not a stellar witness in support of AuthorityTam. It is also entirely unsurprising that Willietell would support a pro-JW editor and oppose editors who do not support every positive statement about the religion. He began editing in December 2011 under anonymous IPs, making claims that the entire Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article is "POV spin" and that it should be deleted, and later made false claims that it is "an attack page", and then made a false allegation of a copyright violation, showing he's not above lying to suit his ends. He claims that any statement about JWs he doesn't like to be "POV spin" (he uses this stock phrase incessantly, particularly when he has no real other argument against something) though the many responses at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted to his initial barrage of claims were shown to be completely unsupportable by a wide range of editors. Willietell claims above that I have reported editors on the basis of them being in favour of JWs (though this is particularly irrelevant, as I didn't report AuthorityTam). This claim is entirely false, and examination of each of those cases will show that user conduct was the problem in every instance. Willietell also conveniently ignores cases I have raised against editors making negative false claims about JWs and other issues. I don't have time to trawl for an exhaustive list as does Willietell, but for example see [54].

I had to stop to laugh out loud when I read that Willietell is actually claiming BlackCab and I are the same person. I really don't know how I would manage edit conflicts with myself while logged on as a different user (let alone change residence). I can type pretty quickly, but not that quickly. Please, please do a CheckUser, then Willietell can publicly apologise. It's quite clear that Willietell's many strange (and conveniently vague) suspicions that I (and/or BlackCab) am a sockpuppet of "several other user id's" is a fairly desperate attempt to discredit me—this allegation really sounds like "tin foil hat" stuff, and I look forward to hearing from the other editors whom Willietell believes to be me. If/when Willietell proposes any actual username(s) or any actual evidence, again, do a CheckUser, and then Willietell can apologise. Willietell's own case of being reported for sockpuppetry was entirely reasonable—after he could not complete an AfD of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as an IP editor he 'threatened', "Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?", and then shortly after, Spudpicker_01 was created to complete the AfD, in support of the new editor, Willietell. A sockpuppetry case was lodged, and confirmed. It was entirely reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry. Religious subjects often become heated, and I acknowledge that I have at times been as uncivil as other editors involved in such disputes. However, this is not a "historical pattern", and Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors.

Willietell's (false) attacks on BlackCab and myself do not in any way nullify AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour, about which Willietell has decided to remain silent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the many links Willietell provides what he claims are "ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses", only two were raised by me (of the remainder, seven were raised by neither me nor BlackCab; three of the four matters raised by BlackCab were sockpuppet queries upheld by admins, and the fourth was to report unambiguous vandalism). The first was uncontroversially given admin support[55]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[56] Notably, Willietell's further inattention to facts is shown by his inclusion of an arbitration case against User:Alastair Haines (which I did not initiate), against whom I had argued at length in favour of JWs in regard to their definition as a Christian group (see from about halfway through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_49, Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_50, and about one third through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_51).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier when I stated that the links were to show the tandem relationship between the two editors in question and not to show whether the other party was in the right or wrong, I will repost my statement that Jeffro77 pretends to have missed:

"The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 8:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Willietell (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First, lets clear up one thing, you filed the sockpuppet claim after I told everyone on the talk page what had happened, so you knew in advance of filing the sockpuppet claim what had happened, got me blocked for about 2 or 3 days and complained during that time that I wasn't detailing my objections to the beliefs page, even while you knew I was blocked for a false sockpuppetry claim. Still you repeatedly bring this subject up when addressing any disagreement with me to attempt to taint the perception with which I am held by anyone considering the argument at hand. Secondly, I don't really care how many user ID's you use, you can have a dozen for all I care, and pretend that each and every one is another Sybil. You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student...I simply really don't care. What I object to is the constant goading and smear tactics employed to create a hostile environment for fellow editors, this I find objectionable, the other stuff is simply childishly funny. I have finally read the long diatribe on the talk page, and there is no way in an unbiased persons eyes that the two of you, namelyJeffro77 AND BlackCab CAN BE VIEWED AS FAULTLESS IN THE EXCHANGE THAT BROUGHT US ALL TO THIS PAGE. As you stated, I have only been active on Wikipedia since some time in late November or early December, I can't remember the exact date, yet I personally have endured sustained and repeated attempts by both editors to drive me away from Wikipedia as is shown here[57] inBlackCab's insistence that maybe it would be better if I just leave Wikipedia altogether and also here[58] with more insistence that I just don't work well within Wikipedia, even as I am continuously hounded from page to page having edit after edit reverted by one of the two editors based upon one flimsy excuse after another. I have personally experienced the points that AuthorityTam describes. I am therefore not just "taking his side" without knowing what is going on, I am speaking because I have observed firsthand what he has had to endure for an even longer period than I. Willietell (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite baffled by your bizarre suggestions about editing from other accounts. Your ranting claim that "You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student" suggests you imagine specific user accounts (though I have no idea who), and if so, it's unclear why you seem reluctant to name them so a CheckUser can be performed and summarily show you to be dishonest. Your continued dishonesty about the supposed ANI links above, your paranoid claims about me (and/or BlackCab) acting as other editors, your false claims of copyright violation in attempt to have an article you don't like deleted do not tend toward veracity, and are directly counter to claims of honesty made in your unblock request. I was alerted to the likely sockpuppetry by another editor (not BlackCab)[59] regarding User:Spudpicker_01, and the sockpuppetry case against Spudpicker_01 was lodged 12 December 2011[60] (before the Williewell account had been created on 13 December). After I subsequently explained at the SPI that "The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet). The anonymous editor has now created an account as Willietell"[61], the closing admin decided to block you. It's also amusing that you've gone from being "somewhat uninvolved" to "have personally experienced".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Somewhat uninvolved" because I had no involvement in the issue that brought us to this ANI, namely the diatribe on the main Jehovah's Witnesses talk page, my having a personal experience with the complaining editors is a separate issue, but I'm sure you already know that. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, you're claiming that two editors, who you believe to be one person, are operating in 'tandem', while also claiming to be several other editors, each with different fictitious strengths and weaknesses. Since I've been on Wikipedia longer than BlackCab, you are actually accusing me of this. So, I don't care if you care. If you are making these allegations, you are expected to prove it or retract your lies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, experienced editors can sometimes become frustrated by new editors who spring up and attempt to make drastic changes, as you've done. You tried repeatedly to have an exhaustively sourced article deleted, ignored repeated and earnest requests from a range of editors to explain your specific objections to the page and now regard as harassment the reversion of your often poorly conceived edits. I have tried to be patient with you, and I'm sorry if sometimes my patience wears thin. Jeffro has also been courteous towards you, but you test everyone's patience with these quite bizarre suggestions of dishonesty and deviousness, particularly when you refuse to back them up with any evidence. You are also driving me nuts with this empty "POV spin" phrase every time you don't get your way. I again implore you to report me for any incivility or disruption. Report me if you seriously think I am a sockpuppet of Jeffro, whom I have never met, and with whom I once had one brief email exchange. If you do not, then stop this stupid behaviour. We are here to discuss the belligerent and inflammatory behavior of AuthorityTam, though apparently it's not something of any great interest to the admins. My suspicion is that this thread will soon go stale, be removed and we'll be back at square one. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing up that I tried to have the page [Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] deleted, which I did initially as a very new IP editor to Wikipedia because I felt that the page was so full of biased material that it would be nearly impossible to fix[62]. I changed my mind after several editors demanded that I present a breakdown of what I thought was biased, I did present several points that I thought, and still think need improvement and was in discussions with editors to make such improvements[63], when an editor posted a link to a page that I concluded was the source material for almost all the content on the page[64]. Due to this conclusion, I posted a tag stating that I thought the page was a copyright violation, only to have several editors assure me that it wasn't. I was skeptical, but nonetheless, relented and decided that with effort the page could be corrected in such a way as to make this irrelevant in the long term and began working to fix the page in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies, which I am currently attempting to do. I have not attempted to have the page deleted recently nor do I intend to attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. To continue to bring these issues up along with the false sockpuppet claim is simply a form of character assassination and needs to end. Additionally, since Jeffro77 went to the trouble of requesting a sockpuppet investigation (which was declined on the reason that check user is not used to prove innocence)[65], I will assume good faith and take the two editors word for it that they are not the same editor and no longer speculate on this page or any other whether they are the same editor. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was you who first discussed the sockpuppet case against you at this discussion, and you who accused me of sockpuppetry here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A cursory look through Willitel's talk page shows that s/he is far from uninvolved with JW issues. It appears as though that which disagrees with their POV is "POV spin," and it may be the case that they have confused WP for a No Spin Zone as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed to be uninvolved in JW issues. I only stated that I was uninvolved in the current issue of the long diatribe and back and forth argument that happened in the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page that was the straw for bring us to this ANI. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be repeated, I'd like something to come out of it. I would like to propose:

• A topic ban for JW articles to AuthorityTam,
• An interaction ban between AuthorityTam and BlackCab (and maybe topic ban for him too, depending on responses from people more knowledgeable),
• Possible sanctions of some sort against Willietell (which, while he engages in some tendentious editing and such (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), I have not seen him break any rules egregiously yet in my personal interaction. I will not propose these personally, as I do not feel what would fit (the WP:IDHT behavior continues across a selection of articles, from Genesis creation narrative to the topic of this discussion).

I'm going to run a few options up the flagpole and see who salutes. Feel free to propose modified sanctions or comment to dismiss or oppose all sanctions. I apologize in advance if these are draconian, but I oft get aggravated with the same old shit being brought to AN/I over and over again with no end in sight, but just turning in to a bitch-fest or vent with no proposed solutions to the problems. I have not interacted with BlackCab enough to know if he should get a topic ban too, but I have no doubt that interaction between the two editors is poisonous from comments here alone. (AuthorityTam has seemed fair when I've dealt with him, but from the diffs and a perusal of edit history, there is a problem.)

(AuthorityTam's contempt has consistently been directed at editors whom he believes to be former members of JWs. AuthorityTam employs circumlocutory regarding his claims that he 'does not wish to self-identify at Wikipedia as a JW' and has never denied that he is a member. The manner of his edits not only in support of JWs but also unsupportive of other groups such as other Bible Student movement groups, along with various other edits, make it appear very likely that he is a member of the religion, which in itself is immaterial, but seems to be a contributing factor to his attitude of contempt toward other editors whom he believes to be former members of the religion.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam: Topic Ban

Please suggest alternate sanctions if these are unacceptable - something to keep this from coming back to AN/I over and over.
We propose AuthorityTam be blocked from editing JW-related articles for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing to date has impressed upon AuthorityTam that he can't continue this type of interaction with other users. I support comments from other users that he often includes valuable information to JW articles and provides pro-JW balance. Despite his allegation at the talk page, I have not asked for him to be banned. (Another editor has falsely suggested I am trying to knock off pro-JW editors one by one, which is also utter rubbish). But I think a temporary block may be useful to help modify his conduct. BlackCab (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Authority/Tam is an important editor to the project and his use or continued use of the reference to TSally does not in any way harm editor BlackCab, even if it seems distasteful to him. Additionally, to bring up an editors previous edit history seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia, and AuthorityTam is certainly not alone in doing so. I personally think this ANI resulted from an overreaction by a couple of editors who seem to judge their own action through rose colored glasses and filed the ANI without first considering WP:boomerang. It seems to me that AuthorityTam has reacted as many people would after having spent many years being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI. I think that sanctions enacted against him would be tantamount to a punish the victim mentality. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the "aka LTSally" phrase "distasteful"; it is a pejorative term that implies deviousness or subterfuge on my part. He has used it now for two years without letup. I have asked him to stop, and three other editors have agreed it is unnecessary. His continued use of it, even in this very ANI complaint,[66] is further evidence of his determination to goad, and his lack of willingness to cooperate. We all over-react sometimes. But AuthorityTam has a deeply embedded pattern of taunting. He is disruptive. He refuses to put the past behind him. He is unrepentant. He doesn't know when to stop. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are separate problems with Willietell's behaviour, as have already been commented on above, and his claim about "being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI" is dishonest, because only one editor filed the ANI. I learned of the ANI because AuthorityTam's Talk page is on my Watch List (all pages I edit are automatically added to my Watch List).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional Support - It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise. If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not find anything disruptive from AuthorityTam. His pro-JW defensive edits and comments might be not fitting to the JW-defaming taste of user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77. However he have contributed a lot in removing ex-witness bias from the article and have played a leading historical role in raising JWs article to GA status. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that comment is inappropriate and out of line with Wikipedia policy as I read it: a "pro-JW bias" which doesn't fit the "JW-defaming bias" of everyone else are reasons for blocks all around if true. I have to pull a modification of a line of Avraham's: Thou hast been accused by editors four; go forth now and battle no more; for if on yon lame wars many doth proceed to yammer; ye great Adminnes will break out ye olde bannehammer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging out through the edit history of user:BlackCab and Jeffro77 I could'nt find anywhere they are helping to increase the fame of JW's. These two editors are from Australia, one of them explicitly written an essay regarding his reasons to renounce the JWs faith. Further in most cases I find these two are taking sides almost together and tend to be a watchdog for JW supportive edits as user:Willietell brought-out. On the other hand through the edit history of user:AuthorityTam I could'nt find anything that is trying to defame JWs and he is not as active as the other two editors. Further I personally know few-self claimed ex-witnesses and they always have a tendency to defame their former faith and not so happy as well. May be because they feel so pissed off that they were not able to do anything for years to collapse the growth of religion. So generalizing self advertising ex-witnesses I thought the phrases I used were appropriate. If it is inappropriate I apologize because I am very busy person with no much time to read all Wiki policies and guidelines. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I do not like the JW religion, but I do not come to Wikipedia to defame it. I simply present accurate information from reliable sources. Every WP article on a subject of controversy will attract editors who are supporters and opposers. Fazilfazil is welcome to his assessment of ex-JWs (which happens to mirror the statements of the religion), but he is wrong. I simply want people to have facts so they can make an informed choice. The fact that Jeffro77 and I agree on many things doesn't mean we are "taking sides." This discussion (as with many discussions at JW talk pages) sadly degenerates to team-like face-offs where the details of the complaint are forgotten in an effort to simply protect a team member. Let's stick with the specific complaint about AuthorityTam's specific conduct. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's irrelevant ad hominem regarding former JWs (and Australians??) has very little to do with AuthorityTam's persistent inappropriate conduct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - AuthoityTam has made significant contributions to JW-related articles, and is an important piece to keep the article balanced. I don't concider his behavior significant worse than some of the other users. The fact it appairs only two users have serious objections with his behavior, makes it easier to oppose for topic-ban, though I do think it could be justified to give him some kind of warning regarding the use of "aka LTSally". I think several users could need a topic break, the article won't disappair within a few weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose: Having observed and intermittently participated at the JW talkpgae for some five years now I must state that I believe that the article's current state is a result of a balanced stalemate between editors with complementary viewpoints. Furthermore I don't think that AuthorityTam's conduct is more egregious than that of BlackCab - I would perhaps support a topic ban for both, but not for either one of them alone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello Maunus! And what evidence would you cite in support of a topic ban on me? I have provided specific complaints about AuthorityTam's behaviour, including a refusal to acknowledge my direct request to him to cease this infantile "aka LTSally" tactic that suggests duplicity on my part, and his ongoing pattern of goading and taunting. I'd be interested in seeing what specific edits of mine from, say, the past year suggest a failure to collaborate or a tendency to disrupt that would warrant me being blocked from editing JW pages. I have always insisted on reliable, verifiable sources and I have always sought outside comment when discussions meet a stalemate. I have provided diffs for examples of that above. AuthorityTam has had the opportunity to defend himself against my grievances, so do me the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself against your accusations. BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Blackcab - I don't know why you'd be surprised to see me. I am not the one making any accusations here, and so am under no requirement to present evidence. I acknowledge that you are generally civil (if often curt and abrasive) and respect policy guiding content creation. In my experience so does AuthorityTam - he just doesn't consistently have someone to back him up in arguments, which I can only imagine leads to some measure of added frustration. The double topic ban I think would be to the benefit of both you (since it would let you both focus on less stressful stuff), and for the article (since topic banning only one of you would likely lead to gradual degradation of the article). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The implication that I 'consistently back up BlackCab' is false. The suggestion that AuthorityTam does not have editors supporting him is also false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I acknowledge that tehre have been problems between AT and BlackCab, but they are problems that I would expect under the circumstances. Maybe if we could get one or both to agree to some sort of voluntary ban on content addition or reversion, for at least a time, that might be enough. Under such circumstances, they could propose the edits on the relevant talk page, and ask others to make the changes requested. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims that none of his behaviour has been inappropriate, even though he employed the same inappropriate behaviour in his response at this discussion. The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro, your proposal sounds like one for "discretionary sanctions" as per WP:AC/DS. I could see that as an acceptable response myself. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think it would be a reasonable request to require AT to comment on content only. It does require of course that he not be baited (I am not suggesting that someone would - but the provision should take into account the possibility).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam/BlackCab: Interaction Block

We propose an indefinite interaction ban between AuthorityTam/BlackCab. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not so sure that would work. There are times when we do need to discuss edits. And given the lengthy (and potentially infinitely-lasting) tit-for-tat discussion here I think any such interaction ban should also include at least one other editor. Quarantining me, alone, from any discussions with AuthorityTam would not be helpful or fair. But someone may like to explain the practicalities of such a proposal. Bottom line is the need for a change in AuthorityTam's behaviour, just as I have learned to do. BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest that the three editors Jeffro77, BlackCab and AuthorityTam be restricted from reverting one another's recent edits(30 days) without first taking the matter to discussion in talk in a civil attempt to reach consensus before making any change. This would allow for cooler heads to prevail and keep tempers from flaring so much. This could be put in place for a time period that will allow the editors to learn to "play nice". Willietell (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am "nice". I do discuss. I am civil. I do seek external comment when discussions reach a deadlock,[67][68] and I accept the consensus at those noticeboards. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There have not really been frequent recent issues of edit warring. Most of the problems related to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages. I am not claiming that this is all AuthorityTam's fault. I have previously advised BlackCab about some things that 'trigger' AuthorityTam's tirades, and also acknowledged that I've also been uncivil at times when things get heated. The main problem is that AuthorityTam just doesn't stop, particularly with comments about editors that have absolutely nothing to do with article Talk, and frequently rehashes past irrelevant disputes. (There is the 'two to tango' aspect, however, although I don't like having to rebut AuthorityTam's misleading claims about me at article Talk pages, nor will I allow him to malign me undefended.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - This would help to cool down the issue. Because I believe if you cannot work along with a person just stop interacting would help for while --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has not acknowledged that any of his behaviour is inappropriate, but has actually described his current behaviour of frequently attacking other editors' motives as 'avoiding interaction'. Because of this distorted perception of what constitutes 'interaction', it's not clear that he would understand what an 'interaction block' would require.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: Willietell: Topic Ban

We propose that Willietell be blocked from editing articles related to Christianity for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I may live to regret this, but at this stage there are probably better ways to deal with Willietell. There are significant issues involved with his editing. He finds it very difficult to accept consensus, and does not listen to other editors. The thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted and the resulting thread immediately below it strongly demonstrate the difficulties of dealing with him. That thread produced a good range of uninvolved editors who all tried to help Willietell, without great result. See User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1#Your recent edits. He has responded to these effort, and outside intervention, by threatening admins[69] or complaining of COI[70]. He has seen agreement among other editors as evidence of sockpuppetry[71] and hostility[72] and constantly describes any statement that differs from his unique view of the world as "POV spin".[73] Willietell is a deeply irritating editor and borderline disruptive because of his recycling of previously settled debates (because they didn't produce the result he wanted). He accuses me and others of hostility, despite earnest efforts to walk him through the issues involved. There are issues of maturity here, but hopefully he is on a learning curve. I think a block here may be counter-productive because it may fuel his paranoia. Hopefully at some stage the weight of opposition to his views may persuade him there are alternative viewpoints that sometimes have greater validity than his. BlackCab (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• oppose As you yourself point out, my edits on the page Genesis creation narrative were no more egregious than any other editor on that page, including yourself[74]]. While, at first I had little understanding of how things worked on Wikipedia, I have made attempts to learn how to do things properly and have not repeated the early missteps I made as a new editor. My opinion that material which does not fall within the guidelines of WP:NPOV represents POV spin is "my opinion" and as such can be expressed in a civil manner and should not be cause for character assassination, whether you personally like the term or not. I have performed no action nor exhibited any behavior which would in any way justify such a proposed "Topic Ban". I would like to thank BlackCab for notifying me of the existence of this proposed topic ban, since the proposing editor failed to do so. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally here[75] is the diff on that page, showing the edit in question was not only a minor one, but justified, as the current page content shows[76] . Willietell (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support Willietell has asserted some quite bizarre suspicions about the motives and actions of other editors without any evidence, and has also asserted a fairly narrow world view in various articles related to religion. However, he does claim to have learned from his problematic behaviour. My main concerns largely relate to matters discussed at the essay, Wikipedia:Competency is required, and I would like to think that Willietell can continue to develop skills that may make him a better contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Each new editor have his own way of approaching discussions and they will adapt. Some may be vigorous and some may be calm. Nevertheless it contributes to the whole improvement and to reach consensus. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am running out of daylight, I will have to continue with this ANI tomorrow, and I have some sanctions of myself to propose. Willietell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, purely on technical grounds. Either someone is blocked from all editing, or he's able to edit everything that's not protected; you can't block someone from editing pages that have a certain topic, such as Christianity. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can, we do it all the time. It's called a WP:TOPICBAN. SÆdon^talk 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this due to a philosophical opposition to topic bans? (In which case it wouldn't be a technical issue.) Kansan (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And he's an admin? Who has never heard of a topic ban?! We need to remember to never give Calvinists the broom, because it's all or nothing to them ;-) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that proposal of proposed sanctions (if any) be left to admins

[non admin comment] In the words of the Bard of Ayrshire “Oh what some power the gift he give us, to see ourselves as others see us!” ... I admit to being totally uninformed here, I've only had my eye caught by one relatively well conducted and resolved edit fuffle in JW-article space about the church's excommunication practices, plus there was a cooperative attitude shown by participants (AuthTam and Jeffro) from both sides in getting Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion pulled back into generic WP:Christianity space. Seeing as that can be acheived, why not just drop this before something like the "vile nutcase" comment WP:BOOMERANGs into all 4 being invited to spend a month contributing to the non-JW bits of Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I will bend to the editors suggestion and withhold requesting sanctions against Jeffro77 and BlackCab to allow time to see if the editor who filed the ANI (since I have been corrected and Jeffro77 didn't file it, but discovered it in some manner) heeds your advice and withdraws it. If he chooses to do so then this will be a moot point. However if he persists, then I will propose a Topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors based upon their hostile behavior towards editors who disagree with their POV as well as barring both editors from editing the same article or talk page within a 31 day period the lessen the tagteam effect of their overly co-operative tandem edits, which a perusal of each editors contributions will demonstrate without much investigation. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia tomorrow, this will allow about a 36 hour period for the editor to make up his mind as to what he chooses to do. Willietell (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's quite an ultimatum, Willietell. Numerous editors have advised you to stop screaming "POV spin!" every time you see wording you disagree with. The latest example is Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Lede in which Willitell keeps complaining of a "factual inaccuracy" about who establishes doctrines for the religion, and yet is apparently unable to see that the article simply does not contradict his claim. The long thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns is a window into the thinking of an editor who throughout the entire exchange gained no support for any change from a wide variety of editors. I don't think an editor whose biggest response is a thunderous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in much a position to be sitting on the judge's bench. We all agree that this subject is something that divides editors. I will happily work with editors with whom I disagree. I do not, however, accept that editors who continually goad, taunt and ignore requests to engage on matters of conduct should be permitted to do so freely without a sanction of some kind. BlackCab (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly bizarre that Willietell insists on "topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors" unless some action is taken by BlackCab. And then he accuses me of being "overly co-operative"(?!), but conveniently ignores all the times I've also agreed with other editors, including AuthorityTam.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've already stated above, AuthorityTam is capable of collaboration. The problems largely arise when he verges off into irrelevant attacks on the motives of other editors (mostly of BlackCab) at the mildest of perceived provocation, and often with no provocation at all.

