Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what's the plan here? To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with GorillaWarfare on this. If we're going to enforce boundaries, we need to start by deciding where they are and writing them down. If an editor has strong opinions about an area in which they edit, I want them to disclose those opinions in their userspace. And there's also a discussion to be had about who will be in the userspace police. Will this be yet another sysop's job?—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the plan should be that either you hash it out with Shifty on his talkpage to get the page acceptable, or you raise an MfD and get consensus to delete. Real consensus, not merely a simple majority like last time. Shifty has shown that he is willing to address concerns that are raised with him. he has been very patient and polite and I suggest you extend the same courtesy, rather than trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. FWIW Shifty and I are polar opposites politically and have had many heated, spiteful content disputes over the years. I think it is the lesser of two evils that he air his political views on his userpage and get it out of his system, than him try and POV push those views into article space, as has happened in the past. --11:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Surturz, I am certainly not trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. If I was, I'd have taken this to MfD already. However, I don't think it's possible at this time for Timeshift and I to "get the page acceptable", because the current guidelines on the issue are extremely vague. What I'm trying to do right now is figure out the simplest and most effective way to establish what is and is not acceptable on the page. An MfD seems like a poor choice, since the process is designed to decide deletion discussions according to existing guidelines and policies, not create new ones. ANI isn't really a good place, either. Perhaps an RfC is needed? Any other ideas? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I think we really should look at what the purpose of WP:NOTBLOG actually _is_. I think it is to stop people creating WP accounts just to host content on their user page as if it were GeoCities. It's not really there to stop genuine editors from expressing their views. People comment on current events on talkpages all the time. I think genuine editors should be allowed to put bloggy stuff on their userspace if other editors are the target audience. Shifty is a prolific articlespace editor and I get the impression that he writes the bloggy stuff primarily for his own and WT:AUSPOL's amusement. personally, I think that is tolerable. --Surturz (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an established precedent (not a rule you can point to) that productive editors are given a little leeway with their user space. People who actively improve Wikipedia are given a pass somewhat if they use their user space for frivolous purposes, such as to express opinions, write humorous info, play word games, etc. Within reason. An editor who is only doing those things is usually warned and those pages deleted. So I don't support your suggestion just because it's reasonable, but because that's usually how we handle such things anyway. -- Atama頭 16:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 and WP:NOTBLOG questions

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site, to which WP:NOTBLOG links, states inter alia:

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.

Does User:Timeshift9—in this version on 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)—violate WP:NOTBLOG? If it violates your interpretation of WP:NOTBLOG, how should it be dealt with (e.g. page blanking or trimming or MfD)? A medium should be achieved between disclosing personal biases and using userspace as a blog. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cunard, this question has been discussed in detail above. If you think Shifty's page should go to MfD, then propose the MfD yourself. I will note that the previously MfD only just got up, and Shifty's new page does not have any BLP VIP stuff, so the case for deletion is weaker this time around. --Surturz (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Neptunekh2

Resolved

When I bring a problem to this page, you guys always talk me out of admin action, so I'm hoping someone can come up with another solution here. Neptunekh2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some learning difficulties - see her talkpage. She's been the subject of two previous reports Copyvio_edits_among_other_things_by_Neptunekh2 (Dec 2010) and User:Neptunekh2_-_long_term_competence_issues (May 2011). I tried to help her after the first one, and after the second, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights offered to mentor her. There's also User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2 and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2_back_doing_copyvios_again. I've tried to advise her [1] - anyone who works at one of the Help or Reference desks will be used to seeing her asking the same question in multiple places. She creates loads of categories that have only one entry Category:Fictional Americans of Belgian descent - I kid you not - but she's quite good at putting things into categories. She creates bad stub articles, then posts on the helpdesks asking people to clean them up, but they are about obscure subjects that no-one would think of eg Looty Pijamini.

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

I'd rather got the ache by this point, particularly as Blade confirmed that he has had no success in getting her to communicate with him. I gave her a final warning [2] on 28th and, among other things, sanctioned her to creating articles only in userspace. She's got something of a bee in her bonnet about Valasca (or Dlasta, which seems to be a variant spelling of her name) though, because she went on to create User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta (deleted in the mistaken belief it was a copyvio). In the meantime, I suggested the topic would have notability issues, and that she should add a line to List of women warriors in folklore. She added this, which was reverted. She then added this to a random spot in the article on Velasca (the Xena character). She then created User talk:Neptunekh2/Dlasta/Temp, and asked at the Helpdesk for someone to expand it [3]. She then created Dlasta, and pointed the edit at Velasca and List of women warriors in folklore to it [4] and [5].

At this point, I'm fairly pissed off with chasing around over this, but feel I'm too involved to block her - if indeed this warrants a block. After all, I imposed those sanctions unilaterally. I'll notify Blade as well as Neptune of this report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)ETA [6], posted after being notified of this thread. I'm just finding it very frustrating. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

As an initially involved editor, see for example [7], I have been monitoring this from the sidelines for the last couple of months. Although there appeared to be a slight glimmer of hope initially, Neptune's inability to take on board the slightest piece of advice is utterly disappointing. I agree with the above editors that Elen and Blade deserve kudos for their time and dedication and, unfortunately, Neptune appears to have tried everybody's patience and hasn't really responded to Blade's mentoring. As a huge drain on editors' resources and considering WP:COMPETENCE for example, sadly I believe there is only one solution, as stated above. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• There appears to be consensus for a block here - is there any uninvolved admin willing to enact it before the thread is archived? Note that Neptune has again started to create new, sparsely populated categories which will all need to be reviewed and cleaned up. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  And that after I explicitly told her to run new category ideas by me... if no one has done it by this evening, I'll go through them and see what is and isn't salvageable. I'm almost tempted to tag them all G5, since she created them after she was told not to, but I think that'd be stretching it a bit as there was never anything formal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That does it, I give up. She has just re-created Category:Fictional American people of Belgian descent [8], and posted at the Helpdesk [9] to ask if it's OK to put Scott Evil into it. The first time she created the category, Captain Screebo joked that she'd missed putting Scott into it - the only other fictional American of Belgian descent! I'd block her myself, but I think it would be totally out of order - could an uninvolved admin please do it before she starts re-creating categories for random parts of Canada. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rather reluctantly blocked this user. Their edits are disruptive and they are not contributing productively to the project. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Much as I hate to say it, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A mixture of relief and disappointment all round I'd say. Blade, you did do your best, she just wasn't responsive. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RaúlLoveMiley

Resolved

 – User currently blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has been making unconstructive edits to Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus related articles over the past month or so. The user has been previously blocked for uploading copyrighted images to the articles, and has been warned for edit warring with the same subjects.

Now, this user has been reverting edits I had made to the infobox of Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus (where I added more information, and merged the two infoboxes - as it is all one album, and not two). In doing this, the user did not leave an edit summary, and continued to do it again after I reverted, explaining why. I then decided to leave the user a message asking why they were doing when they were doing. The discussion was unsuccessful and then afterwards the user moved the page in anger. Doesn't look like I'll be able to get through to them, which is why I'm bringing this up here. ℥^nding·start 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The user is now moving a bunch of pages, messing up links, and the proper naming of articles. (See their contibs). ℥^nding·start 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. I went for a block at apparently the exact same moment that Reaper Eternal was leaving a "final warning." Given that they were explicitly asked to be more careful with page moves two days ago and were moving a large volume of pages I thought a block would be the best way to drive home the point since they ignored that warning, but if consensus favors leaving it at a final warning instead I'm ok with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you beat me to the draw. I warned him for moving without consensus, and blocked him for ignoring a previous warning over something else - if he does it again, he deserves another block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw all the moves and this user is becoming quite annoying. He or she is always reverting and adding false information to Miley Cyrus articles. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this has been resolved already but I too have had issues with this user for the same reasons. They pretty much to me don't seem to respect or care about what wikipedia guidlines are and if you ask me a temporary block doesn't seem suitable cause once it's over they'll be right back at it. They've already done it twice now. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 09:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If he causes problems again and I see it, the next block will be for a month. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparent personal attacks

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor continues to use abrasive language when addressing other editors and discussing sources. I believe that he should be warned to avoid personal attacks. Below are examples, which are representative of his general communication with other editors.

• To myself:
  • If you are dyslexic or poor vision or have another disability, it may help for you to identify yourself so that people cut you more slack when you (without fault) make mistakes....17:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[10]
  • [I asked him not to make personal attacks.][11]
  • ...for persons with similar vision without a large screen, the rate of error must be much higher. I admire the King of Sweden for his public poise and good humor about his dyslexia. I certainly meant you no insult. Is it not possible that I am seriously concerned? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[12]

• At User talk:Peter G Werner:
  • ...For everything else, you were plagiarizing the SPUSA pamphlet and duplicitously citing Drucker.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[13]

• About Donald Busky, author of Democratic Socialism: A global survey (Praeger Publishing, 2000)
  • It's time for T4D to recognize that the UFO did not arrive as Busky predicted.
  • ...is no need to cite Busky. Busky was a partisan hack and incompetent academic, who had difficulty writing English. Unfortunately, T4D followed Busky and wrote a wildly inaccurate and partisan history of the American left, one wishes naively. WP does not require that bullshit from herbalists or phrenologists be reported in its medical articles, balanced with other views. WP should remove bullshit from its political articles, also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[14]

• He was brought to WP:WQA previously[15] but sees the fact that no action was taken against him to be a vindication.

TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD is apparently using AN/I to be disruptive and waste peoples time. It's not the first time. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the quotes above. Maybe I'm missing context? -- Atama頭 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD omited my introduction, where I identified myself as a person with poor vision who has a large screen. I have previously complained about having trouble reading on the talk page of the economics sidebar, also, to explaiin why I could not write edit summaries (after long section headings)

At times, I write more bluntly than others, usually after AGF and my patience have been exhausted.

In this case, TFD and I have had many interactions, where I have objected to a section he has written (using Busky) which I have replaced with an accurate and properly referenced (with inline citations with page references to highest quality, most reliable sources. You can see that my sections have remained, with minor copyright editing by others, where TFD's is gone. This fact, visible on American Left and other articles speaks for itself.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "notice that I got my own way!" is not automatically a justification for whatever behaviour achieved that. This whole set of issues has been dragged round various noticeboards for quite some time now, which is not an ideal way of handling it. I don't think there's any one single incident that is egregious enough to require administrator intervention. It's more an ongoing pattern of low level disruption; a case of "doesn't play well with others". Kiefer seems to be stepping up his use of accusations of plagiarism and copyvio - I'm unsure if he understands the difference between the two - when he disagrees with content on political grounds. Another example of this has been raised on Kiefer's talk page by Rd232 recently. Kiefer is not above a bit of edit warring to get his way, and added to the snide personal remarks, it's not a pretty picture - there's also been disruption related to several RfAs. I've asked Worm That Turned to have a look at this section and comment, as he has a fair bit of experience dealing with problem users, and has had to give Kiefer a warning over some of this before. Some firm advice on this sort of behaviour - and perhaps mentoring - might very well solve the problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've bumped into Keifer a few times, at least twice when he was in disagreement with one of my mentees. During my interactions, I've found that he certainly has the ability to be reasonable and was relatively surprised at this notice. Indeed, I don't see anything that requires immediate administrator attention in TFDs comments above. However, having reviewed Kiefer's contributions in depth, I have seen a pattern that does cause me some concern. A couple of examples, general incivility and significantly changing comments long after the original comment with an edit summary of "ce".

