Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Russavia disruption, requesting multiple article protection

Banned user Russavia has been editing Wikipedia at a dozen articles, using multiple proxies. To prevent this kind of disruption, I would like the following articles and pages to be given temporary semi-protection:

• Wikipedia:Files for upload
• Líneas Aéreas Suramericanas
• Dassault Falcon 7X
• Juan Falconí Puig
• Mauricio Rodríguez Múnera
• SAEREO
• Martinair
• Icaro Air
• TAME
• Copa Airlines Colombia

There's even a bit of disruption from Russavia at WP:RPP, ironically, with the guy saying "fuck off binksternet" for good measure.
I know I'm supposed to notify a user who I am discussing at ANI but this guy is using throwaway proxies, and he clearly knows what is going on around here. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting WP:FFU would be counter productive, as new users and IP'a are the people who are meant to use it to request uploads.... --Mdann52talk to me! 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: is now semi-protected for 3 days. How will IP editors be able to request files to be uploaded during this time? 122.52.157.88 (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gfoley4: Please consider unprotecting WP:FFU. Lots of IPs request files for upload and they need to be able to continue doing this. As an example, I took a look at the first 20 requests at Wikipedia:Files for upload/August 2014, and out of those, 20% had been placed by an IP. The remaining 80% requests were made by users with accounts, but presumably some of them weren't autoconfirmed yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Page protection might be acceptable, but this blanket reverting of IP edits (not even confirmed yet by a CU to be a ban evading sock) really isn't good - every edit reverted by Binksternet has been a good edit that improved each and every article, it just seems to be such a monumental waste of time and effort for all concerned to go around reverting edits, then someone else following behind re-reverting so as to 'take responsibility' for the edit.

