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

The harmful speech of Norden1990

I want to inform the admins about the uncivil speech and dubious agressive POVs of User:Norden1990 according to WP Conduct policy WP:NPA. What is considered to be a personal attack? 1) Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. He recently called me in edit summary a "chauvinist user" [1], called my behaviour as "hysteria"[2] and named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist [3][4]. When I complained about this behavior on another thread [5], Norden1900 was not sorry at all, but on the contrary: he replied that "I reserve the indicatives about you" [6] + he wrote "I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's." which is in fact similar to banned User:Stubes99 edits[7]. He also called the insertion of referenced text "vandalism"[8]. User:Norden1990 also used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor on my Talk page [9]. This looks like a some form of ongoing harassment. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia) from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) [10]. User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. Some unconstructive discussion with this user[11][12]. User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [13][14] he wrote: "Slovaks had not yet existed." which is obviously an attack + also deleted info, Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár[15] (Note: see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[16][17][18][19][20], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[21][22]) or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [23][24][25][26]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[27] and here deleted name Oradea [28] or [29][30]. Indeed quality of the article first. Or his contradictory edits [31]>[32]. In the past he also had this kind of unfriendly speech:

• "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak."[33] .
• "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration" [34]
• "It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself" [35]
• "typical product of Romanian chauvinism" [36]
• "So you can go to hell together with your threatening." [37]

.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not civil behavior, but I don't think there is much that can be done at this time other then DRN. The edit of Rightful ruler which placed a false banner on the page and was possibly the worst offense here. It would have to go to WP:SPI, but Norden's edit warring has resulted in locking of a page before and this problem has existed for months. While not terribly disruptive, these are minor personal attacks and a warning about personal attacks should have been issued first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Norden1990 needs a NPA warning, and probably a block. There are some absolutely inappropriate statements there, regardless of whatever the OP has said in the discussions. I'm not inclined to look deeper into it, and would leave that to an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can see the most recent act of Omen's crusade against me. Dear Omen, do you think, the article of Upper Hungary is also a racist and pejorative anti-Slovak article, because it contains the word "Felvidék"? Felvidék is a Hungarian word, which means "Upper Hungary". This phrase marks the area, hich is today's Slovakia and which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 9th century to 1920. "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century" - historical fact, They were nobles (natio Hungarica) and serfs, the modern national consciousness evolved in the early 19th century.

The other issues that you brought up again has already been discussed. I would like to ask the honorable court-martial that compare the edits of Omen and me. I hope you will see the difference. Since Omen is editing, there is only problem with him. Edit wars, POV edits, unsourced and malicious edits, there is need only look at his discussion page. I can only repeat myself about Omen's attitude and behaviour. Bye --Norden1990 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen's conduct doesn't excuse your own. Nationalist debates require cool heads to resolve, and calling other editors names is not conducive to that. If you keep a lid on your own behaviour it makes it that much easier to report the misdeeds of others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You used again provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor (me) on my Talk page [38] or in this discussion [39]. It was not in the article Talk page about "Upper Hungary". Nevertheless, also in the main article is: Any use of the word Felvidék to denote all of modern Slovakia is considered offensive by Slovaks.

I also dont understand your dubious POVs, you wrote [40][41]: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit" and then here you edited article with this term + deleted Austrian Empire[42]. It looks like some form of poor provocation.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My conscience is clear. I always strived for NPOV in my edits, and it is not my fault that Wikipedia is unable to filtering out nationalist editors, who call into question academic publications and historiographical works. I already created almost 900 articles (true, some of them are stubs), contributed in development of much, I do not think that I'd be in such a troubled editor. In contrast Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources, get involved in edit wars, and probably is not a coincidence that he was banned already at few times. I do not see a fault with my behavior. I think (and obviously I only proclaim my own opinion) Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult. It looks like that is enough to accuse someone and the person in question is banned forever. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've searched the archives and I noticed that is not the first time when Norden1990's name appears on this noticeboard. Four months ago the administrator User:Sandstein raised the possibility of a topic ban / other sanction for Norden1990: [43] 181.48.15.98 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi (note: a sockpuppet), first login and after that we can discuss, and if you see this incident, I was found not guilty. Omen reported me several times, but that does not mean that they should be taken as a precedent for continue this witch-hunt. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always strived for NPOV in my edits... > this is only based on your personal thoughts, but your edits say something quite different.

I already created almost 900 articles... > And what is point? Some users created 10.000 articles..., but absolutely this does not excuse your behavior.

User:Norden1990 post is another absurd false dubious personal views/attacks with no evidence (Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources...).

I do not see a fault with my behavior. > Norden1990 continue with personal attacks even on this noticeboard, in the front of the admins: "Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult". Accusing the proxy ip 181.48.15.98 of being Iasi is also a personal attack, because your allegation was not officially confirmed, it is only your supposition which must be kept for yourself in the lack of a SPI investigation.

He also bringing here false information (that I was "banned already at few times").

He also involved in edit wars, and not only with me (so in fact Norden1990's another false information...) [44] - here his opponnent was the user Inhakito. The result is that the User:Norden1990 is highly unreliable and only his dubious POVs are acceptable (for him naturally)...--Omen1229 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not instruct me on right behaviour. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen, you were "topic-banned from all edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history for a period of 6 months, due to a persistent history of ethnic battleground editing" [45]. You were also sanctioned for "nationalist editing" [46]. It seems that the six months was not enough for you. For the case of Cabello: there were conflicting news after the death of Hugo Chávez. You can see the talk page, a cooperation evolved between the editors and I also took part in the discussion.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote here at first false information that I was "banned already at few times". In fact Fut.Perf. banned Samofi and me after few minutes of investigation but in last 17 months he had not find a time to look on "opponents" as he promised. And here is topic-banned the reporting editor'. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that misconduct related to Eastern Europe is subject to discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision WP:ARBEE. Without examining this in detail, it appears there is sufficient evidence for recent problematic editing by Norden1990 (notably, personal attacks by commenting about contributors rather than content, and mislabeling content disagreements as vandalism) to warrant a warning about discretionary sanctions, which I am now issuing. If this problematic editing continues, it can be reported to WP:AE for sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want. I suggest you first should look at Omen's activity here. If the style that he uses is permitted, then there's nothing more to talk about. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Norden1990's comment. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Said User:Fakirbakir who for example declared this statement: "the modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state"[47]--Omen1229 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When he wrote that the neo-fascist anti-Hungarian and anti-Roma Slovak National Party (SNS) was member party of the Slovak coalition government. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'm taking a quick look. Now, Norden1990 has clearly acted in an inappropriate manner all too often, but Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes not. Both users edit-war across a whole range of articles, over some of the most ridiculous things (categories seem to crop up fairly often) - Omen removing a category with a frankly inexplicable reason, based on the article here: [48], and [49] is part of a particularly pointless edit war from both sides being examples of both users reverting each other, pretty much based on the fact that their opponent (so to speak) made the edit. This can either be fixed by an indefinite interaction ban (which is almost certain to fail as both edit in the same area), or a 6 month/year long topic ban on editing any WP:ARBEE-applicable articles, broadly construed for both parties, for frequent, careless and pointless edit warring in those areas, based on nationalistic motives. The latter is by far the more likely to work, and I suggest that's what is applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990 > here are some my last edits and please look at who started:[50][51][52][53][54][55] and here is additional Norden1990's provocation [56] > he declared: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit"[57][58].

edit 105 > the article is about Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár, also User:FactStraight reverted Norden1990's similar edits[59][60]. As I wrote above about this Slovak nobleman: [61] > see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[62][63][64][65][66], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[67][68]. Natio Hungarica does not mean Hungarian nobility, but it is Nobility in the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit[69]? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in the Kingdom of Hungary[70] etc... Being a citizen of the multilingual, multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary is not the same with being an ethnic Hungarian.