I should note that although I expressed agreement with some of his suggestions at Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, he did not actually acknowledge any contribution by or agreement with me, and the only time he mentioned me was earlier at that page when he felt the need to state that "the AfD proposal [opposed by AuthorityTam] by User:Jeffro77 was closed with Keep", which seemed to have been stated that way to highlight the supposed 'failure' of my proposal, despite the fact that a) the closure was self-evident from the removal of the AfD template, b) all the editors involved at the Talk page were also involved in the AfD, and c) I had accepted the result of the AfD—in isolation, the comment might seem innocuous, but in a broader context is part of AuthorityTam's dismissive comments about editors he doesn't like. If this is not the case, AuthorityTam should be able to provide evidence where he's made special mention of AfD closures that were a) not closed the way he wanted or b) not proposed by me, BlackCab, or other editors he considers to be former JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good thing. I was never a JW, but my most vocal support at the Jesus Crucifixion page came from AuthorityTam - my personal interaction has been fine, but the diffs and a trawling of edit history (since I had nothing better to do than keep refreshing this page and work on some Wikidramatics) reveal problems. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI process: a final thought

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I see a view coalescing that my complaint that AuthorityTam’s actions in (a) repeatedly goading me with his mischievous “aka LTSally” line despite my asking him several times to stop, (b) maintaining generally antagonistic and combative comments towards me, (c) recycling years-old exchanges and (d) repeatedly quoting a line I deleted from my user page two years ago .... was not worth raising. Apparently I should stop bullying the poor soul, because he’s just reacting to the fact that sometimes there are two editors in a discussion who disagree with him.

Maunus has previously warned AuthorityTam to minimise his personal attacks[77] and has also advised editors to treat others as they would like to be treated.[78]. He has also suggested (without supporting evidence) that Jeffro77 and I have bullied AuthorityTam.[79].

In the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint, despite his best efforts to pour gasoline on the fire. It’s worth noting that in the dreadful Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Can we wrap this RfC up? thread, which is probably one of the low points of all JW discussions, the thread began on February 6 and was still going at March 30. I withdrew from the thread on March 3. My earlier condemnation of AuthorityTam’s behaviour was all turned around as evidence of my “attacks” on him. If you can stomach it, read the thread in its entirety.

Or try this one for a prime example of his tactics of misrepresentation and escalation. Follow this trail of breadcrumbs: (1) AT's "Keep" vote of Feb 27 that concludes with a sneering dig at "the nominator's decision" (that's Jeffro) that clearly misconstrues Jeffro's initial comment. (2) History2007's comment of Feb 28 seizing on ATam's "evidence" that Jeffro is being devious. (3) My comment immediately afterwards with the fairly innocuous observation that "I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion". Then ... (4) AuthorityTam's over-the-top spray of March 1 employing his "aka LTSally" device, links to comments of mine from 2009 and April 2010, before he (yet again) parades my userpage comments before I deleted them in January 2010. My chiding his unnecessary denigration of anothereditor as "mischevous" prompts his rants of "hyperventilatingly caterwauls" and "outrageous namecalling". His links are all ancient history. They're three years old! Again, I have learned a lot about civility and respect since mid-2009. AuthorityTam has learned nothing.

Put simply, I can’t win. I can’t make him stop this shit, and when I try, I’m accused of bullying or being thin-skinned. Really, this whole ANI complaint was a complete waste of time. AuthorityTam doesn’t admit any fault, few others see anything wrong with his conduct and now editors are discussing possible sanctions against me for doing nothing more than asking him to stop. Really, I’d rather just drop the whole thing. I have zero faith in Wikipedia processes for dealing with inflammatory behaviour ... but then I would, wouldn't I? BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly some frustration here. Thing is, even the editors supporting AuthorityTam, despite some fairly evident bias, have acknowledged above that at least some of his conduct has been improper. Maybe the admins are just busy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that since my proposals fail another users proposes a proposal

This is now marked "unresolved", which means it's going to come back here in no time. RfC/U seems like the next step: the question is, RfC/U on which user? Additionally, everyone seems to have their own cheering squad, which makes getting anything done look very, very difficult if not impossible ("unstoppable force, meet immovable object"). From my reading of this (granted, I've only been involved in about half a score of these processes now) it - the process - seems to have broken down (and shall continue to as long as each and every editor on such a polarized topic has, as I mentioned, their very own cheer section that will oppose/support according to that). What is the next step? Wait for this to come back to AN/I and leave "unresolved" next month? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on AuthorityTam

Based on comments above, I believe a possible option here would be to apply discretionary sanctions as per WP:AC/DS on AuthorityTam. Specifically, I would propose that any uninvolved administrator be free to impose sanctions on AuthorityTam should they see he engage in unacceptable conduct. In this particular instance, that would probably include violation of WP:TPG, specifically including making personal comments about other editors. I have asked for input from the ArbCom regarding whether it is considered acceptable to impose such restrictions here, and, if it is, I myself would Support such an option. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? John, I'm no fan of either side in this subject and would like to see all 4 spend a month on non-JW topics, but with both you and DougWeller taking the side of BlackCab and Jeffro vs AuthorityTam and WillieTell I can only only assume you must have seen something I haven't.....? What actually has he done? Frankly if any of us had been called "vile nutcase" by BlackCab here on ANI we would have gone ballistic, and yet AuthorityTam just sucked it in turned the other cheek (must be a Buddhist), and now we're sanctioning him? Someone link for me what exactly we're supposed to be sanctioning for please? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a few very good points here. FWIW, discretionary sanctions would only be applied if the individual actually did something specific to bring them about. AT has, for some time, been leaving messages in a number of places, particularly article talk pages and user talk pages, criticizing BlackCab for being a former JW, and such long-standing questionable conduct is something which can reasonably be considered. There are possible, legitimate, POV concerns there, but they would apply equally to AuthorityTam and, basically, everyone who has ever indicated a position on the JWs. Including me, who is a self-described Catholic, and, thus at least theoretically opposed to the JWs. From what I've seen before, being insulted at AN/I is something most of us have come to expect to happen occasionally. And, FWIW, I would not necessarily oppose sanctions on other editors, maybe including BlackCab, if I knew of longstanding similar conduct on their part. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - In between I could not find anywhere user:AuthorityTam criticizing user:BlackCab for being a former JW. But he points out at many occasions that user:BlackCab is having a former JWs bias. The recent aggravation of the situation came from specifically this thread for this (humourous?) comment from user:AuthorityTam and user:Jeffro77s failed Afd for Jesus' execution instrument. It appears both the editors have made insults. For example user:BlackCab mentioned user:AuthorityTam explicitly as 'stupid','obsessed', 'inane','bitchy','childish' and user:Jeffro77 though apologized as his mistake/misunderstanding by mentioning towards AuthorityTam as 'juvenile','infantile','AuthorityTam and Hitler are guilty of incivility and exterminating Jews','hostile' etc. On the other-hand AuthorityTam have mentioned user:BlackCab as 'hyperventilatingly caterwauling at his talk page','outrageously namecalling' and quoting BlackCab's feelings about his past religion "sickened" by the {ahem} "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses found at his user page in a derisive way as a response to user:BlackCab's referral towards user:AuthorityTam as mischievous. So making sanctions against AuthorityTam alone is not justifiable. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of having an "ex-JW bias" is the same as criticizing them for being an ex-JW, as, if they were still JWs, they could not possibly have the aforementioned bias. You shouldn't try to become a lawyer (unless the main weapon in the attorney's arsenal is the ad-hom). Do you realize that you see no bias, because it's a bias that you agree with? meta:MPOV. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I guess I realized many things. Indeed you could compare meta:MPOV with your removal of this section (minor edit?) and meditate. I would also appreciate if you have any concern about my past edits feel free to take it to my talk page rather than to continue in this irrelevant page. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If I marked it as a minor edit in mistake, I immediately re-edited to mark it as a non-minor edit. That deletion had nothing to do with any POV, as was established by half a dozen editors on the talk page, but merely the policies of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My comments were an expression of exasperation over AuthorityTam's continued attempts to inflame situations by needling ex-JW editors. AuthorityTam then collected all adjectives I had used in criticizing his inflammatory behaviour and linked them as an accusation against me. This is what I call escalation. Rather than cease his antagonism, he uses my complaints as ammunition against me. What am I supposed to do? BlackCab (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• support - perhaps extending the restriction to editors commenting on talkpages of JW articles in general? Basically a sharpened civilty requirement for all editors on those pages? With possibility of discretionary sanctions on sight from uninvolved admins.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• support - Extend civility requirement to all editors involved in JWs talk page setting aside personal preferences (including me)--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have received responses on the possiblity of discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#AN/I proposal for discretionary sanctions on an editor. Based on the fact that the ArbCom are much better informed on such matters, I do think it makes sense that perhaps, under the circumstaces, and given their input, it might be best to not take this option, given the likelihood of appeal to ArbCom. It looks to me like the above comments are talking about placing JW related content like at WP:AP#General sanctions. That would, unfortunately, maybe be a separate proposal, although in theory I wouldn't necessarily oppose it myself. The one problem I might foresee, being new to discussing such sanctions here, is that maybe it might be as likely to require active ArbCom review as the original proposal limited to just AT. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin comment] Hi again John, presumably if it does go to ArbCom that would give all 4 participants equal opportunity to list the top ten worst edits/comments/offences of the opposing team. I spent 20 min when this appeared last week trying to follow the Talk history and couldn't see anything that would pull the sky down. The objection of one editor to being referred to as "previous User name aka current User name" doesn't seem like the worst sin, you yourself have (correctly and I was glad you did) nodded to me to a User name change in the past. (I still think all 4 being invited to work on non-JW articles for a month would benefit everyone). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, if only there were a real chance of such "invitations" being necessarily listened to. I agree that the objection you mentioned above is probably not the worst sin, although when it is repeated as often as this one has been, I can see where it might be at least quite irritating to that individual. And repetition of even such minor matters, if done often enough, can be problematic. As the ArbCom members indicate in the ArbCom talk page linked to earlier, if we really want to do this, all things considered, maybe sending it to ArbCom directly might not be such a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin comment/no further comment] It should be left to admins to support referral of all 4 to ArbCom if that's proposable. (btw "invited" was code for 1 month TOPIC BAN on all 4 disputants. Apart from anything else, it's not as if there aren't 1000s of not-remotely JWish religion articles which don't need work. And if the 4 are not willing/able to contribute to non-JW article space for a month, well there's always fresh air and exercise, or go read the Mahabharata or something). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone gets referred for anything .... I have already stated that in the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint. I have fended off his rants and not escalated them. My "vile nutcase" comment was an ill-timed and ill-considered remark made out of complete frustration over the absence of admin response to my complaint and the usual degeneration of discussion into teamlike behaviour, with guilt or innocence apparently determined by whether one is a JW or not. Surely it is here, if anywhere, that an editor is able to explain frankly one's complaints about another editor, and although I do in fact still regard AuthorityTam's behaviour towards me as vile, I did remove that comment and regret making it. That one lapse aside, I would challenge anyone to find an edit or comment of mine in the past year that could be described as an attack or uncivil, and therefore warranting sanctions.

Someone used the "boomerang" phrase early on in this discussion, and it looks to me like several others are about to now suffer the consequences of one editor's behaviour. My complaint against AuthorityTam was a response to his long pattern of antagonism towards me. I agree that the "aka LTSally" tactic is, to an observer, a trivial issue. In his case it was one more goading action of his after I had repeatedly, specifically asked him to explain why he did it and then desist.[80][81] His continued use of it, I suspect, is a direct reaction to that plea. It comes on top of the sort of inflammatory conduct I have already referred to, in which he regularly, systematically rehashes comments of mine from as long ago as 2009 as examples of my "namecalling", which he then uses as a launching pad for more OTT attacks on me. The AfD thread I referred to in the "A final thought" subheading above was a fair example of the type of conduct I object to. For the 99th time, I will say that in the often heated environment of JW-related articles, I have written things in the past I now wish I hadn't. But it is in the past. I learned and acknowledged it was unhelpful behaviour on my part. I would like AuthorityTam to come to a similar realisation and also stop. That's all I ask. BlackCab (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My last understanding on this topic was that the editor who brought the matter to an ANI wished to drop the matter, I have therefore, until today, not revisited it, if the editor/s wish to continue this matter again, please make me aware of this, as I have currently been considering this matter closed. Willietell (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to have been some confusion here... Discretionary Sanctions are specifically authorized by Arbcom in cases where an ongoing dispute is expected, as part of them resolving a case. Admins and the community don't kick them in on other cases (or at least, admins can't, and the community hasn't to date and has no pre-established authority to do so). Administrators can separately and independently act to discourage, calm down, or curb disruptive behavior including users picking on or insulting each other, and we always have had authority to do so.

It's not clear that the discussion above established a severe enough situation for admins to necessarily intervene or even optionally intervene. It might be best if both parties voluntarily stepped away from talking to and about each other for a while, but we don't usually impose bans (interaction, topic, or otherwise) without more severe abuse than this.

I encourage both sides to back off and hopefully avoid each other for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is levelheaded advice, which I was already trying to follow even before you gave it, hopefully I will not be alone in this regard. Willietell (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am also keeping away from JW articles and Wikipedia in general. This whole thing is doing my head in. BlackCab (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, as can be noted here[82]and here[83] Willietell (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Improper move by admin

The move of Nico Hülkenberg → Nico Hulkenberg was discussed at Talk:Nico Hülkenberg#Requested move and was correctly closed. This close followed a discussion of 3 administrators who all agreed that the arguments supported the move and that the discussion is not a vote so despite there being a larger number of editors opposing the move, the better arguments were sufficient to do the move. Note that this section of the talk page expanded significantly after the move. However after the move, UtherSRG moved it back here with no additional discussion. This was done making no effort to contact the administrator who did the move or the other two administrators who agreed that the page should be moved. So the effect at this point is that a single administrator has been allowed to override the opinion of 3 administrators. This seems very wrong. WP:WHEEL appears to prevent those involved with doing anything to correct this, so it needs to be here for resolution.

Since the move a follow on discussion was started raising the issue of how do we really handle contested closings. This discussion also questions why the unilateral reversion of the opinions of 3 administrators by one administrator has been allowed to remain in place.

After the move, a point was raised that Hulkenberg may in fact not be a correct spelling, but that does not need to be resolved here, and can be addressed by the normal WP:RM process.

I'll note that since this mess erupted, there has been a significant drop in closing of WP:RM discussions. I can't say that this was the cause for all of these discussions remaining open. But it has kept some administrators away at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see there was also an effort to resolve this on his talk page, with no success. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar discussion about diacritics