There has to be a better long term solution than this endless nonsense, surely. Nick (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good edits or not, Russavia is banned from editing. IP 85.234.141.185 doesn't need a CU, Russavia admitted using it. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If the edits were made by an editor other than Russavia, would there be an issue with any of them? Tarc (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If the other editor was also banned, then yes. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not the question. Imagine that I were making them while logged out, saying who I was, and giving a good reason for being logged out: would there be an issue with any of them? Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not banned, so clearly no. :) That wouldn't be an issue. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc was simply attempting to address the content of the edits themselves, regardless of who made them. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand what Tarc was trying to do, but in this case, who made the edits is the important issue, not the quality of the edits. Banned editors are no longer welcome to contribute to the project, especially when they continue to use socks and IPs to evade the community ban. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Who makes the edits is important if you are interested in playing a MMORPG. But Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. It's an encyclopaedia. Apparently. It should be noted that Bilby stalked my Commons uploads and created a two line stub at Lena Nyadbi to prevent me from creating it. Rather than preventing me from creating it, I expanded it. So question, do you think readers really give a fuck who created the content? People need to take their heads out of their arse and seriously answer that question. 213.55.112.138 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor who is banned may not contribute to Wikipedia. Period. It does not matter if their contribution was constructive or not, banned means banned. Quoting Wikipedia:Banning policy: The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. (emphasis in original). It doesn't matter if edits by a banned editor are creating a Featured Article from scratch - they are still banned, and the edits are unacceptable. If they want to contribute, they need to convince the community and/or Arbcom to lift the ban, then edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should Russavia (if it's him) be allowed to evade his ban? What makes him so special? If it is him, then he should be getting his head out of his 'you know what' & stay away. Again, I had to serve my time. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with The Bushranger. GoodDay is an example that a ban need not be forever. If Russavia want to return to the community, then he needs to prove to the community that he should be unbanned. Socking through multiple proxy IPs is not the way to go about this. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies for a reason and that is to provide a space for people to edit in relative harmony. There'll be disagreements and what not but for the most part the policies do work and things progress towards the encyclopedia we work towards. Banning an editor from WP is saying "you're not welcome here anymore as you have chosen not to abide by the rules that the community has created". If we then turn around and say "yeah, but they're doing good work! Why undo it?" basically pulls all of the fangs from policy. When any of us chose to become an editor here, we agreed to abide by the guidelines and policies of WP. Russavia, your argument that the reader will not care who wrote it is a red herring. The readership is one community and separate from the editorial community only overlapping when a reader becomes an editor. Your refusal to abide by the community's decisions and policies has resulted in your being ejected from WP, this is on you. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my question from last night was getting to the matter of the quality/content of the edits. If the content is good, and the edit is not pushing a particular POV, e.g.. in contravention of an Israel-Palesine or climate change ban or the like, then it is the height of childishness to revert just because of the person behind the revealed sock. This, I'm sorry, is a dick move; it was just a photo being placed into an article. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc:, you seem to be missing the point here. That was an edit that any editor in good standing was entitled to make. Russavia is not an editor in good standing, and is not entitled to make any edits on en-Wiki. roolz is roolz, if you dont have roolz, what do you end up with? anarchy!. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Banned editors can edit. If they create a sock and stay away from the behavior/articles that will get them caught then obviously we have no way of identifying them. That's how they can participate. Against the roolz but there's only so much you can do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol, "rules are rules" is what pencil-pushing government automatons would say. Strive to be more creative than the average IRS auditor or post office worker. If I see an edit reverted simply because of who it is, I'll simply reverse it and take ownership of it myself. You can ban the account, we'll still have an improved article, and everyone can be happy. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If ya wanna restore edits made by banned/blocked editors, that's your choice. Hopefully, it's not gonna encourage sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"If ya wanna restore good edits..." is what you mean. I don't see any problem with getting banned users to do good work. It's the bad edits that we don't want, and a banned user attempting to stay under the radar and still edit Wikipedia won't stick his head up to be caught. Isn't that right, GoodDay? --Pete (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never socked, Skyring. I didn't sock during the times I was blocked & didn't sock when I was banned. Why? Because those are the rules. I faithfully served my ban, so there's no reason why Russavia (or anyone else) can't. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've always found it odd that some people will wait for the green man when it's two in the morning and the street is deserted. If "rules are rules" and the leaders of the Thirteen Colonies had taken that view, then the world would be a different place. Likewise if Nazi Germany had paid less attention to rules. Turning a blind eye to good edits by banned users serves two purposes. First, it improves the encyclopaedia. Second, if they are doing it to get noticed and cause people to run around with their heads off, then ignoring that behaviour keeps the project tranquil. If no harm is being caused, then where's the problem? Why make a fuss? Keep an eye on them by all means, but lean back, pour yourself a cold one and take a break while someone else does the work. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Invoking Godwin's Law is certainly an excellent way to come across as rational on a topic... Also, lets face reality. This isn't about improving Wikipedia for Russavia. This is all about his ego, and his desire to feel like he's better/more important than others. We do more to improve this project by RBI'ing him than we do indulging what amounts to a long-running temper tantrum. Resolute 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just quietly, but the phrase "Invoking Godwin's Law" doesn't mean what you think it does, Reso. Think about it. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest if editors want good edits made by sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors to not be reverted, then they should seek a changing of the rules, at Village Pump. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. It's not about the rules. The answer was given above - any editor can take a good edit as their own. That's just common sense. Do you really need to look at a rulebook to decide if an edit is vandalism or not? --Pete (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. The edit is invalid if made by a sockpuppet & therefore should be reverted. Why bother banning or blocking anyone, if we choose to allow their 'good' edits? With all due respect, you & I are on different trains of thought here & so it's best we discontinue the discussion. Resolute is correct, Russavia is likely getting his jollies at this moment. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it not supposed to be punitive though? Kirothereaper (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors are not blocked for their good edits. It's the less-than-good behaviour we discourage. As for getting jollies, there's a lot of fun to be had as a blocked editor in seeing other editors, of a particular anal bent, jumping about reverting good edits to the puzzlement of everyone else. Just turning a blind eye, ignoring trolls, is more productive than dancing to socks. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, editors are not (supposed to be) blocked for good edits... I would go as far as to say that anyone who goes to any length to revert unambiguously good edits of banned or blocked users is in serious danger of breaking WP:POINT. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I think that if you wish to take this stance, you may need to try and get WP:BAN changed - "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad ... The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Although to clarify, we don't block for good edits - we block for ban evasion. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A blocked/banned editor can create as much disruption as they want with a little creativity. Over-zealous attachment to trivial rules brings its own vulnerabilities. Those wishing to game the system and feeling they have nothing to lose aren't going to react well to rulemongers. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a similar tangent to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#If_I_may.... mini-brouhaha below; at what point can an editor in good standing take the reverted work of an editor in (sometimes allegedly) bad standing and call it their own? Tarc (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In terms of content, immediately. If any of Russavia's edits are reverted under WP:BAN, and an editor decides to reinstate them, then that's fine and it can't be reverted on those grounds again. I have no idea how that applies to other issues, such as comments not related to content. - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What people are saying is that we should revert banned users' good edits and then wait for someone who isn't banned to un-revert them? which is obviously what will happen if they're constructive. sounds like bureaucracy to me. Remember that WP:IAR is policy, always has been. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have previously started a formal ban discussion, so you know where I stand. However I am taking a harder line this time, and calling for all Russavia's edits as a sock to be reverted as well. Clearly, not to do so merely encourages him. Ban him permanently, revert his sock edits and keep doing so until he admits defeat. Otherwise our rules about blocks and socking while blocked are meaningless. Do it starting now. Jusdafax 09:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that is pathetic. I have no love for Russavia either, esp over the Pricasso mess, but you're treating the project like a blood-soaked "take no prisoners" battleground. If he uses a sock to add a Photo A to Article X, and you revert that, what then? Is everyone barred forever after from inserting A into X? Tarc (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:BMB, WP:BANREVERT, and WP:PROXYING define what is and is not allowed, with the last saying the reasons to add it must be independent from the original banned user's edits. Although every time I've seen it it was "If you revert you take full responsibility for the content of the banned user's edit" or whatever it was.