edit 106 > I don't understand what is "inexplicable" about my reason ("no source for this info")[71]. The edit summary is clear and it reflects the reality: the information is unreferenced. The same idea is supported by another user (Koertefa) on the article talk page: "I do not see the relevance whether "Mercurius"/"Merkúr" is an original Hungarian name. Even if it was, it would not prove for sure that he was ethnic Hungarian [72]--Omen1229 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not evaluating whether the reversions are valid or not, but I can see multiple instances of you turning up at articles that you've never edited before, just to undo his changes. And Norden1990 has done the same, but less frequently. You're both edit warring in ARBEE areas, which is justification for a topic ban and/or a block, regardless of if your edit is right or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that his edit is not right. Omen. Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit. That's right, what is your problem? There were separate administrative units, like Transyvania, Croatia or Fiume, but not Upper Hungary (or Felvidék, which lit. means "Upland"). Slovak nobility never existed, as was only one nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary (Natio Hungarica, as you wrote correctly). You are trying to force modern national consciousness into old situation. Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary is might be misleading, as there are also Hungarian nobles today. But they were born when the kingdom was already abolished. By the way, there is standardization: I couldn't find Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Poland or Kingdom of Portugal etc. etc. [73]. Aaron Samuel ben Moses Shalom of Kremnitz was a Jew and lived in today's Slovakia (then Hungary) in the 17th century. Mere speculation and anachronism to inserted him into the category of "Slovak Jews". Slovakia established in 1993, centuries later. You usually use POV edits and personal attacks ([74]) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated", however article already contained Hungarian names (correctly, as apperanace only today's name version is illogical and misleading, according to my knowledge, Slovak language was never used in public administration). "however this is only a biography article of Štúr" [75] - illogical and poor argument, according to your perception, we should write that "Ho Chi Minh City was capital of South Vietnam in 1945". Absurd. These towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts. The term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography, which denies all connection and contiunity between the historical and modern Hungary. Then, Omen, now you just have to tell, who were the "Uhors"? Maybe Hungarians? I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. [76] 100,000 results? Yeah... Jesenský is a common Slav name, but this family was a Hungarian noble house of Slav origin, as you can see the sources that I proved. "poor nationalistic dubious POV", typical behaviour of Omen. Like this POV pushing [77]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [78]. when you run out of nationalist arguments, you always try to bring the matter to personal attack, as you did here [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You usually use POV edits and personal attacks (131) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated" > Well, so let's tell you more details about the etymology. Slovak person Ľudovít Štúr 28 October 1815 - 12 January 1856, Uhrovec - the version "Zayugróc" was fabricated in the 19th century (1863) in the period of Magyarization. You also wrote that "these towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts." I will stay only in the etymology of the town "Modor". You probably think the Slovak city Modra. So according to Štúr biography 1815 - 1856, the official names valid and used in 1808 - 1863: Modra, Modorinum, Modern, Modor. In the 1863 in the period of Magyarization until 1913 was valid only one name - Modor, other variants have been banned. So according to these etymological facts, your edits here edits look like bad faith.

the term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography > please write me more details with some source, because I do not understand you, I used here only term Kingdom of Hungary, if you want I can use latin term Regnum Hungariae or Kaisertum Osterreiach for Austrian Empire. In fact only you used in this discussion the term Felvidek and other dubious POVs...

I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. > ? Where do you see these names in this discussion?

Like this POV pushing [134]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [135] > Sources about what? Please first read the full discussion [84]. Where do you see "Upper Hungary"? You also declared that Upper Hungary has never had a separate territorial unit[85][86]. So according to these evidence, your edits here edits look again like bad faith.

edit Giglovce [87] > User:Norden1990 wrote: "Yes, but formerly known as Giglóc (until 1920)." In fact in the 1863 until 1913 was valid only one name - Giglóc, other variants have been banned. User:Norden1990 used in the article only one variant from this period - Magyarization. There are no members of Magyar ethnicity in the village - 0,00%. According to the 2011 census, the municipality had 153 inhabitants. 148 of inhabitants were Slovaks and 5 others and unspecified. There are also other names, for example: Giglowce, Gyglowce, Gyglowcze etc., but unfortunately this user used only one... User:Norden1990 also declared: "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[88] and here deleted name Oradea [89] or [90][91].

Note: I will continue in this edit, but now I'm bored of this unconstructive discussion with highly unreliable editor who have strong dubious POVs.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the above "I'm right, it's the other guy who is POV-pushing" type responses sum up exactly why I believe an ARBEE topic ban is in order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for who? I do not get it. Please compare Norden1990's contributions to Omen1229's editing. Their contributions are as different as chalk and cheese. Norden1990 is an excellent wiki editor. He deserves praise instead of scorn.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors. Regardless of whether their edits are correct or not, both have violated ARBEE by frequently edit-warring over the nationality of a hell of a lot of articles, and that is a simply unacceptable fact. There have been some very solid edits by both editors, but the fact of the matter is that good edits don't justify editors staging all-out war on other editors. Both are constantly accusing each other of being POV-pushers and both abuse each other quite frequently in other ways, which complicates matters. People should never be praised for constant edit-warring (unless that edit-warring is to removal obviously hateful content and keep it out, which this doesn't classify as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the editing on nationality is just offensive [92]. IMO, the disruptive edits outweigh the solid ones because they are inappropriate and drive other editors away. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

Per Lukeno, I propose a topic ban for both users from Hungary-related ARBEE-related articles, broadly construed, for violating ARBEE. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, a topic ban from Hungary-related articles would be equivalent to a total ban from anything, while this method is only partially affected to the Slovak ethnic Omen's edits. It is not fair. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not proposing a Hungary-related ban. I was proposing an ARBEE-related ban. Technically, since one user insists these are Slovak articles, then the ban wouldn't actually work anyway. Obviously, I strongly support an ARBEE-related topic ban, but a Hungary-related one is definitely too narrow in scope. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that edit warring is not acceptable, it should be noted that user Norden1990 made several excellent contributions to WP, mostly to articles which fall into the category of WP:ARBEE. Therefore, by enforcing such a topic ban we would lose an exceptional editor. I think that warning both involved editors should be enough and, if they continue the war, a 1RR like restriction could be applied, to enforce appropriate communication. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that the editors haven't made good contributions, because they clearly have. However, any flagrant violations of ARBEE, like this, cannot go unpunished, no matter how good the editors may be. Also, 1RR won't work, as they're edit warring with each other over multiple articles, but not necessarily making more than 1 revert per article. It is always a shame to lose productive editors, but if they won't abide by the guidelines in such highly charged areas, then there's no choice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then call this prohibition, which is actually that: ban from everything. Might as well you can also close my user account. Furthermore, Hungary is in Central Europe, so I don't understant this Eastern Europe ban here... --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support As nom. Changed to include all ARBEE-related articles. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can not give appropriate reasons. So, could I not continue to create biographies of Hungarian politicians in the modern era? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasons have already been stated above. To prevent further edit warring and disruption. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• No topic-ban - There is no demonstrated need for a topic ban after just being placed on notice as a result of this thread. Editor has been notified and that is enough, anything further will likely drive the editor away and serves as a procedural block/ban. I cannot agree with the warning to topic ban for this single instance, there has not been an issue since the warning and no expectation or evidence of bad-faith to warrant topic banning at this time. And to answer Norden1990's statement above; United Nations Statistics Division and the European Union considers Hungary to be in Eastern Europe, see page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of where Hungary is considered to be, ARBEE covered Hungarian articles anyway, did it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Might it not be simpler to use a standard discretionary sanctions model here? They've now both been warned/notified (Norden recently, Omen a long time ago and receiving a now expired 6 month ban later) and this has been reaffirmed here. If their poor behaviour continues, they can be taken to WP:AE which would likely be simpler than a ANI discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Opposing topic ban. I agree with the above comment of Nil Einne: for the time being, a warning is the proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I think that editing outside Hungary-related articles would be a very good thing for Norden1990, and help them learn a little more about neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources in subjects about which they are dispassionate. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding Norden, Omen or anyone else, having to deal with nationalist editors is hugely disruptive and a gigantic time sink. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If Norden has really created as many as or more than 500 articles, that's really impressive. I just wish they would cool down on the nationalism question. Perhaps I'm wrong in my support for a ban here. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very dissapointed concerning your vote, as, I think, we could discuss the problem about the Szaniszló article. Yes, we did not agree each other, but you could see, finally a consensus solution evolved between User:Koertefa, you and me. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, note that user Darouet is clearly not neutral in this question, since (s)he had/has many content disputes with user Norden1990. Topic banning user Norden1990 is in her/his own personal interest, since then (s)he would not have to discuss the issues in detail with someone having a different opinion. By the way: these discussions are indeed time consuming, but they are the right way to reach consensuses and, ultimately, to achieve more neutral articles. And that's our common interest. Therefore, user Darouet's vote should not be taken into account, even if (s)he was an administrator, per WP:INVOLVED (that's why I did not vote either). All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs? 75.171.41.8 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We have been in a dispute here: Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Der Darouet, I would like to emphasize that it's not just about my topic banning, as User: Der Kommisar proposed this punishment for both of us (Omen and me). The last posts are beginning to shed such light on the matter that as if I were the only editor, who can count to retaliation. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Omen was also the subject of this, but don't know anything about them, and leave that judgement to others. It is true that Norden, Koertefa, and Fakirbakir are all in a dispute with me on the Ferenc Szaniszlo page. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I entirely agree with Nil Einne's opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Whitechristian2013 and the Turk Nazi Party