UtherSRG's reversion was in line with policy, especially WP:BLP (accuracy over commonness; erroneous content should be reverted first and discussed later), but also WP:UE (local spellings for non-anglicized names) and WP:NOT#NEWS (the news style is not welcome here). Vegaswikian's closure ignored our policies, the established practice on the issue and the lack of consensus to move in the discussion. Furthermore, this user has move warred on behalf of the topic-banned sockpuppeteer Dolovis (talk · contribs), used his admin tools in a very questionable way and participated in identical RMs. He really should not be doing controversial closures, or pose as an uninvolved and concerned admin at WT:RM. It is worth noting that, after all the drama, neither Vegaswikian nor his two supporters have defended their policy interpretations in any way. There is an ongoing RFC that might interest some; the propagation of known spelling errors on BLPs has found very few supporters. Prolog (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Prolog you have mentioned a source above "accuracy over commonness" Yet the source you have linked to is a Guardian article from 6 November 2010, yet here is a more recent one from the same newspaper dated 16 December 2011. You make an assertion about "accuracy over commonness" yet your argument is not based on policy. The policy is to use reliable English language sources to ascertain what is the spelling used in reliable English language sources. This is in line and compatible with how we decide what is legitimate content for BLP articles. But instead of using such sources you are insisting on "accuracy" without explaining what metric you are using for accuracy. You write "erroneous content should be reverted first and discussed later" yet in doing so you ignore the content of reliable English language sources and simply state what you think is "erroneous content". Part of WP:BLP states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" that is precisely what WP:COMMONNAME dictates, yet you are ignoring that in favour of "I don't like it". Now it may be that the WP:RM was erroneous, but the close was correct given the information provided during the WP:RM, and you comments here tend to show that you have little understanding of how that process works. At its best it is based on all parties bringing evidence to the table to show how best their preferred article title meets the Article titles policy and interpretive guidelines. Your second point is an ad hominem against Vegaswikian, is in no way relevant to the point raised by Vegaswikian that several administrators disagree with UtherSRG action and have requested that it is reverted. -- PBS (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) WP:BLP and WP:NOT call for us to maintain encyclopedic standards (examples here) and "get the article right", not to play Google News popularity contests. To justify my high standards, I'll give you a look at authoritative sources: AMA Manual of Style: "Accent marks should always be retained in the following instances: Proper names..." APA style: "Special characters are accented letters and other diacriticals, Greek letters, math signs, and symbols. Type all special characters that you can, using the special character functions of your word-processing program." The Chicago Manual of Style: "Foreign words, phrases, or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that appear in the original language. [...] Although umlauted vowels are occasionally represented by omitting the accent and adding an e (ae, Oe, etc.), the availability of umlauted characters in text-editing software makes such a practice unnecessary." Some sources are even more explicit: Journal of Paleontology: "Pay strict attention to diacritical marks in names and words [...] Titles in languages using the Roman alphabet are not translated [...] Common errors of grammar are: [...] not putting in diacritical marks in foreign words or names." The Elements of Typographic Style: "....there are large-circulation newspapers in North America still unwilling to spell correctly even the names of major cities, composers and statesmen, or the annual list of winners of the Nobel Prize, for fear of letters like ñ and é..." Watching My Language (William Safire): "Most American newspapers and magazines, even The New York Times, follow the disgraceful and slovenly practice of omitting diacritics in foreign names." Prolog (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I was just saying earlier today that this war was continuing apace, and you folks have so graciously obliged with an example! Thank you! If I can be a partisan for a minute though, I can understand the opinions of yourself and William Safire, but still say that you're both wrong (along with the slew of what are obviously intended to be appeals to authority in the list of style guides that you've provided; which, I'd like to point out, have their own reasons for the practices that they follow). When kindergarden clas:ses (or, for you European folks, nursery schools I suppose) and English textbooks (including ESL books) start teaching the meanings and proper uses for all of those wacky squiggly lines and other nonsense, then we'll talk. It's hardly "disgraceful and slovenly" to, you know, actually write in English! (and, incidentally, Safire was a self-aggrandizing, egotistical buffoon, and the above quote is a prefect example of the reasons why I have that opinion of him. I wish that he hadn't died, but still...) — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC) ... but still say that you're both wrong. So one group provides authoritative, reliable sources (or, as you rename them, "appeals to authority") like The Chicago Manual of Style and APA Manual for the -- common-sense, really -- practice of using people's actual names, whilst your opposition rests on that more authoritative source, The International Journal of Because I Said So? Well, you've got me convinced. --Calton | Talk 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC) It's hardly "disgraceful and slovenly" to, you know, actually write in English! That's strange: I checked the article and it appears to be all written in English, so that's a rather odd protest. Perhaps there was some previous version you saw done up in Serbo-Croatian? --Calton | Talk 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Opinions can vary of course, but I'll take the authority of an English text book (Just pick one) over some style guide. Just because he crafted a list doesn't mean that there's absolute support for his position. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I'll take the authority of an English text book (Just pick one) over some style guide. So it's actual, multiple style guides -- specifically crafted for the purpose of guiding publication professionals and professional writers -- over some textbook you imagine exists? Free clue, by the way: textbooks put out by reliable-source publishers use...wait for it...professional and in-house style guides, like, I dunno, [[The Chicago Manual of Style]. Boy, you're really building a strong case there. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) As long as it's provided in a reliable source, we should always use somebody's own name in the way that they use it - not making up a name format to use on Wikipedia just because Wikipedia says so. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I agree. Add to that the fact that we should use English sources, and prefer them over non-English sources where available (if for no other reason than Verifiability), and the obvious conclusion follows... — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC) On the English version of his own website, he uses an umlaut when writing his name (in lower case). [84] Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) So, you're saying that a self-published source disagrees with other published sources, and your point is... what? (Besides, i'd think that it's more likely than not that the main audience is non-English speaking, or English as as second language, anyway). I'm open minded though, so here: can someone tell me what, exactly, "ü" means? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I just read what The Bushranger wrote and gave a reply. Presumably most peaople knows how to spell their own name and how they prefer to see it written in English, so the caveats on "self-published sources" are not really applicable here. Another example of a living person with umlauts is Lars Hörmander. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC) At the risk of getting involved in this inimical diacritics argument, I wanted to answer Ohms law's question of what, exactly "ü" means. The subject of the article at hand is German. In the German alphabet there are 30 letters rather than 26 in the English alphabet. The letters u and ü represent different sounds: u is the close back rounded vowel ([u]); is the close front rounded vowel ([y]). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Right. And, this being the English Wikipedia... I wouldn't go to the German Wikipedia and argue for his article title to be "Nico Hulkenberg", after all. A little less linguistic nationalism over this issue would help immensely (and that's not at all confined to Wikipedia). — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC) The Anglicised form of Hülkenberg would be something like "Mounthulken", similar to Mountbatten. Dropping the umlaut inappropriately does not make something "English" any more than throwing in umlauts inappropriately makes something "German". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC) A fairly large swath of otherwise reasonable and knowledgeable people appear to disagree (at least with the "dropping the umlaut inappropriately" bit). Regardless, "Mountbatten" would most certainly be acceptable, but we can't just be making these things up as we go. I saw someone talking about "stage names" in one of the related, recent requested moves discussions; which seems to be an appropriate viewpoint to take towards these naming situations, to me. I find the generalized moral panic over this issue ("it's their name!!1!1!") to be not only hyperbolic but a bit misplaced, as well. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I think any argument of "This is the English Wikipedia..." therefore we shouldn't use any diacritics is very blinkered. Just because we write in English, why should we pretend that some words, and particularly names, are not written in other languages? I really think readers are capable of understanding that - I don't see people protesting that they can't read a word because it has a diacritic in it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I guess that it's a good thing that I'm not making the argument that we shouldn't use any diacritics then, huh? Anyway, this is all (very) old ground, and we're just rehashing the same old tired arguments over this issue here. This conversation has grown wearisome; sorry. Wasn't this thread ostensibly about one administrator using tools to edit war with another administrator? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify that I was speaking generally, and not referring to you, Ohms Law. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC) So to recap, User:Ohms law thinks Wikipedia shouldn't use people's real names, doesn't understand what an umlaut is or how it works in German, and imagines there to be some sort of "moral panic" involving the correct use of people's names. Obviously, we all need to give up and cede authority on this issue to him. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) There is no 'moral panic' it's simply the fact that calling something by a name that is not its name just because Wikipedia has a policy saying we use this name on Wikipedia because Wikipedia says so, and for no other reason, is the very definition of original research, and there ought to be a policy against that...oh wait. There is. - 04:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is a little disingenuous to describe the initial move as "unanimous" in a discussion of 3 admins [85] but the revert as "unilateral." It is true that at the time of the move, about 24 hours after the discussion opened, there were 3 admins who agreed with the move, and none opposed. But less than 24 hours later, at the time of the revert, there were 3 admins who disagreed with move, and no more admin supporters (and more non-admin opposers than supporters). Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• [non-admin suggestion]. I mainly edit on BDPs (i.e. dead people) so am no expert on BLP policy. However I was asked yesterday what improvement should be made to BLP policy, and it occurs to me that a significant amount of grief (like seeing two very good admins in an unfortunate situation like this) could be saved all across en.wp by making it a simple BLP rule that BLPs should be at the spelling on the BLP's current nationality passport for Latin alphabet names. That would be it. Have a RfC that adopts this as a rule to BLP and the remaining 30-40 Czech ice hockey players and 20-30 tennis players who are out of synch with the 10,000s of other BLPs on en.wp fall into line (painlessly, according to WP:RS already in the egregious less than 100 BLPs footnotes) and this issue effectively disappears with no more damage to admins or en.wp. Finish, end, no more fighting. (or almost none since few fight over BDPs). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

... except that we don't get to see their passport, so we can't verify it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• confused. This thread starts out pointing out that 3 admins discussed the matter. Question 1: Is that to suggest that an admin's views should hold any more weight than a non-admin's posts in a discussion? My understanding was that while admin's may have a couple extra buttons, ALL views should be considered equally. In looking at the original move discussion, I get the impression that roughly 10 people opposed the move, while roughly 3 people supported the move. The discussion was closed in support of the move. Is that correct? (note: I am fully aware that it's !vote, rather than a counting of numbers.) My thought here is that both sides pointed to various policy and guideline links in this case. I was a bit unclear on the how or why the view with 3 supports achieved the decision. While I can fully understand when things are in a 55/44 or even a 60/40 range; 10 opposes (with policy/guideline links) vs. 3 support (with policy/guideline links) seem to be a rather strong view to me. I'm not familiar with the full situation I'm sure, so I'm just looking for clarification rather than trying to find fault with any one editor. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  14:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussions are suppose to be closed based on the consensus in the discussion and not counting opinions. What matters is the strength of the arguments. This is not something that you can convert into a cookbook. So to avoid problems, it is becoming more common to have several administrators provide their opinions on consensus for a difficult close to see if we do have a consensus in the discussion. This would determine how the discussion was closed. It is not that their opinions carry more weight just that you don't rely on one persons analysis to determine if there is consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I collapsed the sidebar discussion about the whole diacritics issue above, since that's actually fairly irrelevant to the topic here (although it does provide background and insight into the motivation(s) causing this dispute, of course). If anyone feels strongly about collapsing that discussion being "wrong", feel free to remove the collapse templates (obviously I've stated my opinion in that section...).
  As for the issue at hand, what I see as being framed up here for discussion is this: Administrator A closes a discussion and uses his tools to enact the result. Administrator B comes along a short time later and uses his tools to revert the action of admin A. In response, Admin A has come here to ask for input.
  The way that I see it, administrator A (who happens to be User:Vegaswikian) did everything right here. I don't think that Administrator B (User:UtherSRG in this case) should be severely sanctioned or anything, but it would be nice if another administrator (hopefully an uninvolved one) would revert UtherSRG and point to this discussion as a rational. The actual Requested move process can easily be redone in this case, by anyone, without involving tools at all. It's the tool use here that is ultimately problematic, from my perspective.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that anyone did anything wrong. Admin A judged consensus of a contentious move discussion one way and asked for advice on the noticeboard. The first two admins who happened to join the discussion happened to agree, and so Admin A did the move. But the next several admins who joined disagreed that Admin A judged the consensus correctly, and one of them, Admin B, reverted the move. Ideally, Admin B would have discussed with Admin A first, although both were already participating in the discussion about the close on the RM noticeboard, and so a separate discussion would not necessary have added anything. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• [non-admin comment redux, following collapsed end comment] As someone until the last three weeks watching the sports BLPs soap opera from RM sidelines I'm not sure the sidebar discussion is totally irrelevant, since the underlying cause of two very good admins having been needlessly sucked into a minor bicycle crash like this is the underlying (and disruptive?) tension between the sports-sources and encyclopaedic-style editors on BLPs. As far as I can judge the situation both admins were trying very hard to do the right thing and got entangled. For those that are concerned about handing out slaps rather than barnstars to two hard working and little thanked admins, by all means carry on, but looking forward it might be more productive to preemptively and slowly tighten/clarify BLP guidelines (e.g. at WT:BLP) in the days/weeks between now and the next Czech ice hockey stub induced incident. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisdomtenacityfocus accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying

Since a while user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) (signing as WTF) has been constantly accusing me of vandalism.

Background

WTF would like to organise the template Template#Frank Zappa and the article Frank Zappa discography in a different way than it was up to when he started working on it. As this reorganisation is problematic in some ways, the edits were discussed on Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template by WTF, myself and a number of other users: Sexually Aroused Gas Mask (talk · contribs), Mystery Roach (talk · contribs), Friginator (talk · contribs), Aerosmith366 (talk · contribs), FunkMonk (talk · contribs) and some IP's 68.0.118.130 (talk · contribs), 113.117.201.52 (talk · contribs).

The content was ultimately restored to its original format. After some edit-warring (in which I took care not to take place) and a 5th revert, I reported WTF at edit the warring notice board wp:ANEW — see the entire case here.

Immediately thereafter WTF stopped edit-warring and opened a case at wp:DRN (see opening statement).

The DRN was closed against WTF's viewpoint (see closing note and entire case here).

Without being closed or commented upon, the ANEW case was archived without result, presumably rightfully so, as WTF had indeed stopped editing or commenting after the DRN closure.

Meanwhile WTF started editing again and has made two RFC's about the matter ([86]), [87]).

Accusations

Against the above background, user WTF has been accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying:

• After several accusations at Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template I put a final warning on his talk page (text and diffs: [88])

• [89]: "...this guy rolled over me because he thinks he owns the article'""
• [90]: "You removed massive chunks of the discography...", "You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism"
• [91]: "... stop enabling DVdm's vandalism"

This warning was seen and removed

• A new request to stop: [92] about [93] "Also, you falsely accused me of edit-warring. I merely stated what you actually did."

This warning was seen and removed

• On my talk page I explicitly listed (User talk:DVdm#Content dispute) all my contributions to the article and template and asked WTF to explain how these edits could be vandalism or to retract the accusations.

No reply on that.

• Another request to stop: [94] and [95] (text and diffs: [96])

This warning was seen and removed with edit summary "DVdm lies again".

• Finally, on my talk page: "I'm not accusing you of something you haven't done. I'm stating what you have done. It is misleading and blatantly false to deny what you have done"

Comments

Could someone please look into this and perhaps explain in clear terms to WTF that his allegations and accusations are unfounded, and somehow intervene to make this stop? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User notified: [97] - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about you stop vandalizing, trying to own articles, edit warring, lying and making the list and template I brought up issues with unreadable? This is not a "incident" if everything I've said is true. Please own up to what you've done and stop bothering people with something YOU started purely to spite me? --WTF (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I could put your buddy on here for telling me to "shut [my] hole" and falsely stating that I'm "on the noticeboard for edit warring", when, in reality, he was reported by me for edit warring. I'm really getting tired of this nonsense. Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do. My actions are should be rewarded, not disparaged. --WTF (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been proven to you numerous times that DVdm never reverted your edits on the pages in question and wasn't involved in the change of the template and discography page. You have continuously ignored this fact and accused him of things he already showed he didn't do. You indeed were on the noticeboard for edit warring, just like Friginator claimed. DVdm even linked to it here. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Having been over this before, I'd just like to say that I would gladly testify under oath in a court of law that to my knowledge, DVdm has not recently vandalized an article or template (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), assumed ownership over one (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), engaged in an edit war (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), or lied to anyone about anything that I know of. However, Wisdomtenacityfocus had, in fact, prior to this thread accused the other user of vandalism, claiming ownership and lying on such occasions as, but not necessarily limited to, here, here and here. Also, he pretty much made all four accusations three paragraphs above this one anyway. Friginator (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding WTF's above remark ("Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do."): I pointed to many guidelines and policies about consensus on the thread Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template. According to the closing note WTF's DRN case, it was "apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting...".

Regarding WTF's edit summary of the removal of the ANI notification at his talk page, and regarding the above comment with yet again the same false accusations: dear administrator(s), could someone, independently of what I think for WTF is a content dispute of great importance, please make this user somehow stop doing this? I most certainly did not start something here to "spite" this user. Rather I started something to somehow stop these blatantly false accusations. A little warning on WTF's talk page might help. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Outside Observation This seem to be already covered in a number of places, linked above. That said, WTF seems to suffer from both civility and hearing problems, per his edits summaries and comments after being informed that he improperly made changes to a template [98], per User:TransporterMan's closing note:" It now being apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting, above, of 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC). If WTF wishes to build consensus for his/her preferred version, I would recommend the use of a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan...14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)". Claiming other people's actions are vandalism [99] plus [100] and taking a generally combative tone [101] [102] [103] and too many others to list. He also has problems understanding policy [104] regarding 3RR, when it applies to others. While disagreements can be a little heated at times (by all parties), and a degree of terse comments can be overlooked, Wisdomtenacityfocus (aka:WTF) seems to be going out of his way to go against clearly established consensus in his edits and claim other's contributions are vandalism, to the point of being quite disruptive. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, did you miss where these editors are reverting WITHOUT discussing and one of them DIRECTLY ATTACKED ME (the words "shut your hole" were directed at me), and there is NO CONSENSUS for the edits being made by DVdm and others? I POSTED THE GUIDELINES, I posted ground where it is handled better on other lists and templates, and these editors ignored it, reverted, attacked me and dismissed valid points. I am not being uncivil, the editors that have chosen to harass me because they can't get what they want ARE being uncivil. Not to mention, DVdm FALSELY accused me of personal attacks, ignoring the actual personal attacks that were directed at me. Clearly you think that I am stupid, Dennis Brown, and I don't appreciate the complete lack of regard and respect toward me. --WTF (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are claiming that DVdm reverted any of your edits. It has been pointed out to you numerous times that this is not true, but you persistently ignore it as if nobody ever said it. I am also not aware of any guidelines you claim to have posted, but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong. You did post counterexamples of lists and templates that are handled like you want the Zappa discography to be handled, but this alone doesn't make you right. Neither were your points ignored, the editors in question civilly disagreed and made counterpoints. None of this has anything to do with thinking you're stupid or lack of respect towards you. You are quite simply ignoring facts and this is not acceptable. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Another personal atack: "DVdm has proven nothing other than that he has no respect or regard for the people around him" and "FALSELY, by a vandal"- DVdm (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So are any admins going to comment, or are we just going to keep pointing out that User:Wisdomtenacityfocus doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy or the people around him? Because it seems like that's what this boils down to, and that's what needs to change. Friginator (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment. WTF, per WP:NPA, accusations lacking justification are personal attacks. Please note that vandalism has a narrow definition on Wikipedia and necessitates that an editor is intentionally trying to harm Wikipedia with their actions. Accusing someone of that is pretty extreme and requires evidence. I haven't seen anything from you here that justifies your accusations. Therefore I'm giving you an official warning to either provide justification for your warnings, or to stop making them. Continuing to harass other editors can and will lead to you being blocked. You've made over 6,000 edits over the course of more than a year without being blocked, don't start now. Thank you. -- Atama頭 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with Kwamikagami

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

---

Kwamikagami is an admin who has an interest in linguistics. However he seems to abuse his admin privileges by making unilateral decisions and changes to articles without establishing consensus. A case in point is the article on Pre-occlusion which he has moved and re-moved despite the objection of two editors, myself being one of them; the other is Angr. We have both asked for the article to be moved back to Pre-occlusion but he has refused to do this, and now because I'm not an admin I can't move it back over redirects. I think Kwami is abusing his privileges, and is being a bully. -- Evertype·✆ 09:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Evertype's argument is that we need to use his preferred term, used in his sub-sub-discipline, rather than the nearly universal term, because anything else is "prejudicial". He seems to forget that this is an encyclopedia, and that nothing is preventing him from using the term he likes where sources warrant it. The first move was done without any objection, and in fact in response to an objection on the talk page to the title at the time, when I merged the content forks and needed to choose either the name of one of the existing articles or a third or compromise name. The second, after Evertype objected to a term he had never heard of, was to the WP:COMMONNAME, which had been used in one of the two content forks to begin with, following Ladefoged and Maddieson, The Sounds of the World's Languages, the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, and just about everyone else, judging not just by the immediate sources I have, but by an overwhelming preference demonstrated by GBooks.

Evertype can make up whatever story he likes, but if Angr or another admin wants to move the article to one of the other names, I won't object. — kwami (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the initial move and no reason for Everytype to be "disgusted" by it. It's just another "bold" edit subject to WP:BRD. A minor quibble though, since kwami did propose it here he could have given a little more time for other editors to chime in. However, since a bot edit to the redirect Pre-occlusion makes the "R" in BRD impossible for for Everytype, kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion. Also I strongly object to the charge of "abuse of admin privileges". The article wasn't move protected so any autoconfirmed editor could have moved it. Kwami simply made a BOLD edit that he reasonably believed to be non-controversial. It had nothing to do with him being an admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with everything except the "kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion" part, which would just be process wonkery for it's own sake at this point, I think. I sympathize with Evertype's position (having been in it a number of times), but... things will be how they should be, eventually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Making a unilateral move without enough time for discussion isn't that serious. Nor is declining Angr's suggestion to move the article title "back to Pre-occlusion to allow a discussion to take place" (after all Kwami perhaps shares User:Ohms law's perception of such a move as "process wonkery").

Where Kwami's behavior breaks into inappropriate is when he undid Evertype's restoration of the article's title to "Pre-occlusion." The edit summary says[105] that the move is to an interim WP:COMMONNAME while they discuss which term is best, which makes it seem as though Kwami has made a compromise move, but Evertype's issue was that the title was not "Pre-occlusion" so changing it to something else is basically the same as a full revert.

If Kwami's thinking really was that his move was a good interim solution, then he simply made a mistake of theory of mind. It's important to be mindful of others' perspectives when making move decisions like this, but we should understand that the difficulties of communicating over text makes mistakes more likely.

I suppose it's fine if we want to discuss the issue of Kwami's theory of mind abilities and how to go forward if we accept that he's not very good at guessing people's perspectives. But, like User:Ron Ritzman, I think it's unfair to accuse Kwami of misusing administrator privileges when the actions in question don't seem to have used administrator tools. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kwami can move the article back to Pre-occlusion as Angr and I have asked him to do. Not being an admin on the English wiki, I don't have the power to do that. Note how Kwami has accused me of having a fiefdom (as if his behaviour wasn't worse), how he has belittled my view with the trope "sub-sub-discipline" and arguing that it is "my" preferred term, when Angr has also pointed out that it is the only term in Manx linguistics as well as Cornish. This phonological phenomenon is also found in Faroese. It's important to Celtic linguistics. I never have heard of "pre-plosion" as a term, which was Kwami's first bright idea, nor really of "pre-stopped consonants" which seems to be his second bright idea to avoid going back to pre-occlusion. Apparently in Austronesian linguistics these terms are used. So claims Kwami. How does this trump Celtic linguistics? Are we to trust Kwami's use of Google Books? Kwami says he refuses to move the article, but is that he will not object if Angr or another admin moving the article. If one of you will delete "Pre-occlusion" I will be happy to move it myself. -- Evertype·✆ 08:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Evertype, you should really consider how strong your case is here. Already, your main point of bringing up the issue, that Kwami is misusing his admin privileges, has been shown to be false. Now you are switching the issue to talk page conduct, though this very nearly approaches a Tu quoque fallacy considering the problems of your own behavior. It doesn't help that you are misleadingly referring to Angr's comment as an endorsement of your preferred title when he was actually just asking for discussion.

Because you brought a shrill tone to the conversation early on, because Kwami has outlined very clearly what his issue is and how he can be persuaded, and because you have chosen to report him rather than discuss the issue on his terms, it seems that you are the one that is acting inappropriately and attempting to misuse policy. Doing this is just going to make it harder for you when Kwami or another admin is actually abusing their privileges.

Go back. Discuss the issue. Come to a consensus. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

82.18.191.248

82.18.191.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing, mainly in relation to religious and ethnic categories but also general constant addition of unsourced material. They have been blocked twice as their current IP, but also once as 82.18.191.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and four times as 82.16.122.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They are also extremely uncommunicative, you won't find a single post to a talk page or user talk page across any of the three IPs.

Problems since their last block include claiming Lucy Lawless is of Irish descent here when there's nothing in the article about it, violating WP:BLPCAT on Lauren Laverne here, violating WP:BLPCAT on Richard Ramirez here by claiming he's a former Catholic when the only mention of Catholic in the article is saying his mother was Catholic. Basically the same problems they've been blocked for time after time after time.