When I couple this pattern with the fact I've had to warn Kiefer recently, which he did not take kindly to, I would personally recommend than an RFC/U is more appropriate, where concerned parties could deal with their issues, rather than causing unnecessary drama here at AN/I. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Review and Close Needed

Resolved

 – Closed by User:Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The thread was a few hours from archiving before I posted, and no one else has commented since, so it seems we have as much comment as we'll get. Can an uninvolved administrator please review and close this thread, which originally appeared here at AN/I before discussion moved to the COI noticeboard and since to AN? CycloneGU (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Contravention of manual of style guidelines and vandalism edits

User:Ruairí Óg's seems intent on pushing a POV on boxing articles, especially where it concerns trying to enforceflags in infoboxes and that boxers from Northern Ireland are of Irish nationality in the infobox - where the nationality field refers to citizenship (which i have informed them of), without any reliable or explicit sources. This is made worse by the fact they are now trying to use press/tabloid sources which are sensationalist and frequently label Northern Irish people as simply Irish without actually referring to their citizenship.

This may stem from Ruairí Óg's possibly ambiguous interpretation of what nationality means, however Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph 3.1 states "the country of which the person is a citizen or national". However whilst that applies to ledes which Ruairí Óg's has edited, i take it to cover the "nationality" field of the infobox as well.

They have also vandalised boxing articles by removing wikilinks or references or both to the UK, Northern Ireland etc. i.e. [16] where he removes Northern Ireland leaving just the settlement Charlie Nash is from. Here where he removes the wikilinks to Belfast and Northern Ireland and adds a nationality to the lede without evidence that Gerry Storey had changed his nationality. Here is an example where they replace United Kingdom with Ireland, despite the fact Ireland was not a country then, and was part of the UK.

They have also resorted to using press/tabloids as references (which tend to sensationalise) to insist that someone born in Northern Ireland is of Irish nationality without actual proof that they actually have Irish nationality (even though they are entitled to it) - hence why i blanked out the nationality in the infobox and lede as it is highly debatable whether they identity as a British citizen or have Irish citizenship without concrete sources which none of the sources contained, hence the most neutral route in my opinion is to leave the nationality blank and just state the country they were born in. This is compounded by the fact some boxers represented both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Examples of dodgy press sources include here and here. Other press sources include here and here. None of these back up Ruairí Óg's nationality claims. Only the source provided for Matthew Macklin actually stated he had an Irish passport, however as he was born in the United Kingdom he is legible for British nationality which it doesn't say he never had, though Ruairí Óg's felt obliged to remove "British" even though "Irish" was stated along with it.

In one article they even resorted to adding in ethnicity such as "Irish-Canadian" for a Canadian boxer despite the fact this also contravenes WP:MOSBIO unless it is highly notable which in this case it wasn't as far as i can see.

Wierdly though, they seem intent on adding Republic of Ireland flag icons to Northern Ireland boxer articles, however have edited many Republic of Ireland boxer articles but haven't added the flag to them even after i removed them in the edit before or several edits before theirs, i.e. here, here, here, and here. However the above examples of Northern Ireland born boxers such as here, here and here all have the Republic of Ireland flags added in. This i interpret as a strong attempt at provocation.

This is simply disruptive provocative behaviour that the editor seems intent on persisting with.

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Ruairí Óg's needs it explained to him in words of one syllable that nationality and ethnicity are not necessarily the same thing. If it needs the banhammer to drive those words home, then so be it. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Mabuskas sole purpose in life is to go around removing the word "Irish" from wikipedia and doesnt like it when someone else has an opposing view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs like this are worrying. WP:COMMON is no justification for changing "Belfast, United Kingdom" to "Belfast, Ireland" - especially when sources on that person explicitly and repeatedly refer to the UK. There are a lot more edits like that... bobrayner (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be worried. Maybe just read the MOS and you will be enlightened. Anglocentric wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IE#Biographical_articles. Ruairí Óg's

That is a very poor arguement Ruairí Óg's which is easily countered when you look at any article of an Irish boxer (from the Republic of Ireland, or is stated as having an Irish passport such as Matthew Macklin) where i removed the flag per WP:MOSFLAG but left in their nationality as that is their nationality. I have no problems with stating Irish, however without proof that Northern Irish boxers have Irish citizenship to have them stated as Irish and seeing as we can't confirm whether they have a identify with their British nationality, leaving theirs blank avoids the POV and edit-warring problem over it.

A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial is Barry McGuigan, the article states and has a source that states he took out British citizenship making him of dual nationality however Ruairí Óg's edit here and here keeps removing it. In one of those edit summaries he clearly confused nationality with cultural identity and not citzenship despite the fact nationality here is on about citizenship. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a joke that Mabuska refers to my edits as vandalism. I may not be as experienced as Mabuska on wikipedia and know what buttons to push to game the system. But Mabuska wishes only to push his Loyalist POV and claim all people from Northern Ireland as British when they can be Irish or British. In each case I have provided a source to show that the sportsperson is Irish not British. Mabuska has removed these sources to leave information as he would wish and unsourced. Is this not against wikipedia rules to have unsourced information holding power over sourced information?

I understand from the tag Mabuska left for me that you can not have flags in infoboxed. That is OK, I have learned something new. But Mabuska uses this rule to remove both the flag AND the nationality. See an example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Wilton&diff=prev&oldid=438032691 where he removes the Irish flag and nationality and replaces it with 'British' and the edit summary 'per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality' with no source to back his claims up. This is surely abuse of the system. The removes other editors inserts with references or citing suprious inaccurate policy and replaces it with his unsourced POV.

Again here he removes sourced information to suit his POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Duddy&diff=prev&oldid=443157779

I will get new information to build a stronger case but hopefully this is enough proof of his abuse not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks Ruairi Og's, if you noticed anything at all in regards to Northern Irish boxers, i have left "Irish" AND "British" out of (almost all of) them due to the problems over proving their citizenship or whether they changed it. The same for the ledes where it simply states where they were born rather than "British" or "Irish". Yes very loyalist pov and very pushing everyone is "British".

In regards to [17], they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland, however if it should be omitted from there then so be it. However this edit Ruairi is hardly proof of citizenship and is very poor. In regards to this edit, your source doesn't state its on about his citizenship especially when the press sensationalise people especially Northern Irish people as simply Irish.

If my edit summaries are a little bare-boned i apoligse for that, but i have short time and at times many edits to make and i can't elaborate on every detail.

Anyways if they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland and are born in Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom, then how is explicit proof actually needed to state that they are British nationality when by British nationality law they are British citizens? Would the impetus not be on to prove that they have taken out Irish nationality? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The good friday agreement states that people from northern ireland can be british or irish or both. do you have a source that every british person from northern ireland have rejected their irish nationality. Do you have a source that Ian Paisley has rejected his irish nationality? if not should i list him as irish? that is a stupid argument. you prefer unsourced information to back up your POV as opposed to sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wierd arguement, the GFA says you are entitled to both British or Irish citizenship, however it doesn't automatically mean that you are of Irish citizenship for you to refuse it. Under British nationality law most people born here are a British citizen anyways, however the GFA means that here you can take on Irish citizenship as if you were born there without any problems or complications. Hence you don't need a source of ian Paisley rejecting his Irish citizenship as he never had it in the first place - something that'd make all the headlines if he ever did.

Due to this problem, its why for Northern Irish boxers i've taken the option of omitting the boxers citizenship as its problematic and very hard to find credible sources.

It still doesn't excuse your provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles (whilst not putting them boxers from the RoI) and your imposition that the boxers are all Irish, without any proof that they aren't British citizens as well and the use of highly dubious sources to back it up. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And under irish law everyone born on the island of Ireland is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. You cant have things all your own way.

I have not tried to make 'provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles'. I didnt not know that you could not have a flag in infoboxes. I know that now and have not included a flag in the infobox. To prove this you cite MOSFLAG to remove both the flag and the nationality http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=prev&oldid=443104622 This is wrong and corrupt and highlights you bias and POV. You can see that I reverted that but did NOT include the flag. This shows you are a liar. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=next&oldid=443104622 I am multiple other examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence there doesn't contradict anything i said in the comment before it. We both said entitled, which means we can claim it, it doesn't mean that we automatically are citizens. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the examples i provided above, you edit articles on RoI boxers where i removed the flag and never readded it, but added the flag to NI boxer articles. Regardless of guidelines or not, that is provocative. Also seeing as [[18]] edit was only made today after you've finally accepted WP:MOSFLAG - it is hardly proof to back yourself up with. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More examples of Mabuskas abuse of wikipedia. removing sourced information for POV 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you don't read all of my responses to you. Explainations are given. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanations are unsourced POV. My edits are backed up with references. You might be a lot more experienced gaming the system then me but the facts are the facts. Doesnt wikipedia work on references and not twisted bitter POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you have a source doesn't make it viable for use on Wikipedia. It must be verifiable and reliable and not subject to synthesis. Unfortunately your guilty of synthesis with the sources you provide, the reliability and verifiability of which are highly dubious. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So instead of starting an edit war, why not highlight WHICH sources you consider do not pass WP:RS and then we can actually have a rationale look at it and see if there are more or better sources? No, instead you run headlong into a war and screaming about all sorts of suprious policies as a smokescreen. If you saw a fighter from Belfast come into the ring in a pair of tricolour shorts, with a Irish flag behind him and the Irish national anthem blazing around the arena, you would still argue that he was British. Its bloody embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks

Ruairi seems intent on personally attacking me. [19], [20], and add in above where he has labelled me as a liar, and tries to label me as having "Loyalist POV" and of lacking neutrality despite the fact i'm treating the matter in a very neutral manner by having both nationalities omitted to avoid a POV problem in the first place. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You referred to my edits as vandalism so I call your edits POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another personal attack. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you or did you not refer to me as 'anti-British' FIRST? Gamer. Plain and simple, game the system to silence opposing views thats are backed up with FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I said "A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial" - notice how i said what you could call, not that it exactly was. I never called you "anti-British", i basically said your behaviour could be interpreted as that. Very big difference, and to be honest is backed up by some of your edits, whereas your personal attacks on me aren't backed up at all with anything - and anything you have tried to use as evidence i've explained above and you've skimmed past not responding on it. Please stop the personal attacks in your future edits please. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is yet another personal attack where i am labelled as having a "twisted bitter POV". And here is anotehr one. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So you can call me anti-British and a vandal but its not OK not me to point out your twisted POV. Let me ask you a question then if you do not have an agenda or a POV. Why is it that you only alter peoples nationality from Irish to British but NEVER the other way around? Why is it that on every page I see you in conflict on, see CS Lewis etc, that you are in conflict with people arguing the they are British not Irish. I am only the most recent person to encounter your particular brand of nastiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my last comment in regards to "anti-British". So your going to do ad hominem now. The C.S. Lewis article stated "British" and an editor argued to have it removed and "Irish" used, providing original research and synthesis. That is not a foundation for a change on a tricky situation. I was not the only editor to argue against them, and they were told to provide weight of proof and evidence to back up their stance and it wasn't given especially as most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British. Also the lede is meant to state citizenship, not ethnicity unless its important to the article (which the user couldn't prove without a degree of synthesis). There was no Irish citizenship then and most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British not Irish. I and most other editors agreed to a compromise proposal so that Ireland got mentioned. So very poor example of ad hominem. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad homie what? What about Darren Gibson or Johnny Evans. You are a troublemaker thats all. Scream and shout until the other person is asked to leave. Every article you go on you cause trouble and you spend most of your time here. Which is why you are so good at twisting everything and playing the victim. The centre of this argument is that you prefer unsourced POV material over sourced information. Plain and bloody simple. Drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Darron Gibson? Another poor example seeing as i agreed with calling him Irish seeing as he plays for the Republic of Ireland! That blows all of your claims against me out of the water. In regards to Jonny Evans, he is a Northern Irish footballer - what problem is there in that seeing as an editor was trying to remove that fact from the article. Please stop trying to find faults by going through my edit history to try to create more ad hominem statements. Although not a stranger to this place (reporting editors or commenting on cases), i am rarely ever here to spend all my time here. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that really "blows all of your claims against me out of the water". Do you not think that that is a bit of a dramaqueen thing to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack summary

As the above is heading too much back into content dispute issues, i'll summarise the personal attacks labelled at me today by Ruairí Óg's:

POV pusher, You are just an anti-Irish POV pusher., You are the most anti-Irish editor on wikipedia. shame on you., push his Loyalist POV, you are a liar, twisted bitter POV, your nasty bitter twisted POV, dramaqueen, then add in several attempts at ad hominem above, and i think there was one or two other things that i might have missed. Another editor HighKing has twice informed them to be civil.