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

---

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely for username-policy violation

Whitechristian2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

List of white nationalist organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is repeatedly adding a paragraph on something called the Turk Nazi Party to Neo-Nazism and List of white nationalist organizations‎. It's unsourced to anything other than the organisation's own website and some Wikipedia articles which don't mention it. The List of white nationalist organizations‎ is meant to be well-known, i.e. blue-linked, groups only. I've reverted them once on Neo-Nazism, twice on List of white nationalist organizations‎ (where the scope of the list specifically excludes the group since it's redlinked), left them notes on their talk page, started sections on the talk pages of both articles to discuss the material, and the user won't engage. I don't know what to do. Also they're marking all their edits as minor for some reason and don't use edit summaries. I'm not providing diffs because these are this user's only contributions, so you can see them all in the userlinks above. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected their latest additions under WP:LIST. I'm not sure what would be considered appropriate after this point. If they revert again we can give them a 3RR warning, perhaps that would get their attention.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe that will work. And maybe the orange bar of doom would have stopped all this in its tracks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What's your PROBLEM? Don't you have anything better to do with your life? I had a bit of spare time to add a Neo-Nazi White Nationalist group to Wikipedia & you keep deleting it? Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitechristian2013 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd just add that making substantial additions to articles like this while marking them as minor edits is not generally a sign of good faith behavior: see [93] -- The Anome (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, thanks for trying, and you can still add it. It's just necessary to show that it's worthy of inclusion, what we call "notable" (see WP:NOTABLE). To do this you have to find some discussion of it in books or newspapers. I can't find any but maybe it's a language issue. If you can find some I'll be happy to show you what kind of support is necessary to be able to include the material and how to use it, but without sources like that it's really not possible to add that kind of information. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2 Whitechristian2013 only has 30 edits so far so lets see if we can make this work. ok, so why don't we start this again without being upset. The reason we keep reverting your addition is because you are adding it to a list of wikipedia articles, but there isn't a wikipedia article for the party. If you read the links on the welcome template that you were given you will see what is required for an article to be accepted into wikipedia. you are welcome to write that article, but please understand that we need to use third party sources, not the parties home page. I'm happy to help you work on a full article but we need to start talking first. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Argh, now they're messing with my user pages.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think they took the deletion personally and now they are trying to figure out how to work wikipedia in a rage.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a lovely series of diffs: [94], [95], [96].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to defuse the situation a little. They have already made their third revert, but as a new user I haven't given them a 3RR template just yet because I think that may be counterproductive. I'm explaining things on their talk page, and if I can get them to start talking I think we may be able to do this without any extreme measures.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The username alone is... disconcerting. AGF and all, but this smells a bit fishy to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, I've got them talking a bit, so I think we can wait before we employ anything more drastic. I'm going to see if they would like to create an article and use that as an opportunity to get them to understand wikipedia's requirements, we may even have a new article out of the process.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I'll probably stay out of it from now so as not to exacerbate the situation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Le sigh... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the following three diffs before I noticed this thread. Those diffs are: [97], [98], and [99]. These edits were made after other editors tried to talk to this user on his talk page. It appears this editor is WP:NOTLISTENING. Singularity42 (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just reverted the addition he made to Neo-Nazism again. He's well past 3RR. — Richard BB 12:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, along with Lothar von Richthofen, I'm very concerned about this editor's username. — Richard BB 12:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've now blocked Whitechristian2013 for 48 hours due to continuous edit warring. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I think everyone gave this guy enough of a break, he had two choices and chose poorly. I agree that the username is concerning especially with this user's focus on Neo-Nazi groups, but I am unclear on how it is an actual violation. Perhaps when his block expires, he will be more inclined to talk. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And now he's deleted the block notice. I don't believe there are any policies forbidding this, but it seems a bit belligerent. Still, we'll see how he acts after his block ends. — Richard BB 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

He has also called me "anti-semetic" (sic) for warning him about edit-warring! In any case, he has now been indefinitely blocked by Daniel Case for a username violation. RolandR (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As such, I have marked this one as resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that they're still removing active block notices, which is not permitted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest revoking his talk page privileges after this comment. — Richard BB 15:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that he's still at it, that'd be a good idea. He doesn't need to be editing anywhere here anymore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Any chance we can up the indef for apostrophe abuse?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This user continues to post personal attacks and abuse on his talk page. Since he does not appear to be using this to request unblocking, can his talk page access be removed? RolandR (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access removed by The Anome. --regentspark (comment) 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. -- The Anome (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The plot thickens

Shortly following the revocation of talkpage access, a new account called User:14 Reasons shows up and adds and removes a letter jumble (looks almost like a code, but I'm not going to waste time cracking it) to WC2013's talkpage—shortly after adding and removing a similar "message" to indeffed neo-Nazi user Axmann8's talkpage.

For those of you unfamiliar with the bizarre symbology of the far right, the username is almost certainly a reference to the infamous "Fourteen Words" of American white supremacist David Lane. The username alone is thus cause alone to block, but I'm wondering if there may be sockpuppetry afoot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'jumble' posted to Axmann8's page is a simple substitution cipher - except that there are some transcription errors. The original plaintext was clearly "the word christmas is old english. it's a contraction of christ's mass. in greek, x means christ. that is where the word x-mas comes from. it is just a misconception that the word xmas was created by people who want to take christ out of". Just trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, my curiosity got the better of me and I ended up cracking that one on my own. The one on WC2013's talk apparently reads something like "Baseball Bugs is the primary instigator in this mess. If we can get Bugs blocked, or get him to stop sticking his nose in our business, things will go a hell of a lot [easier?]." Would seem to suggest some connection between the accounts, but given that 14R has been given the boot by OrangeMike, it's probably not too important. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Clarification, please

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

---

A user that several of us tried to reason with has an issue with me. He calls me a "troll", and violates rules, but when his feelings got hurt, he reported me for behavior he himself engaged in. I will be the first to say that while I have contributed to this site (see Danny Thomas for one), I had no idea about "outting" and "sock/meat puppets". Live and learn.

Anyway, this has to do with the Ted Healy page, which Los Angeles historian Larry Harnisch has used as an example on his blog of how Wikipedia editors post false or misleading information with little or one citation. I was not the one that started the discussion, but apparently, I was the one he took issue with. At the admins suggestion (see below), I humbly request a review and education on why the poster can ask someone who they are in real life, but I cannot, why a poster can call me names, yet I can not respond. As you can see, he blanked out some of my comments in response to his. He even stated that he doesn't even know if the author of the book he is citing is alive after I posted that in fact, the writer was a self published writer in the process of writing another. Apparently, in trying to drill knowledge into his head, I am deemed "agressive". I was not the first person to ask for his identity (he claims a vast experience in news editing, yet can't find an article with a link) and yet I'm the one being taken to task.