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • With respect, but that's ridiculous. Using a sock to make perfectly good edits is only disruptive if someone knows it's a sock. And, apart from good detective work, the usual way to pick a sock is some consistency of style. Or if the sock makes it obvious. And if people are then jumping all over the place getting hot under the collar and waving a rulebook, the banned/blocked editor is sitting back with a smile all over his face, having achieved his end. Yes, I know that the point of banning or blocking a user is so they can't participate, but for anyone with reasonable internet skills, that is easily avoidable. Why get all stressed up over something that is simply not achievable? And all to revert good edits? That's about as POINTy as it gets. And as pointless. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly inserting data for the same blocked editor over and over on multiple pages goes well beyond anything intended in our policies. I suggest that Tarc simply be blocked the next time he reinserts material originating with Russavia, and that he remain blocked until he agrees to stop.—Kww(talk) 16:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While all this is happening, Lugia2453 is battling vandalism on this userbox (and now this one) by a series of IPs in Argentina changing it into a "I support the unbanning of Russavia" and also he's getting tagged as a sockpuppet of me by the IPs. Does he normally do this or is this just some other troll?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That is, as described, not typical behavior for Russvia's socks, no. Revent^talk 22:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the IPs were going "I'm just an Argentinian" like the IP listed further below went "I'm just a Japanese".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia's 'modus operandi' is to be intentionally quite blatant about his socking, not to deny it, from everything I have seen. Given his obvious ability to switch IPs at will, and given that he is almost undoubtedly also editing under 'quiet' socks, it would make little sense for him to attempt to 'justify' a particular IP as not being him. Revent^talk 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we have a little bit more common sense here? It's evident that somebody, probably Russavia, is campaign to make WP:POINTY insertions of Commons images uploaded by Russavia into any en-wiki articles where they're arguably even remotely pertinent. That's disruptive, deliberately so, and the ensuing dispute here and elsewhere is exactly the disruption that whoever's behind the IP/SPas wants. Edits like these [1] [2] [3] which add no value or negligible value to an article should be removed. However, images like these [4] [5] clearly add value to articles, fall within the exception for "clearly helpful" edits under WP:BANREVERT and the similar "productive" exception under WP:PROXYING and should be allowed to stand if restored/endorsed by a legitimate editor. Getting involved in an arcane discussion to justify removal of clearly appropriate content is just, in the long run, carrying water for Russavia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Kww:, in both this comment the one that you closed out the "If I may..."section" below, you are dead wrong; I have never taken an action to restore material edited by Russavia. However, I do feel that any such edit should be evaluated on its merits rather tan on the author. So for example at the article Dassault Falcon 7X, there's no valid reason IMO to revert the adding of that image, and it appears that Nick has restored it already. Do you plan to threaten Nick with a block? Would you threaten to block me if I had restored it? Tarc (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If Nick restores it, then it's Nick's edit. The orignal removal of the Russavia sock's edit, however, is perfectly legit and should be done, per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• The edit summaries for [6] and [7] are interesting - it appears that some sort of co-ordinated action is taking place on IRC. Mass semi-protection seems to be the only answer here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Those are just Russavia again, messing with our heads - he used the same IP on June 24. Would like to know how he manages to use IPs all over the world that are not apparent proxies. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That last IP belongs to Linode, which is a company that provides virtual private servers which for whatever reason is allocated in Japan rather than the US where Linode is based.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @NawlinWiki: There are multiple ways that it can be done, that are not incredible obscure. Detailing the method that Russavia is most likely using, or any of the others, on the wiki would be inadvisable under WP:BEANS. Simply accypt the fact that it can be done, and that blocks and checkuser are easily evadable by anyone that is reasonably technically competent. I find it hard to believe that many, if not the majority, of blocked or banned users do not already return to editing using such measures. Revent^talk 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support upholding policy (WP:BANREVERT and WP:Banned means banned) by reverting edits of banned user and preventing banned user from further editing by the best means necessary, which may be page protection of target articles. If user desires reinstatement, they are well aware of WP:STANDARDOFFER. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Blackmane above, but I can't work out where to put it after so much back and forth. Blackmane, you said, Banning an editor from WP is saying "you're not welcome here anymore as you have chosen not to abide by the rules that the community has created". If we then turn around and say "yeah, but they're doing good work! Why undo it?" basically pulls all of the fangs from policy. I see this exact same argument used all the time to excuse editors from being blocked. "They do good work, so we can excuse them the odd tantrum. They can abuse other editors and edit-war and create disruption so long as they contribute." Now, it seems to me that we can't have it both ways. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope, I'll admit. I have a somewhat hardline view of things especially when it comes to policy, which would make me a rather poor admin. When I see many a good contributor go off the rails and just gets a slap on the wrist I see it as a slap in the community's face. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support upholding policy. We invite chaos and anarchy if we don't enforce policy against banned and/or blocked sockmasters. Revert all edits, protect articles, and in extreme cases use WMF litigation to actuate sanctions that will stop policy violators for once and for all. I would like to take note of the fact that an IP message on my talk page, presumably from the subject and challenging me to act as a policy enforcer or "shut up," was deleted recently by another editor. My response, post deletion, can be found there. Jusdafax 00:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the policy in question clearly states "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)", how is enforcing mandatory reversion of such edits "enforcing" the policy. It strikes me that the principles of WP:DENY provide better guidance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Jusdafax, you must have a high opinion indeed of WMF legal abilities to find and stop someone that technical measures cannot. I'm wondering just how far your "stop policy violators for once and for all" tactics would go. The Wikipedia SWAT team knocks on a door, sticks in a Kalishnikov and yells, "That was one good edit too many, motherfather!", maybe? I think you'd have a hard time convincing any judge that (say) adding well-sourced material, correcting errors and so on to an online encyclopaedia "that anyone may edit" merited any official interest. At some point, common sense comes into play, and just because there's a local consensus by some band of Wikipoos on some talk page somewhere to nuke someone who is annoying them by uploading Commons photos, it's not really something that's worth getting upset over. In fact, getting you upset is very likely the objective of the blocked/banned editor doing good work. Just to see you run around and get red in the face, or username. Ignore the trolls, always the best advice. --Pete (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • If the day has come when asking for existing Wikipedia policy to be enforced gets shushed, then I'd say the "dumbing down" of our editorship has gone pretty far. "Upset?" Do you see any caps, or cursing on my part? I am calmly making a comment regarding a blocked serial sockmaster who, in my view, should be dealt with firmly. And take note, he went to my talk page as an IP (subsequently and rightfully blocked) to taunt me. By any objective standard, he appears to be the one who is upset. Your comment is remarkably unconvincing. Jusdafax 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
      • When one gets to the point of invoking the WMF legal gods, I'd say that one is more than nettled. Obviously touching a nerve. Allcaps not required. Asking for policy to be enforced by the courts - and I'm talking about good edits by a banned user here - is going further than is reasonable. IMHO. And again, in a community where one of the rules is "Ignore All Rules", just how dogmatic can one be? We don't have a community where every little rule is enforced and we seem to have done very well in our efforts. If we changed our model to one where enforcement of trivial rules was at the point of a gun, I don't think we'd do quite so well. I think people would make fun of us. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
        • People already make fun of us. So what? The point is not that the edits by the editor are good or bad, it is that he has been told to stand down and continues to not only edit, but harass editors who, for whatever reason, he does not like or agree with. My particular skin is pretty tough, but how many people have left off editing because of this intractable and hostile blocked user. That as I see it is the issue at hand, and the core of my concern. If "ignore all rules" is the best you can offer in defense of a multiple sockmaster who taunts those with the temerity to stand up to him publicly, then our view of Wikipedia policy is irreconcilable. As for legal action, it should be pretty much a last resort. But a cease and desist court order, the virtual equivalent of restraining order, would get the attention of sockmasters worldwide. It should be, in my view, a viable tool for the WMF to use in wildly exaggerated cases. Jusdafax 22:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
          • It's not this - or any other - particular case that I'm talking about. I'm addressing your general comments above: We invite chaos and anarchy if we don't enforce policy against banned and/or blocked sockmasters. Revert all edits, protect articles, and in extreme cases use WMF litigation to actuate sanctions that will stop policy violators for once and for all. It's the attitude that all of Wikipedia's trivial rules must be enforced. By the courts if necessary. Asking a judge to take action over someone adding good material to Wikipedia goes well beyond common sense. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
            • The community kicked him out because of his behavior. It doesn't matter if he's writing good content if he's not adding it in good faith, considering he knows full well he's been banned and he's just showing that such a trivial thing won't stop him rather than abiding by the honor system in place and then ask to be allowed back on the community's terms. The banning policy may be in place to keep people rolling back obvious disruption like vandalism and trolling from being blocked for it, but how Russavia has been acting is disruptive, even if he is producing content that no one would have second thoughts about if he was not banned. WP:BAN does include the caveat that content could be kept after examination by another party to see if it should be included under the same umbrella that defines "revert it because it shouldn't have happened in the first place".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Thanks, nice summary. What you going to do? Ban him for being disruptive? React to trolling? Revert good edits? Can't see a win here. --Pete (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
                • There isn't any good answer, but I'm already on his shit list for having said anything here and for having the gall to try to clean up disruption that spilled over from here to the Commons, so I've lost any good faith I could have had in him considering I never dealt with him prior to the David Horvitz cleanup.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Harassment following SPI