This in contrast to me labelling a few times continued reverting of edits based on Wikipedia guidelines as vandalism (which it is) despite informing the editor in the edit summaries of the policy being enforced, and once stating that an edit could be considered as anti-British. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But you are a POV pusher, its not a personal attack its a statement of fact, you push your POV on pretty much every page you touch. You would rather try and throw up smoke screens like this to avoid the substantive issue here which is you removing sourced information that you do not like and replacing it with unsourced POV. That is the whole reason we are here. I would rather not go about whinging and balling about personal attacks because I am not an attention seeker, but that facts of the matter are that you were the one that instigated the left of centre comments by referring to edits as anti-British behaviour and also calling my sourced edit as vandalism and that I was pushing POV. You cant start giving it out and not expect those actions to be mirrored. So stop trying to play the little victim here when you instigated all of this. Simply game playing.

Lets call a spade a spade here, you go around cause trouble and when you find it you cry foul and accuse people of making personal attacks. Its your tactics and it seems to be very effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) .

If you would actually read my comments where i explain those edits and take time to understand the concept of what is a reliable source and what synthesis is then you have no arguement and why u were reverted. Ive explained myself above for all my actions and im happy to let an admin decide who really is thw trouble. Im not the one persistantly dishing out personal attacks and trying to use ad hominem claims to try to back myself up. you instigated it with your constant reversions of policy and imposing bias in regards to nationality with dodgy sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And like I said above, at no stage did you ever question or attempt to discuss the sources I put forward. You were only to happy to start and edit war and reverting sourced information for unsourced POV. There is no way around that to be honest. If you hadnt have carried on in the usually agressive confronation manner that you go about thing then there wouldnt have been an issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seeing as i only reverted a couple of articles you added dodgy sources too you dont try to act as if thats the focus of my actions. Most of your edits contained no sources at all. You started any edit warring by reverting again and again enforcement of policy such as flags and reimposing nationalities without evidence that any of those people identified as that nationality. Our actions are recorded and ill let them stand for themselves. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The evidence doesnt back that up. The only thing I will give you is that I didnt know that you couldnt have a flag in the infobox. Once I realised that I didnt reinsert the flag only the nationality.

Here is an example of your actions. On the Luke Wilton page. You swapped the nationality from Irish to British, adding NO source to back up your change. I then changed that back to the original and added a source to back that up. You then REMOVED the sourced information and replaced it with you unsourced information.

Same trick again here. Removes BOTH nationality and flag citing MOSFLAG. I then reinsterted it adding a source and Mabuska then removes the sourced information. I then reinstered it WITHOUT the flag as I had at that stage realised that you dont put flags in infoboxes.

Admin needed as nobody has intervened yet, if these two are left to it this will run all day (and night) and fill up the page with this back and forth POV name-calling. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually i haven't done any name calling if the above is read properly and read in the right contexts. Anyways yes an admin is needed sooner rather than later. I want this issue to end and be finished. I wouldn't have to keep replying to Ruairi (feeding the fire?) if Ruairi would stop distorting and mispresenting my actions when i've already several times explained them to him above, causing me to further defend them as no doubt readers may skim past vital information. And even ignoring the content issues, there is absolutely no call for the personal abuse directed at me by Ruairi - no call at all. My last comment was intended to be my last anyways, but this one will do instead until an admin steps in. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

all you go on about is name calling to try and deflect from your dodgy use of various policies to cover up your POV editing. I have shown you up for the POV editor that you are. On the issue of name calling, without trying to sound childish, although I realise it does, you started it and I only said the exact same things to you that you said to me. I am cringing typing out that post but its the truth. I wont be posting again until an admin comes along.

Windsor University School of Medicine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Qwyrxian has pointed to a current discussion at a more proper venue regarding this dispute herein, so closing. CycloneGU (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I am coming to AN/I to request a review of a report made to WP:ARV. Over the past few days, User:SGMD1 has been removing information based on at least 10 reliable sources. It has become quite obvious that this is a single purpose account that has significant conflict of interest issues. It appears as though a member of the school in question is trying to remove any negative information from WP [Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windsor_University_School_of_Medicine&diff=443117827&oldid=443116546] This user has been reverted by 4 other users, each considering his edits vandalism (5 if you include ClueBot).

In the past, this type of removal of WP:RS has been dealt with as vandalism (content blanking). (For example, the exact same situation presented itself on Caribbean Medical University, where admin User:Orlady felt the whitewashing and removing negative information by the school's owner constituted vandalism and blocked them. Therefore, I went to WP:ARV to report. However, User:Qwyrxian felt it was a content dispute, because User:SGMD1 counter-reported myself. In discussions with User:Qwyrxian, he suggested I take it to AN/I for a wider admin viewpoint. Thank you for your assistance. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I certainly did not. You suggested taking it to ANI, and I told you to go ahead, but that you should beware of WP:BOOMERANG. yes the other editor is wrong to add all of those details about the curriculum added (unnecessary details/promotional, whatever you want to call it, you are correct that it doesn't belong). But the section on "Accreditation and licensing" is pure WP:OR. Unless those sources cited explicitly mention Windsor University, deciding on your own that they are not accredited in those places is original research, and should be immediately removed. Taking a source about a general rule, and then deciding that the specific case fits that rule is original research. I was hoping the 2 of you could start talking about this on the article talk page so that I could advise in a less stressful/combative venue than ANI, but, we're here now.... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the Curriculum section was not originally written by me (almost none of the content was, actually, except for minor edits) and I am not concerned with the level of detail in that section. My primary concern is with respect to the accreditation and student loan scandal sections. SGMD1 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SMGD1 just made another edit to the article after explicitly being warned about 3RR (and user acknowledged it). After giving my opinion above I now feel too involved to make a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't block me; I thought the 3RR rule only applied to reverts. I deleted both mine and Leuko's edits, not just Leuko's; this was just so that we could resolve this dispute first (I indicated this in the edit comments.) I won't make any more edits. SGMD1 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is rather late in the evening in the time zone that the offending editor is in, perhaps he is a little tired and did not understand the rule correctly? Perhaps a 7 hour block may help? Phearson (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If he acknowledged understanding it.... Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. However, since multiple editors feel this is vandalism, I felt a wider review of the situation was warranted, since since it was not handled in the usual fashion. I have been editing these articles for years, and have developed a sense of the usual consensus. For example, most of the Caribbean medical school articles have an accreditation and licensing section similar to the one presented here. There have been multiple discussions (at ArbCom, deletion discussions, etc), but in the end the consensus is that they stay. Unfortunately, the noteworthy/encyclopedic fact is that the school is not listed (i.e. in lack of approvals/accreditation), not that it is explicitly mentioned. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin Qwyrxian already determined that my edits did not constitute vandalism, so please stop referring to it as vandalism. All my edits abide by the good faith rule. Secondly, you indicate that you "have been editing these articles for years" despite the fact that you attended a competing medical school to Windsor which is a significant conflict of interest. This is evidenced on your Talk page with multiple complaints (including from an admin) about your edits to the pages for various medical schools which lack the required neutrality and verifiability. SGMD1 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I take offense to the claims that I am an SPA, or SOCK. I have been registered for four years and have edited multiple unrelated articles.

Per the edit counter, 35 edits, most of which revolves around this topic. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of those edits involve reverting your changes. SGMD1 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, Windsor University is accredited. Period. It is an accredited educational institution by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and my version cites this clearly. Leuko’s version states that Windsor University is unaccredited, which is patently false.

The Government of St. Kitts and Nevis does not accredit anything. They recognize, but they do not accredit. In fact, they utilize ACCM (http://www.accredmed.org) to accredit their medical schools (which Windsor is not, hence unaccredited). Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This link from the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis website disagrees with you: http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1 SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thirdly, Leuko’s version deletes the Tuition, Student Life, and part of the Curriculum sections. These sections are present in WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions, are not in any way “advertising” as Leuko claims, and are basic facts that belong in a WP article for an educational institution.

As per the consensus on the talk page - most editors don't feel this is noteworthy information for an encyclopedia. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