In advance, I thank you for any feedback you can give me, and forgive me if I don't properly know how to identify the admin that helped me get here. Zabadu (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Extended content and copy/paste
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== Attempted outing ==Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis, I know you have a lot on your plate, but please tell me what to do: If you take a glance at my talk page, you'll notice that a user named Zabadu barged into a discussion I was having with another editor about the validity of an RS that was cited (by someone else) in the Ted Healy article. He/she got all bent out of shape because I had the temerity to question comments made by a blogger who was using the Healy article to criticize WP in general. For the record, that blogger and I have since had a nice chat off-wiki ([http://ladailymirror.com/2013/05/11/wikipedia-revert-war-wallace-beery-vs-ted-healy-round-8/ the public part is here]), and we have not only amicably resolved our differences, but reached a consensus on the Healy article. So the issue is resolved, but Zabadu continued mouthing off, hurling insults, and today, threatening to have be blocked for calling him/her and his/her even more obnoxious friend "trolls", and then accusing me of being E.J. Fleming, the author of the book under discussion. (I blanked the last 2 posts because they were completely inappropriate.) Attempted outing is a blockable offense, yes? Even when the personal info is incorrect? I know you're going to say I should have just ignored the harassment, but when people start accusing you of ridiculous stuff, and repeatedly demand that you reveal your identity, you feel obligated to defend yourself. I can get a little pissy sometimes, but I'm not a dick. Sorry to bother you about this. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I've revdel'ed and left them a message. If it were only the one message, it wouldn't have been so bad, but the pattern of badgering you previously, combined with the attempt is such that if he does it again, he will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I received your message. Please explain to me how DoctorJoeE can do the things you are threatening to block me over. Because I asked him about his statement that he's a 30+ year news editor? But he can question a historian? DoctorJoeE is right when he says he can get "a little pissy". I contribute sometimes to Wiki, and Harnisch is an acquaintance of mine. I tried to point the Doctor to articles, but he argued and argued with me. I'm tired of being called a "troll", and he keeps referring to "blog entries" when we have directed him to newspaper articles (check his page, I gave him links). He has name called (troll)me and Finklesomething and made personal comments about us as well. Honestly, this guy runs and reports me after the harassment he's caused to me and another poster for trying to direct him to the "evidence" he requests? So he can "defend himself", but he can call me a troll and I can't? He specifically asked another poster "are you Harnisch", which is "attempted outing". So block him! He complains about things he does himself. I also dispute that he is "not a dick" - provable here by him running to report us for disagreeing with him. Block me if you wish, but that will only show that people like DoctorJoeE can do and say whatever they want, then run to you when people challenge him. It's really pathetic. Zabadu (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC) ":So apparently you are the same person? If not sockpuppets, then certainly meatpuppets? " - DoctorJoeE's comment asking if I am Finklewhatever or sockpuppets/meatpuppets". How is this not "attempted outing"? Zabadu (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Lovely. I have no dog in this hunt, I just call them as I see them, and as for the content on that article, there is no possible way I could be more indifferent. My point still stands that you were badgering him about his identity, and made enough of a claim that I was forced to stop, review, then WP:REVDEL the edit. That was a valid reason for him to ask for administrative help. And for your information, connecting you to another Wikipedia identity isn't outing. Outing is connecting someone to a real world identity by definition. I think I was sufficiently clear the first time and it isn't a point of debate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Well then, I would like to report him for asking the other poster if they were Larry Harnisch. Thank you.Zabadu (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC) His comment is here - I am still waiting for the corroboration that you 'edited newspapers'. You brought it up to disparage a source and to make yourself sound special. Well give. Otherwise we'll know that you are just another phony and likely Fleming himself.Finkellium (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Aha, the troll returns. What I said is that I have written for newspapers for 30+ years, which is true. My identity is irrelevant, because this is not about me, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway. And no, I'm not Fleming, whom I'm not even sure is still alive. Are you Harnisch? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Zabadu (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC) You know, WP:ANI is exactly the right forum to file your complaint. Since I've already issued you a warning for outing, it probably should be heard there so uninvolved admin can view it. As it is, I've got to be up in less than 8 hours and don't have the time to read all the preceding comments to get context, but I'm sure someone would be happy to view the situation at ANI. You should tell them the discussion was started here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Holy cow, got up because I couldn't sleep and found this copy/paste job waiting for me at ANI. I'm about to go back to bed, I'm sure someone else can fix my archive into a proper quote box of some kind, and help the gentleman. My opinion is probably obvious anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 04:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, I fixed the box and left a note at User talk:DoctorJoeE. I think this user tried but didn't quite get how to do that, based on the header on this quote box. Again, off to bed.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 05:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis, for notifying me. Take a look at my talk page; I think it's obvious who was trying to maintain the discussion on the subject (the Ted Healy article), and who was trying to shift the discussion to a personal attack on me. To reiterate, I worked out the Healy issue off-wiki with Mr. Harnisch, who turned out to be a very nice guy. The public part of that discussion is on his blog, which is here [100]. The problem is solved. I'm going to continue my discussion with him, which should result in not only a better Healy article, but also in (I hope) some restoration of his faith in WP, which deteriorated when he became disillusioned as an editor some time ago, as he explained. Most of his objections to the article's content had already been rectified before the complainant's first post on my talk page. The complainant says he/she "tried to point me to [newspaper] articles" -- but as the dialog on my talk page shows, those sources were already cited in the Healy article (by me and others), and when I attempted to point that out, the discussion just kept coming back to me, personally. My error in this whole interaction was in breaking my own rule of ignoring personal attacks. I've learned from that, and I won't fall into that trap again. As you can see, I tried to walk away from the fray more than once, and it was only when the badgering about my personal identity continued that I felt compelled to seek administrative assistance. I should have tried harder to walk away; I get flamed all the time in my real job, and I've learned to shrug it off, and I need to learn to do that here as well. The complainant, of course, refuses to concede any errors at all. The exchange on my talk page speaks for itself -- but I'll be happy to answer any specific questions. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We all push the limits of civility from time to time, and throwing around the "troll" word is usually a bad idea. As for "outing", I don't see what you did as outing. I do see what he did as outing, not because of the single comment (which would be borderline by itself) but because of the series in inquiry and flat out badgering you about revealing your "true identity" followed by an claim that required revdel'ing. That is why I gave him the warning, under the good faith assumption that he didn't realize he pushed it beyond good judgment and into the area of bordering on harassing. Since I had taken action on his actions, I figured he needed to come here to allow others to review his claims, although I think fall short of a violation and it is more likely just "tit for tat". Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, "troll" was a poor word choice, but I couldn't think of a better descriptor, on the spur of the moment, for the constant needling. Many of you know me, I've been here awhile, you know I don't pick fights, and I've had a hand in resolving a few; I'm a writer, I just enjoy writing. And as Daniel Webster used to say about his paucity of Senate speeches, "I only protest when I'm kicked." Well, I was kicked. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I really have to protest here. DoctorJoeE comes in here all sweetness and light, repentant of not "walking away" and "poor choice of words". He used "troll" numerous times, not just once "on the spur of the moment".

I was not the person who first asked his identity. And yes, I kept asking him to put up or shut up because he kept bringing up his "30+ years as a news editor". As Finklewhatever pointed out, using his "30+ year" quote to "disparage a source and make yourself feel special." I guess I should have thrown in my 10 years at television news writing so I could be as special.

He wasn't "kicked". He was asked numerous times to provide a source other than the ONE book he was quoting. As for his claim that he kept "asking about news stories, here is the quote:

And here we have yet another anonymous IP signature! What is that all about? Whatever; please yourself -- I'll stick with the subject at hand. The article presently says that three guys were alleged, by an uncorroborated source, to have beaten up Healy; but since the autopsy showed that he died of acute nephritis secondary to acute and chronic alcoholism, and his injuries had no bearing on his death, the fight, and anyone allegedly involved in it, is irrelevant. You are saying, I think, that this is "just wrong". What is wrong about it, and where are the "actual news stories" which prove it wrong? Please enlighten me. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I neglected to log in when I made the last two posts. They are mine. "Actual news stories" are available with a quick search of Ted Healy on Google News Archive. Here are just a few:Ted .Healy .Death Is Attributed To Natural Causes' .Autopsy Shows ... news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19371223...‎ Autopsy Shows Bruises on Face Superficial and No Inquest Will Be Held . Los Angeles, Dec. 22 The— unexpected death of Ted Healy, film comedian, was due ... Lewiston Evening Journal ..Order Autopsy Be Performed On Ted ... news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19371222...‎ autopsy . termine whether Ted Healy, stage and screen comedian, died from effects of a fist fight which, police were climaxed a gay celebration of the birth of bis ...Police Suspend Ted Healy Probe . - Google News news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19371222...‎ Los Angeles — Police said they would drop further investigation of a mysterious fist fight involving Ted Healy an autopsy indicated today that the film comedian ...I say that continuing to post the "alternate" story is wrong as it has been disproven time and time again. For a 30+ year newsman, you certainly should know where to find this information. Zabadu (talk) 15:39, 10

DoctorJoeE knows just the right words and phrases to make himself look good and others believe that he's just a nice guy trying to do a hard job and getting no credit for it. I'm sorry if I'm blunt and see him for what he truly is.