Constant policy violations despite multiple blocks and refusal to communicate, must be time for a longer block I think? Three months as 82.16.122.103 didn't deter them much, so something longer than that looks like being needed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A multi-year history of pushing an ethnically motivated POV -- even if the POV-pushing has been largely in the form of seemingly very minor edits, does warrant more effective preventive action than has been applied on this case. This IP user has been on my watchlist, but I was unaware of the history on other IPs. The short duration of most of the past blocks presumably was due to the fact that this is an anonymous IP, not all of the edits are disruptive (e.g., this recent edit was constructive) and the user's history on multiple IPs hasn't been available to the administrators who were making block decisions. Now that the ONIH has "connected the dots", I would support a 3-month block on the current IP, but I don't think it's a good idea to block the anonymous IP any longer than that. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Am also reviewing their edits, but it should be in the article that Lucy Lawless has Irish ancestry (one of those six degrees of separation things - I knew someone who used to work stunts on Xena:Warrior Princess, who mentioned this very thing). I'll go see if I can find a proper source so it can be added. And the article on Ramirez is really badly written, but I don't think I'm up for a copyedit tonight. It seems with the IP that the problem is adding things that are "probably true" but not verified (the 'I heard it on the radio' defence), rather than outright BLP violation, but it's very difficult if the editor won't talk to anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at User talk:82.18.191.248 and User talk:82.18.191.7 shows they have been warned countless times about adding unsourced categories though. For an earlier example, take this edit to Tobey Maguire. Now I can't find a single reliable source saying he's of Irish descent, although I can find some unreliable ones saying Maguire is an Irish surname when talking about him. That's blatant WP:SYN - Maguire is an Irish surname, he's called Maguire, therefore he's of Irish descent - no!! The issue isn't whether other edits are theoretically correct, but whether the category is merited by (ideally sourced) article content, and also WP:BLPCAT. The fact they keep ignoring this and refusing to communicate doesn't really leave us with many options. It's unreasonable to keep passing the burden of cleaning up after this editor's disruptive edits, when the disruption can be prevented at the source. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I became aware of this IP user after stumbling upon a series of edits adding American communities to Category:Irish-American neighborhoods and Category:Little Italys in the United States, in the absence of evidence that they belonged in those categories. (I later worked out that communities were being added to these categories if census data on "ancestry", as compiled on city-data.com, showed a relatively large percentage of people listing "Irish" or "Italian" ancestry.) This editing pattern is similar in many respects to the user's practice (noted above) of adding articles about people to categories like Category:American people of Irish descent, apparently often with no basis other than the person's surname. I am pleased to see that the user has quit categorizing Irish neighborhoods and little Italys. Most of the user's contributions are wikignomish in character (including some good edits); seeing that most of the messages posted at User talk:82.18.191.248 were templated warnings that did not provide details on the specifics of the problem, I think it's possible that some more detailed communications to this user will cause the user to understand why it's often not appropriate to tag or categorize people as "of Irish descent" or "atheist" or "Catholic" (etc.). (This discussion may help in that regard!) --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick clarification on the "template" explanation I leave on the IP talk pages when there are BLPCAT issues. The particular wording is completely my own; there are a number of these IP-hopping BLPCAT sock farms that I try to keep a lid on (a losing battle, unfortunately). The message is meant to inform (e.g. "these are the reasons your edits are inappropriate"), as opposed to the standard uw-unsourced or uw-bio warning templates. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how the subject is broached, the user is on a mission to have the categories included and is not interested in discussing why the edits may or may not be appropriate. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Jason James Scott

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

---

Fellow Wikipedians, I am proposing a siteban on editor Jason James Scott (talk · contribs). Ever since his indefinite block, he has to date created 131 sockpuppets in a period of three years, in addition to another 18 suspected socks. Throughout 2009-2010, he has had the knack of creating a huge sockpuppet army. While what all seemed to rather peaceful, he has returned to create more socks, as per his WP:SPI case page, more recently in April 2012, where it is suspected and confirmed by checkuser that he returned to create more socks with the purpose of evading his block. It is disappointing to note that a serial sockpuppeter such as him was not enacted to a community ban in 2010, hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Bearing the comments BMusician said to me when I commented on Mr. Curious Man's sock, Blinkybill, I have not fed the troll here. -- Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Looking back at the investigations archive, we have had problems with this user since 2009, it does appear that this user in question will continue to vandalize and will not let up. The MO appears to be creating fake article for his/her or others personal amusement. I support a Ban on the English Wikipedia, as this user has not shown any signs of stopping, and will continue to be a APT. Phearson (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, due to the nominator of this ban. Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, obviously. Calabe1992 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

20-Mule-Team Support: One hundred and thirty-one sockpuppets??? Hell, after looking things over, I'd support sending a team of bruisers wielding frozen trouts to administer seafood justice. This is someone in need of serious help from professionals. Ravenswing 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - yep, no question. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support with icy sushi. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Adios Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that there are more supports than oppose, I'll be contacting an admin to mark this as close and put the ban into effect. Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 09:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban discussions are supposed to run for a minimum of 24 hours even in WP:SNOWy conditions. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:CBAN. We want the discussion to last long enough that people who may have a contrary opinion log in and have a chance to be heard, even if the first 10-20 people support something the next 10-20 may not or may have really good additional information to educate admins and users commenting and a potential closing admin. The policy only requires "normally" but the discussions that led to the existing wording strongly encouraged mandatory 24 hr or more runs before closure, and I doubt any admin familiar with the policy will close faster... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes for banning is silly, and I won't close it for that reason, but... George, take a look at the time stamps. Any admin familiar with policy could have closed this about 10 hours ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur Floquenbeam. This discussion has been running for an awful amount of time right now, and votes for banning just sounds totally silly. Soviet King ^{Говорите со мной.} 09:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - 100+ sockpuppets?? Ban this troublemaker now! Bmusician 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support So we can quickly nuke his contributions. This edit by one of his socks is plain vandalism, he was directing users to a user sandbox that contained misinformation. Seems to be interested only in inserting lies, disguised as legit content. Wikipedia is not for playing games. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Mrlittleirish 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistant copyright violations at 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season

The past few months on the 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season page, Arsenal's premier league fixtures have been placed on the page. This is a copyright violation which was best summed up in this description by User:Spiritofsussex and the page was semi-protected for it.

Recently, user Ricky Sen has been doing the same thing over and over again and he has been told several times in the descriptions that he cannot do that and he has also been warned twice on his talk page by me but he still continues with no acknowledgement of either. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon this ignorant yankee, but I'm seeing him provide facts with citations, not prose. For the sake of people like me, can you provide some info or a link to the guideline this violates? I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just confused and could use some education on how this violates copyright law. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  The Premier League fixtures are copyrighted. Including them here, with citations or otherwise, is a copyright violation if we don't have prior permission to reproduce. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I apologize for taking this away from the topic at hand but I have to ask: The list of who a team played is copyrighted? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• That was my point. I don't see how this can be copyrighted according to US Copyright law (which is the controlling law for Wikipedia), as it is just facts. That is why I asked for further explanation, beyond what the edit summaries are saying. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) How can it be a copyright violation? National newspapers (both British and International) publish league fixtures and league results, as do media broadcasts. If it is a supposedly copyright violation, then wouldn't the global media also be in breach of the same law? Wesley☀Mouse 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, is it a copyvio? Your communications with Ricky Sen strongly assert that it definitely is. But you don't cite a policy, or a guideline, or a discussion, that clarifies that this is the case. We have one, right? Maybe. Searching for clarity isn't easy:

• I see you and Spiritofsussex discuss the possibility that this is a copyvio at Talk:2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season#Premier League fixtures. In that discussion (in which only the two of you take part) neither of you seems very sure, saying "it would seem that the fixtures are copyrighted" and "it's a copyright issue then maybe the fixtures should be removed." So "it would seem" that "maybe" these are copyvios?
• You'd think Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would have discussed this to death. But all I find is this rather unsatisfying discussion. So it's okay after all?
• Or has WP:FOOTY a guideline about this (just writing down the outcome of previous discussions helps us avoid having to revisit the same issue over and over). I cant' find one. I can find this discussion. So they're definitely forbidden?

Don't get me wrong - I don't know if these are copyvios either. Are we really saying that even naming the very next fixture ("Newcastle are playing Leeds away next Wednesday") is a copyvio? If not, how much is too much? To my mind Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and WP:FOOTY needs to sit down and at least write up a clear guideline, which you can in future direct people like Ricky Sen to. I'm rather unhappy at the prospect of blocking someone on the basis of a rather poorly documented miasma of guesswork - at least let's have a well documented miasma. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this article from BBC News is any help. But is does explain that the fixtures are protected by copyright, and that media and betting stores pay a licence fee to a company called "Football Dataco". The article goes on to state that anyone wishing to publish the needs to pay Football Dataco a fee in order to be given permission. Although there is legal proceeding on-going in the British courts to have this overturned. Wesley☀Mouse 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, it has no legal weight in the US. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only the presentation of the facts can. So, we couldn't use their specific table layout, but the facts therein are free game. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no idea what this means for the law, since IANAL in copyright or anything else, however my understanding of the idea-expression divide is that expressions may be copyrighted by ideas may not. That is, the simple fact that a match occured, or is scheduled to occur, cannot itself be copyrighted, since that idea is not fixed in a permanent form. A specific example of prose which meets the threshold of originality describing said match would be copyrighted, but people cannot own the copyright on a simple fact. --Jayron32 19:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*The UK has different laws on copyright than the US, perhaps, but it is US law that applies here. Wikipedia's servers are in Florida, US, where facts can not be copyrighted. According to the US Copyright Office, "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."(cite: [106]). I would say this can't be protected, but would invite a larger discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just on a technical point, Football Dataco have sui generis database protection rights in the fixture list under Section 3A of the (UK) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which implements Article 3 of EU Directive 96/9. See Football Dataco v Smoot [2011] EWHC 973 (Ch). Not strictly a _copyright_ violation, but definitely against EU law. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• (IANAL!) It should be noted that this was a default judgement, due to the findings in the Yahoo UK case, which was about publishing or copying the database as a whole, which itself is on appeal (according to the case you linked). Even if UK law was supreme in this case (and I can't see how it is), then the question would be about Fair Use exception (in US law) for these individual facts. Most of the guidelines on WP cover "files" (works) rather than snippets of text, so the policies aren't helping much. Still looking.... Dennis Brown (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE is relevant, but far from definitive. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've asked Moonriddengirl to participate. Since she works on copyright all the time, she may have already come across the issue before. If this was published in the US, there would be zero issue. I just want to make sure that the Berne Convention or some other treaty isn't into play. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • We should keep this discussion within its narrow scope. It's not the job of administrators, or ANI, to decide what the copyright policy should be on English football fixtures. The only matter here is whether administrators should take some action against Ricky Sen for adding this material (or I suppose against those who removed it). I think the weight of ambiguity shows we can't in good conscience do so. So I move that this discussion be hatted (with a suggestion to both parties to desist until some actual clarity arises). A discussion about what should, or shouldn't, be permitted should either be at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or a content RFC. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are right, it does need a bigger venue than this discussion. Moonriddengirl can possibly shed some light as to prior consensus (if it exists) but this isn't the forum to make a wiki-wide decision on bigger issues and it wasn't my intent to do so. I was assuming there was precedent, but I shouldn't have. I absolutely agree that no action should be taken against the editor, for reasons you have already articulated. I have no issue with hatting it, so the bigger issues can be handled elsewhere. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for some of the clarification on this. I don't think anything should be done to the editor for now and I would like to see what Moonriddengirl's thoughts are on this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Just got this message and it's bedtime in my household, but I wanted to stop by and say that we are bound by US copyright law here. We do not, for example, recognize "sweat of the brow". Many months ago, I engaged in some extensive discussion about copyright in lists with one of the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers. I was working on an essay about the issue; what I have is at User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. I have never completed it because the advice we received was actually more conservative than the approach we had traditionally taken (it's the big bit that's stricken out). The basic rule of thumb is this: if it is actually fact, the information in a list or table is not protected, but sometimes what looks like fact may be expert opinion and lists/tables may be protected for other factors, including creativity of selection and arrangement. Is a list basic fact, selected and organized in a way that would be conventional for any source discussing the subject? We're probably safe. If there is creativity in information, selection or structure, we may not be. I haven't had a chance to look at this table and won't tonight, but I would recommend looking at in that light - assessing creativity of content and organization - to determine if it is usable here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and finally moved that essay into project space. I would have liked to get a successful discussion going to expand the recommendations for fair use usage of lists that we agree are copyrighted, but since my one real effort to get something going on that failed to attract any attention, I've just summarized what the actual state is - kind of nebulous - and reproduced the advice at WP:NFC based on our attorney's feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested, S3 &3A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says [107]

• 3 Literary, dramatic and musical works.(1)In this Part—

“literary work” means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes— (a)a table or compilation [F1other than a database], F2. . . (b)a computer program; F3. . .[F4(c) preparatory design material for a computer program][F5and (d)a database] “dramatic work” includes a work of dance or mime; and “musical work” means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. (2)Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded.

• 3A Databases(1)In this Part “database” means a collection of independent works, data or other materials which—

(a)are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and (b)are individually accessible by electronic or other means. (2)For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation.

I believe that the fixtures are created by random draw (can someone confirm that) which means there is no creative input, (eta, apparently the fixtures are a designed set, not a random draw, which is significant for UK copyright) and the selection of the contents is all the fixtures (ie there is no creative input to what's in the fixture list, it's just all the fixtures) so the only thing copyright can be the arrangement of the contents in the database. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• In the Yahoo UK case[108], they describe in great detail how the list is created, describing it as part science and part art. In the end " the computer software is used as a tool to assist in finding a solution to problematic fixtures." (they hand pick certain matches that must take place, the computer fills in the rest I believe) then it is reviewed again by humans and perhaps tweaked. It is a mix of both. But even if we assume the UK allows that to be copyrighted, it is very clear that in the US, it could not be and the law is very clear on this. So does Wikipedia conform to UK or US law here? Normally, US because of location, so it would have to be some kind of exception I don't know about to apply UK law. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but no reasonable person would consider a sports league's schedule to be protected by copyright... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, but in the UK, they are. Very unAmerican of the Brits ;) So again, no action should be taken against the user adding them. And like Finley said, an admin probably needs to tell them both to stop adding material until RfC or some other final ruling is made (or pointed to if already been done) as to whether or not is ok to add them here. I think it is fine, but it isn't my call to make. Moonriddengirl just added an interesting note above that seems to indicate that in this instance, adding it should be ok. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to how it is very clear that these lists cannot be copyrighted in the US as in my opinion deciding when certain games are definitely creative and is not a fact. Of course once the game is played it is fact and so lists of results are no problem. So from the court case information Dennis Brown gives I think we must err on the side of caution and assume these lists are copyrighted even in the US and so we can not use them. I am uncertain as to whether a court would decide the creative content was enough for copyright protection but, as wikipedia is not in the business of making case law, I think we must be cautious. Whether they are copyrighted in the UK is largely irrelevant although it may be relevant to people editing in the UK and posting the material. As an aside, the state in the UK seems to be debatable at the moment due to various court cases. All that said the edit wars here seem to be over the addition of one game at a time and I think a case could be made for fair use of just the next fixture, although this may require more discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I link it above, but the actual Copyright office for the US govt. makes it very clear that it can't be, only the way that it can be presented is. Phonebooks can't be copyrighted either. I've also run across it a few times in my day job. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is the point, really. If I say, for example, that my team is playing team X tomorrow, that's clearly not an issue. If I list the entire season's fixtures in the format they're originally presented, then that might well be - which was what the editor was doing here. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A sports league plays games; this is a fact. A sports league schedules its games; this is a fact. The dates and times of these games are made public; this is a fact. Ergo, the league schedule is a publically known fact. Or is everyone who says "I'll be at the Foo vs Bar match on Foosday" be slapped with a copyright infringement suit? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is not in the business of making case law is irrelevant; I don't see at all how that leads to "we must be cautious." That's another term for "we need to self-censor because the other side's lawyers are making scary lawyer-noises." I say that - especially since copyright law in the location of Wikipedia's servers is not at issue - we tell them to stick it in their ears and dare them to do something about it. As Bushranger says, we are dealing with public facts, publically released and known. Wikipedia is not in the business of protecting the Premiership's bloated profit margins. Ravenswing 06:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think my concerns stems from the fact that games may not actually be played as per that schedule and so although it is a fact that they are scheduled to play on that day it is not a fact that they will play on that day. The scheduling element introduces enough element of creativity, in my opinion, to possibly be copyrightable. We can't get away saying anything we want just because it's a fact otherwise we could say things like "Author X wrote [insert entire text of copyrighted book]". It's a fact but we can't do it because of the creativity in what they wrote and so it's copyrighted. Although an extreme example I hope it illustrates my point. Personally I think it's very debatable as to whether a fixture list such as this has enough creativity to be copyrightable but, given the advice by our attorney mentioned above, I also don't think it's worth running the risk as we don't want to get wikipedia into some sort of test case with all the costs involved. Dpmuk (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

More to the point - given that the article is one which covers the history of the season, does it need a list of upcoming fixtures? I think the answer to that is no. As an aside to Ravenswing - Football DataCo is nothing to do exclusively with the Premiership; it covers all eight league divisions in England and Scotland. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I feel a bit different on this one. I'm not convinced that the schedule would be copyrightable in the United States under Feist. Although it is true that some courts get wonky about schedules ([109]; [110]), these cases turn on the skill, judgment and labor of compilation, as I understand it, and the US is indifferent to that. I'm inclined to agree with User:The Bushranger here. That said, copyright is not the only factor to consider in including such material. To quote from WP:NFC footnote 1, relating advice from the WMF counsel, "She also recommends that the use of even uncopyrightable lists be considered with regards to licensing agreements that may 'bind the user/reader from republishing the list/survey results without permission', noting that 'Absent a license agreement, you may still run afoul of state unfair competition and/or misappropriation laws if you take a substantial portion of the list or survey results.'" Speaking strictly as a volunteer, of course, I do not believe that this would create liability for WMF, but there may be risk for the individual who copies the content. Whatever decision is reached, I would urge contributors to be careful for their own liability. I think sometimes Wikipedians forget that we are individually responsible legally for our actions here. Even if we were to decide that appropriating the entire list is within US copyright law and a-ok for Wikipedia, editors who live in the UK need to remember that they answer for their actions in that jurisdiction and are bound by those laws. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, allowing reuse is a priority. On the other hand, we allow non-free content as well as images of people (which are protected by personality rights), so I'm not too worried. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Ravenswing - I think you may have missed my point a bit - it is my opinion that whether this data is copyrighted in the US (and more specifically the location of the servers) is at question here. I'd agree that if it was clear-cut in the US there wouldn't be a problem. My comment about not making case law is related to the fact that I think the status is questionable in the US. If we do conclude it's possibly copyrighted in the US, even if probably not, then I think we should err on the side of caution. I doubt the foundation would appreciate it if they got dragged to court about content on their servers.

In response to Mooniddengirl - I'm not convinced that it would be copyrightable under Fiest but I'm also not convinced it wouldn't be. If the fixture list was completely machine generated I'd agree that it wouldn't be under Fiest. The addition of humans fixing certain games to happen at certain times introduces some creativity and so I think means that Fiest does not directly apply. There's two elements of creativity I see there - firstly which games are worthy of fixing which doesn't seem to be decided in any deterministic way and once that's decided when to schedule those games, which again I doubt is in any way deterministic and is instead creative. Whether that creativity is enough for copyright protection is the question I'm less certain on. I would have no problem with those games that were entirely computer generated being included as I agree they are not copyightable in the US.