False. The consensus is with respect to the length of the Curriculum section, not the inclusion of those sections altogether. Those sections are present on WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the “student loan scandal” subsection, my claim is that the incident has a biased, non-credible source, is two years old, and does not meet the standards for large or long-term impact to/on the university for it to be included in a short encyclopedic WP article. Leuko had an almost identical conversation with admin User:Orlady on his talk page, and this particular administrator came to a similar conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMD1 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, the St. Petersburg Times is "biased" and "non-credible?" Really? I would argue that the administration of the school scamming the US Govt out of $500,000 is relevant. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the claim that "the administration of the school" is responsible for "scamming the US Govt out of $500,000" is not verifiable in the cited article. The article states explicitly that students at the Midwest Institute of Massage Therapy received $500,000 in loans, not Windsor students, and makes no claim - verifiable or otherwise - that the 26 MIMT students who received loans were students of Windsor. And as the admin User:Orlady indicated to you previously, such an incident (especially when inaccurate) doesn't meet the requirements for scope in an article about an educational institution.note, this unsigned paragraph isn't mine, so separating from mine below, but I don't know who added it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Local standards can't override core policy. If those sources do not mention Windsor medical school (or any of other schools mentioned), they must be removed. Noteworthy/encyclopedic information by definition means information that is covered in reliable sources. If it is important information that the schools are accredited, I'm sure some newspaper article, medical education journal, or other source must have mentioned the fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Most of these operations are under the radar, and that's how they exist as unaccredited institutions. It is the lack of inclusion in WP:RS (for example California's approved school list - the CA med board goes out and does site visits before approving a medical school for licensure.) Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This post of yours exhibits a clear lack of neutrality. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. The St. Kitts and Nevis government website has a list of "accredited educational institutions": http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1. Doesn't this make the accreditation argument moot? SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation does not recognize St. Kitts and Nevis' accreditation, because they do not feel it is comparable to the standards for US schools. Only schools accredited by the ACCM are felt to be comparable and actually accredited by a recognized agency. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant; the NCFMEA does not accredit individual foreign medical schools at all. You can't pick an arbitrary accrediting body and say that because that particular body hasn't accredited the school, that it isn't accredited at all. SGMD1 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the debate on what constitutes a valid accrediting agency, if reliable sources haven't mentioned the issue, then I don't see how it can appear in Wikipedia. Yes, Leuko, I understand how it seems "important", but Wikipedia doesn't make judgments based on what seems important or true--we rely on reliable sources to do that for us. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This also applies to the state-specific/country-specific licensing. Licensing in the United Kingdom/specific US states is beyond the scope of an article for a non UK/US medical school. None of the citations for state-specific licensing indicate that Windsor is an unapproved/unlicensed/unaccredited school in that particular jurisdiction; rather, the ABSENCE of Windsor's name in the referenced lists are being treated as evidence that the school is unapproved/unlicensed/unaccredited - which as you say is not allowed. Many of these states do case-by-case approvals for graduates of medical schools not on their particular list (i.e. Texas, which Leuko has inaccurately listed.) SGMD1 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, in response to Leuko's repeated accusations of vandalism, admin User:Qwyrxian made the determination that both of our edits are not vandalism, and yet Leuko has continued to make that claim. I am concerned as to whether Leuko is abiding by a NPOV; in addition to his having attended a competing medical institution to Windsor, Leuko has a history of editing WP articles for several off-shore medical schools with negative (and by removing information about valid accreditation - inaccurate) information and giving them undue weight. As described in the NPOV wiki, topics are required to be given "due and undue weight" but by blanking basic sections about various aspects of the school, and creating a subsection instead for a single two year old unverifiable implication, I would argue that he is blatantly violating NPOV, and certainly has no grounds to accuse me of such (as he has repeatedly done.) The pattern of giving undue weight to negative/inaccurate information for various schools appears to violate the NPOV rule, and I feel that should be noted. SGMD1 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you especially since LEUKO violates the core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. Each med school in the Caribbean operate based on the recognitions/accreditations given by local governments. Some states like CA or FL have strict rules on the FMG and don't approve foreign medical schools, however this doesn't mean that the schools are unaccredited. There are dozens of accreditations agencies around the world and just by stating that a school is not accredited by one of them doesn't mean that they are not accredited at all. His action is like accusing someone of a crime and requesting a proof of not being guilty. There should be a consensus reached about the default layout of the Caribbean medical schools wikipages, which applies to all of them where there is a section of proven lack of licensing ability of its graduates.Rlewkowski (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are multiple WP:RS that state Caribbean Medical University is unaccredited. Let's take this to the article talk pages, as I am getting tired of repeating myself over and over on separate pages, and we aren't getting any useful input here that isn't on the article talk pages. Thanks. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion pertains to Windsor University School of Medicine, not Caribbean Medical University. SGMD1 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. Exactly what are you asking the denizens of ANI to do? ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. There's some problematic editing on all sides, though I think that a fair amount of it is from simple misunderstandings/disagreements, not actual malfeasance. There's an RfC open on Talk:Windsor University School of Medicine, which I think should be sufficient to resolve this. Should anyone actually get out of line behavior-wise during or after the RfC, we can return here or another appropriate forum. Anyone uninvolved is welcome to close this at your leisure. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Billy Hathorn concerns

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

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

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

Links to past discussions:

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 - July 2011 (ongoing), covering nearly 6,000 articles
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Billy Hathorn - July 2011 (ongoing) - discussion at DYK regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Ongoing AFDs and 3RR - April 2011, regarding creation of articles on non-notable topics, citing an article he wrote, and canvassing AfD
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 34#User:Billy Hathorn - November 2008 discussion at DYK regarding inadequate sourcing
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn - July 2008, regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and creation of biographies for non-notable individuals
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive114#User:Billy Hathorn - December 2007, regarding creation of biographies for non-notable individuals, copyvio, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and citing his own masters thesis
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti - April 2007, Billy accused two editors of Wiki-stalking him, on the grounds that a whole bunch of his articles were deleted for non-notability

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

He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Wikipedia). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The most that can come of the discussion at WT:DYK is for him to be banned from DYK. Without further action it's entirely reasonable to expect that Billy will continue to disrupt the encylopedia with unproductive new articles in the same way he has for years. I do think a community ban is in order, as Sven and Orlady describe. DYK can't enact that, and as far as I know neither can CCI. That's why we're here. cmadler (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
  Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
  Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved, so unarchiving. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've had problems with some of Billy's over-detail sometimes, but he's a good local historian, at least by Wikipedia standards. . His article on Louisiana and neighboring state politicians have built up a network of relationships, and the people are most of them at least technically notable. There's a question of whether Wikipedia is really the place for this level of detail; but one could equally say that the problem is whether the level of detail he's been adding should not be our goal everywhere. I do not think he has gone beyond the academic standards of fair use, though he may have gone beyond the much more restrictive (and, in my opinion, unreasonably restrictive, standards of Wikipedia fair use, at least for images. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The ones I ran through PUF were not borderline free use, they were blatant copyright violations. Until he understands that taking photographs of other people's work and claiming that it is his own work is not tolerated, something solution is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• What about an article creation ban, AND file upload ban? Forced mentoring? Anything along those lines? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama sanction vio

Resolved

 – Block Issued for 48 hours. Phearson (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:John2510 has violated his ban from the talk page of the Obama article within the hour of it being issued. The issue he is having is that he wants to change Mr. Obama's Heritage from "African-American" to "Biracial". While this may be TRUTH. Consensus has determined otherwise. John2510 was sanctioned per ArbCom ruling, from the mainspace article, and then complained about censorship, in which his privilege to edit the talk page was then sanctioned. He then posted this [21].

A block is requested. Phearson (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. This was a very clear-cut violation, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How in the world is Barack Obama a Featured Article when it is that unstable? If we accept this as is, then we seriously need to rescind FACR 1. (e), as well as GACR 5 (both of which have to pertain to stability. –MuZemike 07:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's been put through WP:FAR seven times since it was promoted in 2007. The gist I get from the more recent reviews is that while it is controversial at times, it is still more stable and of a higher quality than most of Wikipedia. This is also only my likely-butchered summary based on skimming through them, and as always, if you disagree with its status you can open a FAR yourself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the occasional hyper-partisan who hops in and edit-wars against an issue long, long settled can be said to unstable the article. It has been quite awhile since there was a legitimate row over that article's content. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I don't know. I sometimes get confused with Presidency of Barack Obama, which I know that one is an unstable mess (also given that he's the current U.S. President). –MuZemike 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations in DYK on front page

I can't believe Bitar Mansion is on the front page. A large proportion of the article is about the most recent owners and problems with neighbours etc (see WP:BLPGOSSIP). No way would this be considered appropriate in a biography on someone, yet it seems to be OK because they own an expensive house?! A new editor who removed this info ([22]) was summarily reverted. I'm guessing this editor might be the person involved as they also put some BLP violations on the page of Nigel Jaquiss, who wrote a not very complimentary piece about the guy. This is a low profile individual who has been in local news a couple of times, now having their problems broadcast on the front page of one of the most widely read websites in the world. Polequant (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's off DYK now. Polequant (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just yanked all the recent history as BLP coatracking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary editor restored the information, so I've started a discussion on the article talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion on the talk page. I was doing the same after I reverted your edit, hence the edit conflict. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring w/ Sockpuppets

User2005 has been banned for using two sockpuppets to undo my edits on Shirley Rosario, Steve Badger, Tiffany Michelle and many other poker articles. These accounts have also been used to give the appearance of consensus in a previous ANI about poker articles.

I ask that user2005 either be permanently blocked, permanently blocked from editing poker articles or permanently blocked from reverting my edits. DegenFarang (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for three days, not banned. There is a difference.

For any observers, HelloAnnyong has issued the block in question. This discussion seems to be for the period following this block. It seems kind of harsh to not give the user a chance to comment, however. CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake i see 'banned' and 'blocked' used interchangeably. Yes he is blocked for three days and I would like action taken to prevent him from causing problems like this in the future. At the very least I think he should be blocked from reverting my edits. He created two sockpuppets and cultivated the accounts over more than 18 months simply to undo my edits.

I'll tell you right now what he is going to say. He's going to deny the sockpuppets were his and spew multiple paragraphs of ad hominem attacks about me and try to change the subject. DegenFarang (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be unwise. Right now the editor is facing a 3 day block for behavior that often leads to indefinite blocks. I'll leave a reminder of this on their user talk page. -- Atama頭 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CycloneGU on this matter, we should wait with making conclusions until we hear 2005's side of the story. From my point of view, all this drama evolved from DegenFarang deciding to remove references to poker-babes.com from pages about poker, which seems to be his biggest involvement in poker articles, actually his biggest involvement in editing whatsoever, while 2005 has been writing and maintaining poker articles for years. I edit articles about poker a lot as well, so I cannot and won't pretend to be impartial on this matter, but I'd hate to lose a prolific editor over an escalated WP:RS dispute. Rymatz (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from one of the three admins who denied the unblock request of one of the sockpuppets: "The claim that the three accounts are operated by three independent people is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent a couple of minutes looking at their editing histories. In my six years on Wikipedia I have never heard a WP:DUCK quack anything like so loudly. Probable sockpuppets, but certainly either that or meatpuppets, and it doesn't matter which. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)"

I hope somebody will make the decision to permanently block him. He is denying everything and will not change his ways upon returning. He should be indefinitely blocked until he takes responsibility for what he has done and agrees not to do it again. DegenFarang (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexanderalgrim

• Alexanderalgrim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please see this discussion for background.

This user seems completely ignorant of our notability guidelines, and unwilling to learn about or acknowledge them, and has been constantly and consistently creating articles about non-notable BLPs. About 2 weeks ago, another user advised Alexanderalgrim about what was acceptable and what was not, but he has compltely ignored this (as he has indeed everything for the past few years), and recently created a fresh batch of non-notable BLPs. His edits are becoming increasingly disruptive, creating a lot of work for everyone involved who has to tidy up after him. Can an admin intervene please? And would a ban from creating new articles (or similar) be suitable? GiantSnowman 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked the first six of those. They're garbage. I'll check the user page and enact a warning on it. I'm not an admin. and can't block if it came down to it, so I'll let someone else take over if a block if eventually needed. CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticed a past Level 1 warning. Upgraded to a Level 2 warning. CycloneGU (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe slow down a bit... While there have been problems in the past, and the stubs are very feeble indeed, those players are notable. According to their zerozerofootball pages, all those players have played in this year's Portuguese League Cup, which is open only to clubs from the fully-professional top two divisions. The footballers notability guideline WP:NFOOTY says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here) or cup, will generally be regarded as notable." (my bolding) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Alexanderalgrim's auto-patrolled status for now; given the concerns raised by others and his extensive deleted contributions, their article submissions need to be more closely monitored. It can easily be restored once the outstanding concerns are addressed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good spot (the site I checked, Fora de Jogo, didn't mention any appearances, even though it is usually more comprehensive) but the wider issues still stand - refusal to discuss issues with other editors, and the repeated creation of non-notable and borderline notable articles. Look at Fábio Sturgeon for example, and use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE - he has played one minute in a pro-match! GiantSnowman 14:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My point wasn't about the quality of the articles, because they haven't got a great deal. They're one-line stubs, with external links for references, but there've been plenty of them created in the general history of football coverage round here. Or about the quality of the notability criteria, which allows consideration of articles on players with very limited playing time, though it's unusual when an article on an English footballer doesn't appear as soon as he makes his one-minute debut. My point is purely that in this particular case, the creator is being warned and further punishments requested for doing exactly what he was asked to do, i.e. waiting until players pass the notability criteria before creating articles about them. And he shouldn't be. Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the warnings are deemed to need to be retracted pending this conversation, go ahead if it concludes before I'm back. I have to leave the house for a while and won't be monitoring. CycloneGU (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove the warning and de-PROD the articles, and assume AGF and believe that this user has (finally!) taken note of what we've been trying to tell him for far too long. Cheers everyone. GiantSnowman 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope he has... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ismail Javeri

Resolved

 – Was tagged by Wildthing61476 one minute after this thread was created. CycloneGU (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Could an Admin do a speedy delete of this: Ismail Javeri. It seems to be a vanity article. Thanks, --Tovojolo (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been tagged for CSD A7. (Not by me.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It was tagged by Wildthing61476. Whether it gets deleted or declined, I daresay this is resolved now. It doesn't get speedied from this page, so no action needed from over here. CycloneGU (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wonder Girls

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Wonder Girls

I've just removed this personal attack on another editor by the same block evading editor mentioned in the previous report. Should this edit also be RevDel? —Farix (t | c) 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so, and of course block the IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to get the edit where Twinkle screwed up and only reverted SineBot instead of the whole comment. —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack rev-deleted, both all 3 edits; IP blocked a week. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That page really needs protection. Any votes? StormContent (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already put in a WP:RFPP of Wonder Girls do to the ongoing edit war. Not sure of the talk page should be protected as well. —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Wonder Girls is high enough visibility or traffic to warrant protection on both the article and the Talk page. (I've only come across one article that earned both, thankfully.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos, socks, eugenics, and euthanasia.