But I would sure appreciate another admin reviewing this and letting me know why DoctorJoeE can do exactly what he's accusing others of because he's just a poor, picked on guy and I'm just a mean old biddy. He's full of it. He never let it go or "walked away"; he always had to have the last word. I respond to "last words". I've been here a while too, and while I've never aspired to the lofty positions in Wiki, I have made thoughtful contributions. If asking someone to back up their statement of experience or asking them to provide another source for their malarkey is "attacking", then the world is sorely in trouble. I only kick when I'm called names over and over. He was "kicked"? LOL. And as proof that he didn't use "troll" at the spur of the moment, here's another quote from his talk page.

Thanks for the heads-up, I already noticed. And thanks for the fine-tuning; now that the trolls are gone, we can all get back to work. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And in reference to his "continuing to work with Harnisch..." here is what Harnisch told me: that he responded to an email and that he has had no further contact, nor intends to. He wishes to stay out of this fray and remain objective. He has no intention of working with Doctor because of this.

So to say that DoctorJoeE varnishes the truth is pretty accurate, if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadu (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Since quoting writers seems to add authenticity of character here, I quote Mark Twain who said, “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Zabadu (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear as crystal- this is about Doc Joe calling persons names. This is about Doc Joe thinking he owns an article. This is about Doc Joe continuing to insert into articles that the producer of the James Bond film series is a murderer. He does this based on a completely discredited book. He said he worked for newspapers as if that made his defamatory actions better. He was asked to verify his claim and like a 30 year old child he attacked and attacked. To be clear, Doc Joe has no place on Wikipedia Finkellium (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the above statement saying "Doc Joe has no place on Wikipedia." As a new editor, he has helped me tremendously, though we did meet as a result of him accusing me of "spam" in my first fledgling attempts at editing an article. I recognized why he would think so, and educated myself better as to proper conduct. In other words, we transmuted the conflict into a higher harmony and the result will be a great benefit to the greater community. Pardon my ignorance of such things, as I am new to this Wiki world, but, wouldn't our time be better spent tackling the enormous amount of work to do here than in issuing personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, against each other? I feel like I've walked into a middle school cafeteria, not the pinnacle of academia. We all have a place here. That's kind of the point, I think. To be clear: to say that DoctorJoeE has no place here is mean and untrue. EditorAmanda (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC

So DoctorJoeE meets someone by accusing them of spam. He reports me after calling me a troll. He claims to own the article. He makes a comment on Harnisch's blog and calls it "communication with Harnisch". He whitewashes the truth to make himself look best in all situations. You may feel you've walked into a high school cafeteria, but guess what? It isn't the "pinnacle of academia" either. Not with folks like him around. He feels NO ONE has a place here but himself. And when he is challenged, he reports you. Not the kind of editor I'd think you'd want around, but hey, everyone is entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately, you gave no feedback on the actual situation I asked about. I would appreciate that.Zabadu (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And I would appreciate an editor who isn't in cahoots with DoctorJoeE to give me feedback.

Hello again, Amanda -- I've been slowly working my way through the source material, and if you have no objection, I would like to move the Beverly Ross stub from your sandbox to mine. The reason is that once we take the article "live", I want to avoid any possibility that someone might object to it on WP:COI grounds -- and believe me, there are people who like nothing better than raising such issues, particularly if it makes the DYK queue. It will also make it a bit easier for me to work on. Is that okay with you? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:09, 15 May 2013

Yes, please do so, DoctorJoeE. I appreciate your help so much. 68.52.179.200 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2013 Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll stay in touch -- I'm gonna need some help. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:28, 16 May 2013 Just tell me what to do and I'm in. EditorAmanda (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 How about an autographed photo? (Just kidding.) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:14, 16 May 2013(UTC)Zabadu (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2013

And here's DoctorJoeE boasting that you admins won't do anything about him. Yep, it appears Wiki is just one big admin club. If it's a "non-issue", then why did you report me, DoctorJoeE?

Just threw in my two cents worth over on the ANI debate involving you. I'll probably regret getting in the middle of it, but I was moved to act as a character witness on your behalf.EditorAmanda (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind thought, but it's probably best to let those two continue to hoist themselves with their own petard. It's much ado over a non-issue, and the complete lack of admin attention demonstrates how seriously it is being taken. The difference is that you reacted rationally to my initial communication, and they did not. (You're right -- I almost said, yesterday, "Are we in 5th grade?" -- but held my tongue.) You run into people like that sometimes here, and you can't take it personally. In the words of a very wise fellow editor, "The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise, you know. All else is random noise." I'll look forward to seeing those biographers' pieces, when you get them. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.8.48 (talk) Zabadu (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Playerhistory.com and soccerdatabase.eu

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

---

Following this AN/I thread, there is a bot removing all links to both playerhistory.com and soccerdatabase.eu. From the discussion, I can understand the reasoning for deleting soccerdatabase.eu, but the arguments for removing playerhistory.com was "because they are dead anyways", which is not the way to prevent WP:LINKROT. I've used playerhistory.com as citation in a lot of my articles, as it is the only statistics-site that covers Norwegian football pre 2000, but now all of those citation have been removed from the articles (without removing the supported text/stats). Is it disruptive if I revert the bot (after the task is done), or is playerhistory.com a site that we shouldn't link to at all? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful links - Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 54#Playerhistory.com and Soccerdatabase.eu and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#soccerdatabase.eu and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 22#Template:Playerhistory GiantSnowman 09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read those, as they were linked in the AN/I thread. No need to comment on the bot request after the bot has started to perform its task? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

They provide some more context to the situation. GiantSnowman 09:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My take on this matter, as the editor who submitted the bot request to remove the links. This website has been dead for at least 12 months, more like 18-24 if I remember correctly. It has been "re-launching soon!" for nearly as long. This is not a classic case of LINKROT as this does not cover newspaper articles or the like, it is a sports database which is not being updated, and therefore serves no purpose at all for active players. As for historical players, how do we know the statistics are accurate? i.e. can it be considered a reliable source? Furthermore, can the links actually be salvaged i.e. at the Wayback Machine? I cannot check as I am at work. GiantSnowman 09:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't serve any purpose for active players, but it rarely used for active players. User:Frietjes did a fantastic job replacing the citations from playerhistory.com with other sites when Template:Playerhistory disappeared, but replaced the template with <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.playerhistory.com/player/### |title="Name" profile |publisher=playerhistory.com}}{{dead link}}</ref> when he couldn't find another citation to replace it with, and that was mostly for players that were active before the internet-era. If we have the playerhistory-links with a deadlink template, it atleast shows that the information was verified in the past. Yes it is linkrot, but to quote WP:LINKROT: Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online. At first, I thought the reason all the links were removed was because someone had opened a thread at WP:RSN to discover that playerhistory.com was not a reliable source. But I was surprised that they were removed simply because they were dead. I have used soccerdatabase.eu as a "wayback machine", as it looks exatcly like playerhistory.com in late 2011, but make it look like I found the info on playerhistory.com when citing in articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Who has deleted information? I certainly have not, I have been adding {{cn}} wherever I have come across them, as ideally the bot should have done. soccerdatabase.eu should not be used as an archive as it is merely a mirror which looks to be violating copyight and will hopefully be blacklisted. Have you used the actual Wayback Machine? GiantSnowman 10:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I wish I'd kept up with the original ANI thread, didn't realise the bot was going to delete all links to playerhistory as well, including citations. WP:LINKVIO says we should be removing links to soccerdatabase.eu, assuming we accept that the site violates playerhistory.com's copyright. And there's no point keeping dead external links. But Mentoz86 is correct that where playerhistory is being used as a cited source, those citations shouldn't be removed just because the site is dead. Until and unless the site is found not to be RS, they should be left in place and tagged with {{dead link}}. WP:LINKROT#Keeping dead links is clear on this. Can anything automatic be done to fix? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely the burden should be on us to prove it is reliable, not to show it is not. I personally don't see any use in keeping two-year old dead links that (seemingly) cannot be repaired; it is much more useful to tag them with {{cn}} and replace them that way. GiantSnowman 11:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing cited sources simply because they're deadlinks is not a good idea. Not only can the site come back online, at which point all those citations would need to be re-added, but also a citation to a currently-offline source is certainly better than no reference to any source at all. Even if the site is currently down (or even permanently so), there are archival sites such as archive.org that may have old versions of the pages available. Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have asked (three times now!) for somebody to check whether or not the Wayback Machine has archived links, as I am unable to do so. GiantSnowman 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It has some pages from the site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Some but not all? Can a bot restore all PH links from the WM, or is that too complicated? GiantSnowman 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Some but nowhere near all. Any retrieval of archive links would require having the original PH URLs to start with, so presumably the first step to any sort of fix, manual or automatic, would be to restore any citations to PH that the original bot removed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What about rollbacking the bot's edits between 22:00 UTC yesterday and 04:00 (UTC) today, and then make the bot re-do the removal of soccerdatabase.eu links? We are talking about a couple of thousand articles, so it might be hard to do manually. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot operator comment: Just let me know what needs to be done and I can accommodate. The bot can rollback itself, remove just soccerdatabase.eu links, add {{cn}}s, {{dead link}}s, whatever is necessary. Cheers-- Theopolisme (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case I believe the best thing would be to revert, and only remove soccerdatabase.eu links in addition to marking playerhistory.com links with {{dead link}}, to give the football-project time to replace the playerhistory-citations with other refs. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is, if it's not too complicated:

• rollback the bot, then;
• external links to soccerdatabase.eu: remove;
• citations to soccerdatabase.eu: replace with {{cn}};
• citations to playerhistory.com: tag with {{dead link}};
• external links to playerhistory are problematic: I would say remove them, on the basis a dead ext link has no value, but many football editors, including some who should know better, tend to "reference" infobox stats by putting a templated link to their stats database of choice in the External links section. Should we be taking that into consideration, or not? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Struway's suggestion is extremely sensible; can we then run a report to see what pages still link to PH i.e. as an in-line cite? We can then, over time, work through the list, finding replacement sources. GiantSnowman 08:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'll wait another day or so for any other editors to chime in if they so desire; then the bot will revert itself and process citations per Struway2's suggestions. If *many* football editors, though, prefer keeping the link in the external links section, maybe we can just tag them with {{dead link}} and be done with it? Theopolisme (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'd say we definitely need to remove all Playerhistory external links. GiantSnowman 12:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

AfC User's Rash Approvals

I have been active in #wikipedia-en-help for a little while now. At least 90% of the "editing help" questions are about the AFC process, and 90% of that is a familiar routine; the wait time, the COI issues (the vast majority of it is corporates or PR types, alas), WP:ADVERT, what's a good reference, why those aren't good references, why those references "do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

So far, so good. A couple of days ago someone came in asking about what is now Eric_Sanicola; in the course of discussion, they (entirely predictably) proved to be Mr Sanicola, who had written the entire thing himself. (Not grounds for rejection itself, but not a good start). We gave him the usual spiel - references not reliable or mention him only in passing, notability is not infectious, etc. - but at the end of the discussion, User:Coolboygcp pops in for some other purpose and says "sure, I'll approve it"... and did.

This seems to me to be quite contrary to the reviewing instructions - and frankly, it seems a little futile to hang around in the help channel explaining the need for good references if someone else will come in and approve articles with junk references.

I attempted to discuss this with User:Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled; a flat denial that there was anything wrong with the article. On checking further, their contribs consist of a series of AFC approvals many of which seem dubious, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association I am not the only editor to have an issue with them.

I'm seeking advice on what should be done next. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are certainly some highly questionable accepts among User:Coolboygcp's contribs. Apart from this, has the user been asked (on-Wiki) on be more careful and pointed in the direction of the reviewing guidelines? Pol430 talk to me 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I got a flat denial on IRC that there was any kind of problem. IRC does tend to make people terse, but if you agree that there is an issue, I would be grateful if you (or someone else) would bring it up on-Wiki; I appreciate a sanity check that I'm not overreacting. I observe the Eric Sanicola article has been CSDed. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're overreacting, but I don't think the Eric Sanicola article is the worst of them (CSD has been declined). I'd rather someone else took them in hand, a third opinion won't hurt and I've already raised one editor's AfC work at AN/I today – I don't want to earn a reputation :P Pol430 talk to me 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.

I had no idea that there were this many editors interested in my contributions.

Additionally, when I read the quote: "I attempted to discuss this with Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled:", I proceeded to laugh hysterically. I did no "stonewall" Pinkbeast, in any way whatsoever.

When I corresponded with him/her, I provided several reasons as to why I approved the Eric Sanicola article. I truly cannot comprehend why he/she would fabricate such an accusation and story about me. However, Pinkbeast has repeatedly threatened me on the mentioned IRC channel several time. Threats such as, "if you upload that image, I will delete it", and I will report you if you upload that image, as well as "I will report you for even thinking about creating that article". Additionally, he/she has repeatedly misinformed dozens of editors and users who come to the IRC channel in order to seek useful, and proper advice and help, who instead receive misinformation and incorrect instructions among other worrisome advice.

In fact, I would advise that Pinkbeast has exhibited very much more worrisome, and detrimental behavior and conduct. Coolboygcp (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CB: Please feel free to show equivilant examples of Pinkbeast's disruptive behavior/content. Your behavior on the other hand causes problems, both for volunteers and the project as a whole. Your article approvals could cause editors and admins to have to edit the newly minted article and potentially have to go through the process of deleting it, having to sort out a policy morass, or potentially opens the foundation to liability. I'm saying this as nicely as possible, be extra careful with your approvals due to the fact that previous approvals have been questioned. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These accusations are false. If there is any doubt about that, I would suggest contacting other users of that channel to see if their clients keep sufficient scrollback; I believe any of User:gwickwire, User:TheOriginalSoni, User:Huon, or User:Yngvadottir might do so. For the avoidance of doubt, I am completely happy to have any comment I addressed on-channel to User:Coolboygcp, or any comment to anyone similar to those above, made public.

The only discussion I have had with User:Coolboygcp about images is that I declined to upload a non-free image for them, responding that "I can't really see that there is much justification for using a nonfree image there" (direct quote) after quoting the Wikimedia Commons guidance on non-free images verbatim.Pinkbeast (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've lightly interacted with Coolboygcp in the past. The direct interaction between us was minimal, and if there was, I dont have a strong memory or a log of it. What I do carry is an impression of him trying to help others, though giving quite a few wrong advices. Based on only that impression I carry from there (which I think were based on some articles he was involved in), I think he might make a good reviewer if nudged properly. I think a mandatory adoption for him before he can continue reviewing articles might be sufficient.