Borsoka (talk · contribs · count) Made an unfounded accusation that Akifumii (now called Xermano) was a sock. After the case closed with no evidence of socking, Borsoka has apparently continued to harass Xermano (in Hungarian).

• after the SPI case closed

I gave warning that I would act on continued provocation, to no avail.

• my warning
• after I gave warning and Xermano asked Borsoka to stop
• and once more

I'd like an admin response to this witchhunt. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, would you please ask Xermano to translate my messages? I have not sent any harrasing messages to him/her. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate for us, Chris?--v/r - TP 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sure can't. I'd be glad if a third party could handle that. I've notified Xermano of this ANI post. My assumption is based off of Xermano's previous reaction to Borsoka's message. Borsoka has at least become an unwelcome guest at that talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, would you please stop harrasing me. First you accused me of Wikipedia:OWN (here) without evidence. Next you suggested (also here) that I only initiated a sock-puppet investigation, because an article created by me received a template. Later, without being able to read the message written in Hungarian, you accussed me of harrasing (also here). I again suggest you that you should imagine a world where editors are not driven by bad emotions. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also no. I've seen no evidence to refute my assertions. You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset. Believe me, I would be happy to be proved wrong, apologize, and leave this alone. However, you foolishly said "if you think it is harassement, please take me to an ANI" and so I have. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Foolishly? Chris troutman, I again suggest you that you should assume good faith. I said that you could any time take me an ANI, because I was sure that I had not (and I would not) made any harrassement to anybody. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid a biased translation, I will ask Armbrust, a fellow Hungarian to translate the messages at my talk page. Xermano^Talk 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, I trust your fairness. Please translate it yourself, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian. Actually, I insist on your translation. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused here because your insistence here is basically a declaration against a neutral thrid party being involved. Why?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no need to involve a third party. These are so basic texts. You can translate them in 10 minutes, and this case will be closed. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, I am surprised that you have not translated the texts yet, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian, and your English is excellent. Sorry, but I would like this investigation to be closed in short, because I would like to concentrate on editing articles. Would you please tell us whether my texts on your Talk page contained any harrasing message? If you think there was a harrassing message, please translate only that part. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, a fellow Hungarian editor, Fakirbakir, expressed his/her doubts about your knowledge of the Hungarian language here. If you are only pretending that you can speak our language, please tell us, because in this case we actually need a translator in order to assist the administrators to close this case. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman You should apologize to Borsoka. Your comment "You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset" is impolite and unacceptable. Regarding the conversation between Xermano and Borsoka, I assume Xermano does not speak Hungarian. Her/his account is suspicious (IMHO). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One does wonder how Akifumii/Xermano, who initially claimed on his userpage that he was a native speaker of Canadian English and French, with professional knowledge of Spanish, Galician and Catalan, and who became a "Translation Administrator" at Wikimedia Outreach (outreach:User:Akifumii), but whose actual "Galician" translations on that project look suspiciously like machine translations and contain some rather glaring errors (see outreach:Best_practices/gl, which among other things translates "best practice articles" as if it meant "best articles about practice" rather than "articles about best practice"), has suddenly become a native speaker of Hungarian with professional knowledge in English, German and Romanian. Isn't it a bit deceptive to make yourself a "translation administrator" on a Wikimedia project on the basis of faked credentials? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise: and he/she also forgot to speak Basque while transforming from Akifumii [8] to Xermano. (Interestingly, Akifumii's Basque knowledge was mentioned during the sock-puppet investigation process. All the same, I am desperately asking the administrators to close this case, because I would really like to concentrate on editing.) Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The text Borsoka sent me on my talk page does not contain any harassment of any sort, in my opinion. Sorry lately I have been active on Wikia instead of Wikipedia. All User:Borsoka said was that "We do not need Armbrsut to translate for us. I object a third party to translate my messages" Xermano^Talk 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, thank for the above clarification even if I do not understand why you suggested a third party translation hours ago if you was well aware the fact that I had not harrassed you. Your absent-mindedness could have easily caused new offending or harrassing remarks by Chris troutman about me. I hope the case now can be closed. Have a nice day! I am sure that we (together with Fakirbakir) will continue our communication in our beautiful language and we can cooperate in improving many many articles. Sorry, but it was so strange that you did not want to translate the text, but now I understand you. Your English is not so excellent as I thought, and that is why you were not able to translate exactly my words. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on third-party translation and admin intervention. I suspect shenanigans. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, are you kidding? You declared that I had harrassed Xermano - Xermano declared that I had not harrassed him/her. Please stop harrassing me. Sorry, but I cannot imagine how you can have any administrative role in our community. Do you really fight against vandalism??? Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's ok if User:Chris troutman would like a third party translation even though Borsoka has not harassed me. The third party translator will find nothing bad that Boroka has put on my talk page. @Borsoka: User:Chris troutman is a very experienced editor and my CVUA trainer. He often fights against vandalism and helps other users. Please do not make such assumptions. Xermano^Talk 18:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot imagine how he/she can fight against vandalism. My experiance is that his/her style of communication is uncivil and he/she can only assume bad faith of other editors. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with all of this is that even if they aren't a sockpuppet, you think you would like to mention that you are Hungarian under your userboxes on Akifumii's page. On that page, he says that he is Canadian and is studying in the United States. Nowhere does he suggest that he is Hungarian, or a native speaker of the Hungarian language. Personally, it would be hard for me to edit here all of these years, and forget that I know English and grew up in America, as well as visited multiple countries in the meantime. In his rename, he now lives in Budapest, and now speaks Hungarian. The languages were also further jumbled around, with the removal of many of those on Akifumii's page, and the addition of a few others. I am leery of giving any trust to anyone who is acting like this, although I would like to see what others think before I move ahead with any action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the messages on User:Xaosflux talk page. Xermano^Talk 03:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ktr101, it was me who initiated a sock puppet investigation against Akifumii (now called Xermano), because I assumed that he/she was identical with Afro-Eurasian. Bbb23 closed it, stating that "Akifumii has an impressive list of credentials, here in a very short time in terms of the privileges that have been accorded him, and elsewhere in other wiki and wikimedia projects that make it unlikely that he is a puppet of anyone". I am a simple editor with no credentials, so I cannot determine whether his/her credentials are authentic or fake. According to Future Perfect at Sunrise's above remark his/her knowledge of Galician (claimed under the name Akifumii) is dubious. All the same, if Akifumii/Xermano is a native speaker of Hungarian, he/she cannot be identical with Afro-Eurasian, because the latter declared (here [9], in the "Personal beliefs" section) that he/she was "Hungarophobe" (and also "Russophobe", "anti-Zionist", etc.). Afro-Eurasian also used disgusting anti-Hungarian slur. Nevertheless, I assume Akifumii/Xermano could not properly translate my Hungarian message because his/her English is poor, not because he/she cannot speak Hungarian. When I suggested him/her a cooperation on his/her Talk page in Hungarian, he/she answered me saying "Thank you" in the same language. There are few Hungarian editors, so I would not like to lose him/her. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, Akifiumii got all the advance permissions by deceiving me into granting them and I have just found that out myself through this ANI discussion. So I want to thank you, Borosoka, for spotting something fishy and decided to investigate further. I'm going to start a sub-section below to demonstrate just how far Akifiumii has deceived the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the sub-section, but, regardless of that, the purpose of SPI is to determine whether someone is socking. The burden is on the reporter to present sufficient evidence of socking. Whether the user is a problem in some other way is not the province of SPI. I don't question Borsoka's good faith, but he simply was unable to present sufficient evidence to connect the user with the master. It's fairly usual in such cases to close the report with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, sorry, I did not want to offend you. I remember that during the previous SPI only a CU could prove that the suspected editor, along with many other editors, was in fact Afro-Eurasian's sockpuppet, because the evidence that I presented seemed unsufficient. An administrator initiated a CU because she was also convinced, for reasons she did not want to reveal, that it is a sockpuppetry. Sorry, but my English is rather poor and I am not good at administrative issues, that is why I cannot always express myself properly. Nevertheless, Xermano, who proudly declares that he/she is a native speaker of Hungarian on his/her user page, can hardly be identical with the Hungarophobe, Russophobe, anti-Zionist, ... Afro-Eurasian. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Borsoka, I wasn't the least bit offended. Regardless of the socking issue, from the looks of below, Xermano is going to be dealt with. Also, based on the history, I don't believe that OhanaUnited is the only administrator who was fooled.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, taking into account the events what have happened in the meantime, would you please agree to close my case? I did not harass your pupil. Please, let me concentrate on editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Armbrust: @MusikAnimal: What say you? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I hope you will learn based on this case when you should be cautious and when you can trust an editor. My feeling is that an editor who is not a native speaker of English is always suspicious for you, especially when this barbarian attacks somebody who has several times expressed his/her thanks for you in excellent English. I understand: the barbarians must always be overcome. Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, @TParis:, I translated my messages. You can read the translations always below the relevant texts here. (Armbrust informed me that he would not like to be involved in the case and he did not like translating.) Borsoka (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Your translations seem to evince your hounding of Akifumii/Xermano. Some of your comments here (about barbarians, etc) including your eagerness for me to let the matter drop indicate to me that you are aware of your guilt. I leapt to Akifumii's defense at the SPI based on my interactions with them for CVUA. Clearly, Akifumii/Xermano has been less than forthcoming and I'm beginning to think I made a mistake getting involved. Still, your conduct needs to be addressed and I'm happy to watch this train-wreck continue until an admin puts an end to it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, I know that I am not guilt, because it was not a hounding. It was a hunt for a sockpuppet of a banned editor who was taking a new personality similarly to the way he had several times done beforehead (I refer to my below remarks of the multiple CVs of Afro-Eurasian and his socks). Yes, I have experienced that you can only assume bad faith of those who attack a favorite of yours. This lack of neutrality is the reason I think you should not have any administrative role in our community. You are talking of witchhunt and hounding, but it was you who accused me of WP:OWN without knowing anything of my past, or who accused me of harrasing based on messages written in a language you do not understand. You should be ashamed of your behavior, but it is obvious that you are unable to realize this. Actually, on my part, this was the last piece of communication to you. I wish you new experiences for the future. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Deception by Akifumii/Xermano