I'm not keen to start a thread on the drama-board, but this is probably the best place for it as it's not purely 3RR or purely socky...
ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a long history [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] of editwarring on subjects related to euthanasia, eugenics &c. Unfortunately, several blocks seem to have caused only one change to editing patterns; they now appear to be using an IP address in order to get around 3RR. For instance, compare these two edits to these two. And on talkpages, including the RfC on Talk:Planned Parenthood, 192.172.14.99 has turned up to provide one of the few voices in support of ClaudioSantos' mission to emphasise ties between Planned Parenthood and eugenics - right on the boundary of ClaudioSantos' topic ban from "Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". There are many more examples in Special:Contributions/192.172.14.99. This kind of socking, editwarring, and votestacking is very unhelpful. ClaudioSantos has surely been reminded of the rules many times, and been given many extra chances. What's the best way to deal with this? I fear that another week's block would merely allows other editors to be productive for a week before the disruption resumes again. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Right on the boundary" is generous. The lead of Planned Parenthood notes their use of abortion, and here's an opinionated source that says, "Abortion is merely prenatal euthanasia, as euthanasia is postnatal abortion". Jesanj (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this put him afoul of the community-placed 1RR general sanction on abortion? Between that and the apparent attempt at end-running the topic ban, it looks to me like ClaudioSantos is earning the heavy end of the hammer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is harassment and false accusations of bad faith on alleged use of a sockpuppet. I am not editing warring as I have constrained me to discuss the thing in the talk page about the inclution/exclution of a see-also link at Planned Parenthood linking to Eugenics in the United States. I was also commenting as a RfC was called. This is an abusive use of the ANI in order to force a point of view through excluding an user. It is proverbial the Jesanj efforts to imply that abortion is euthanasia, a point of view that surely he will not include at those articles, but solely in order to extend the ban for me. -- ClaudioSantos¿?

As I pointed out on my talk page, the only mention of abortion in our euthanasia article mentions that one definition of euthanasia "specifically discounts fetuses in order to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia". The mainstream doesn't equate the two, our articles don't either at this moment, and until ClaudioSantos expresses the same view or tries to modify our articles in an attempt to equate the two, I don't see that the topic ban is being violated. (Other admins can feel free to disagree with me on that point.) Eugenics has an even shakier tie to euthanasia, I see almost no connection between the two topics. On the other hand, if there is actual socking that is going on, regardless of any topic bans that shouldn't be allowed, though that should be proven before action is taken. As to the violation of 1RR, I haven't looked into that yet, that might also be sanctionable. -- Atama頭 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the RfC and underlying content dispute (I think both parties have made at least some valid points), but the edit warring on Eugenics in the United States in not tolerable. I have fully-protected the article for 3 days. I have also blocked 192.172.14.99 (talk · contribs · block log) for edit warring (they were very specifically warned by me here). — Satori Son 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe that ClaudioSantos has edited using that 192.172.14.99 anon account. That address geolocates to Farmington, Michigan, US, whereas ClaudioSantos appears to be editing from South America. — Satori Son 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I already explicity sais that I am not that IP. And I am not using any sockpuppet to votestacking. Those are solely bad faith assumptions. And I also have to notice here that I am not involved in the claimed edit warring on Eugenics in the United States where I have not edited since days ago. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Planned Parenthood, I only see 1 revert in 24 hours, which is not a violation of the general sanction. -- Atama頭 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, 192.172.14.99 (talk) is a U.S. Army IP address, registered to the USAISC. It's likely shared by a number of users, although recent activity seems to focus on attacking Planned Parenthood. I suspect that blocks of this IP will involve collateral damage, as there are probably multiple users connecting through it, and so semiprotection of specific target pages might be a better approach if problems recur. Just my 2 cents, and to be clear, I am involved in the dispute at Planned Parenthood. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur that semi-protection of the article is likely the best approach. And I retract my earlier comments regarding ClaudioSantos; it appears that the episode is still too fresh in too many people's minds, mine included. I'll put the RFPP in now, unless someone else already has. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with semi-protection, and support the 72 hour block on the IP. The only active disruption caused by anonymous editors is from this single IP. I'm not worried about collateral damage because this IP has been consistent for the past 3 days, so I wouldn't be too concerned if it is blocked for the next 3 days. If another IP appears to continue where this last one left off, then semi-protection would be warranted, but we normally don't protect an article because of disruption from a single account. -- Atama頭 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, just block the disruptive user and move on. causa sui (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP-block, but a warning to ClaudioSantos to keep a bit more distance from his topic block seems appropriate to me. Just play it on the safe side, Claudio. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the admin's talk page who enacted the community sanction, in which he judged that abortion was not a related topic. I concur with that, and I was the author of the community sanction.

If he's being disruptive by article standards, that's actionable, but the sanction only covers so much. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems in balancing out an article.

I don't know if I am in the right place to ask for help. I am trying to fix the article on MonaVie, which I find negatively slanted against the subject matter. A couple of people have been reverting my attempts to erase weasel words that make the article seem like a slam. Can somebody help on this matter? Thank you. Wefihe (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to bring up these proposed changes on the article talk page? That would be a good first start to see if there is consensus to make the changes you request. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an 'incident' here at all. Instead, the contributor seems to wish to force through changes without debate: he/she has already been asked to do so in an edit summary. The article topic is clearly controversial, and edit-warring is unlikely to be productive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, you are edit warring against three editors who endorse the current stable version. If there are specific areas that you find problematic, bring up the issue on the talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Derp

Resolved

 – Blocked, tagged, a few other accounts also found. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Blackmagic240843, User:Ziva 82, User:Saturn 56, User:Jill Tuck, User:SeanRose

These accounts are sockpuppets of Kagome 85.

Good Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.195.45 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hounded by an admin for the past six months

I apologize in advance for the length of the post, it attempts to recount events over the duration of six months. To get right into it: User:Fainites does not like me very much. For the past six months, every single discussion I get involved in invariably results in User:Fainites following me there and, under the pretext of acting as the self-proclaimed "mediator", opposes me in every single issue of every single discussion. This happens every time, sooner or later, and if necessary I can provide diffs to that effect. You can imagine how its like being followed for six months, entering into discussions, only to have an actual admin arrive to invariably place his weight against you. This person, this admin, has thoroughly soured the Free Encyclopedia for me, and he won't let alone. In all my years on Wikipedia I've never experienced something like this, wherever I turn - the same person is there to harass me. I feel as though this person considers me something of a hobby of his.

Recently he has stepped up the campaign to get rid of me for good. Up until I've met this person, the worst I've got a was a brief block at times when I go overboard and revert someone 4 times or something. Now I have my own "personal evaluation admin", that, while following me around on the Balkans articles, has seen it as his right and duty to evaluate me and my character as he can read it over the keyboard. Of course, being biased against me he sees everything I write as hostile in some way, and probably likes to "fill in the blanks" as it were. This has resulted, in two of these discussions I've spoken of, in an effective one month block, and now another six-month block. These are topic bans on the Balkans, to be exact, but as Fainites knows all too well, I don't edit anywhere other than in the volatile Balkans articles. So I imagine this fact is quite helpful in effectively blocking me while not seeming all that harsh. The ban was placed by the one admin who should not have placed it, Fainites, who is more personally involved and biased in this issue than any other admin I could name - strongly opposing my position on two simultaneous discussions.

Of course, being an admin, the man is very skilled in hiding his personal resentment behind standard Wiki banter. Oh he will (and has) provide a long list of supposed "reasons" for his actions, and when he's done you'll think I'm the Antichrist. But the fact is, aside from not being very friendly - I've done nothing particularly worthy of note. Its just his personal "psychological evaluation", the same one that drives him to follow me and make sure nothing I support gets through, and a cherry-picked selection of everything not-particularly-nice I ever did.

Wikipedia has turned into a bitter, unfriendly place for me because of this person, his hounding, his calculated sanctions and effective smear campaign (as you can imagine, if an admin arrives on a heated talkpage and eventually labels you as "aggressive" and "rude" - you are aggressive and rude, even if he only imagines you are, and the frustration makes you more aggravated in truth.) For the first time in five years, and after tens of thousands of edits, I am considering leaving Wikipedia. Not because I no longer think Wikipedia is an excellent place, I still do, but because I am being prevented from editing and participating like any other Wikipedian. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to say the topic ban was under ARBMAC]Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is accusing you of not being "uninvolved". Is that the case? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading this, all the things going in my head make it seem like you two need to be sanctioned from making contact or something. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At first sight, I do share a concern that Fainite's content involvement in the Mihalovic mediation, which clearly extended to regularly expressing his personal opinions on content matters in disagreement with Direktor, constitutes a degree of involvement that may be incompatible with enacting Arbmac sanctions against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Having now checked the closely related Talk:Serbia_under_German_occupation, where Fainites' role was definitely that of a fellow editor involved in content debate, not that of an uninvolved administrator, I'd now strongly tend towards saying he shouldn't have taken Arbmac action here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are, then, two seperate issues which need to be considered here:

• Was Fainites "involved" with regard to WP:INVOLVED with these topics?
• Does the substance of the ban still apply to DIREKTOR.