Also, IMO IRC interactions have a lot better chance of actually generating a positive response and actually solving the problem than escalating the issue, which I've often found on-wiki interactions do. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Looking through his declines, and his assurances that nothing is wrong, when many of his reviews clearly are, anyone willing to support an attempt to get a topic ban? Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through some of his approvals and am the one that nominated the article that brought this up for CSD, which was declined, and subsequently nominated for AfD by myself, which at my last check had only one other person with a Delete nomination and no Keeps. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be best, but I'm not exactly unbiased here. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They're still at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history is an approval of an AFC which took a whole five hours to get G11ed! Pinkbeast (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure IRC is the best way to communicate to people about what they might be doing wrong. Suggesting improvements or problems to people on their user talk pages leaves a record, which can be very helpful for anyone coming with subsequent problems. (It also eliminates pointless disputes like the above about what has been said.) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree; I just happened to see him pop up there while I was thinking about it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from reviewing AfC submissions for a period of three months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• There comes a time perhaps where some reviewers should be asked to cease reviewing, at least for a while, such as in the past we have had to ask patrollers to stop patrolling new pages. A polite request rather than a formal topic ban may be sufficient. Like many meta areas, AfC is one that attracts many relatively new and/or inexperienced editors. This has always been a thorn in the side of the AfC process which often requires an admin level of knowledge of inclusion policies. I am absolutely not advocating that only admins should review the pages - there is backlog enough - but some campaign to attract truly experienced editors to the task would probably not go unrewarded. Nothing will change much however until the Foundation comes up with a decent landing page for new users / new, new-page creators. Concurring with DGG, transparecy is required for discussions and IRC is not followed by any means by everyone. Some of us do not use it at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We have one example here, an AFC approval which has now survived AFD. Before topic banning anyone we should be looking at enough diffs to form a pattern, and that pattern would need to indicate a problem. But if an editor's judgement has been born out by the article surviving AFD then it is the rest of the AFC community who have got this one wrong. Note I'm not proposing that Pinkbeast be topic banned from AFC simply for this one case where he declined an AFC submission that went on to pass AFD, I'm hoping that that is an isolated mistake and a learning experience. But there is something deeply wrong with the AFC process when it is regarded as controversial that someone approves an AFC that goes on to survive AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was improved enormously (by someone else) while the AFD process was going on; the version that was approved was essentially uncited and bears little resemblance to the one people were commenting on later in the AFD process. This is not the only example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_1&oldid=551942369#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association (expunged from talkpage history)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history (G11ed within eight hours)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Construction_Contracts (notability? And the article is basically a pointless list of stuff.)

These are likely not the only ones, just what a quick trawl finds. I think a more compelling argument for opposing is that the editor appears to have stopped doing it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, addendum, I have never in my life declined (or accepted) an AFC submission. But if I had declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Sanicola&oldid=551199625 I feel I would have been right to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Copied to ANI here Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think some of his approvals are questionable, however we need a more thorough investigation before doing anything rash. I have started a thread at the WP:ANI, and have copied our discussion here as well as adding my own comments. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also informed everyone involved in this discussion via the ANI template. I hope this is due diligence - I even notified myself. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ummm... I think I said all I had to say in that AfC discussion and had thought this issue was closed. Echo me if you need clarification of what I had said, but otherwise I've nothing further to add at this time. (I'm not monitoring this discussion as I would rather stay away from ANI right now but will check back in a "few" days). Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - While there does seem to be a problem, its too premature to throwing around topic bans yet. There needs to be further discussion, and a longer pattern of troubling decisions, before that is warranted to be discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would like the editor to voluntarily stop approving AFC's right now, based on their poor history. If they refuse to do it, then I will 100% support a 3 month topic ban (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in general against a topic ban on Coolboygcp because I think its neccesary that we try to approach him directly and help him understand the reviewer functions more before trying anything of this sort. We need more reviewers, and not less, and AGF, I believe, coolboygcp's intentions are good. Maybe we ought to suggest him to be adopted by another experienced reviewer before he actively reviews articles again? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose á la flying off the handle with this one. Basket _Feudalist 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Coolboygcp does, judging by the diffs that have been posted here and his response here, not have the competence/maturity needed for the job, and should be stopped before he causes even more damage to WP. Thomas.W (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Bwilkins, I also think they can think of voluntarily stopping AFC review for sometime (2—3 weeks?), in addition they should be more careful in future, but, I don't support the "Topi ban" right now! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance. I'm not seeing any sign of Coolboygcp realizing their acceptances were problematic, and I see recent creation of two articles of their own that have been deleted as non-notable, so I don't think they "get" the criteria yet. So rather than ask them - again - to hold off on accepting any more articles at AfC for a while, I think we'd better make that official: for a short time. They can always consult with someone else if they think an article is ready, and should be encouraged to do so. Making it official will send the message that they really do need to re-read and internalize the criteria (including, for example, checking for copyvio in the obvious places). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just AFC that's the problem...

• Support per User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace. Copyvios, plainly non-notable articles, and articles that were recreated in the same state after being deleted at AfD. That was only a small subset. They weren't all AFC submissions, some were userspace drafts that the user took it upon themseslves to move into mainspace. When I redirected the unsourced non-notable article, the editors response was to tell another editor that I was "some random vandal" [101]. And then, personally, created an article for a fictional recipe in an episode of a TV program. Here you go - have another completely unsourced list of dubious notability. Unsourced BLP anyone?. This one is not only a G11 but also a G12 ... etc, etc, etc. A topic ban per WP:CIR is required here. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• SupportPer BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment He also seems to be committing copyvios. A great portion of this text is pasted straight from here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• BLP vio [102] unsourced accusations against a BLP. This is a copyvio from here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note That copyvio was made with the creation of the page back in 2007. [103] It is not the editor's fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Editor's competency is clearly insufficient to continue reviewing AfCs and their behaviour so far shows me that they don't seem to take well intentioned advice onboard. Indeed, their responses show a certain combativeness that leads me to suggest they won't stop voluntarily. This, taken into consideration with the evidence of introducing copyvios, makes a topic ban entirely justified IMO. Pol430 talk to me 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per WP:CIR and the editor's demonstrated unwillingness to take good advice on board. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC).
• Support a topic ban per Black Kite. For whatever reason, this is clearly not a user who has the judgement to participate in AFC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite and Bishonen, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - If Arbcom requires intermediate steps of dispute resolution before considering the sanctioning of an editor, why do we so routinely see calls for sanctions here when nothing of an equivalent is considered. This is RFC/U material, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. It is reasonable to insist that users who are involved in reviewing AFC contributors' work -- and giving advice to those contributors -- show an awareness of and willingness to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This user's record at AFC, the incidents described here, and the WP:BLP/WP:NPOV/WP:V violations I found when reviewing the user's recent edit history (diff) lead me to conclude that this user is not currently qualified to evaluate the main-space acceptability of other users' contributions. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Commenting so this unresolved discussion won't get archived. (The user hasn't edited in several days and this discussion has gotten quiet.) --Orlady (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations by User:Danish Expert

Roughly 7 months ago, I noticed that User:Danish Expert had been plagiarising sources. Attempting to discuss the issue with him, and at the subsequent request for a WP:CCI ([104]), I received only resistance and denial ("I never copied word-for-word text into articles" ... "only half of the sentence was accidently an identical copy" "I forgot to use some proper quotation marks for it" ..."it is a very factual line almost impossible to rephrase with other words" "impossible to formulate otherwise, due to being listed as short factual bullet points; and not being formulated as a sentence/line" "nobody can claim a copyright violation for me to add an identical topical list to wikipedia (with the topical words identical compared to what is reported by the article), because its just not possible to change the formulation of the topical list without changing the meaning of the topical words." ... "you can not claim a copyright violation to an identically formulated "common standard technical description"") which were far from convincing that the user actually understood the issue being raised and would be able to avoid repeating it in the future.

The request was ultimately closed, after DE "promise to be extra carefull", without launching a CCI by User:MER-C who observed "This request is borderline and I'm willing to let it slide if Danish Expert checks his previous contributions to eurozone debt crisis articles for close paraphrasing."