Since Xermano disclosed that everything Akifumii provided were "all a dare and a lie", I will be summarizing what Akifumii has emailed me to get various permissions (email copies are available upon request). Akifumii began editing on April 30, 2014. Six days later, he contacted me to inquire how to be involved in Canadian education program. I told him the usual (read five pillars, get some edits, communicate with others). In an email dated May 9, he told me that he is a Canadian from British Columbia and recently moved to California for college. Three days later, he asked me to grant him reviewer and rollbacker. At that point I granted those rights because he seemed to be trustworthy (but now it all appears to be an elaborate scheme/confidence trick to deceive myself and others to get those tools) In June, he made an application to become an online ambassador. He explained to me, through email, that he can only be helping Canadian universities through online and not on-campus since he is in California.

Ever since Akifumii changed his username to Xermano, we're starting to see that his deceptions are finally catching up. Akifumii claims Canada to be his home country and grew up there yet Xermano says he is a native Hungarian. Akifumii absolutely made no mention on Hungary and claimed have visited Brazil during the World Cup in 2012 (wrong, they just hosted it earlier this year). We now know why he wanted to be an online ambassador not because he is studying in California, but because he lives in Hungary. We also noticed the completely absence of Hungarian language on Akifumii's userpage plus a few other languages (e.g. German, Romanian) that mysteriously appeared on Xermano's userpage while Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese were dropped quietly. All these evidences point to the fact that I have lost all confidence in Akifumii/Xermano because we simply don't know when is he telling the truth and when is he giving us crap and bull. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on this behavior, I have removed his "Online volunteer" right, as I am not comfortable with having a user with this kind of edit pattern participate in the program. If anyone wants to revert me, please go ahead and do so as I will not object if a good reason is given, but I just wanted to explain why I did what I did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, a sockpuppet of the Hungarophobe, ... etc Afro-Eurasian also deceived an administrator [10]. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And his online ambassador application successfully deceived User:Neelix into supporting him too. I think all of us fell for it because we all used AGF and he exploited it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting coincidence, that Afro-Eurasian also changed his identity from his sockpuppet to sockpuppet. Afro-Eurasian was a Latin man who had been born and lived in Florida [11]. One of his sockpuppets, Paleolithic Man also said that he was a man living in Florida, but under a new (Basque) real life name [12]. His next sockpuppet, Southeastern European, said that he had been born in Southeastern Europe [13], but at the same time a fourth (or 14th) sockpuppet said that he is a "Moroccan American" [14]. @Xermano:, please answer my next question: are you a native Hungarian speaker or you are only pretending it? I have not read any long sentence written by you in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Xermano:, igazán elárulhatnád, hogy beszélsz magyarul vagy nem. Jó lenne már lezárni ezt az egész vizsgálatot, mert nagyon unom, hogy állandóan figyelnem kell, éppen ki mit ír ide. Mellesleg, ha nem vagy magyar, akkor biztos vagyok abban, hogy azonos vagy a magyargyűlölő soviniszta Afro-Eurasian-nal, és kezdeményezek egy Wikipedia:LTA vizsgálatot ellened, mivel eddig még a minimális szintjét sem mutattad a megbánásnak gusztustalan magyarellenes megjegyzéseddel kapcsolatban. Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that we know his first persona was a lie, and seeing how much effort he put into collecting hats and alleged wiki-qualifications on the basis of that persona, I think it's not unreasonable that we should treat his new persona with the same kind of suspicion. As far as I'm concerned, Xermano had better quickly provide some evidence that at least the linguistic skills of his new persona are true (i.e.: produce some realistic talk in Hungarian + German etc.), or I think I will treat him as some kind of sock or bad-faith account after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's explanation of the Akifumii/Xermano confidence trick makes sense to me. I was wrong to have supported the online ambassador application. Neelix (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the case is more serious than at first alleged. I asked Xermano in Hungarian a couple days ago (here) but she/he did not reply to me. Borsoka had also asked her/him in Hungarian (see above) but s/he gave no respond. She/he wrote only one Hungarian word "koszonom" (meaning "thank you") here but was unable to write proper Hungarian sentences. A "koszonom" is not a big deal with Google translator, however translator programs are useless at more sophisticated Hungarian sentences. I assume she/he is not from Budapest and not a native Hungarian speaker. Perhaps, an IP address investigation could determine her/his location... Fakirbakir (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Is an IP investigation truly necessary? He hasn't edited since this ANI case against was unveiled, and it sounds as if most of the privileges and rights that he has accumulated as a result of this are being peeled away. It seems that his inability or unwillingness to communicate with User:Borsoka in Hungarian should be enough, right? We don't need to go creeping into his geographical location beyond that, because our goal isn't to prove that he is really living in Hungary right now but that he has the ability to speak Hungarian and participate in those areas of the project where that language skill is needed. If he has those skills, it matters little if he currently lives in Hungary or if he lives in Zimbabwe. If he does NOT have those skills and he is in fact lying, then his present geographic location is not relevant. Alicb (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alicb:, yes, I think it is necessery. Please see here my reasoning. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New account info from User:Xaosflux

As seen in this archive on my talk, User:Akifumii and User:Xermano are either the same person (or a compromised account); I assisted in moving permissions from one account to the other that were both strongly linked, and included the relationship in the logs. I have no idea if there was a link beterrn Akifumii and any other accounts prior. If anyone has specific questions about my action, please ping me. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Xaosflux, the issue I raised has nothing to do with suspected sockpuppetry (Afro-Eurasian/Paleolithic Man/Southeastern European) or trasnferring permission from Akifumii to Xermano because I already saw the conversation in your archived usertalk page. It has to be with the all the lies Akifumii made up to get those tools in the first place. I for one am no longer comfortable working with him in the Canadian Education Program because he lacks integrity. In fact, after communicating with Kevin Rutherford, I realized that Akifumii intentionally created a gmail account specifically to pull off this deception. I agree with Fut.Perf. We don't even know if what Xermano told us is even true (or that he is coming clean is actually "clean"). Does anyone disagree if I rescind Akifumii/Xermano's reviewer and rollback rights? (I gave him these rights so I should take responsibility and be the one to clean up this mess.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you removing his user rights. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OhanaUnited I defer to anyone who wants to handle this, my addition were procedural only. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days and don't see any opposition, I have removed Xermano's rights and deemed the removal to be "under the cloud" as per the general consensus discussed above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have indeffed both accounts based on the egregious deception. Clearly, the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Editors like this one have no business being permitted to edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. This case draws a lot of similarities to Essjay controversy OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO 8601