The second of these points is very important as well, and we shouldn't gloss over it. That is, even if we determine that Fainites was involved, and should not have enacted the ban, we also need to determine if the facts of the case justify the ban anyways; if so it should not invalidate the ban. I am VERY concerned with DIREKTOR's statement "These are topic bans on the Balkans, to be exact, but as Fainites knows all too well, I don't edit anywhere other than in the volatile Balkans articles." If DIRECKTOR's only purpose at Wikipedia is to push a point of view in controversial articles, and serves no other purpose at Wikipedia, I am not sure the ban is unjustified. --Jayron32 21:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with having an editing profile concentrated on the politics of a certain region. That doesn't automatically mean you're a POV-pusher. From what I've seen over the years, my impression is he's certainly opinionated, but so are 99% of all other editors in the area, and his commitment to quality sourcing and academic integrity is well above the average – the issue is that his opinions tend to be minority positions, against the more typical entrenched "national" viewpoints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@FP, I would agree this is a very opinionated area. However, I don't quite agree Direktors opinions are "tend to be minority opinions against the more typical, entrenched national viewpoints". Certainly there is a lot of nationalist POV pushing on these pages from various sides (more than two) but this issue is not about "DIREKTOR -v- the nationalists". Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)- I think that you make a very good point there. If DIREKTOR is only here to push a POV then of course the topic ban is appropriate. However his statement alone (whilst concerning) is not evidence enough of POV pushing. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dealing with the "involved" issue, no I am not involved in content as such. I do not write content. I make occasional suggestions based on talkpage discussions and matters of that kind, such as suggesting a variety of solutions to the naming issues for Serbia under German occupation. I do express views on sourcing issues as described below. I have no personal POV on any Balkans matters. I don't care who were the goodies or baddies in any of the various wars. (By saying I don't care I don't mean accurate articles aren't important - just that it means nothing to me personally). However, in endeavouring to assist constructive and collaborative editing on these pages, WP policies on sourcing have to be applied. Having edited in areas myself that are rife with relentless POV pushers, I know how frustrating it is when there is no admin assistance except for drive by all-round wrist slaps. There are areas like this where an admin needs to understand what is going on to be effective. This is not about WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Anybody passing can deal with that. The problems are far more long term. My role for some months has been to endeavour to create a situation on various Balkans pages where actual source based discussion can take place without constant revert wars and the refighting of old battles. Protecting pages from edit-warring, and starting and "mediating" discussions on refined issues has been quite successful in a number of cases, particularly long-term repetitive disputes over symbolic and nationalist flash points like info-boxes, article names and the ethnic make-up or nationality of various famous Croats/Serbs'Bosniaks etc. My hope was that more serious editors would be encouraged to come back and edit as many of the articles are in a parlous state and show signs of past edit wars and nationalist POV pushing. Over time it became apparent that nationalist SPA's and IP's were one problem, but long term, tendentious, POV pushing another. Rightly or wrongly I took the view that this was also a matter appropriate for admin attention. I have by now read or have available to me a number of the mainstream, most cited works and become familiar with the revisionist approaches pushed by the various "sides". There are particular revisionist sources used and also the process of "cherry-picking" bits of reliable sources. I have attempted in various discussions to pin editors down to the provision of sources to support their claims and to the refining of what the argument is actually about. Otherwise the same old arguments go on and on and on. Serbia under German occupation has been through bad-tempered renaming disputes about 5 times already this year. Draza Mihailovich was in mediation for well over a year. It stalled and people just gave up. It is now producing results. The talkpages are so dishearteningly repetitive over years it makes you despair. From time to time on talkpages where an argument is going nowhere I attempt to summarise where a dispute has got to and what the issues now are. When people stop talking and start reverting I protect the page and re-start a discussion. When editors make sweeping claims about sources I do check the sources to see if their claims are accurate. When editors are arguing with no or inadequate sources I sometimes post a quote on an issue from a mainstream source or reinforce a request for sources. If editors relentlessly pursue tendentious arguments I try and bring the discussion back on track with reference to sources. I have added relevent chunks from what sources I have to the specially created quotations page. I have had discussions in which information from sources I have on revisionist history has been discussed. I can see why at first this may look like involvement. I do not however edit content except for copy-editing or putting in what I understand to be an agreed position after discussion on a talkpage. (In fact my lack of content editing in the last 6 months is quite dramatic compared to my earlier activities.) I do not get involved in content on these articles because if I did I could not be an admin - which in my view was what the area needed.

I realise this may all sound a little headmistressy. If the community in general should decide that admins can't "admin about" in sourcing issues and talkpage discussions in difficult areas like this in this way - then so be it. I'll go back to content editing. I don't mind. I do think however that it is an area that needs careful consideration as there are other areas apart from the endless Balkans wars where this issue arises - ie what is meant by "involvement" when trying to effectively admin in complex and difficult areas to enable collaborative editing. I suspect there are plenty of grey and borderline areas here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Characterizing Fainites' activities related the Balkans articles as "hounding" seems grossly inaccurate and unfair. I've been attempting to moderate a discussion related to additions to the Draža Mihailović article and have found Fainites' contributions to be helpful and even-handed. I have cautioned DIREKTOR several times for personal attacks and disruption [29]. Having tried hard to work with Direktor to no avail, I have to agree with Fainites topic ban. I think it is a moderate action that may just contribute to greater peace for those articles. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved in the Mihailovic article since a little while before the mediation began, and since, and have interacted with DIREKTOR in a number of venues. I see no reason to put forth my opinions now about his actions here, but will be happy to elaborate if anyone is curious. I would suggest that before making any judgments about Fainites's actions that others unfamiliar with the issues take a quick look through Talk:Draža_Mihailović and associated archives, the the mediation talk pages and associated archives, as well as the archives here for prior issues relating to DIREKTOR and his interaction with other editors. I know it's a lot of material to check, but we've been at this a very long time. And for what it is worth, leaving aside the issue of whether or not Fainites should have issued a topic ban, I think that Fainites's actions regardless of his relative level of involvement have been even handed, very useful in moving us forward on the Mihailovic as well as the Serbia under German occupation, where I have been lurking but have had little involvement. These kinds of articles are a very difficult space to work in, and I commend both Sunray and Fainites on their efforts. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites is indeed involved "in content as such". I cannot see how someone can voice his opinion over and over again, on content issues, and yet claim he is "uninvolved". E.g., to post the most recent example, in a discussion on which version of text to adopt in the article [30], user Fainites supports Proposal no.1 (while I support Proposal no.2). Or practically every single post in the Talk:Serbia under German occupation. Its strange to see an "uninvolved" user somehow always eventually voicing his opposition to whatever I propose. Who are we kidding? Fainites is a user that is involved with me and others in the Draža Mihailović debate - directly and in content discussions. In fact, as I said, I cannot recall a single solitary issue (content-related or not) where he has not voiced an opinion contrary to mine. Its not that I would deny someone the right to hold an opposing opinion, however strangely uniform his disagreement, its that this person can block me for six months under ARBCOM on a whim, by writing an "essay" or two, or I should say manifesto, on how I'm supposedly not a very nice person and he really does not like me. If there is one user out there that should not be administering sanctions over Talk:Draža Mihailović issues, its the one that participates in the discussion - and opposes the position of the person he sanctioned on two active discussions.

User:Nuujinn, unsurprisingly, is the user who wrote the version of the text that Fainites likes. I and another user disagree, but I suppose with ARBCOM applying one refuses to agree to the "admin version" on one's own peril. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, WP:INVOLVED refers to "current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics..." For this section of the policy to apply, Fainites would have to have been in a dispute with you. The diff you presented, above, simply shows Fainites expressing an opinion. The fact that his opinion may be different than yours doesn't make it a dispute. What conflicts, or disputes related to topics, have you had with Fainites? Sunray (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is where taking diffs in isolation is difficult. The diff produced by DIREKTOR above does not show me "voicing an opinion over and over again". DIREKTOR also "liked" and agreed with the majority of Nuujinn's draft as far as it went but wanted to add a lot more detailed information on a particular issue. I was suggesting the use of Nuujinn's draft and a more modest, summarised expansion of additional information. Nuujinn had suggested a more detailed treatment of the additional issue on the Chetniks page rather than the Mihailovic page. In relation to the point about reflection of historians views, the issue about Karchmar had been discussed at great length after DIREKTOR made an extreme statement about the historians reliability which he then completely failed to source despite repeated requests, eventually posting a nationalist blog on his talkpage. Mostly what I did was ask DIREKTOR and another editor to provide sources to support his claims and challenge his interpretation of sourcing policies particularly the oft repeated proposal that editors should analyse the primary sources used by historians with different interpretations in order to decide which is the most relaible. The mediator considered the discussion about Karchmar to be at an end. On the naming of the Serbia under German occupation article I made a number of suggestions for participants to consider ranging from looking to see how the issue of description of occuped countries was dealt with in relation to Norway, to suggesting 3 articles, one on the territory, one on the civilian administration and one on the military administration - which DIREKTOR approved of. Again, mostly what I did was ask DIREKTOR to source his assertions. Other editors had sourced their proposals as to what the "entity" was called. I also checked out the sources produced by another editor which DIREKTOR claimed were a product of "quote mining" or "quote fishing". I was eventually able to help resolve part of the issue by providing a better description of the phrase "puppet state" which was causing so much trouble amongst the editors, which DIREKTOR agreed with after doing his own researches. Following this, agreement was reached on the name. I then made a variety of suggestions for the lead sentences based on the talkpage discussions, one of which was eventually agreed by all. I also try to stop editors derailing discussions by personalising the issues. DIREKTOR is not the only offender in this regard - just one of the most prolific. Perhaps I should also say at this point that I do not accept at all the suggestion by DIREKTOR that this is all about him or getting at him or opposing his views. A careful reading of the discussion pages will not show this - but they are very very lengthy. detailed and repetitive. That's one of the problems. Fainites ^barleyscribs 05:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Ceasing of any contact between the involved parties.

After reading every comment by the involved parties, I think that the two should cease any form of contact/stalking/etc from now on. It's clearly obvious that if you're not going to play nice, then fuck it and don't play at all. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 02:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow, I think that presence of User:Fainites was very helpful and constructive when article Serbia under German occupation is in question. DIREKTOR trying for months to edit this article in accordance with his personal opinion disregarding any source that I presented to him (while DIREKTOR himself either did not provided sources for his claims either sources that he recalled in fact spoke against his opinion). User:Fainites only tried to mediate dispute between me and DIREKTOR and I do not think that he was sided against DIREKTOR. For example, during renaming disputes, Fainites tried to find such name of the article that would be also acceptable for DIREKTOR. So, I would like to know what exactly would mean that "any contact between the involved parties" should be ceased? Is that mean that DIREKTOR would be free to edit article Serbia under German occupation as he wish and that no admin will be present there to evaluate his edits, his claims and, most importantly,his sources? I think that presence of an admin is very important there, and user:Fainites would be best for that job since he is familiar with the subject. Of course, presence and mediation of other admins there is welcomed too. I am tired of presenting sources on talk page to be welcomed by DIREKTOR's repeated posts in which he completely disregards any source or argument that I presented and only repeat same things from his previous post over and over like that I did not said anything. He also constantly reverting my edits there, including removal of POV tags that I added, and due to the fact that I do not want to be involved in constant revert warring, I was forced to let DIREKTOR to edit this article in accordance with his POV, no matter that his edits are to high degree unsupported by the sources. Other users that edited this article have simply abandoned the subject because they were unable to argue with DIREKTOR. I certainly doubt that one article should be written in accordance with POV of a single user who is more aggressive than others and who trying to impose his POV by all possible means. One more thing, somebody presented opinion that DIREKTOR's approach is "opposed to national approach to Balkans history". Due to the fact that he is from Croatia, I did not noticed that his approach opposed "national approach to Croatian history". Most of his POV disputes are related to Serbian history: Serbia under German occupation, Chetniks, Draža Mihajlović. All in all, presence and mediation of an admin is very needed when DIREKTOR's involvement related to these articles is in question. PANONIAN 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow Dash I don't want to be rude here but you don't seem to have understood anything that is going on. Fainites is an admin who is trying to prevent edit warring and talk page conflict on some of the Balkans articles. In order to do that he has banned DIREKTOR from editing those pages. He has done that under an arbitration committee ruling that states that any uninvolved admin can impose any sanction they see fit for editors of these articles. This ruling came about because the Balkans have been edit warred over for years by people with very strongly held opinions who's aim is to skew the articles to reflect their POV. DIREKTOR is arguing that Fainites had no right to ban him because he is not an uninvolved admin. He has brought the issue here so that other admins can assess the fairness of the ban and possibly overturn it. The discussions above centre on what "uninvolved" means exactly. Does expressing an opinion on a talk page make an admin "involved" even if that admin never edits the actual article?