All that said it's clear that this is a judgement call and I can definitely see the argument for the fixture list not being copyrighted so don't I don't feel too strongly either way. Dpmuk (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, IANAL, but based on the logic that game scheduling is creative, you could claim that any schedule or calendar is copyrighted - note that nobody's (AFAIK) ever complained about NASCAR, NFL, MLB, etc. schedules being posted - because even if you include the game date and time, they are still a simple statement of fact - "a sports game between W and X will occur on Y at Z". The argument that they "might not" is hairsplitting - barring rain, terrorism, or the catch-all "acts of God", the games are expected by any reasonable person to go on as scheduled. Now, those countries with more restrictive (silly?) copyright rules than the U.S. might well consider a sports schedule copyrighted (and that's very silly, stop it at once!), but I fail to see how any reasonable person could consider any sports schedule to be copyrighted under U.S. law because, arranged by human or computer, they are still simple lists of scheduled facts. Now, that said, the format of the list might well be copyrighted, but the content? Inconceivable! (Oh, and you might want to use a different term than "fixing" to describe the game scheduling, as that has another, rather less savory meaning.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"note that nobody's (AFAIK) ever complained about NASCAR, NFL, MLB, etc. schedules being posted". I'm guessing that's because the "owners" of such fixtures have never taken anyone to court for reproducing them? I'll just re-state what I said above; these articles don't need a list of upcoming fixtures, the article is not degraded by not having them, so why are we still having this discussion? Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think you missing the point that in the US, this type of list can't be copyrighted. In the UK, it can be, and it is, in the UK. You can't compare it to any schedule in the USA. The only issue is which law do we follow, which is likely US copyright law. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm not missing the point; if the content is copyrighted in the UK, UK contributors (which the majority of those on this article are likely to be) may still have issues if they add it. OK, unlikely I know, but since the article doesn't need that information anyway, it's somewhat pointless trying to decide whether or not it should be in there. Common sense, surely? Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger - I think I've made my point and we'll have to agree to differ on the main point. However as an aside I will point out that your statement 'barring rain, terrorism, or the catch-all "act of god|acts of God]]"' is wrong when it comes to UK football, a club having a cup or European run will often play havoc with their league schedule as these competitions take precedence. I have no idea how many Premier League games are played at a time different to that originally scheduled but I would be very surprised if it were less than 10% and wouldn't be surprised if it were as many as a quarter. I will agree that my use of the word "fixing" (rather than fixture) could be open to misinterpretation in the UK as well but the term fixture list is also the term that is almost always used in the UK so no I'm not going to stop using that term if that was also part of your request (and I'm not sure it was). Dpmuk (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) ANd it wasn't a request to stop using the term, so much as a caution that some people will misunderstand your use of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Right. As of the last appeal, fixture lists are not copyrightable in the UK. Is there a consensus amongst ANI's armchair lawyers that they're not copyrightable in the US? If so, fixture lists can be included at editorial discretion. What am I missing? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're correct, near as I can tell. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've cited above, the US Copyright office says that the facts can't be copyrighted, only the presentation style *might* can be, which doesn't apply here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And as I point out above, based on the advice of wikimedia counsel, I wouldn't like to say for sure that this isn't copyightable in the US. Moonriddengirl is also not 100% sure (which she mentions on her talk page) but comes down on the side of it not being copyrightable. You are obviously quite certain that it isn't but presenting that like it's an agreed upon fact is misleading. That said I think there is a consensus here that the material isn't copyrightable, and so I don't think it should be removed as a copyvio, but I'd also suggest that anyone adding the material read the copyright in lists page and this discussion and make their own mind up as the situation isn't completely clear cut and while wikipedia is protected by the DMCA users are not. Dpmuk (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

possible paid editing for Jill Kenton

Jill Kenton hired an Elance contractor for her Wikipedia article here. The job was awarded to user "Wikipedia Expert." The same day an editor added some citations, made revisions and then removed a prod and COI tag.LawrenceDuncan (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I created an account and the job offer is from elance user jillkenton and the job detail states "I have a wiki page which is not conformed to wiki guidelines and I need it tidied ASAP or it will be deleted. Text is there just needs tidying by wednesday 11april. Need some one with wiki experience to sort out issues .""" Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor in question notified here: [111] JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Article in question, for the lazy: Jill Kenton. Now that I look again, her company, Rigby & Peller, seems to have a clearer case for notability than she does. Rather than deletion, perhaps we should consider making an article on it and possibly merging some of her content there? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Any company that makes the Queen's knickers deserves an article. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be an opportunity to identify "WikipediaExpert", and figure whether they are a 10,000 edit user as claimed - because that user has 300 edits, and if their claim is true then they are socking inappropriately. Any friendly checkusers about? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, now, hang on here. How would this be a violation of WP:SOCK? Creating/improving articles for hire is not, in fact, prohibited, either under COI or under SOCK. If this person is misleading outsiders about his or her experience or credentials on Wikipedia, that's a fraud issue outside our purview. If this person is using a sock to avoid his or her principal account from being stigmatized as a hired gun? Whatever our ethical objections, what Wikipedia policies does that actually violate? Ravenswing 06:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He's not disclosing any COI when editing those articles. And is using a secondary account to avoid scrutiny. I'd have no problems with someone doing this sort of editing, but not as a sock. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there's no actual requirement to disclose a WP:COI (although it's strongly encouraged) so your first point isn't actually a violation of anything. However I do agree using an unlinked secondary account can be seen as trying to avoid scrutiny which is forbidden by WP:Sock. One possible issue is that it can be argued an unlinked secondary account may be needed for privacy reasons since the identity of the person who responded to the ad will have to be known at least to the advertiser if not others. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly one explanation. I want a whole lot more to see a block/ban of an editor issued that the assumption that there might be more than one account and that possibly that's the case so a putatively main account will duck scrutiny. There aren't any facts here; simply premises. Ravenswing 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This came up recently at BLPN. Dru of Id (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here. I have never been called to the Administration Noticeboard bevfore. I seemed to have stepped into a hornets nest when decided to help on this biography. I think people have me confused with somebody else. I am not a sock puppet, its just me. I simply tried to improve a biography by taking sources that were in the External links section and were being ignored and made them into citations. Plus I searched Google books and found some more sources. The deletion notice said that if the biography was cleaned up and third party sources were found the notice could be removed. So I did all that thinking I was helping. But it turns out I don't seem to be welcome there. I have spent a lot of time studying the Wikipedia rules and have tried to follow them. I've looked at notability and I felt that this bio had the sources to be notable. Some new rules have been mentioned here. I'll look at those too.--LarEvee (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be slightly more to this than meets the eye, as I've discovered another possible link between paid editing anad LarEvee. The same contractor from Elance, "Wikipedia Expert," was hired for a job on Elance on March 25 with a description of "Wikièpedia programmer expert who is will proof read and the right content on the site. This is about a fashion designer best possible context." The next day, LarEvee began editing Porscia Yeganeh, an article about a fashion designer that had not been edited at all for over 4 months. Over the course of several dozen edits, LarEvee improved the article (the diff included shows from LarEvee's first edit to the most recent edit). It seems to be a mighty unlikely coincidence that LarEvee would show up on two different articles that were listed on Elance within 24 hours of the jobs being accepted by "Wikipedia Expert."

I have no problem with paid editing, even undisclosed paid editing, but I do have an issue with the potential of socking so that an editor does not have to associate paid editing with their primary account. My findings re:Porscia Yeganeh are slightly more circumstantial because the Elance job listing doesn't explicitly state the target article to be improved. However, when what I found ("Wikipedia Expert" and Porscia Yeganeh combined with LarEvee's contrib history) is combined with what LawrenceDuncan found ("Wikipedia Expert" and Jill Kenton combined with LarEvee's contrib history), it begins to strain the probability of this being a coincidence. Chillllls (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)edited Chillllls (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have no problem with paid editing that conforms to all guidelines, in fact I think it's a fantastic way to build quality content by taking advantage of experienced writers. I do have a problem with lying about something that's obvious. LarEvee, please come clean now, otherwise it's very likely you will be blocked and a sockpuppet investigation begun. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, is it possible that an individual calling themselves a "Wikipedia expert" outside of the walls of Wiki does not mean it in the "10k+ edits" meaning, but more in the "I consider myself an expert, and therefore I'm an expert" sense? I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean there's a Sock at work, right? Or, did I miss something here? Did he specifically say "I've made 10K+ edits"?JoelWhy (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What someone says on a freelance board doesn't mean much. People pump up their qualifications all the time to get work, think of it as "polishing" your resume. It doesn't mean this person is using accounts in a way that constitutes abusive sockpuppetry. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time making good contributions to this encyclopedia. I have improved the sentences and organized paragraphs. I have added new information and taken a lot of time to create citations just the way Wikipedia likes them. As far as I can see no one has any complaints about my editing just a lot of speculation about who I might be and what I might be doing. Not a very good welcome. LarEvee (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Ballard&action=history Three new users, all of which have no edits outside this article, which is one of the articles created by known paid group account, Expewikiwriter. Do we have more socks? 86.** IP (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An SPI investigation is in progress at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How is he even notable to be here? MOst of the content is rubbish anyways...seeing as hes in PR it seems he wants to use WP to enhance isprofile.Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This looks like a really close call at AfD. I'll run a tag on it. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin required

I need an admin to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes and see what, if any, blocks should be applied. Three of the four socks have been active tonight, messing with an AfD. I hope I'm not stepping on the toes of Tnxman, HelloAnnyong and the other cool kids at SPI, but I could really use some help to stop ongoing disruption; I don't want to ask for protection of the associated AfD, article, and article talk page, and I don't want to start blocking them myself since I'm an editor of the article and the nominator of the AfD. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified the SPI; that'll teach 'em. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I haven't interacted much with SPI but I believe I have a good understanding of it. I'll attempt take care of this, but don't hesitate to let me know if I do something stupid. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 02:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait--who made you an admin?? OK, I'm not complaining about the blocks you just handed out: thanks! Now, you need to leave a brief note explaining your blocks, including on the master account--they're not always blocked indefinitely, though in this case I personally think it's warranted given the nature of their edits. Also, explain why you didn't block Charles.UTD, in a sentence or less. (I'm not criticizing you for not blocking; I'm going to keep my eye on him.) Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you missed his RfA the other week. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and they forgot to report on it in the signpost... :*( Ok, I commented at the SPI. I welcome any and all opinions on what I've done. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 03:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

They got my RfA in a week late too, it happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you're supposed to do all that stuff? I never do...Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC) <--and don't we know it User:SPI Clerks(talk)

You are a checkuser. You can get away with anything. T. Canens (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Gizgalasi COI

Unarchived--see below. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I brought User:Gizgalasi to this board before in January (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Conflict of interest---block requested, and there wasn't much interest, with only a few comments either way. After that discussion, the editor decreased xyr frequency of editing, but has since resumed xyr unbalanced COI editing. This revolves around a cluster of articles on Ali and Nino: A Love Story and its author, Kurban Said. The name "Said" is a psuedonym, and the author's real identity is not known for certain. Gizgalasi is associated with Azerbaijan International, a cultural/literary magazine, which published a very extensive analysis of the question, and arrived at a specific answer. That's fine and good, but Gizgalasi has repeatedly attempted to highlight AI's analysis to the exclusion of all others.

The best recent examples can be found in this series of edits, which culminated in Gizgalasi removing the NPOV and COI tags in the this edit. The article is not even close to neutral; for example, see my edit, which attempts to just start fixing an extremely obvious POV point (the article was asserting that one theory was wrong in Wikipedia's voice).

Another example is this series of edits to Lev Nussimbaum which attribute to another author (the one whose theories AI reject) an opinion he never held.

Gizgalasi is a perfect example of the reason why we have the COI policy. Gizgalasi is too closely connected to AI, and is unable to see that xyr edits are not, in fact neutral. I don't know what else to do other than to block this editor until such time as they agree to stop editing the articles directly. They could either use "edit request" templates on the talk page or try Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help‎. Outside of WP, Gizgalasi's commitment to a specific academic position is a good thing; here, it prevents xyr from editing per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apropos of nothing really, but what the heck does "xyr" stand for? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Just one of the many knots that people who don't like singular they tie themselves into about gender-neutral third person pronouns.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see! I've seen "xr" before, but I just couldn't parse this "xyr" thing... that's actual nonsense, for crying out loud! I had a suspicion that it had something to do with the "xr" silliness, but I couldn't quite be certain. I really hope that this fad dies out soon. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While I actually enjoy conversations about gender and language (and even grant creeedance to Ohms laws' concerns), and I know that bringing an issue to ANI means one opens up one's own behavior to scrutiny, is there any chance that anyone is interested in actually looking at the articles/editor in question? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who are able to contribute to Wikipedia successfully while writing about subjects they are personally close to, but G. is clearly not one of them. He obvious subscribes to an "us vs. them" attitude, where "us" is Azerbaijan International and other Azerbaijan-related topics, and "them" is anyone who disputes his take on things. I do not believe he is able to edit with a neutral point of view and is the poster child for the precautions prescribed in the WP:COI policy. I would suggest that an admin review the situation, and put G. on notice that he must follow the guidelines prescribed in the COI policy, which are not to edit those articles directly, but to make editing suggestion on the articles' talk pages to be put into effect by other, neutral editors. (And one of the problems here is that G. thinks that anyone who disputes his edits is not neutral, and editing per policy, but is instead "against" the magazine, or Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis in general.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For an example of G.'s sensibility, see this comment on his talk page, where he implies that Q. and I are the same person because we agree with each other, a totally ludicrous conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've unarchived this. I really, desperately want someone(s) uninvolved to take a look at this issue. Please note that this isn't just a random set of problems...the issue surrounding these topics (Lev Nussimbaum, Kurban Said, Ali and Nino: A Love Story, etc.) were previously so serious that The Guardian wrote up an article about problems with their Wikipedia articles: [112]. Now, I don't think that Gizgalasi was the one who caused those earlier problems, but the problems that (I and Beyond my Ken believe) are being caused by Gizgalasi are still quite serious: this cluster of articles currently treats the research done by Azerbaijan International as fact, not as one theory among several. If this were just a regular content dispute, I'd take it to the content boards, but this is the case of an editor who is a researcher for that magazine trying to promote the magazine's theories to the exclusion of all others; of reference bombing these various articles such that the AI references outweigh others by a massive factor; and now, as Beyond My Ken states, is accusing the only 2 of us to have been trying for neutrality to be the same person. If I'm wrong, and this is all reasonable editing (or "just a content issue"), please, someone tell me. Trout me, even. Without the assistance of other admins, I simply cannot see any constructive way to proceed other than simply allowing Gizgalasi to write whatever s/he wants, since s/he is 100% convinced of his/her own neutrality (because s/he is 100% convinced that the AI analysis of this topic is completely right, so it is, by definition, neutral). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have absolutely zero experience or, frankly, interest in this; however, I can sense your frustration here, and I think that my little OT commentary above added to it (I honestly thought that a dozen or so others would pipe in here right after my comment...), so I feel compelled to say something. Assuming that everything you're presenting here is accurate (which I do, but, you know... I've got to make it clear that I'm assuming here), then this sounds like a good case to impose a topic ban on Gizgalasi.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  Only a little bothered. It was more the lack of interest after 2 separate times bringing this to ANI. If no one else is interested, I'll just have to assume that I and Beyond My Ken are somehow wrong, and give up on the articles completely. I believe in working with COI editors (I'm an irregular member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help; but I also believe that COI editors who don't follow the rules and don't understand that their POV is not the same thing as NPOV need to be stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  With the amount of interest that perceived conflicts of interest and paid editing stuff typically generates, I'm a bit mystified at the lack of interest in this myself...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that in order to determine if a COI exists, the determining editor has to actually be familiar with the corpus of research that has been done on the topic - in the case of your previous request, the Ali and Nino scholarship question. If Gizgalasi is presenting neutral facts (broadly agreed upon in the realm of RSes or otherwise properly attributed) then there may be no problem. If he's hacking out portions of contrary research to replace them with AI's research or if he's stating opinion as fact then he's clearly acting in violation of COI. There is quite obviously at least the potential for a COI here. The number of edits Gizgalasi's made to the "Azerbaijan International" article is something that warrants a close look, but from my cursory examination I don't see anything too terrible. Usually the insertion of superlative of promotional expressions as in this edit is a violation of NPOV and thus COI but it's hardly a breathtaking example. I'd say keep your eye on the situation for now. You've warned Gizgalasi about COI and you can now assume he's aware of it. The mere potential for impropriety doesn't seem like enough to impose sanctions on. -Thibbs (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I only skimmed his edits so if there are any particular diffs I missed where COI is unambiguous even to a layman like I who knows nothing of Azerbaijani literature then please link it and I'll change my recommendation accordingly. -Thibbs (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggested in the old discussion that the self-citation was excessive. I still think so. This editor has had nearly 2,000 edits, my question is whether or not those edits have been productive and if they've had the sole purpose of advancing an agenda that promotes the AI publication. If this person is only here to promote a magazine, whatever the nature of that magazine, they shouldn't be here. I remember the last time I looked at this person's edits (back in January) they didn't seem to be adding anything of substance, their edits were primarily promotional and/or pushed a POV shared by the publication. If this is the case, I think we're letting the COI question sidetrack us and should just be treating this editor like any other spammer (block them since they've continued despite numerous warnings). -- Atama頭 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad Faith and Mr Bratland

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

---

In the article 'BMW R1100GS' motorbike there was a section on a book called Ghost Rider that featured the R1100GS bike. This section was non-relevant trivia and so it was deleted on 15 MARCH. The deletion was reverted several times by Dennis Bratland. A ‘Talk’ page discussion on the material began. D.Bratland put his case for inclusion based on his contention that the BMW R1100GS was the only motorcycle uniquely suited to its application in the Ghost Rider book. This - of absolute uniqueness - was the only argument advanced. (It would be the only argument advanced for the next 3 weeks, 30 posts and 3 venues.)

First, when evidence was presented that proved the original contention incorrect - that there was no evidence that said the bike was unique and, in fact, that there was clear evidence that the R1100GS was NOT unique - see ‘Talk‘ page - there followed a series of premature and heavy-handed use by D Bratland of policy code breaches such as WP:SNOW, WP:OWN, and accusations of trolling. In order to avoid ‘edit wars’ I didn’t revert the deleted section that DB had reinstated.

Instead I opened a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion.

The Noticeboard allowed far more detailed presentation of sourced evidence that again clearly proved the BMW R1100GS was not unique in the original way stated, thus undermining the sole reason for the inclusion of the Ghost Rider book material on the R1100GS page - (there is a blue-numbered list (1-6) summation of evidence 3/4 down the noticeboard discussion). Other editors - e.g. Coaster92 - contributed the same opinion, that there was no proof of the bike's uniqueness.

Then in what I contend was an attempt to derail and ‘topic ban’ the discussion, D.Bratland then lodged complaints of ‘personal attacks’ and ‘canvassing’ in ‘Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban’. These were investigated by non-involved editors who found that the accusations were unfounded, but also that Dennis Bratland himself was suspect of WP:GAME, WP:OWN, WP:BOOMERANG and of using multiple open forums. (The complaint against me was tagged as ‘No Action Needed’)

The Unintentional Reveal
This tactic not having worked at getting the topic banned, Mr Bratland continued to advance his sole argument for uniqueness of the R1100GS to the Ghost Rider book - even in the face of mounting evidence and opinion otherwise. However, when he then made a second attempt to suggest why the material be included on another bike article, he made the revealing mistake that brings us to the core reason for this complaint:

• On 7 April 2012 (15:56), Bratland said: - “if the issue is that the GS1100R is not distinct enough from the other the BMW GS adventure touring bikes -- after all, BMW's David Rob said "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" then I'd be happy to move the Ghost Rider section to BMW GS.’ (this can be found just after 'Section break 3')

Now, this is highly revealing because - in that one small, careless aside - he reveals that he knew his argument was false: in his attempt to make a new case for including the material on a generic GS page (though that doesn‘t stand up either), Dennis Bratland had accidentally and unintentionally revealed that he himself already knew there was evidence that the BMW R1100GS was not unique in the way he had argued himself for the last 3 weeks! Even quoting a sourch that proves there were indeed other similar bike models.*

• * (And, note: this isn’t an instance of the user changing his mind on the issue because of the evidence; it is an instance of a user unintentionally revealing that they knew full-well their argument was ill-founded.)

Basically, it amounts to Mr Bratland metaphorically saying: ‘Okay, even though I’ve argued for 3 weeks that the bike is totally unique, I actually already knew that wasn’t the case. But anyway - moving quickly on - let’s now look at my other argument…”

• I’m sorry, but this is too fundamental a breach to ignore. (And it's a wee bit depressing to have spent all that time collecting evidence to prove a case that the other editor already knew to be true.)

• It’s bad enough that a user falsely accused other editors in an attempt to topic ban the discussion
• But it’s even worse that they knew all along their case was false but continued anyway
• And it’s even more damaging to Wikipedia to have a case where an editor can spend weeks debating something that he clearly did not even himself believe and that knew to be founded on a falsity.

I would contend that that is the very definition of an argument that is not in good faith. And is exactly the kind of disingenuous, partisan, mendacious ‘arguing’ that drives potential new users (and some old ones) away from contributing to Wikipedia.
Rivercard (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice. Roll back the stone, This thread has been basically resurrected here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

* I thought a separate complaint would demand it's own seperate filing. Is that not the case? The other topic was not filed by me, and it was also recommended (by Dennis Brown) for closure. So for those reasons I didn't think of this as a ressurection, but as a new case (which, really, it is). It didn't seem right to tag this on to the end of the other one.
Rivercard (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, there was a dispute resolution case, and it was reopened. [113]. TransporterMan was the only uninvolved party to offer an opinion in the matter, saying: "There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a request for comments would be the best way to do so." In short, leave it in the article and file at WP:RFC. A search at RFC shows no such request, [114] telling me you ignored good advice. You both have been moderately rude to each other, and I think no action is needed against Dennis Bratland here just as I recommended no action against you in his ANI. My advice is to close this ANI, for you to stop deleting the info for now (based on the recommendation of TransporterMan above) and instead go file at WP:RFC. You both need to drop the petty sqabbles and go to RFC, or risk sanctions. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• And someone please change that title and anchor to the old name. Obviously a non-neutral title. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis (Brown, that is), couple of really important points, if I may: TransporterMan's initial comment was from 3 weeks ago and before most of the evidence supporting the case for deletion was presented, so the content of that initial comment is not up-to-speed as we now stand. TransporterMan has not contributed since, apart from when he reopened the Noticeboard discussion (one week later), but then he did not enter the discussion at all, and the only comment he made was to clarify that WP:WPACT was a indeed a part of communal consensus used to supplement established procedure. So for that reason, I think comments left later into the case are more conversant with the edvidence.

If I didn't think there wasn't a foundation for this ANI I genuinely wouldn't have filed it. (And I think you can see from the discussion exchanges so far that I'm not easy to rile and I don't cry wolf regarding the behaviour of others.) But when one of the two original contributing editors in a discussion (in this case, the user Dennis Bratland) clearly reveals that they themselves did not believe in the argument they were advancing, then that seems too important to ignore - it's the very definiton of a bad faith argument. And it actually disproves their own case (see quote in first post).