User: JMJimmy insists on installing and reinstating a completely incomprehensible version of ISO 8601#Date. The editor has participated in extensive talk page discussion, but his responses are indirect, discursive, and difficult to comprehend. I am unable to discern if the editor sincerely believes the editors edits are useful, or if the editor is a troll. I started an RFC, Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar?, but not enough editors participated to convince the editor that the editor was in an extreme minority. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems an insane amount of work to go through if I were trolling. The version, prior to any edits by myself, contained factually false information, information not relevant to the standard, and it generally lacked a significant amount of relevant information. My good faith edits to improve and add to it have been met with hostility from Jc3s5h who was the source of some of the information. I have, repeatedly, made revisions to remove/adjust my contributions when consensus was reached whereas Jc3s5h prefers to delete text and make bad faith* edits for content that is being discussed on the talk page before consensus is reached. Why this was escalated to administrators I do not know, I would think there are more appropriate resolution processes to attempt before going to this extreme. *Note, for clarity, I believe that edit to be in bad faith as, even after significant discussion on the topic and clear evidence in the text, it intentionally seeks to change the meaning back to Jc3s5h viewpoint despite no evidence/supporting documentation/opinions other than his to the contrary. It also removes 99% of the information I added in good faith, cited, and worked with other editors to improve. JMJimmy (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither version is particularly well worded in my opinion. MaybeWP:3O would help? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I don't know which two versions Rich Farmbrough is referring to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

MaybeWP:3O would help?

The disagreements may be more complex than appropriate for WP:30. A third editor - myself - is involved. Mostly I tend to agree with Jc3s5h's viewpoints and disagree with JMJimmy's, but it's not as simple as "two view points, multiple editors". There are several points of disagreement (as I see it), some of which are related to each other:

• Whether or not ISO 8601 defines its own specific version of the Gregorian calendar (I'm not actually clear on whether this is a disputed point or not, but I include it for completeness)
• Whether the year 0000 is a reference point in the proleptic Gregorian calendar
• Whether conversion between other calendars (eg Julian) and Gregorian is within the scope of the standard (and thus the article), and whether parties exchanging date/time data using 8601 are required to mutually agree on such conversion
• Whether the term "Gregorian UTC" is meaningful and/or should be used
• Whether or not 8601 recommends UTC ("Gregorian" or otherwise)

Some of those ought to be able to be split out into separate sections and discussed apart from the others - it might help. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a rather long response here since Jc3s5h brought in a 3rd editor as well as perusing this dispute mechanism. I think Mitch is right though, this subject is of such a complex nature that a clear guidance from administrators would be appreciated. The above is really the tip of the ice burg if a series wide improvement is ever to occur. JMJimmy (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! This isn't the appropriate forum for requesting editorial guidance from administrators (and please note that administrators' opinions in matters of disputed content are not generally afforded more import than those of other editors.) You might consider a RFC, or pursuing the dispute-resolution options available at WP:DRR. betafive 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I share your view that this is not the appropriate forum, it is merely the one put upon me and being insisted upon. An RFC was initiated by Jc3s5h almost immediately (without really trying to talk through it). Mitch was the only respondent. Just to clarify, I was not meaning intimate that import was somehow to resolve this, just that clear guidance is needed (by consensus or some other mechanism) from those with experience (and ideally knowledge of the subject). It's not really an issue that a weekend-wikier will likely be able to delve into in a meaningful way. 18:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talk • contribs)

Note that some of the disagreements on the ISO 8601 talk page are apparently about policy, not just article content. Both Jc3s5h and I have pointed out that some of JMJimmy's edits and/or talk page assertions are contrary to WP:NOR, but JMJimmy seems to think that it is necessary in this case. I disagree, and said so. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSTS / WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD may apply, again I don't think this is the venue for that discussion. WP:RSN or WP:ORN would likely be more suitable. I would maintain that standards fall somewhere between a primary and secondary source. They are primary in the sense that they are similar to law sources in their codification. They are secondary in the sense that they are, in general, the consensus of experts in the field who evaluate the collective sources on a subject. ISOs especially require a multi-stage process that has experts/organizations/governments/committees/etc for peer review prior to publishing, 1 voting member from each participating country in that process and 75% agreement further aids peer review/acceptance, explicit (though lengthy & dense) definitions/document structures which provide detailed guidance on how to interpret and weighting of elements, they are not static like law sources (ie: are updated as expert consensus demands), after official publishing they are opened up further to the global communities being influenced for comments and are not confirmed as stable if any significant issues arise, and finally they are authoritative to all possibilities within their scope. Sources discussing them never cover all possibilities, they often only examine a single perspective of a portion of a standard in context of a particular agreement. The effect is, for the lack of a proper term, a Perspectivism paradox. JMJimmy (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What Admin Action is Requested in This Content Dispute?

What administrative action is being requested in this content dispute? A block? No evidence has been given of personal attacks, disruptive editing, or full-sized edit-warring. A topic ban? No evidence has been given of tendentious editing, ownership behavior, or other issues rising to TBAN. An interaction ban? I see two editors who do not like each other, but it hardly rises to the difficulty of enforcing an IBAN. Why is this at this noticeboard in the first place? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an RFC in progress. It hasn't run 30 days, although it clearly won't resolve anything, because it has already resulted in long tedious discussion with no conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing being discussed here that calls for admin action. Either a better RFC should be formulated, and the previous one closed down (if its originator will agree), or the dispute can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, or something else should be done rather than continuing here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% - @Jc3s5h: shall we allow the RFC to run its course and see what comes out of it? JMJimmy (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem I have with the way the RFC are responses that, in my mind, are to long to comprehend, bring in irrelevant material, and avoid restrictions made by posters on their statements, for example, an editor adds a sentence to the standard that only applies to standard-compliant representations of dates, but is criticized as if it applied to a much wider range of written dates. I will make one more attempt to participate in the RFC, but will abandon it if I again perceive that contributions are intended to obscure the meaning of the discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The basic problem with the RFC, in my opinion, is that it doesn't have the recommended Survey and Threaded Discussion sections. As a result, it is all Threaded Discussion, and will be nearly impossible to close with any sort of consensus. It will just give posters a chance to post more walls of text that are too long to read. Can someone state a question that can be added to a Survey section (either in the old RFC or a new RFC)? I would do that, but I am not sure what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, is there a reason why this was brought to this noticeboard, or was the OP wasting pixels? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When one editor reverts changes that a few editors view as improvements and discusses the reversion in an incomprehensible manner the article is locked in a form that readers cannot understand. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. The claim that the article is "locked" in a form that readers cannot understand is just plain wrong. It isn't locked. In any case, you haven't answered my question as to why you brought the issue to this noticeboard. What admin action are you requesting? A block for the non-existent lock? A topic-ban for the incomprehensible discussion on the talk page? An IBAN? What? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NigelHowells

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

---

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

I have a feeling this is a sock of someone given the editing pattern (might be a compromised account maybe). Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been some discussion recently about the issue of hoaxes in Wikipedia. My gut feeling is that this editor was kind of testing Wikipedia's hoax detection ability. The edits were remarkably unverifiable, some of them dubious; yet not always obvious hoaxes and cited to some obscure off-line sources. The editor's comment that the article of a pornographic actress should be speedy kept because she has donated to autism causes seemed rather sarcastic/trollish. Iselilja (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like an odd first edit after not editing for seven years, and then busily creating more articles. Bahooka (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an odd one, and he certainly seems to be jerking us around. His only contribution before today was over seven years ago, to file a frivolous arbitration request, which was rejected, about a joke "religion" called Briefsism. The history of that ten-times-deleted article, and its AfD show a long string of SPAs, mostly blocked.