Now as I see it there are several possible outcomes here:

1. We decide that Fainites was not right to impose the ban and lift it. Obviously this is what DIREKTOR wants. We could even sanction Fainites in some way such as banning Fainites from editing Balkans articles.
2. We decide that Fainites' was not right to impose the ban because he is involved in the articles, tell him not to do it again but decide that DIREKTOR was editing disruptively and that the ban needs to stay in place. Essentially what would happen is that Fainites ban would simply be replaced by some other, truly uninvolved admin here setting the ban instead.
3. We decide that Fainites is not involved in the articles and had every right to set the ban, and the ban needs to stay. This is what Fainites is arguing for by saying that discussing sources on a talk page does not make an admin involved.

Note that the issue here is essentially - what is appropriate for an admin to do in a situation like this. Is following an editor about stalking? Does expressing an opinion on a talk page count as involved? In short this is a bigger and more important issue than your proposed ban on contact could ever deal with. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 07:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by semi-involved NSU: (& apologies for TLDR that follows) I invite all the commenters to first read the Fainites's explanation for the ban Direktor's talk page, and then verify these assertions against e.g. Talk:Serbia under German occupation and Talk:Draža Mihailović before jumping in to conclusions. Also, check the Fainites's posts at User talk:DIREKTOR.

Throughout the last 6 months, Fainites has been acting as a mediator in these disputes, where DIREKTOR was the primary instigator. Every time Direktor crossed the line, Fainites politely and patiently explained to him where is the problem in his behavior. Every time Direktor made a repeating, bold and condescending assertion, Fainites just asked for sources. It is NOT, as DIREKTOR tries to present, "a neutral poor Direktor defending the truth against a bunch of POV-pushers"; (yes, that indeed was the situation that he faced often -- but not this time). He was systematically opposing, filibustering, complaining, and insulting several good-faith contributors who tried to improve the articles. No one of the involved in those debates, to my best knowledge, had a particular POV to push, or an axe to grind. There certainly was a difference on opinion, but Direktor cannot stand a difference in opinion. This is where the Direktor's attitude "my way or no way" showed up naked.

@Future Perfect: I'm familiar with WP:ARBMAC and your role there, and I know mostly what your involvement was. I know that there were, rightful, complaints against ARBCOM imposing your admin-topic-ban in the area. I assure you that, in this case, Fainites's role was similar, but even more restrained -- he has never displayed any POV in this area, and tried to arrange a consensus. But with Direktor, consensus is simply impossible.

I think that Direktor's heart is in the right place, and I consider him sort of acquaintance. I joked on his talk page several times [31]. But he simply cannot cooperate with others. We have witnessed his appearance at ANI about once a month in past years: and no, not all of it was just him defending Balkanic POV_pushing: it was just his self-applied role, which he played oh so well. But not this time: Fainites got into the heart of the matter, and I consider the sanction well-deserved and well thought out. To know Direktor's ways, you must spend some time in the debate with him. No, I don't think Fainites qualifies as an "involved" admin here. Even if he does, the end result is about right, in my opinion: when someone cannot edit according to WP:CIV and WP:CONSENSUS despite several attempts to make him correct his ways, he must be shown the door. No such user (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

...and, sure enough, his first edit to article space was in defiance of the topic ban. That just shows his inability to play by the rules. No such user (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Vikingman69

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 week by Tnxman307 --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

VIkingnab69 said, "THIS PERSON IS A PATHETIC FICKLE NARROWMINDED WORM & SHOULD BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA", "Brainless fuckwit who hasn't got a clue. Should devote his time to shagging sheep", and moved my user page to User talk:I'm a crap wikipedian. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User already appears to have been blocked a week by Tnxman. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That was quick. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quicker. CycloneGU (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He should have been indefinitely blocked, especially after this. This person has displayed zero willingness to work with others and egregiously displays an article ownership attitude. Not to mention the disruptive pagemoves. –MuZemike 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well time will tell. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the worst of the edit summaries that included the personal attacks from the logs and history. I was also surprised it wasn't an indef block, but I suppose time will indeed tell. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

There is this problem with this editor La goutte de pluie and this has been going from months on pages related to Singaporean politicians/politics, in particular those related to PAP (People's Action Party). The precise affected pages are Teo Ser Luck, Tin Pei Ling and Vivian Balakrishnan. I really do not know what is her problem and I seriously believe she should have her tools removed as she is unable to do neutral edits on their pages.

The incident I need to pinpoint is currently happening on Singaporean general election 2011 where La goutte de pluie is back to her old ways of editing of the subheading related to Vivian Balakrishnan. For some reason, she seems rather persistent to change the subheading from "Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "suppressing video" to "Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "gay agenda". This happened because of what happened at Vivian Balakrishnan's page earlier, where La goutte de pluie had wikilink words like "agenda" to gay agenda" and the idiom "come out of the closet" to "coming out of the closet". I had spotted it and removed it because I did not feel it was right to insinuate instead of letting readers judge by themselves when they can simply read up the references. She went back to revert it several times. It wasn't until User_talk:Zhanzhao who intervened that the matter got settled.

When I checked on the Singaporean general election 2011 page in early July, I spotted the same wikiwords insinuating gay issues and subheading "addressing "gay agenda". I then edited the subheading to a more neutral tone to fit the issue which surfaced from a video and removed the inappropriate wikiwords. However La goutte de pluie just couldn't accept and again started another reverting war regarding the subheading. Zhanzhao had more or less settled it in the Talk section and now it's August and once again, La goutte de pluie has started reverting back.

The other issues :

1. Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle which resulted after a dispute with her for adding trivia matter and attempting to support it with a less-than-convincing reference. She attempts to add it back again after the issue was finally over.

2. La goutte de pluie's ilogical edits on Tin Pei Ling page which has caused the page to appear more like a tabloid page, packed with trivia quotes. She also seems to hate her so much that she bothered to upload the image here and another on Tin Pei Ling's page which I have requested it to be checked and removed.

I would like to clarify I am not a sockpuppet. I was on the IP 218.186.16.x and now am usually on the IP add 202.156.13.x. The dynamic IP also tends to flip between 2 from time to time. This clarification is here just in case you confuse me with the other anonymous IP users on Vivian Balakrishnan's page (which added his photo). I am not related to those IPs in any manner.202.156.13.11 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User notified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a chronic problem with this admin. I almost blocked her a few weeks ago after she violated 3RR on Teo Ser Luck. There were some calls for an RFC/U and desysopping at that time since she edited through full protection to continue her edit war on this topc. I'd support a topic ban on singaporean politics at a minimum. This problem is not going away by ignoring it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the question is - what administrative action does the original poster want? A topic ban requires a community discussion, removal of tools requires a request to Arbcom, and we'd probably want an RFC/U first. Has the admin in question done anything actually blockable? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Response

My personal agenda, if I have one, is in protecting Wikipedia from conflict of interest agents that have descended upon the article lately; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, where an absurd amount of sockpuppetry and anonymous IPs -- some which trace back to government institutions and ministry addresses -- do various things like remove various criticisms without explanation, add in promotional material of their own (for various ministries or programmes). The Young PAP by the way, have long been suspected by the Singaporean internet community of being hired trolls. It is very clear for example, that User:Eggsauto99 and others are "public relations managers" -- note the high-resolution official photos uploaded, and constant reversion to their favoured language, blatantly taken from government websites -- I would simply like for these editors to declare their affiliation and their COIs.

We have good evidence that these users are part of a government-endorsed smear campaign, by trying to include the accusations of "gay agenda" on opposition politicians' articles, but deleting all mentions of such accusations from politicians who made them, i.e. Vivian Balakrishnan. It is a terrible twist on BLP policy when homophobic accusers are allowed to escape "scot free" while their accusations are freely piled on on their victims' articles. See: contributions of one such user to Vincent Wijeysingha, where this user tried to add material accusing Wijeysingha of having a gay agenda (to scare off religious voters) at the same time his proven sockpuppet removed "gay agenda" material from his employer's article (this diff accessible to administrators only).

That Vivian Balakrishnan accused a Singaporean opposition politician of having a gay agenda is well-known issue among Singaporeans (shown by any google search). To reduce the summary of his actions (as titles are supposed to do) to "suppressing video" is nothing more than a government-supported attempt at whitewashing the article. I would like to draw attention to the matter I am drafting an RFC about this; the only reason why no one pays attention is because most editors hail from the United States. If a Congressman or a US government entity were doing this, there would be immense uproar: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress.

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, citing a random-uploaders prob (c) YouTube clip, and posting WP:OR in an article, with this edit is against many policies; do you accept that, or do we need to explain it?  Chzz  ►  23:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not against policy to cite a television interview by Channel 5 (Singapore). In fact, I kept it as a reference, without the link, if only to avoid potential copyright problems (but even then, fair use can be claimed for keeping a referenced link). There's nothing wrong with using Youtube videos as a source, if they are not self-published sources. Since when was a television interview a self-published source? YouTube is merely a host. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie, it seems evident from your own statement just above that you have too much COI in this general issue to use admin tools in this area. If people need to be blocked, or articles protected, or edits made on protected pages, you really should let other admins do it. If the troll situation is as bad as you say, the most helpful thing you could do is to use your experience to bring the various COI editors and sockpuppets to community attention in the appropriate places, instead of dealing with them personally, just as you would if you did not have admin tools. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have used my tools in this very sparingly, precisely for the concerns stated. I have repeatedly made pleas on various noticeboards, but usually people are a) new to the dispute b) do not realise I am an already an administrator trying to fight a long-term problem (for example, posting to the COI board generally brings a very specific block or remedy, and does not solve the sockpuppetry problem). I was about to make an RFC for this reason, to draw greater attention to this problem.

I do not think I have a COI, unless you take the IPs' word that being LGBT somehow is an inherent COI. My biggest ambition is to make the editors involve learn that a) they cannot make COI edits with impunity b) they should declare their conflict of interest c) some basic respect for the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have been invited to comment here by the complaining IP editor on my talk page. I have made my views known previously at the first ANI link he provides above. I have no doubt that La goutte de pluie has a major COI in this area and would be well served laying off these pages, but the same goes for the countless IPs (more likely one user who's been socking; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011/Archive) — this is not a one-way street. The IP editor himself has a COI and POV in this area and should likewise be sanctioned here; this to me is a WP:BOOMERANG case. Both sides are strongly at fault. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the link has proven that I am a sockpuppet or part of the government conspiracy that La goutte de pluie has been insisting is happening.202.156.13.11 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not as I'd like it to, because CheckUsers don't like linking accounts to IP addresses. So, it really is impossible to tell unless I take your word for it, which I'm sorry to say I'm not prepared to.