And in trying to look at this as dispassionately as possible, I still cannot see how a very fundamantal breach like that can pass without comment or sanction.
Rivercard (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also important to note, even the initial opposer Dennis Bratland has has now conceded (on 7 April) the case, and admitted that the BMW R1100GS is not unique. So I think that rather trumps the comment of TransporterMan from 3 weeks ago at the very start of the discussion.
  Rivercard (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough. This is a content dispute. This board is not for content disputes. There is no administrative action to be taken here. The applicable policies are WP:V - is the information verifiable, WP:UNDUE - is it excessive to include it, and WP:CONSENSUS - is there consensus to remove it. So far, you do not seem to have gained consensus to remove it. If it is really that important to you, I recommend taking the RFC step. However, I should point out that plenty of articles on cars, bikes, trucks, planes etc have a section about the vehicle's appearance in fictional media (Bond's Aston Martin DB5, Inspector Morse's Jag, Starsky and Hutch's Gran Torino) so the general consensus seems to be that it's OK if the media appearance is notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Prem Rawat (Did you miss us yet?) :)

I would request that someone look at the recent behaviour of Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per the header on the Prem Rawat talk page, the article is under probation and sanctions may be applied by an uninvolved admin. While the atmosphere on that talk page is usually somewhat adversarial with some editors, I feel that a line has been crossed. In the last 24 hours, Rumiton has referred to my posting on the RS/N board as "extremely stupid", twice.[115] & [116]. The second time was several hours after I suggested he may want to remove the first instance from the talk page, at the end of this diff [117]. He says he feels my posting to RS/N will lead to escalation, and within hours, Momento joins in with attacking me, suggesting I may be deliberately lying[118]. The RS/N statement is here, and as you can see, Rumiton seems quite upset that I have not explained his position correctly, and again calls my actions "extremely stupid". He further goes on to chastise me for using {{sic}} in my quote of him, calling it "condescending", as well as referring to my RS/N question as "jeering, insulting and deliberately downputting, the opposite of civil, the apotheosis of NOT assuming good faith"[119]. I find that kind of attitude extremely disruptive, beyond the usual silliness that I know this article often has to deal with. I have been working on this article for about 4 years, and I believe this is the first time I have ever sought any kind of administrative action (although I have been party to 1 or 2 arbcom cases in the past, I have never started any).

This all spins around the point that Rumiton wants to add a completely unnecessary phrase to the article, "with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice"[120]. This is only relevant if he is an expert in the field, otherwise the comment has no business in the article on source grounds, and is misleading. Even if he is an expert, it's completely undue weight for the article, as the entire description of Rawat's Peace for Prisoners program only takes up a sentence or two on an-already-too-long article (imho of course).

This seems to have been a continual effort recently on Rumiton's part to push very hard for his POV to add more text into the article (since his previous ban from the article he had been relatively easy to work with, until recently). The entire conversation about this expert is here, as well, you can see in the previous section where Rumiton argues that a youtube video uploaded by a follower of Prem Rawat is a reliable source[121], starting with this diff[122] in that section. This is after he'd had a completely different opinion earlier this year: "Youtube is absolutely unacceptable as a source..." [User:Rumiton Rumiton] ([User_talk:Rumiton talk]) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In previous sections in the last 30 days, you can see various other aggressive behaviours that an editor with so much editing experience should know better than to attempt. Here he agrees with Momento's suggestion to reduce an extremely well sourced, and even more vigourously discussed edit, that was negative towards Prem Rawat. He agrees that it should be reduced from 143 words down to 31 words (a reduction of 79%!), even though we've already spent thousands of words discussing that exact phrase, and had been very careful to source everything extremely well.

Here is a diff where Rumiton says he has material to add (which he had mentioned several times previously, and since), and that we should not waste time saying these are press releases, they are valid, and they show Rawat "clearly was there at these events". When I went to look at them, I found that they are listed on a Prem Rawat fansite, on a page called "Press Releases", and all they show are crowds with an inset picture of Prem Rawat, at no point does it show him in *any* crowd. I'm not suggesting Rawat was or was not there, I'm suggesting that Rumiton's statement seems to be misleading based on the facts. In an effort to avoid some kind of mini-war breaking out on the article talk page, I decided to try and talk to Rumiton on his talk page, out of the spotlight so to speak, in an effort to point out why these articles might be problematic. I think I achieved a limited success at best, entire exchange is here

It's not like I have an thin skin when it comes to this article, I don't run out and find an admin every time I'm called a name, get insulted, or have assumptions of non-AGF cast on me[123][124][125][126], but I feel things have devolved a little too much. I don't appreciate anything I do being called "extremely stupid" and what I consider to be belligerence seems to be growing.

I will stipulate to the fact that in some arguments I probably don't help defuse the situation either, but I think the constant effort of trying to maintain an NPOV article there (or at least keep a non-blatantly obvious POV article) sometimes exceeds my patience level. Thank-you for looking into this. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've examined the situation, and I really don't see how keeping Rumiton editing the talkpage is going to help things. The discretionary sanctions allow uninvolved admins to ban editors from Prem Rawat and related articles, and unless I hear very strong objections from other admins I'll do just that in the next 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother waiting that long, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest you read the talk page in its entirety before you jump to conclusions. And particularly the comments of Pat W that Maelefique clearly considers acceptable since he hasn't been reported by Maelefique. Rumiton is a saint in comparison.Momento (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing here; I'm afraid it's you who has jumped to conclusions. I've reviewed everyone involved, and what I can make of it is that Pat W is frustrated at Rumiton's refusal to listen. It doesn't entirely excuse it, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle it, but I think Rumiton's absence will help prevent similar outbursts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As Maelefique says "I will stipulate to the fact that in some arguments I probably don't help defuse the situation either". But he goes out of his way to protect and excuse PatW who calls editors "clowns" and even goes so far as to delete PatW saying ":Just how dumb are you? I know you can't read so here it is again... Now I suggest you just go and cry to Jossi and give all these poor souls their lives back".[127] in case he gets into trouble but when it comes to Rumiton, he doesn't warn, excuse or delete he comes here. And you want to remove Rumiton to protect PatW??Momento (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe PatW has said anything in the sections of the talk page I referred to (or even anything at all since March 31st, so I don't see how he's directly relevant to this complaint), but in reference to what I consider "clearly acceptable", you seem to have missed where I asked PatW to stop making comments like those, in his talk page, just as I did when I had a problem with what Rumiton was saying. Diff is here. After deleting PatW's outburst that I thought was *also* not "clearly acceptable", I immediately made a note on the talk page saying I had deleted some of his text, and if anyone thought that was wrong, they could, or I would, restore that text immediately. Diff here. It seems a little dificult to make you happy when you get upset because I do *OR* don't do anything about PatW's comments, you've claimed both things above. -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The point about PatW is that you didn't report PatW for referring to an editor with "Just how dumb are you? I know you can't read so here it is again" but you did report Rumiton for saying your actions are "extremely stupid". Why the difference? What is it about Rumiton that makes you seek to block him and what is it about PatW that makes you want to clean up after him? I don't think you should be using this page to selectively try to block or ban an editor you disagree with, it's called "Gaming the system".[128]Momento (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that PatW's comments weren't directed towards me, if you felt he should have been reported for saying those things to you, that's something you should have taken care of, I'm not your mother (despite the fact that I did take the actions already listed above against PatW's behaviour). Rumiton's comments were directed toward me, I addressed them in what I felt was an appropriate manner, gave him an opportunity to remove the comment, instead he stated it again elsewhere (the second time he actually bolded the text even), so I took action. Pretty straightforward I think. I'd add that diff of you accusing me of WP:gaming to those above if I thought there was a point, yet another example of the lack of AGF displayed by some editors on that article towards me. -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't push your luck; you've had a rather troubled history in the topic area yourself (only coming off a year-long ban, reset once, in February). I'm more than happy to give out more sanctions if I see they're warranted; please read WP:BUTT before proceeding on this path. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a couple of look ins there - they are all conflicted involved and none of them are able to edit from NPOV - this ani report is nothing more than - please get rid of my opponent - wikipedia would benefit from topic banning them all (or none at all, please don't block only one side) and locking the article, its not like it needs constant discussion and updating by involved users - WP:SHAME on that article. Youreallycan 14:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor has only ever participated on the Prem Rawat talk page in one discussion, during which he swore profusely, and was quite obviously aligned to a Pro-Prem Rawat point of view, I'm not sure why when I look up his contributions they are all stricken, and I cannot access the diff, located here but either that revision, or one shortly after it that I also cannot access (looks to have been deleted) contains the entire exchange between Youreallycan, PatW and Rumiton and Momento (note, I was not at all involved in this discussion). I do recall the excessive use of profanity that was the last thing Youreallycan said in the exchange though, very similar in tone to his comment "And there it is a resume of why the en wikipedia ia a f**ked up place with f***ed up content that is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless and total example of why quality contributors flee in droves. Youreallycan 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)" from here. He has never added anything else in the talk page (or article) before, or since, that I am aware of. I think it's notable that Rumiton hasn't spoken in almost 2 days, after suggesting things will escalate, and yet 2 other editors have a lot to say for him. Especially considering his vigorous defense of his position until I filed this complaint. Up until this point, he has had multiple edits every single day since March 23rd, which is the only day in March he did not have multiple edits (on march 20th there is only 1 actually), since the first of the month. And I'm the one being accused of playing games here? In response to Youreallycan's suggestion that we lock the article, I would politely point him to WP:Protect for reading, despite his opinion that this article is "done". -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict.) One day, Maelefique, not 2. I think you are going a little overboard on this. I have not contacted anybody about this subject, and your statements here are becoming way ad hominem.

(To youreallycan) There is some merit in what you say; we have no neutral editors. If you know one, please send him/her along. But in my defense against Maelefique's comments above...I would not use the word "lying", but I was falsely represented at the RS/N. My suggested edit was not that Dr Gilbert be described as an expert on Restorative Justice, just that it was a strong professional interest of his. I believe I demonstrated that, though the question posted has attracted no opinions as yet. I still feel this aspect of his career is relevant to his comments on Prem Rawat's "Peace Education Program."

Regarding the length of the article, I agree it is too long, but it is stretched out by 35-year-old trivia, such as arrangements he made early-70s with the Los Angeles Fire Brigade and damage incurred to his property in a brush fire. This is not at all "negative towards Prem Rawat" as Maelefique claims; it is just trivial. The claim that it was extensively discussed and is sourced could be applied to every sentence in the article. In comparison, though, we have the bald statement: In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million. It seems to me a problem of applying due weight, not of excluding negativity.

I did not intend to describe Maelefique himself as "extremely stupid" but I was taken aback by what I saw as an attempt to get around the discussion taking place by posting a question on RS/N without a discussion as to its wording. And I certainly did find the question slanted towards the outcome Maelefique wanted to obtain, and therefore likely to make the situation on the talk page worse.

Then Maelefique seems to be implying editor collusion or tag-teaming, as Momento jumped in after my comment on likely escalation. Maelefique reacts with apparent horror to most of Momento's posts, even the one made after Maelefique asked for feedback. I guess he meant "positive" feedback.

Regarding YouTube, my understanding is that videos produced by individuals for YouTube are not acceptable, but that when someone reposts a video made by a reputable news outlet, the vehicle (YouTube) becomes irrelevant, and the news outlet is the source. Am I wrong in this?

The Indian news coverage of major events Prem Rawat has conducted in that country over the last few years have proven difficult to verify. I agreed with Maelefique (tacitly, I admit) that the photos I provided are not definite proof of their occurring, but I have had difficulty getting an acceptable translation from Hindi of the text that accompanied them. I explained this several times, and asked for patience. Where are these Hindi sources from? And what are they regarding? -- Maelefique(talk) 06:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) They were sent to me without comment, and are all in Hindi. They appear to be front pages from major Delhi newspapers and show pics of Prem Rawat addressing huge groups of people in Delhi. They are all from 2009, but now that I have some idea how to Google in foreign scripts we should be able to get more. I want to get them translated to make sure they are what they appear to be before I post them anywhere. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC) As I said, getting good translations has proved more difficult than I thought. And while the URL atop the page is "press releases" I think this particular group of articles is not, but I won't know for sure until I find a better translator.

So there it is. Make of it what you will. Rumiton (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

More than 1.5 days, I rounded up and said "almost 2", not "2", but thank you for finally responding anyway.

A few small points, the text I was referring to that was negative that you wanted removed had to do with Prem Rawat being arrested in India, nothing to do with the helicopter pad.

As I've said, if Dr. Gilbert's not an expert, the addition is completely without value (see my sandwich reference on the talk page). Further, my original statement was to ask RSN if he was an expert, and you agreed that was a good idea.

The fact is you did say "extremely stupid" twice, once hours later, after I had asked you to remove it, on another board outside of the talk page.

Please provide a diff instead of an accusation, I don't recall any recent post of Momento's that has caused me horror (also, this conversation isn't about Momento's behaviour, or mine).

As I think you know, the only time a youtube video could be used as a source like that is if the news outlet itself (assuming it's a RS!) uploaded the video, I posted you the link and text showing that it was uploaded by a Prem Rawat follower, so that doesn't wash for me.

Now you're saying you think they're not press releases, but you're not sure. And yet, you were definitively convinced until I questioned it.

Had you removed your comment, instead of re-iterating it on a more "public" noticeboard, I don't think any of this would have been necessary. I am a little torn at suggesting an apology on the talk page and the noticeboard might suffice instead of sanctions, but I don't see any indication here that you feel you did anything wrong. Oh yes, and again, the comment "we have no neutral editors" is another AGF slight against me. -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, whatever the issues you see with the editor who brought this here, I still see merit to his case. I will finish reviewing the conduct of others later today, but pointing at other people won't help your case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you are "reviewing my conduct"? Since when does a specific complaint about one editor entitle you to make an uninvited review about another without informing them?Momento (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Competence

So, MastaRhymes (talk · contribs), in 13 months, has exhibited the following behaviors:

• Repeatedly failing to understand how to add something to a category
• Multiple re-creations of speedily deleted content (e.g. Blackout 00, which was A9'd twice and re-created in March)
• Additions of links to disambiguation pages — he has no fewer than six warnings and has continued to do this even today
• Forgetting to add fair use rationales to images — count how many image warnings are on his page
• Refusal to use edit summaries
• Removal of prods without explanation (Urban Legends (Black Ice))
• Restoration of poor sources (the above has links to YouTube and Amazon, which he restored not a day after I removed them)
• Refusal to communicate with other editors — not once has he edited a talk page

I have yet to find more than a couple good, constructive edits from this user. The signal to noise ratio is just too big — and the user has been here long enough now to figure out how things work. This is definitely a textbook WP:COMPETENCE issue here, and in short, I don't think the user is competent enough. Nothing seems to get through to them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "not once": This is not entirely true. He made 4 edits here, but they still don't demonstrate much in the way of competence. Something does need to be done here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a block may be what is needed to get this editor's attention. That may sound harsh, but it can work, and falls under the "preventative, not punitive" rule. I recall some time ago I was dealing with a good-faithed Canadian IP editor (96.51.68.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 68.147.196.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 68.147.163.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who worked on obscure sport articles of various countries. This editor would constantly capitalise all nouns (like in German), even after he had been reprimanded numerous times for it. This guy/gal, after failing to heed many warnings, racked up 6 blocks across those IPs, finally falling dormant after 1-month blocks were put in place on each. Recently I saw him/her around (68.147.106.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and whaddaya know? No needless capitalisations! Granted, this one's still rough around the edges, but blocking him/her did seem to beat that bad habit out of them. Being blocked from editing will give this guy a chance to slow himself down and—hopefully—work out his issues around here. And if not, I don't think we would have lost much. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"In my opinion, a block may be what is needed to get this editor's attention. That may sound harsh, but it can work, and falls under the "preventative, not punitive" rule." You don't need to be so verbose. In my neck of the woods we call this a "whack with the cluebat." Sounds like this user needs one. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. A block might wake this user up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ai yi yi...I concur. 48 hours might give him a chance to think and read up on policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that the guy didn't have it coming, but maybe he should have been notified about this discussion before the block? And maybe a better explanation of his shortcomings than just a template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.179.3 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible State PR rep as Wiki editor

In doing some new page patrol work, I came across a page on Biotechnology in Maryland. The page is written like a press release and the author is "Mdbizauthor" (i.e. "MD" is an abbreviation for Maryland.) Every page this individual has worked on is related to the state of Maryland, so I don't think it's a giant leap to conclude the person is likely employed or contracted by the State of MD to write/edit MD articles. Of course, I could be wrong and maybe the individual is just a devout Marylander. In any case, I thought I should bring this to Admin's attention to determine if further action is warranted.JoelWhy (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is the best place to try raising this sort of thing for review, unless there is some immediate admin specific action needed. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged Biotechnology in Maryland for speedy deletion as way too promotional in tone. It needs to be zapped and rewritten.--ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. I don't think the page should be deleted, just heavily edited (and we need to go through his/her other edits on different pages, as well.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy declined - I don't know why I bother, looks like a clear case to me.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

PROD it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's at AfD right now. To add, this editor created a similar article back in 2009 about Maryland business (Business in Maryland). That article's been edited by others since, but it still is very promotional in tone ("Maryland's world-class education system helps to fuel its highly professional and technical workforce."; do these people not realize how unpersuasive this is?). That said, the account doesn't seem to have been very active in the meantime.

What is the current status of paid/advocacy editing? I know there was some discussion a while back about clarifying the rules beyond simple COI policy. Shadowjams (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Short block requested for Schicagos to prevent disruption

Resolved

 – User has been indef'd and directed to the internet overlords.

Schicagos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm trying to get through to a new editor who has exhibited some problematic behavior. He's made repeated personal attacks (here and here), and has edit warred to include unsourced content on a few pages. This behavior has continued past warnings. I posted to WQA, hoping another editor might step in and discuss the matter with him, but he removed the section. I think a short 1-day block might help to prevent further disruption while the issue is discussed with him. If an admin feels a block isn't warranted, I'd ask that they step in and discuss the matter with him personally. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This guy is deleting edits on subjects that he knows nothing about, subjects that I have experience on the university level in. Unless he can prove that the chemistry is wrong, I would like him to stop deleting my edits. Plus he is annoying because he doesn't know how to take a joke. --Schicagos(Schicagos) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

I don't think "joke" means what you think it does. Your personal attacks themselves should be worthy of some adminstrative action. It also appears that you need to review Wikipedia policy on sourcing statements in articles. And deleting an entire WQA section seems symptomatic of wider issues.LedRush (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Schicagos (talk · contribs) blocked for a week for making personal attacks. I must say that the temptation to just indef him was quite strong; so I won't object if another admin feels less lenient than I was. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An administrator should probably have a look at User talk:Schicagos as there are currently three open unblock requests following his previously declined unblock request. Thanks. ChemNerd (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive requests have been closed, several have been denied, various warnings have been issued, and there are plenty of eyes on his Talk page now. I think we're done here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Danrolo

Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has a long history of disruptive editing. After adding and changing certain ideology labels of (literally!) hundreds of political parties around the world without any verification for a long time and having been warned of original research and advised to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines umpteen times, Danrolo has now broadened his/her activity to introducing downright factual errors (diff1, diff2) and adding extensive unverified personal information to BLPs of Argentine showgirls.(diff3, diff4) The user knows that original research and unverified information are deprecated on Wikipedia, because his/her user talk page is full of kind advice, patient explanations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, warnings and final warnings. There is no reaction at all from the side of the user. Communication with Danrolo is impossible. I am afraid that only administrative action can solve the problems with this user. --RJFF (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor, whos userpage states that s/he is from Chile, has also clearly been socking from several Chilean IPs. See this sockpuppet investigation. RolandR (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Policy says to block the editors, not the page, in cases of these sorts of edit wars. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri separatist

131.183.0.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is on a quest to dissociate India from Jammu and Kashmir: removes mentioning of India, replaces Hindi script with Urdu (whatever they are names), etc. In a number of cases this activity broke the infobox templates and interwiki links. Also removes whole phrases, such as "The airport connects to all major cities in India".

This account also removes warnings from their user talk page. Please keep an eye on their activity and explain wiki policies in this respect in a proper way. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made an additional warning to the IP. I'm right on the borderline for being involved, as I've reverted the IP a few times already, and agreed with the IP on another (for an article outside of India, removing Hindi is actually correct), so I'm not sure I can block, but if the removal doesn't stop, somebody should. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian has now blocked the IP for 48 hours, per this thread. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

#90, anonymous user and pervasive genre changer, part II

Sorry to start a thread about this again, but I truly believe this issue I brought up here needs administrative attention. This person did some more genre warring since I made that report, this time under the IP of 90.218.174.86; through this IP, album pages related to the band Paradise Lost, and the band page for Tiamat were affected. As you can see by the report I previously issued and by the sockpuppet investigation I submitted back in 2010 (this person has been around even longer than that), this individual has used so many IPs to do the petty genre warring, and does not use edit summaries or relevant talk pages at all. The only way this person has communicated their thoughts is through invisible text: either by manipulating an existing message or changing the message altogether. He or she has added sources before, but the sources presented are rarely reliable. I can't emphasize enough how detrimental this person's activity is to Wikipedia. (S)he has been warned a mind-numbing number of times against this, but nothing seems to be working. The genre warring and IP hopping from the range of, approximately, 90.213.xxx.xxx to 90.218.xxx.xxx has gone on since at least January 17, 2009 (see sockpuppet investigation for info about that editing), and to say I'm sick of dealing with the regular edits is an understatement. This person has been genre warring for way too long without discipline and without care for criticism, and is just making it harder for me and others to edit and maintain the area of Wikipedia which (s)he affects. I am thinking about submitting the affected album pages of Faith Divides Us - Death Unites Us, Icon, and In Requiem for semi-protection because of this, but I don't know if there's been enough activity on those pages for semi-protection to apply. I really hope something can be done about this, because this person has caused so much trouble on some of the pages I watch, just to display his or her opinion on what genres some music belongs to. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For more information on the recently used IP, see the following: 90.218.174.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

Just like last time this was brought up, I support a range-block, as the IP's abuse has been long-term, and is not receptive to changing their ways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, is a block of the range of 90.213.xxx.xxx to 90.218.xxx.xxx possible? If so, it would be quite effective in curtailing this genre warrior's activity. Also, after I submitted the post on 00:50 11 April, I realized that #90 responded to two of the messages I had sent him/her; however, these responses were on his/her own talk pages, and so I was not able to realize them until much later. With that said, communication coming from these IPs are quite limited, and I still stand by what I have posted on this noticeboard. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky date-related vandalism

For the past several weeks, User:76.103.171.69 has been making small changes to a number of articles ostensibly correcting facts and concentrating on dates. His edit have been repeatedly challenged by other editors and he has been asked to provide sources or at least to explain how he is coming up with these new dates. He has ignored all attempts to communicate. For this reason he just received his 4th block yesterday (his second 3-month time-out). Although it is possible that these are the edits of a well-intentioned person who is simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, certain facts stick out for me which concern me. On the Moomin comic strips article, for example, 76.103.171.69 first claimed that the strip "Moomin's Winter Follies" was published on June 22, 1955 in this edit; he then later changed it to June 8, 1955 in this edit; and most recently he changed it to July 13, 1955 in this edit. Considering how many times the same strip has been re-dated by the same editor, it is clear that he is either using an exceptionally volatile source or he is just making the facts up out of thin air. For obvious reasons, this kind of "sneaky vandalism" is very difficult to detect normally and I think it merits special attention.