He has also filed a DRV for John Bambenek, another much-fought-over article from 2006/7 with a history plagued by SPAs and sockpuppets.

That is all much too old for a checkuser, but it seems extremely likely that he has used other accounts, and also that he is WP:NOTHERE to help. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious the user is a well-known LTA from their second edit (which I removed). Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

NigelHowells is now unblocked and making the same kinds of edits. Bahooka (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the recent contributions of this user, since his previous block was listed has created a number of hoaxes. e.g. See those listed in DRV, and others created in his history. e.g. Gavin Neale who apparently plays for Liverpool F.C. with the only cite being to a club board meeting - I some how doubt NigelHowells was there and that the information would not be published elsewhere (with Liverpool FC listing their squard, U21, U18 etc. on their official website).

He has also taken to removing the CSD notices on this stuff and issuing vandalism warnings to those tagging this junk. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I put a link in the other section that shows User:NigelHowells is a particular LTA and needs to be indeffed quickly and quietly. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Matthiaspaul

Hi.

I have been wanting to avoid coming here for a long time but it appears it cannot be avoided. User talk:Matthiaspaul and I contribute to the computing area of Wikipedia. We disagree a lot. Except, his manner is somewhat lacking. He never talks to me; he may talk at me if he condescends. (Wikipedians in dispute must communicate much more.) And he never assume good faith, rather he directly accuses me of sabotage.

• Instance #1: I filed a technical move request for moving CMD.EXE to cmd.exe. Obviously, he disagrees and contacts the moving admin. So far, okay. But in his message, Matthiaspaul:

1. Accuses me of deliberately ignoring a consensus. ("Lisa was fully aware of MOS:COMPUTING as well as of this move discussion, but has announced to ignore the consensus.")
2. Accuses me of verbally attacking administrator User:Jenks24. (Jenks24 later refutes this. Still, what does rudeness have to do with the appropriateness of a rename request?)
3. Accuses me of gaming the system by bypassing the procedure. ("If Lisa really wants the article names changed for some odd reasons, she should issue proper move discussions, instead of trying to game the system by bypassing the procedure.") This sentence is equal to saying WP:RM/TR is not the procedure.

• Instance #2: This time, I am subjected to personal attack in spite of having done absolutely nothing. Following the closure and eventual move of CMD.EXE to cmd.exe, another user asks whether the remaining pages must be moved or they need a separate move discussion. Matthiaspaul objects by saying:

I get the feeling that Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting to force the lowercase forms into articles where they do not belong into, and this is really getting annoying with all their (groundless) personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting.

What? I didn't even say a word; how does it become "personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting"? Since when does starting a dispute resolution process is counted as "concerted effort to violently attempting ..."? If anything, there were six other supporting parties in that discussion.

These points are just tip of the ice berg, with the ice berg being the neighboring diffs or more talks in the same talk pages. But there are more disputes. For example, back in 2013, I filed a WP:RM/TR request for CHKDSK, which was rejected. An admin started a full RM on my behalf without asking me (definitely in good faith) but in the interest of avoiding WP:POINT, I withdrew the full discussion. Matthiaspaul revived it simply to exhibit his opposition and his message accused me of subverting MOS:COMPUTING for my own purpose. (This issue actually came up in Talk:Cmd.exe § ‎Move request – CMD.EXE to Cmd.exe.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lisa! I am confused about what sort of intervention you are requesting from administrators. May I suggest WP:DRR? betafive 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Betafive. It appear you did not notice that I am just out of a successful WP:DRR. Stress on successful. Here is what I am requesting.

Bearing in mind that civility and collegial cooperation is one of our founding pillars here, I am starting to feel concerned that if he keeps dragging my name in the mud like that, I lose my reputation unjustly. If people keep hearing "Codename Lisa lied" repeatedly enough, regardless of the fact, they start to look at me like a liar. (This has actually happened once.) I perfectly understand that admins are not at liberty to kick anyone out of Wikipedia permanently just because of offending someone a couple of times. And we certainly don't want to lose a knowledgeable editor, do we? But a warning at this stage has significant remedial power. So, for now, please tell him to stop.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary admin note - I would like to give Matthiaspaul a chance to respond to this - he does not appear to have edited since the initiation of this discussion - but preliminarily, I will comment that editors are encouraged to cultivate a collegial atmosphere conducive to collaboration, a standard that some of the edits above do not appear to meet. That said, I would like to give Matthiaspaul a chance to respond in case there is any confusion. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Note - I have alerted Anthony Appleyard to this conversation as he was the one that Matthiaspaul appealed to with regards to the page moves. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a very strange thing in MP's edits; a Codename Lisa-fighting mentality.

It was I who started the WP:RM discussion in Talk:Cmd.exe and I saw it end. But he says "...Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting...". (Call me crazy but I feel he is denying me the credit the should be solely mine.)

Another example is: Command Prompt. Five editors reverted there, an IP user edit-warred. Two of these users are those against whom there is (or at least, once has been) a certain degree of intolerance in ANI and AN3: Dogmaticeclectic and I. Yet, MP constantly calls it "Codename Lisa's edit war".

What MP did in CHKDSK is a little queer too. I definitely won't revive a withdrawn proposal to oppose it, much less to call the OP a liar. I'd just do nothing. If it was just reviving and one forth-and-back revert, you could assume good faith. But you can't mistakes trees for a jungle, can you?

Fleet Command (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest closing this frivolous report, warning User:Codename Lisa for making a frivolous report, and warning User:FleetCommand for purposely using a link to my username that does not notify me of its use. (Note that these two users have thrown around personal attacks left and right yet this seems to have been ignored by administrators for some reason.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Dogmaticeclectic: I briefly looked at this, and I believe that the report is not frivolous. As FleetCommand's usage of your name does not call into question of your actions, it's not really an issue, although he probably should have let you know on your talk page about this conversation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Massive vandalism at Douglas Pereira dos Santos

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but there's a giant mess going on at Douglas Pereira dos Santos featuring several IPs and at least two editors with no contributions but vandalizing the article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Acroterion was kind enough to straighten the mess out. Article semi-protected and socks blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I got interrupted by real life, but have blocked eight accounts and IPs and semi-protected the article for two weeks. I assume the subject changed teams and has enraged some people. Anybody who actually knows his status probably ought to update the article, though outdated at least is better than vandalized. For such large-scale and apparently coordinated vandalism, this is probably the best place to bring it up. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that, that was outright horrible vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification as well. I've never used ANI before, so I wasn't sure about that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Massive creation of CSD material by User:Scymso

User:Scymso creates a lot of articles, which are typically one-line stubs. Articles get nominated for speedy deletion and get deleted on a regular basis (some of them survive, I guess mostly because other users find reliable sources - I did it a couple of times). His talk page has an evidence of over 60 CSD nominations, mostly successfull. A couple of months ago, I tried to talk to him and explain that one-line undersourced and unsourced stubs are not really welcome, but did not get any response. From what I see, he never responded on his talk page, and never tries to improve his writing style or to source any of his article, merely continued creation. Should we do smth about this, or should we just let it go?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• As these are BLP articles I think we need to act. Scymso has figured out a way to avoid BLPPROD by adding unreliable and often useless links to the articles being created. Given the total lack of response to attempts to communicate, I believe the appropriate action would be to block until such time as they open a dialog, and then leave it to the discretion of any admin reviewing the unblock request whether the article creation and BLP concerns are adequately addressed. Monty₈₄₅ 18:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've gone ahead and blocked. I will communicate to the user that indefinite does not mean forever, and suggest that, at the least, an understanding of WP:BLP would be necessary to warrant an unblock. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