At this moment, I would strongly support a ban for both La goutte de pluie and the IP editor, certainly at the very least from interacting with each other; and in the longer run a topic ban from Singapore politics. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Get someone to check then. I am not afraid. Kindly advise why I should be banned then. I do not see how this is fair. You have semi-protected Tin Pei Ling page and Vivian Balakrishnan page to deter IP editors from editing on several occasions and each time La goutte de pluie would go back to revert back to her edits. As I have have pointed out earlier, the problem with her edits lies with her POV which can never be kept neutral. I would also like to point out I am constantly updating Singaporean presidential election, 2011 at the moment but once again La goutte de pluie feels the need to question the anonymous editors on the page. Is there a need to declare government conspiracy on every single politician talk page and threaten semi-protection each time I do an edit on someone's page?202.156.13.11 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

These issues would be easily solved by getting an account, but you have refused to do so. What is my POV/COI, may I ask? The only reason I use semi-protection -- and I have used it sparingly -- is to prevent abusive sock/meatpuppetry when it is especially rampant on some articles, as your allies are wont to do. Get an account. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some ground rules would help. These are standard for all admins and all articles:-

• You can't admin and edit in the same article

  An admin may not semi or protect an article where they are editing the article. If the page is being vandalised, take it to RFPP

  An admin may not edit through protection to put their own preferred version in an article, and the admin who protected it may not edit the article AT ALL while it is protected.

  If you think a user is a sock, make a sockpuppet investigation request

Elle, if you breach these rules, you are likely to end up without your admin tools.

At the same time, it does sound as if the area could do with more eyes to help achieve neutrality. Any volunteers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

I don't actually think your "ground rules" match current practice. Simple non-controversial admin actions such as anti-Vandalism work (including routine semiprotection, vandal blocks, obvious sock blocks etc.) have always been exempt from "involvement" rules. What admins need to avoid is using their admin status to further their own position in a content dispute; where there is no content dispute -- e.g. with vandals or banned users --, involvement problems don't come into play. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought we could take it as read that normally editors would not have a problem with an otherwise involved admin dealing with a vandal who replaced the entire lede with the word 'penis' 5 times. However, this is not your standard vandalism, is it. What we have here is an admin reverting content edits and insisting that they are vandalism by agents of the government, I think the instruction to post a request at RFPP is one that the community would expect as de minimis to avoid the appearance of bias. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think if the users in question end up using sockpuppets and rapidly switching IPs ten times in a row to circumvent 3RR, then anti-IP-hopping action can be taken. In the past, these users' IPs were blocked for using open proxies, and would, despite my requested entreaties, refuse to use the talk page. None of this would occur if the users in question would stick to one IP (the hopping is far from accidental) or use accounts. Some of this action is probably coordinated from the YPAP messageboard (now hidden). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, I've always waited for other administrators to come in, i.e. hence my posts at ANI and the COI noticeboard, but the intervening admins treat it as a matter of routine, rather than looking at the overall pattern, so it is quite frequent that they simply block the latest incarnation and mark the issue as "resolved". Sometimes, they issue a rangeblock, but they do not at all address the continuing pattern that government-backed resources are being used to push a certain COI on Wikipedia, and thus many IP ranges are open to these editors' use. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie, I see you do not accept that this edit is a problematic effort, and thus unfortunately it seems I do need to explain this very important point of policies;

The point of 'verifiability' is, so that the reader is able to check the facts. If the referenced material is not available (such as, a TV show that was broadcast once, not published), it is not verifiable.

Occasionally, a television station will provide archives, or the broadcast could be available on media such as DVD, or they might have an official YouTube channel.

That is not the case here. The YouTube video was uploaded by a random-person-on-the-internet; we have no evidence to suggest it is free of copyright. That is covered in WP:LINKVIO.

I have no idea what you mean by "fair use can be claimed for keeping a referenced link"; frankly, that makes no sense to me.  Chzz  ►  12:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, your demands above, that users get an account, are totally inappropriate. This is the encyc. that anyone can edit; registration is not required.  Chzz  ►  12:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That video was actually linked via Temasek Review and Google News; plus CNA does actually archive all its news shows. Considering it was an interview with Lee Hsien Loong, you know, the Prime Minister of Singapore. If you are using a video as a source (albeit a primary one) and are not transcluding it in the actual article, it is not violation on our part to simply cite it (as opposed to transcluding any of its content in the article). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a violation of our copyright policies to link to a site that contains a copyvio - that includes in a citiation. This is one of the reasons why YouTube citations are often removed on sight. The question is - is this particular upload part of CNA's archive, or was it uploaded by some random who had recorded it off their tv? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle by User:Τασουλα

Resolved

User:Τασουλα has been abusing WP:Twinkle to revert edits in a content dispute, using the edit summary "rvv vandalism" [32]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The user does appear to be engaging in edit warring using TW and disguising the edit war as reverting vandalism - which it is not. But this is not the place to discuss edit warring. Toddst1 (talk)

The OP has already opened an AN3 thread; this looks more like forum shopping to me... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, not sure whether it was a good idea to block Tasoula after the IP was already unblocked again. Toddst, were you aware of the unblock? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR is a different issue than abuse of Twinkle and rollback. If someone is going to use Twinkle misleadingly, they should not be permitted to use it. causa sui (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I am disappointed in 79.97.144.17. I originally blocked the user for edit warring, then unblocked in good faith soon after noticing that I missed seeing an attempt to discuss a dispute on the talk page. The user's next action after being unblocked was to report the dispute on AN3 and here. It certainly looks like forum shopping to me, and I will not hesitate to re-block if it goes on any further. I have already declined the AN3 report.

That said, I do agree with the anon that Τασουλα should not be characterizing content disputes as vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't disagree that there is a boomerang here since you seem to be more familiar with the issue than me. But that the boomerang hits the person who threw it doesn't mean it can't hit the person it was thrown at, if you follow my meaning. I'll warn Τασουλα for abusing rollback. causa sui (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Salvio did it already at User_talk:Τασουλα#Blocked_for_edit_warring. I think it's resolved then. causa sui (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I also left a note a couple of sections above that. In any case, Τασουλα has acknowledged their mistake, so this does appear to be resolved. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report this edit[33] for being a personal attack, accusing me of being snide. I have only ever tried to be formal with this editor, and apologise if over-formal bordering on rude, my English can be wooden at times. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should let this die. Attracting further attention to this situation here is not going to help you. causa sui (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Parousie

Resolved

 – Per updates within, block enacted and nothing else to do. CycloneGU (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Parousie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting on the page Lincoln (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once just after the article underwent an AfD with consensus to merge the article to Steven Spielberg and again after I told xe to bring the matter to DRV. So far, xe has been unresponsive to my message and offer to explain xe's actions. I request a second opinion on how to proceed with this issue before getting into an edit war. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced article, so I reverted to the redir, and I've warned the user about recreating it without showing coverage [34].  Chzz  ►  23:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Parousie is in all likelihood a puppet of AlexLevyOne. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne/Archive. I'll file a report later this evening and he'll almost certainly be blocked. (The bad news is that within a week or two another puppet will pop up. Whack-a-Mole!) JohnInDC (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Got to it sooner than I thought I would. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. If past is prologue, these are the last edits we'll see from this account, irrespective of when the block takes effect. JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Who said things don't happen fast in Washington in August? JohnInDC (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind control

I am very uncomfortable about this edit to the mind control article. (Note: the edit has been rev-del'ed at my request, so only admins will be able to view it.) The IP, 90.6.199.85 (talk · contribs), made a series of edits on August 3 that to me are indicative of persecutory delusions; the cited edit names specific individuals (living in France, where the IP geolocates) as the source of persecution. It is not unheard of for things like this to be a prelude to more serious types of unpleasantness. (I am not going to notify the IP of this report.) Looie496 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit has been removed it seems, but oddly, there's no log of it being removed. Or am I missing something. Plus, Its a set-in-stone rule that all editors must be informed of any discussion going on about them here. I am most certainly not wishing to get involved, just being a parrot. Thanks --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR seems to apply here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Feeds Τασουλα a cracker.

It was reverted and the original edit oversighted. That diff. no longer shows anything. CycloneGU (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the wikimedia foundation aware of the edit. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh good! Someone is having trouble with mind control so, what do we do? We 'disappear" what he wrote. I am not suggesting it was a bad call, for the reasons given, but it may be a very disturbing call for IP 90.6 . Bielle (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That is really not our fault or problem, as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Heiro 01:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading one of the edits the IP made on August 3 -- any one, they are all the same. Looie496 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was...odd. CycloneGU (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is from here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalartech12.htm. I didn't see the deleted post, but I think it is just someone messing around. Wonder if the other thing was copied from somewhere also.  snaphat ► 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of people with schizophrenia who experience similar symptoms and have developed shared beliefs about what causes them -- not necessarily the NSA, but some vast conspiracy with access to super-advanced technology. If you want to get a feel for the picture, you could take a look through this web site -- there's a lot more out there though. Looie496 (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does it sound like this theory was written by the same guy who was promoting putting pants on animals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Request block for damiens.rf incivilty

Short version, Damiens and I do not see eye-to-eye on things. That's fine by me; we all have different points of view, but I find it completely beyond the pale to make the comments that damiens has made about me solely because I disagree.

Background: I've found that Fastily has made some closures in which I strongly disagree with him (as have others). While those discussions have not yet proven fruitful, damiens decided to make a pointy, bad-faith complaint which was intended as satire of my actions; moreover, his comments were about a straight up lie in which Damiens tried to get someone's image deleted from their user page because it is "just sitting in a page where the uploader organizes his contributions". At Fastily's request, I responded factually to the claim and pointed out that he was in error. Instead of just saying "whoops" he goes off on a tirade and gets personal. I requested that he stay away from personal attacks and he responded with a slew of snide/uncivil personal comments:

"Wikipedia is full of these opportunities for ones like you to compensate for real life frustrations and shortcomings."

"You're a winner... here. [and a loser IRL]"

This is not my first interaction with Damiens.rf, but this is typical of the interaction. He's had warnings, he's had ample opportunity to back off; he's chosen to instead make it personal. I request the removal of said comments as a mea culpa and a 24 hour block to as emphasis that this kind of behavior isn't tolerated on WP. Buffs (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• On brief review of the conversation I see you both getting heated and snarky. Block declined and I suggest you and Damiens.rf stay away from each other in future. Any urgent concerns you continue to have once you have avoided him for a week may be considered around 13 August. Any future concerns with wikiquette may best be addressed in the first instance to WP:WQA. --John (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I think Damiens.rf went further but at worst this would be a "...and please don't do it again" informal warning, possibly with minnow attached. Not block sanctionable. Please avoid each other.

Damiens, if you have an anchovy convenient, you might swipe it across your forehead. The ABF and insults were uncalled for. Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a Temporary block of Luis1791

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours by Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned three times about removing AfD and BLPPROD tags on Mar Contreras, Fabián Robles and Lisardo Guarinos. User removed BLPPROD tags again after third warning. I requested a temporary block for the same reason on the same pages for 74.177.46.240 on August 1. I believe the IP address and Luis1791 are the same person, but I have not taken it sockpuppet investigations to verify.

btw... The last requested wasn't archived. Are some ANI requests deleted and other archived? Bgwhite (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. Your last request on the subject, with response, was archived in archive 713, here. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC).

OK, he's had plenty of warnings, so I've blocked for 48 hours to get his attention. Bgwhite, you should not have restored his talkpage when he deleted it - users are entitled to delete most things from their talkpages, it is taken as an indication that it has been read. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hippychick94

Hippychick94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hippychick94 edits capitals into section headers: 16 minor edits that also contain a capping of the band name and the addition three words; one section edit each: [35] [36] [37]. All of these edits came after being told by three different editors not to do it: [38] and [39] after these edits, and [40] after these edits, which also included over-capping and -bolding inside sections.

It is minor, but also disruptive, and shows a repeated pattern of improper editing. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)