Someone reported User:76.103.171.69 at AIV yesterday and I also expressed my concern that User:24.4.254.10 was a sockpuppet account for User:76.103.171.69, but no action was taken against 24.4.254.10. Today's edits all but confirm this considering that 24.4.254.10's first edit since mid-March comes 1 day after 76.103.171.69 was banned and 24.4.254.10's edits match 76.103.171.69 precisely. At AIV I had asked where would be a good place to alert editors about "sneaky vandalism" and got no response, so I'm taking a stab at it here. If this is not the proper forum then please point me in the right direction. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure I just haven't explained it well. Is it that you don't see the connection between 76.103.171.69 and 24.4.254.10 or that you don't see the edits as characteristic of vandalism? -Thibbs (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Well I'd really hate to have this fly under the radar so I made up some evidence sheets for you. Please let me know if these are enough to convince you. And if anybody else could weigh in here I'd be mighty obliged. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proof of sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Location: 76.103.171.69 geolocates to Moraga, CA, USA 24.4.254.10 geolocates to Lafayette, CA, USA The two towns are both located in the same county (Contra Costa County) and are separated by just less than 4 miles of road (~10 minute one-way car trip). Chronology & articles & style: Jan 1, 2012 - 76.103.171.69 is blocked for 3 months. Jan 3, 2012 - March 22, 2012 - 24.4.254.10 awakens from a 5 year sleep to make numerous date-only edits in the exact same style as 76.103.171.69 to the exact same articles as 76.103.171.69 (compare 76.103 edit on 1/1/12 with 24.4 edit on 3/1/12) April 1, 2012 The very day the block is lifted, 76.103.171.69 is back to editing the exact same articles in exactly the same way (see 76.103 edit on 1/4/12, and 76.103 edit on 2/4/12). April 10, 2012 - 76.103.171.69 is blocked for another 3 months. April 10, 2012 - 24.4.254.10 resumes editing the exact same articles in the exact same manner (see 24.4 edit on 10/4/12; compare 76.103 edit on 1/4/12 to 24.4 edit on 10/4/12). Other items from WP:SIGNS include edit warring, an account with occasional usage, and arguably knowledge that an obscure article exists. These two accounts are quite obviously used by the same person. -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it vandalism?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As for whether or not it's vandalism,... I suppose that's the beauty of sneaky vandalism. It often appears indistinguishable from legitimate errors. There really is no way to prove that these edits are vandalism short of extracting a written confession from the vandal, but there are clues we can look at that would lead us more toward or more away from the determination of vandalism. I guess the strongest clue I have comes from the fact that in three edits to the same article, a newly introduced date was changed to three different days. Paying specific attention to the date for the strip entitled "Moomin's Winter Follies", please note that 76.103.171.69 initially claimed the strip was published on June 22, later changing it to June 8, and finally settling a few months later on July 13. The question that naturally arises is "what sort of a situation would result in an editor changing the date 3 times in 3 edits?" One option as I suggested above is that the source is volatile. If the NYTimes source prints a date and then issues a correction and then later another correction then I suppose we have our explanation for this kind of an edit pattern. In most cases, though, sources covering facts like dates are static and can be relied on to remain the same from day to day. Further evidence that these edits may be vandalistic in nature comes from 76.103.171.69's and 24.4.254.10's respective talk pages where over a dozen warnings have been issued for adding "incorrect information" or dates without sources. Edit warring to restore incorrect information is not proof of vandalistic intent, but it might be considered suggestive evidence. -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. The user is almost certainly the same, but I'm not persuaded by the evidence that it's vandalism. The user added quite a bit of content, and it's possible that the three changes to a single date were either a mistake, or some other informed revision. For me the test of sneaky vandalism is whether you can come up with any source to prove any of the information is false. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked for 3 months.--Atlan (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The other subject of the complaint, 24.4.254.10 (talk · contribs · block log) is not currently blocked. I believe a talk page notification is traditional. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a talk page notification would be helpful if this is a case of sneaky vandalism. Given that I've outlined an MO above, why provide an opportunity to change style? It's a judgment call though so if someone wants to alert the editor then go for it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As it's clearly a sockpuppet account evading a block, a new block (simultaneous with or without a warning) seems like the obvious move, but I wanted to raise awareness of the possibility of sneaky vandalism with this one since it seems likely to me. If nobody else is concerned about that possibility then perhaps I'm just being paranoid. I'm willing to entertain that possibility. -Thibbs (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Relatedly, would it be a good idea to file with SPI? I'm uncertain about the rules regarding IPs as socks of other IPs. Is such a thing possible or would I be wasting my time? -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps... I want to add, that first off this date change vandalism (height changes to bios is common too) is pretty pervasive and I suspect there are a few dozen socks that account for a large amount of it (aside from the typical one-off vandalism). I've followed a particular sock for similar date changes to a bunch of music articles. I've also seen IPs doing exactly what you showed here, often on children's cartoon articles. In fact, I would not be surprised if this was the same person[s]. However I don't think I ever dug much deeper on the cartoon-date changes, so I can't direct you to the appropriate SPI case... but you might look through the edit history on those pages and see if there are some IPs in similar ranges that did some prolific editing in the past. You might be surprised what you find.

I've been talking about this kind of subtle vandalism for a long time, and it's pernicious because it goes unnoticed for so long, and because in my experience these individuals are persistent. Factual changes like dates are particularly bad because they provide no context to help evaluate their truth, often you have to take a date at its word. For example, if I change the date of Henry VIII to 1984, then it's obvious. But if I change it to 1490, would anyone know the difference?

When you come across an editor who's making lots of sequential date changes, or even adding more specific dates (as in the case of the music sock), it's a completely valid question to ask them where they're getting their information from. If they respond adequately, then great, especially if follow ups on that check out. But I've found most of these editors never respond on the talk page, they just go on with the edits until they're blocked. I've even seen IPs I've monitored be blocked for spans as long as a year, and they're editing again within 24 hours of the block letting up. I've honestly considered the possibility that there's some sort of automated bot making their edits for them. Shadowjams (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I did a little digging and there are dozens and dozens of these accounts flitting about in the children's cartoon articles (Several from California, some from Wisconsin, others from WA, OH, NJ, etc., etc.). I suspect you may be right about it being bots because with so many active accounts (only one of the first ten such accounts that I noticed had ever seen a block) it's not as if these editors are waiting with baited breath for the their blocks to expire. The fact that they seem to immediately resume their activities hours after lengthy blocks expire sounds very robotic. We need a new Voight-Kampff test for the tag filters as they've obviously stepped up their game a bit. Some of the accounts I was looking at have been active for 8+ months and they are still operating block-free. It's disheartening to see how devoted some people are to discrediting Wikipedia. The only motivation I can guess is some kind of spite or revenge... As it is I wouldn't trust dates in any of the TV show articles at this point. I wish I had time to make an in depth SPI report. Anyway thanks for your comment Shadowjams. Glad to see I'm not the only one who cares. -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Spam talk deletion

(Originally posted on the talk page of the admin handling the report; I am unsure where to ask about this.) A discussion about a spam/unreliable source was completely deleted [129]. Can it be restored by an editor like me, or does it require bureaucrat/admin work? Especially since another edit has come after. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I have magic admin powers, but you could have done it too, yes. That's one hell of a discussion by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was unsure, as it is a project page. I am less interested in the discussion than in the findings, and in seeing them properly archived. Thank you for also posting on the admin's talk page. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. If I read the rules for user talk page guidelines correctly, it can be done on one's own talk page, but not on other pages. Thanks for your diligence. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ashermadan

A discussion at ANI last week, regarding two users was archived in Archive 745. While action has been taken on one user, the other, User:Ashermadan was not looked into, hence I'm reposting a part of the thread here. Coming to the point, Ashermadan's behaviour towards other editors has been very uncivil and possibly harassing. A compilation of his comments over the last six-months or so, has been made into a report, found below. Please look into it :

Ashermadan
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Sharukh_slaps_Sirish_Kunder "X.One SOS: Congrats for being the biggest Salman Khan fanboy on Wikipedia and being the biggest hypocrite on the internet. If you include the slap incident where SRK slapped some guy, then why won't you include Salman Khan murdering a man in 2002, him hitting countless women, and killing endangered species for fun? Good job! Keep it up!" "Now that Shirish Kunder has been revealed as the guy who was drunk, messing with women, sending vulgar tests to Sanjay's wife, Mr. Fanboy aka X.One will go cry to his lord and master Salman Khan and leave this topic. How much do you guys want to bet? I would heed the following advice to people like him: Stop being a Salman fanboy and stop trolling SRK's every move. The media has revealed how truly vulgar Shirish Kunder is and no matter how many Salman fanboys like you try to put nonsense like a slap on Wikipedia, the fact is that Wikipedia is not a place for such news. You may love to spread useless news about some nobody getting slapped but do so in the comfort of you own homes, stop putting rubbish on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA Mr. X.One SOS. An encyclopedia has no use for a slap. If he had run over someone or if there was a case lodged against him then that would be news. So, Mr. X.One SOS, stop being a Salman fanboy and grow the heck up." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User_talk:Meryam90/Archive_1#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "Scieberking is vandalizing the Bodyguard 2011 page. He is changing it to 253 crores when we still use BOI for HINDI ONLY films. Help me stop him. He has gone crazy with the mad-for-Salman disease." "Scieberking has gone crazy and is trying to pull down Ra.One! The Lallu fan inside him awoke finally." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeLynch&diff=prev&oldid=475997997 "Funny coming from the biggest abuser on Wikipedia. Ha ha." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475975360 "Here's looking at your Salman Khan fans." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475974519 "The reference says 210 crores, which cheap Salman Khan fan change it? STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE IDIOTS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ashermadan&diff=prev&oldid=476584567 "I'm not going to assume good faith, X.One SOS. Wikipedia isn't paying you so stop being so personal." "You better stop trolling me, X.One SOS. Or you'll indeed need to say SOS. Ha ha. Stop ruining Wikipedia and stop pretending like you're getting money from it. Stop being a troll." "I don't want to have any dealings with you at all. Go cry home to Lallu." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "I thought Scieberking was actually confused as first but his double standards are clearly showing through." "I will oppose using that source no matter what. Zubeida, Anikit, Meryam will too. The last thing I will say before I sleep is that you need to stop being a Salman fanboy and think of wikipedia first." "Scieberking must be useless" "He is Salman Khan fan who is upset that RaOne broke Bodyguard record. He is not a trade analyst so he does not know what he is talking about. He is two faced and a manipulator." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475346178 "ADDED WARNING, I AM DONE WITH REVERTING VANDALISM. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475345653 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 16.5 CRORE (BOI) YOU IDIOT, STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE. AGNEEPATH IS NOT DOING SO WELL OVERSEAS! STOP IT." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467357781 "WE DO NOT ADD THE FINAL VERDIT UNTIL ALL REVIEWS ARE IN! STOP CHANGING IT BLOODY VANDALS! WE DISCUSSED THIS ALREADY! YOU PEOPLE STUPID?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi_Boyz&diff=prev&oldid=462473828 "VANDALS, STOP LYING ABOUT REVIEWS! DON'T CHANGE THE RATINGS AND DON'T LIE! I'M SICK OF FIXING THEM." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=474039432 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 14 TIMES IVE HAD TO FIX THEM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473997657 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 12 TIMES IVE HAD TO REVERT VANDALISM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473826752 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE, KOIMOI CANNOT BE USED. EVERY OTHER ARTICLE USES BOX OFFICE INDIA FIGURES. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472576708 "WE DISCUSSED IT AND 240 WAS THE AMOUNT AGREED UPON UNTIL BOI PROVIDES DATA FOR WORLDWIDE GROSS ALL VERSIONS" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472190453 "STOP CHANGING THE POSTER! JUST LEAVE IT AS THE DEFAULT ONE WHICH WE HAVE PERMISSION TO USE!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=469663137 "WORLDWIDE GROSS IS NOT OUT YET! JUST WAIT A FEW WEEKS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468631127 "THERE IS NO SEQUEL ANNOUNCED. STOP ADDING STUFF WITHOUT REFERENCES." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468629822 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES IT GOES [[ ]] GOES TO WRONG PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468557397 "PLEASE PROTECT THIS PAGE, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE MESSING IT UP, SOMEONE PLEASE HELP" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468556825 "NO SEQUEL HAS BEEN CONFIMRED" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468319316 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468029725 "THE SCREEN COUNT IS 3105 ACCORDING TO LIKE 10 DIFFERENT SOURCES. WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE SAY 2800 WHEN THAT'S WRONG?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468007871 "THERE IS NO ARTICLE FOR ALY KHAN BOLLYWOOD ACTOR, THE LINK LEAD US TO THE KING OF OMAN OR SOMETHING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467940068 "FART SCENE? REALLY? DELETE THIS NONSENSE. SUCH ABUSE AND IDIOCY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467720077 "BASIC MATH, ADDED ALL THE NUMBERS UP!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467600378 "WORLDWIDE GROSS FROM ALL VERSIONS TO UPDATE THE INFO BOX. UNTIL THEN USE THE BOX OFFICE SECTION OF THE ARTCILE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467570916 "DABANGG ALSO RELEASED ON FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 10 2010 so it beat DABANGG. PLEASE LEAVE iT IN SALMAN KHAN FANS! STOP MESSING AROUND WITH THIS PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467578411 "75+% POSITIVE, 85% MIXED TO POSITIVE, ONLY 4 REVIEWS ARE COMPLETELY NEGATIVE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467517057 "WE ONLY USE BOX OFFICE INDIA, WE USE OTHER SOURCES ONLY IF BOI DOESNT GIVE US THE NECESSARY DATA AS IN RAONE's and TDP's case." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467498682 "FIRST DAY DOMESTIC NETT! WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BECAUSE USUALLY WE HAVE GROSS WORLDWIDE (GROSS IS BEFORE TAX AND OTHER FEES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454399 "THESE ARE ALL EARLY ESTIMATES AND USE WORDS LIKE 'AROUND" and "EARLY ESTIMATES" PLEASE WAIT FOR CONFIRMED NUMBERS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454191 "BOX OFFICE INDIA ONLY! UNLESS DISCUSSED! WAIT A FEW DAYS UNTIL FINAL FIGURES ARE IN!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454014 "ONLY WORLDWIDE GROSS FIGURES GO THERE. THEY ARE NOT IN YET SO DONT PUT NETT FIGURES IN THE INFO BOX. THERES A SECTION FOR BOX OFFICE NETT FIGURES DOWN BELOW!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467452493 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS USED, DONT QUOTE SOME RANDOMASS SOURCE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467378199 "JUST WAIT TO ADD THE OVERALL VERDICT ABOUT MIXED REVIEWS ETC WHEN ALL THE REVIEWS ARE IN. SO MANY REVIEWS ARE PENDING! PLEASE. DON'T JUMP THE GUN LIKE RA.ONE. WE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE WHEN WE JUMPED THE GUN WITH RA.ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467353164 "TOOK OUT THE LAST PART OF MY PLOT BECAUSE IT RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE IF YOU HAVENT SEEN IT. WE"LL ADD IT IN LATER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=466853929 "CRITICIZED FOR "OVERRATING"? WHY WOULD YOU ADD SOMETHING. AND THE SOURCE JUST GIVES TARAN'S RATING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_Story_2050&diff=prev&oldid=466394712 "THE GUY WANTED TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME BUT ACCIDENTALLY TRAVELLED TO 2050! JESUS. GET YOUR PLOT RIGHT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sohompramanick&oldid=465157247 "DONT VANDALIZE THE RA.ONE PAGE. THE SOURCE SAYS THE COST IS 135 CRORES. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED FOR THIS ACTION." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=465156256 "THE SOURCE SAYS 135 CRORES SO STOP CHANGING THE NUMBER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Shahrukh_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=463828795 "SHOULD BE A , AFTER BEN KINGSLEY AND BEFORE ETC" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)&diff=prev&oldid=463250533 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 227 CRORES, NOT 252 CRORES. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=463101304 "EROS INTERNATIONAL CFO KAMAL JAIN SAID IT IS AT 230 CRORES IN AN INTERVIEW" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=458390617 "SHAHRUKH SAID BUDGET OF RA.ONE IS 130 CRORES ON TALKING CINEMA WITH TARAN ADARSH, HE SAYS MEDIA IS SPECULATING AND IS WRONG" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712886 "ROTTEN TOMATOES REVIEW ADDED, NO ONE SHOULD REMOVE THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE FIRST UNBIASED ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712729 "ADDED FIRST NONBIASED RATING FROM ROTTEN TOMATOES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457626400 "TARAN ARARSH UPDATED IT, BOX OFFICE INDIA IS WRONG)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varunn_pandya&diff=prev&oldid=457467684 "STOP VANDALIZING OUR RA.ONE ARTICLE. IT RECEIVED MOSTLY POSITIVE REVIEWS AS STATED. DO NOT CHANGE THE INTRODUCTION AGAIN." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457454121 "STOP MENTIONING OTHER FILMS IN RA ONE ARTICLE. MENTION 7 AM ARRIVU IN ITS ARTICLE. ILL REPORT YOU IF YOU DONT STOP." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457453705 "FILMFARE REVIEW IS OUT. REDIFF ALREADY MENTIONED DOWN BELOW. TOP PART FOR TOP CRITICS." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457412307 "THESE PEOPLE ARENT PROPER MOVIE CRITICS! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? PEOPLE LIKE OMAR QURESHI, KHALID MOHAMMED, etc. are" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457410976 "DO NOT ADD WEBBLOGS, ONLY GO WITH PROPER CRITICS! CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

After I reported him last week, he vandalized my talk page. Secret of success 12:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been said to you, he's a little over the top; speaking all in caps is rude; and the edit to your talkpage isn't vandalism - he's asking insisting you to leave him alone in a way that you will see. I see no personal attacks, maybe a little tendentiousness, but other than you submitting an WP:RFC/U as has been suggested, what more do you want here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I pressed the issue a bit too much, but an admin suggested that I repost it here as Asher was not contacted at all last time (the issue was mainly highlighted on Ankitbhatt). And well, blanking someone else's talk page and putting a comment in all caps isn't vandalism? And no personal attacks can be seen? Telling me that "Go cry home to Lallu" is a BLP violation (Lallu) and a bad faith comment, directed at me. He has used the term "Lallu" many times. Um, and could you kindly elaborate what an RFC/U is? Thanks. Secret of success 12:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Asher was a party to the last ANI filing, and was aware of the discussion about them. They obviously would have become aware that their behaviour needed to change. As the editor typically uses all caps, them using all caps on your talkpage is not abnormal. Blanking it to make sure you actually read their message is not vandalism, and was easily reverted by you once you saw it - they did it once, to make sure you saw it. I still see nothing that meets the definition of WP:NPA. I see no WP:BLP violations. Please click the link for request for community comment on long-term user issues for more information on RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm: Secret of success left a note on my talk page over the weekend reminding me that the original ANI thread had handled only one of the two editors and asking if I could take a look at the circumstances around the second one. I told him that I wasn't likely to have time soon to look over the situation, and that he should consider asking another admin or re-opening the ANI thread. It appears he's just following my suggestion by re-raising this thread now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

IP user in possible breach of 1RR restrictions set out at WP:NCMAC

(Originally posted at helpdesk and WP:AN, but I think it should really have been opsted here first) Greetings Wikipedians, I had originally posted this at the help desk, and have been advised to bring it to the attention of this page instead. User:109.242.108.54 has started to breach 1RR restrictions as set out per WP:NCMAC, in regards to the naming of "Republic of Macedonia". According to details at NCMAC, and also ArbComs decisions, when the country is being listed with other countries in articles, the we should refer to it as Macedonia. Both myself, and Kosm1fent (talk · contribs) have issued warnings to the IP; and the IP still re-reverts things back. The articles in question so far are:

• Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest
• Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012
• Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest
• Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Subsequently, the IP has accused myself of making up this decision, despite the fact its ArbCom's ruling; and has also submitted a request to rename and move article. What actions (if any) should be taken now, as I feel like we're hitting our heads against a stone wall, despite relevant wiki-guidance being shown to the user. Thank you in advance. Wesley☀Mouse 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning logged in the WP:ARBMAC decision. Since the case imposes a 1RR rule about changing the name of Macedonia in any articles, which he has already broken at Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, I recommend an immediate block if he continues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into that EdJohnston - very much appreciated. What happens about the IP's request to move Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 to Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012? Is their request eligible for speedy rejection, or quashed? Wesley☀Mouse 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Uri1234