IP editing disruptively

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

---

All the edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are disruptive, unsourced, POV pushing material. Reverting explaining the edit doesn't work. Repeats behaviour next day. Kingsindian (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

When you left a note on his talk page asking him to enter into a discussion, before you came here, what did he say in response? --Jayron32 19:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, it's always useful to talk to users who make problematic edits. If they don't respond to a note on their page and carry on adding unsourced material, then it's easier for an admin to act. I don't mean to criticize you, and thank you for bringing the issue here, but the IP won't get much information from merely being reverted. They may not even be aware of what the history tab is for, so edit summaries are a very dodgy way of communicating with them. They may even get the impression that it's all right for them to revert, too. I've put a notice on their page asking them to source their edits. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, I will drop this for the moment and see if this behaviour recurs. Kingsindian (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by different IPs, different Usernames

All edits are by different IPs and different Usernames but they always add the same sentence (He lives in the shadow of his uncles majesty.) since 1,5 years. Is there anything that can be done about this or do we just need to revert the edits over and over again? 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Dynara23 | talk 21:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protected the article for six months for the slow edit-warring and added PC1.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

that is creepy poetic. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Taipei

A couple of days ago I was told to apply RBI to odd nationalistic edits being made to Taipei and other pages. It's not helping. 74.3.6.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is insistent that I'm a communist hacker from Shanghai because I'm reverting his clearly stated ROC nationalism. Can someone block him ASAP?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I'm skipping the "I" bit because I tried to open a line of dialog and I can't do the "B" bit because I'm not an admin, so I guess it's just "R".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

IP-in-question, has been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

He's on 2600:1012:B013:F751:4478:5FB9:122E:49B7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So, after all this happened, Fcsong (talk · contribs) came along to restore the problematic wording, after which the page was fully protected. I've since discovered that the bulk of Fcsong's edits are to institute a similar nationalistic view point on the political status of Taiwan by persistently replacing "Taiwan" with just "Republic of China" and "ROC" even on articles that use Taiwan or a variation. Fcsong should probably be blocked as a completely separate nationalist POV pusher.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for exclusive POV editing. too obvious to need discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well now Taipei is on a m:wrong version after Fcsong's POV pushing turned it into an edit war.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The guy is back after having gone to an old IP he was using: 64.134.235.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ed_Woodward

Hi, can we get the following rev-del'd, dont think we need ip's threatening to kill people (im taking the claims as baseless or would have whipped this over to emergency).

[15]

Can we also block the IP User:79.64.105.185 I'd hate to think they might feel like they've got away with it. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 2 weeks for disruptive editing. I'm not sure that revdel is necessary though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe for the idiotic threats the IP made. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected the page for two weeks as well. If any admin wants to revdel, I wouldn't object but that is something that I was leaving for discussion. The other actions, I felt comfortable making right away.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

Editor claiming to be the son of subject insists upon adding original research pertaining to Uanna's cause of death (supposed murder, contrary to reliable sourcing which claims heart attack). See [16]. I've raised the issue on the editor's talk page to no avail, and I would request intervention by an administrator or experienced user on this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

See also CIC777, who has one contribution here but several related uploads at Commons. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Steven Uanna's viewpoint about William Uanna's cause of death is potentially relevant under NPOV and so I don't have a problem leaving a mention in the article, especially if it can be supported by an external citation to an RS mentioning the viewpoint (not necessarily supporting the murder theory directly). Web search does show that Steven Uanna seems to have been making the claim for a while. He gives some detailed arguments that I currently haven't examined carefully. I'd like to AGF/DONTBITE and treat the editing problem as a newbie not understanding our sourcing requirements, so I'll look over the contribution a little more and try to discuss things with him on his talk page. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made some remarks at their talk page which expands on your points and hopefully explains why and directs them to the appropriate extended information they should peruse to understand what they need to do. Blackmane (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I also made a comment there. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Range of IP's

There appears to be a range of IP's that is stalking me: 59.97.32.195 and 59.97.33.91. I'm not sure if they're the same editor, but they seem to be working together to avoid the 3RR rule. In addition, based on this report, it appears that the IP's may have a history of dodgy activity. Can someone please assist? Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake. I'm a regular (if sporadic) editor interested in US politics. I've edited from a bunch of IPs over the years, that I don't remember most of (any reason I should?) but I have never attempted to pretend that I am more than one person, or anything of the kind. Yes, I travel frequently, and when I do I edit from public computers; which is probably why I overlapped with an online troll at some point (as you can see, that report is a few months old). TLDR; show me one policy that I have violated (sure, I hit 3RR just now, but so did you). And I am not the one with 4 ANEW reports in a few days, only one of which I authored......59.97.33.91 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the excuse from the IP is weak. The correct answer is to create an account. instead of hiding behind multiple IPs, and edit from any available computer. David J Johnson (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph and raised the issue at WP:BLPN#John Kline (politician). There is at least one SPA with an interest in keeping the attack in the article, so it will need watching. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• CFredkin doesn't come here with clean hands. Their editing of politicians' biographies is tendentious, with a lot of edit warring in the past few days. Speaking for myself, I've only just refrained from blocking them recently, and purely because others were edit warring also (though less egregiously), see theseAN3 sections. But that said, I completely agree with David J Johnson that the sight of an anonymous IP-hopper edit warring is unedifying. 59.97.33.91, anonymous editing is allowed, yes, but when the IPs are highly dynamic and the editing is controversial, it's not respectable. Not all disruption violates some policy. You have no consistent user talkpage, so it's not worth while trying to communicate with you. You're unwarnable and pretty much unblockable. Please see Wikipedia:Why create an account?: While we welcome contributions from unregistered editors, logging in under a User Name lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits, and makes it easier for veteran users to assume good faith, communicate and collaborate. My italics. If there's any more edit warring from you from fluctuating IPs (and I'm not talking about breaching 3RR, necessarily), I'll block your range. This is your only warning; it hardly seems worth while sticking it on one of "your" talkpages. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC).

Warning accepted, but I still decline to create an account. Is it "disreputable?" Perhaps; so is having four blocks, and four ANEW reports in a day. I can recognize your problem with warnings and blocks and such; but can you find me actions of mine prior to today that warranted warnings or blocks? Probably not, because until I came across this tendentious character (seriously, he still insists that a particular sentence does not exist in a source) I was scrupulous about reverting, essentially obeying a self-imposed 1RR. I have never breached 3RR (as an individual; I don't keep track of my IPs). And I might as well let you know, blocking a range will not be very helpful; these are public IPs. 59.97.33.91 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And I am still amazed at how many "red-line" breaches CFredkin made over the past day, and got away scot-free with all of them; and here I am dragged to the drama board just for following the letter of the law. 59.97.33.91 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)