Uri1234 continually removes speedy deletion tags from DAEWOO International, a page which she/he created. Can she/he please be blocked from editing? West Eddy (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, the user should have been notified of this ANI submission. I've just done that now on your behalf. Also, I posted a notification explaining to them about removing AfD templates from articles. It could be that the user isn't aware of the wrong doings, so hopefully the general notice will assist in that process now. Wesley☀Mouse 13:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for forgetting the notification. This is the first time I've done this. The user in question has been warned multiple times. West Eddy (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• This editor was attempting to add paragraphs from the company's website to this new article, which was why it was tagged for deletion. It appears to be a new user, and there may be a language barrier as well (as per some of the edit summaries on the deleted version). I've gone ahead and deleted the article, then put down a redirect to Daewoo. If they stop, or engage in discussion, I don't think a block is warranted. But if they continue to attempt to force their (copyvio) version, we may have no other option. Since it was just the one editor, I deliberately did not protect the redirect, though I strongly considered it - I leave that to other admins. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Daewoo does list the six surviving brand divisions, redlinking Daewoo International Corporation; 4 have articles, one other redlink. Seems a valid subarticle could be written if NPOV can be met. Dru of Id (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Durresaryl1 - list of edits

I wish to bring the actions of the above named user to the attention of the admins, particularly on the subject of the outpouring of non-constructive edits on Rita Ora that stretch back to mid-2011. His actions were instrumental in the full protection of the article which was lifted in the last few hours. Consensus on presentation and origin section were the topic of the disputes and the cooling-off period saw very little contribution from this editor, let alone participation in discussions. Be that as it may, a consensus on origin was reached here, modified from an earlier constructive discussion here. I was initially frustrated at the timing of the protection measure simply because the page was in a state of deadlock: amended information supported by old source which substantiated previous details. That is by the by. My point is that no sooner had I fixed the edits per consensus than our old friend reappeared, see what I have reverted here[130] which shows that he evidently flouts every aspect of the agreements. I had long suspected this to be a duff account and the lack of activity from the editor during the frozen period unequivocably testifies that this is both a single-issue editor whose intent is to push POVs and ignore consensus. I believe that anyone can now see the elephant in the room on the issue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this renewed grievance, another violation of consensus has occurred here[131]. This will go on and on so long as the page which attracts vandalism is free to edit and this user is unblocked. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Z-CARD

I'm currently at work, so can't edit articles on Wikipedia. However, someone has drawn my attention to the article at Z-CARD, which is a complete mess, has edit wars going on, and needs an experienced editor to take a look at it. I also suspect there is some socking going on... but can't be sure, and I can't run a CheckUser during work hours. Could someone take a look at it - either an experienced editor, or an admin? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems mostly as one editor is performing tests, and while doing that, reverting other users edits. The history is crazy and full of reverts. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, article hasn't been edited since March 19th. Don't think this is an emergency incident, more a cleanup needed really. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not an emergency incident. It's a normal incident which needs investigating and discussing. After all, this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors! The Cavalry (Message me) 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Some recent incivility on Malleus' talk page by Anthonyhcole

Please review [132], specifically "You people make me sick. You people who deign to intuit how much a person is hurting. Fuck you. Really, fuck you, all of you. How dare you? How fucking dare you?"

Please also review one person at talk:Malleus Fatuorum telling him to drop it, the talk page owner saying he will no longer respond on the subject, the frequently pointed to "block unblock block" log that proves someone is truly problematic.

Please discuss. Then explain why justice is/is not blind. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That type of language is completely uncalled for. I think Anthonyhcole has earned himself a block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If civility is meant to apply to everyone here at Wikipedia, then Anthonyhcole should not be allowed to partake in a no-holds-barred "fuck you" fest on another editor's talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole has apparently gone offline for the night. His personal attacks have been redacted by me and Ched Davis, and Anthony has been sternly warned that any continuation of this behavior will be responded to with a block. My personal feeling is (to quote what I said to Hipocrite on my talk page a few minutes ago) that "this strikes me as an edge case mostly because his going offline almost immediately muddies the issue of whether he would otherwise be acting on the warning I gave him", and I'm falling slightly on the "let's hold off on any blocking until we see his behavior in the morning" side of the line, but it's a very fuzzy line and input by other admins here will probably be useful in determining exactly where it lies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there's several angles to consider here.

1. Consider to who (whom?) the incivility was directed at; given Malleus' colorful history, the bar has to be really, really high for someone to really take umbrage at a comment thrown his way.
2. Personally, I take a dim view at NPA/civility filings not being filed by the target himself.
3. The "heart's in the right place" defense. For good or for ill, Anthony is passionate in what he believes in, and feels that Hawkins' mistreatment is to the detriment to the encyclopedia. Being a bit brusque while one is sincerely making an effort to better the project should be a mitigating consideration when pondering a block. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In a word, bollocks. 72 hours to cool off. Whatever he intends to offer by way of contributions to mainspace isn't so important that it cannot wait. A bit more stick and a whole lot less carrot is needed. For transparency, I fully agreed with the 72 hours MF received last week. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I will edit the civility policy to make it clear you can be uncivil to people who are frequently incivil. We should immediately ban linking to m:DefendEachOther, as apparently it is depreciated, and I will also note on the civility policy that if you are passionate about what you believe in, you can, in fact, be incivil. Got it! Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh. Every user here is responsible for their own behavior, regardless of who they're interacting with. Insulting someone with a long block log is no more acceptable than insulting someone with a pristine one, and telling someone "fuck off" because you care just-oh-that-much is no more acceptable than telling them to fuck off because you're secretly Lucifer himself. Our civility policy makes that plenty clear as it stands. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fluffernutter - personally I'm thinking that I'd like to see Anthony NOT editing any page other than his own, mine, or yours for 28 hours from the time stamp of his post on Malleus' talk page. That is the amount of time that the recent block of MF lasted for the exact same discussion. I'm not inclined to do the "technical" blocking part as I think that should be reserved for vandals and children who think this is a playground rather than an encyclopedic project. I'd be willing to trust him to adhere to a "consider yourself restricted" idea. I'm willing to view Anthony as an "adult" at the moment, and I do understand his strongly held beliefs in regards to the Hawkins issues. My thought is along the lines of "what's good for the goose..." here. I'm also interested in further input from other editors; both admin, and non-admin. It's your project folks. I'd also mention that the title of the thread should be changed. There was no Malleus incivility — Ched :  ?  17:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

While I understand and am fighting the same impulse to be "scrupulously fair" by basing our reaction to Anthony's behavior off of exactly what was done to Malleus in a similar situation, I think we need to be wary of basing one person's block off another's. That opens the door to never-ending ranking of people's behavior - "well, so-and-so did X and got [time]. I think Person Z's offense is [foo] more bad than so-and-so's, so their block should be [time+foo]..." I think a more logical block length for Anthony, if this thread concludes a block is warranted, would be the next step up in time length from his last block - which looks like it's either about 1 week (if we go by assigned block lengths) or about 6 hours (if we go by time served in actual blocks). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Leaky caldron — Anthony deserves a block as long as Malleus received last time. Anthony knew what he was getting himself into here and going offline to avoid a block is inexcusable. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Minimum 72 hour block. Anthony ignored two suggestions to disengage and get off MF's talk page: 2 days ago and today. Then, he posts an over-the-top diatribe that goes way beyond civil discourse, also proving that his emotional involvement in the topic should earn him a topic ban faster than anyone else. If we're going to block Malleus over a bit of belligerence in the face of sustained baiting, we've got to come down even harder on the other party when they continue to escalate the conflict even after the original block. We can't have it both ways. I do not buy the argument that he "went to bed" so maybe we should let it blow over. You don't get to avoid justice for a hit-and-run just because you drove home and went to bed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm amused at the hypocrisy that anyone is trying to defend Anthony for that incivility, when Malleus was blocked for making a comment that was far, far less incivil. Silverseren^C 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care if he's sleeping now or not, those comments are completely unacceptable, and a 1-week block would be entirely appropriate, given that he was just given a very explicit warning about baiting Malleus. He was repeatedly and politely asked to disengage from Malleus' talk page, and he responds this way? 28bytes (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Endorse block Was getting ready to block, but Samir did it. The fact is that there's been a few days of drama over civility and now that things have finally calmed down he does that? No. It's not excusable. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been more entertaining than a soap opera/how ESPN covers sports. Popping up a fresh batch of popcorn now. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Entirely inappropriate diff and worthy of block in my opinion; consensus here is the same. Diffs listed above show that there were attempts to disengage User:Anthonyhcole from the user talk page in question. WP:CIV is a core policy and must be adhered to for us to have an effective collaborative project here. The duration of 72 hours was chosen given prior block history. -- Samir 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Before any sympathetic admin unblocks him, please see this [133] in which he states that he'll accept whatever the community thinks is appropriate. Leaky Caldron 17:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. That kind of deliberate and aggressive antagonism should not be tolerated. 28bytes (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • and a classic example of how block discussions should be carried out. Short, sharp to the point and effective. Leaky Caldron 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not an administrator, but I do believe saying FU to anyone on here is worthy of a block, regardless of the circumstances. We're supposed to be civil...and I've seen incivility lead to more than a couple people leave wikipedia since I joined the community in January 2006. If I am allowed to, I endorse the block. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, of course. Blatant personal attack after incidents and warnings that explicitly involved the target editor. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:53, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Childish rant laced with a spate of profanity following the non-stop baiting of another editor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, IMO. Persistent engagement after repeated warnings. I'd say that going to someone's talk page after playing a role (intentional or not) in someone's block and then bringing up the same topic that led to said block is at the very least ill-advised and should quite likely constitute deliberate and intentional baiting.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Although I was approaching things from a different angle, and was not convinced of any appropriate time limit, I can not disagree with a block. — Ched :  ?  18:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• No doubt Anthony should not have gone to Malleus talkpage to bait him...I agree with this block.MONGO 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Pile on good block. That diff was done with specific intent. He just had a warning last week. He shouldn't have reengaged Malleus on the exact same topic that led to personal attacks last time.--v/r - TP 20:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, obviously. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment about block. Isn't it obvious that Anthony has engineered a block of himself to "equalise the punishments"? It seems to me that he carried out an honourable action tonight, in the guise of incivility. It's also a sad reflection on the pavlovian nature of the responses on this board that anyone could foresee how it would turn out. If there's any sense left, someone needs to make sure he has a chance to appeal his block after, say, 28 hours. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Did he inform Malleus of this plan beforehand? Or was he just gambling that Malleus wouldn't fire back and get himself re-blocked in the process? Playing a round of "block martyr" can have pretty nasty side effects for people who aren't in on the game. 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Bruno

I want to bring to your attention the case of Daniel Bruno, who is currently trying to promote his business on Wikipedia. A major concern among Bitcoin community is the way he uses the concept of bitcoin in order to swindle, thus harming unaware people and also discrediting this electronic cash system. His recent company, First National Innovation Brokers, has been exposed as a fraud about half a year ago on a bitcoin talk forum:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47438.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47496.0;all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51820.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52843.0

He tried recently to create a favorable Wikipedia article about it and it was deleted fairly fast. However, it remains as a lingering problem the fact that he continues to be active on Wikipedia, with a potential to harm people.

At this moment, there is a low level debate, with him complaining that I delete his name across Wikipedia.

Here is the moment when I should introduce myself. I am a former contractor of Daniel Bruno, I created for him the article about Charles Lampkin and I used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles a paper of him about banking in Tunisia. When the article on FNIB was proposed for deletion, he prompted me to intervene there. I wrote there what I thought about the company. Then other users replied, giving a different picture. The client continued to put pressure on me to refute their assertions. I start searching online about this company and then I realized the mess I got into. Probably his other things, like the paper on Tunisia banking are not clean at all too. I mean, I am happy to make articles like the one about Charles Lampkin, but not this kind of stuff.

When I refused to continue, he changed his attitude almost in the same way he did on bitcointalk, using demeaning language and threatening me that he will not pay the hours billed until that moment. There followed a few days of conflict, Elance system ruled in his favor (they have a strong bias towards the clients) and the billed hours were deleted with no payment. Plus, I got from him the worst possible rating on Elance, which effectively compromises my Elance account. So, it looks like I'm out of this business (not that I was really active, as you can see in my Elance job history, I worked only on 3 projects in the last 2 years). I thought that at least I should do a good thing and warn about his actions. The concept promoted by him on Kuru's talk page, "our articles", looks very troublesome. And I find almost unbelievable the way he accused me there of conflict of interest, when he is actually the person who hired me (and not even trying to hide this). To put it mildly, he has very high expectations from the people he is talking to and he is very disappointed when things don't go his way.

The problem is that the other contractors did not stop when they realized what was about. On Odesk, the main place where he is developing his websites, it appears that he keeps hiring people from Wikipedia (admins are the most preferred):

https://www.odesk.com/jobs/Wikipedian_~~24f51cfc5368e24b?_redirected

https://www.odesk.com/jobs/Wikipedia-expert-with-previous-EXPERIENCE_~~4a9a918afc37c192?_redirected

It seems that on Odesk there is no possibility to turn the information to private. On the other hand, on Elance it is possible to make private the terms of the contract (I am the "nightmare" guy there):

https://www.elance.com/e/swift11/

Another thing that I have found is that his other area of interest, his "academic works", does not deserve either a place on Wikipedia. For example, Cuba at a Cross Roads should be proposed again for deletion. When looking through his Odesk account, I found that it was written by hired people, with him only "drawing the conclusion":

https://www.odesk.com/jobs/Writing-Assistant-book-about-Cuba-English_~~7ea0469498e6ac90?_redirected

Now about accounts. I mention that the other accounts Ardsarea and Kuttares are mine too. I retire all these three accounts, eventually I will use my home account (Yaratam) to give further replies here, if needed. I guess you can consider them sockpuppets. In this sense, I could only say that I ended up with three accounts rather because I did not consider a "Wikipedia career" as an user, usually I edit with my IP. When I started working recently for D. Bruno, I created this account (Yaratam), but when I was on the computer from work and the one from my parents' house, I did not remember the random password, thus I created another two accounts (you can see that I did not really use them for sockpuppeting). Anyway, I guess this doesn't matter too much as long as it cannot be verified and I give up.

The other accounts mentioned on Kuru's talk page (Jonkerz and Altairisfar) are not mine, probably they just happened to edit Charles Lampkin's article (a sockpuppet investigation can verify this). There are still the accounts of his other contractors who continued to work for him. Yaratam (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On April 9 and April 10, 2012, Yaratam, previously employed by our firm via Elance, sent us signed emails demanding payment of US$500 and US$4000 or he would destroy the reputation of anyone associated with our firm. We did not pay him and the result is seen above.DazzBand (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked both of these editors indefinitely. Wikipedia is not here to promote one's business interest, nor is this noticeboard here to use as a bludgeon in pursuing vendettas against other editors. I leave it up to others whether any of these users' articles or edits need deletion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted per WP:CSD#G4 the curious article Первое Национальное Инновационное Биржевое Агентство (First National Innovation Brokers - FNIB) , a repost in Russian of the one about Bruno's firm recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First National Innovation Brokers. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone should take a look at the contributions of Jdc wms (talk · contribs) in connection with this. --Calton | Talk 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran into this little cluster of paid editors after running across the articles at Editing Now What? A Guide to Retirement During Volatile Times and Can I Retire?. Both were non-notable works supported by outright fabricated references. First National Innovation Brokers was another of the same ilk. The AFD was oddly supported by a series of SPAs or accounts with a similar pattern of edits (creation of random non-notable, promotional articles with marginal or fake references). There were also patterns around "Daniel Bruno" (self-published works, or mentions) or the "Huffington Post Union of Bloggers". I presumed these were all separate individuals, so I did not pursue a checkuser. I did block Adotrde (talk · contribs) indef as the primary source of the outright faked references. With the blocks of DazzBand, Adotrde, Yaratam, Kuttares, I would note that Jdc wms (talk · contribs) is also clearly part of this group (I'm not comfortable blocking myself as he's recently engaged me on my talk page to defend a coi edit). There are a few others, but the edits have been minor and I don't want to speculate too much. Maybe a checkuser would help, since a few of those tuned out to be socks. I'll make a list of affected articles in userspace to review, while some are clearly notable, others are pretty fuzzy. Kuru (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing in AFD

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

---

At ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Tomlinson (2nd nomination)‬, the nomination is swarming with SPAs, and Boing! said Zebedee has pointed out that some canvassing is afoot. The first AFD had a near-unanimous consensus to redirect all five articles to One Direction, and that was a mere two months ago. Can I ask that someone put an early end to the AFD shoo out the fanboys, and lock the articles after redirection so that they are not undone again? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it's more than "some" cavanassing, it's a "OMG THESKYISFALLING" Twitter campaign. Facepalm - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wanna shoot it out of orbit, kill it before it spreads? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Close the AFD, create redirects, then protect the redirects fully, and protect the "1D" article so only auto-confirmed can edit. Any chance :))))?? Murry1975 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That'd be good actually; I can't imagine having to bear 7 more days of this. Any chance we could semi protect it (the AfD) if we get more of the meatpuppets? How did it get recreated in the first place; it was redirected after the last AfD. Lynch7 18:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

AdabowtheSecond recreated them today and when Zebedee redirected two of them Isy1995 undid that. Murry1975 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't talk. Do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read this [134] Isy1995 and Adabowthesecond are apparently the same editor. Murry1975 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• I've indef blocked User:Isy1995, as the two accounts were being used for !vote stacking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit-warring and incivility by user:DonCalo

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

---

DonCalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adds BLP-violating material without citations to the Propaganda Due (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. He has also resorted to edit-warring and gross personal attacks on his edit-summaries: diff. Admin action is requested. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now the editor is templating me on my talk page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit war. I properly referenced the inclusion of a member on the P2 list, which was subsequently removed without explanation. Then I restored a dead link which has been removed as well. Dr.K. should first check what he is deleting before deleting it. - DonCalo (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The citation they attempted to add does not support membership of Publio Fiori in the P2 Masonic lodge. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• How has this gotten to ANI when no one has tried to use the article talk page to discuss?
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Because of the gross personal attack on his edit-summary. I add it again for you convenience: diff. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that edit summary is clearly a demeaning personal attack in the form of bullying - if User:DonCalo refuses to apologize or retract its worthy of a block - Youreallycan 20:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you YRC. The user has expressed regret for his actions. I accept this in good faith and I think the matter should be marked as resolved. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Mass revert?

Does anyone have a tool to mass revert the edits of 187.192.109.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ? Its been reported to the vandalism noticeboard and so should be blocked momentarily. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Done - Equazcion ^(talk) 22:02, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo1qaz

Jimbo1qaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a user with a long-term pattern of disruptive editing, POV pusing ([135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]), vandalising pages in the main, user and Wikipedia namespaces ([150], [151]), hiding the disruptive editing as minor edits, and using personal attacks. The user has already received 7 warnings ([152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]), including level 3 and level 4 warnings, but decided to blank his talk page each time. His reponse to a "last warning" (level 4) was vandalising the warning, renaming the editor to "the idiot" ([159]), renaming his talk page to "talk about his stupid 'accomplishments'", and subsequently calling the reporter "a troll" ([160]), which, as always, means that the user does not have any plans to change his behaviour.

Suggested solution: Blocking the user for 1 year.

Rationale: This is a chronic, long-term problem, not an isolated incident, the user has received more than enough warnings, including a last warning, and completely ignored all of them. The user does not communicate at all, and refuses to change or acknowledge anything. Furthermore, the user has been violating multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines at once, including WP:NPOV, WP:VANDAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:NPA. This is very serious, so a shorter block (like 1 month) is inappropriate. An indefinite block may not be entirely suitable, either, as the user has made a couple of legitimate edits, too.—J. M. (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that J.M. has also filed a report at WP:AIV. -- Dianna (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the AIV report to avoid duplication.—J. M. (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, they made this edit to Blu-ray Disc, which another editor sees fit to roll back, without any explanation. Why? J.M. has this edit listed above as "disruptive editing, POV pus[h]ing"--why? I'm not disputing that the editor may be disruptive et cetera, but sheesh, a one-year block? Plus, I want to know what was so vandalistic about this Blu-ray edit, and will ask the other editor to explain that here. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I rolled back that edit as vandalism for several reasons.

• Changed header from "Digital rights management" to "Digital Restrictions Management"; not a neutral point of view
• changed sentence from "preventing the copy of copyrighted content" to "preventing the copy of copyright restricted content"; by copyrighting something, it IS restricted; no need to be so explicit
• Added sentence "This stops people from playing Blu-Rays with standard monitors."; untrue, hooking a standard monitor up via an analog signal will force a lower quality image, not prevent it from playing.
• changed sentence from "possibly to patch an otherwise insecure system" to "possibly to patch an otherwise free system."; it's not free if it is copyrighted.

Clear vandalism, so I rolled it back. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• J.M, just to get things straight: that Blu-ray edit (their first edit since 5 April, and their second since 23 February), that was enough reason for you to give them a final warning for vandalism, even though it is entirely not clear that it is vandalism in the first place, and their last warning for vandalism goes back to 28 November 2011? I'm inclined to close this thread right now, and present you with a big fat trout on your user page. Please, someone else look at this and tell me I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong; I do mind wasting my time. Imagine, I could have washed all the dishes and cleaned the counters in the time I've already spent on this. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)