However, the plagiarism has continued (and was even occurring while the last CCI report was still open). A quick review of his contributions since then turned up numerous concerning edits, including:

Examples of plagiarism

Danish Expert Source [105] [106] "The new MTO definition is designed to set country-specific values, according to the economic and budgetary position and sustainability risks of the Member State. It will be defined on basis of the state's current debt-to-GDP ratio and potential GDP growth, while the overall objective over the medium term is still to achieve a budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus. For eurozone states or ERM II Member States, the upper limit for MTOs has been set to 1% of GDP as structural deficit if the state has a combination of low debt and high potential growth. For states with a combination of high debt and low potential growth, and for states suffering from increased age related sustainability risks in the long term, the MTO-requirement shall move up to be in "balance or in surplus". The MTOs will serve the purpose of providing a safety margin towards continuously respecting the 3% deficit limit, while ensuring fiscal sustainability in the long run. ... All Eurozone states and ERM-II member states that have not yet reached their MTO, have agreed to implement yearly improvements of its structural deficit equal to minimum 0.5% of GDP. It was also agreed to pursue active consolidation of the budget when the economic conditions are favourable (periods during which actual GDP growth is above potential growth), and to use windfall revenues, as a rule, for the reduction of government deficit and debt. ... The existing early-warning mechanism is expanded, so that the European Commission can now issue an "opinion" direct to member states, without a prior Council involvement, giving advice to encourage Member States to realise the agreed adjustment path. Accordingly, the Commission will address the Council in future not only if there is an acute risk of breaching the 3% of GDP reference value, but also in cases of unjustified deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO or the MTO itself, including in good times. ... In order to eliminate possible disincentives for structural reforms, it was agreed that, under certain conditions, certain structural reforms can justify a temporary deviation from the MTO and, for Member States that have not yet reached their MTO, temporary deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO. If the 3% deficit limit is respected and the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the four-year programme period, the Council, when assessing the MTO or the adjustment path towards it, will also accept the negative impact of major structural reforms (if they have direct long-term cost-saving effects - and can be verified to improve fiscal sustainability over the long term - i.e. pension scheme reforms)." "The new definition of the medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) is designed to better take into account the diversity of economic and budgetary positions and risks across Member States. In future, the medium-term budgetary objective of a country will be defined on the basis of its current debt ratio and potential growth, while the overall objective of achieving over the medium term a budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus remains. For Member States having adopted the euro an for those participating in the exchange rate mechanism (ERM II), the agreed range of MTOs is between – 1 % of GDP for countries with a combination of low debt and high potential growth and balance or in surplus for countries with a combination of high debt and low potential growth. The aim of the new country-specific MTO is threefold. It is designed to provide a safety margin with respect to the 3 % deficit limit, to ensure fiscal sustainability in the long run, and to improve the scope for productive public investment. ... Member States of the euro area and of ERM II that have not yet reached their MTO have agreed to achieve, as a benchmark, an annual adjustment of 0.5 % of GDP. ... Governments have agreed to pursue active consolidation of the budget when the economic conditions are favourable, i.e. in ‘good times’, and to use windfall revenues, as a rule, for the reduction of government deficit and debt. ... With a view to strengthening the preventive character of the Pact, the 2005 Ecofin report clarifies and expands the existing early-warning mechanism. The report expects the Commission to issue direct, i.e. without prior Council involvement, policy advice to encourage Member States to realise the agreed adjustment path. Accordingly, the Commission will address the Council in future not only if there is an acute risk of breaching the 3 % of GDP reference value, but also in cases of unjustified deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO or the MTO itself, including in good times." ... "With a view to eliminating possible disincentives for structural reforms, the Council agreed that, under certain conditions, certain structural reforms can justify a temporary deviation from the MTO and, for Member States that have not yet reached their MTO, temporary deviations from the adjustment path towards the MTO. Provided that respect of the 3 % of GDP reference value is not jeopardised and the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the four-year programme period, the Council, when assessing the MTO or the adjustment path towards it, will take into account major structural reforms. Only major structural reforms that have direct long-term cost-saving effects and verifiably improve fiscal sustainability over the long term will be considered. This rule pertains, in particular, to systemic reforms of the pension scheme of a Member State." [107] [108] "The European Commission also recently proposed the establishment of a Convergence and Competitiveness Instrument (CCI) within the EU budget. The proposal is to create a special EU budget account with earmarked money, for supporting the timely implementation of needed structural reforms (traditionally considered to be political unpopulair to implement), on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission. If the Member State implements the identified and needed structural reforms to ensure convergence/competitiveness, then the CCI budget will so to speak pay the Member State an economic reward of behaving in a sound and responsible way. On 29 November 2012, the Economic and Monetary affairs Committee of the European Parliament voted on the framework proposal, and gave its mandate to reach an agreement with the Council, meaning that the informal trilogue can now begin.The outstanding issues for the ECOFIN council to consider at their next meeting on 4 December 2012, is to decide on the role of the national supervisors, the governance of the ECB and the voting rights within EBA. At the council meeting there was not sufficient time to agree on any final decision, so the council will be called for a second meeting within 8 days, with the aim to conclude the work ahead of the EU summit on 13-14 December. Any change of the EU legislation about EBA require (according to article 114 of the TFEU): A qualified majority at the Council in conjunction with the Parliament's approval. While any change of the EU legislation about ECB's function/role require (according to article 127(6) of the TFEU): Unanimity for adoption by the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the ECB." "convergence and competitiveness instrument" within the EU budget – but separate from the MFF - to support the timely implementation of structural reforms, on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission. On 29 November, the vote of the Economic and Monetary affairs Committee of the European Parliament gave a mandate to reach an agreement with the Council, which opens the way to starting the informal trilogue. The outstanding issues touch on the role of the national supervisors, the governance of the ECB and the voting rights within EBA. Based on article 127(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the draft ECB regulation requires unanimity for adoption by the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the ECB." [109] [110] "contracting parties to make active use whenever appropriate and necessary: 1) Of the more ambitious regulations and measures applying specifically for Eurozone member states in accordance with Article 136 of the TFEU (which relates to the already existing enhanced and more strict Stability and Growth Pact regulations applying only for Eurozone member states), and 2) Of enhanced cooperation on matters that are essential for the proper functioning of the eurozone without undermining the internal market, as provided for by existing articles in the EU treaties." "Contracting Parties stand ready to make active use, whenever appropriate and necessary, of measures specific to those Member States whose currency is the euro, as provided for in Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of enhanced cooperation, as provided for in Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and in Articles 326 to 334 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on matters that are essential for the proper functioning of the euro area, without undermining the internal market." [111] [112] "Íslandsbanki (Icelandic for: Bank of Iceland), is an Icelandic bank with roots tracing back to 1884, formerly being the domestic part of Glitnir banki hf., but on 15 October 2008 being split from the bankrupt Glitnir and reestablished into a new independent bank. The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas, and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. It is being owned 5% by the Icelandic State Treasury and 95% by "ISB Holding ehf.", which is the creditor group behind the old bankrupt Glitnir bank. "with roots tracing back to 1884 ...The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. [113] [114] "In March 2010, Germany presented a string of proposals as an answer to the present European sovereign debt crisis. They emphasized the intention at this point of time was not to establish a fiscal union, but simply to make the monetary union more resilient to crisis. They argued that the previous Stability and Growth Pact needed a reform to become more strict and efficient, and in return an European emergency bailout fund should be founded to assist states in financial difficulties, with bailout payments available under strict corrective fiscal action agreements - subject to approval by ECB and the Eurogroup. In case a non-collaborating state with an Excessive Deficit Procedure breached the called for adjustment path towards compliance, it should risk being fined or loose its payment of EU cohesion funds and/or loose its political voting rights in the Eurogroup. A call was also made to enforce the coordination of economic policies between eurozone members, so that all states take an active part in each other’s policymaking" "making monetary union more resilient to a crisis ... Co-ordination between euro members must be more far-reaching; they must take an active part in each other’s policymaking."

Again, the response I've received is denials and justifications ("it was not possible to reformulate the words of certain phrases compared to how they were formulated by the treaty, because in that case we would risk making the grave mistake to enforce our own interpretation of the words, which could very well be a complete misleading of the readers, so it was far better to use part of the same "phrases" as the treaty did." "specific content points could not be formulated with other words due to the source using either vague/specifically formulated references (so leaving it with 100% of my own words would simply be an even worse solution, as it would then be either inaccurately reported for the specific facts, or constitute an incorrect enforcement of my own interpretation of the meaning of the vague parts of the provision)") that don't suggest that he grasps the problem.

DE is a quite prolific editor who has made a tremendous amount of valuable contributions to the project. Unfortunately, in my experience, in addition to the above plagiarism concerns, he lacks adequate understand of many of wikipedia's core policies, in particular what wikipedia is and what it is WP:NOT. A significant fraction of what he adds is unsourced original analysis, non-notable minor details, WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of stats, etc. See for instance a recent example at Latvia and the euro: [115] Talk:Latvia_and_the_euro#Latvia_and_the_Maastricht_criteria, [116], [117], [118].

The user means well, and I genuinely believe that he could be an excellent asset to the project if he could just better focus his immense talents on encyclopedic things. I think at the very least a CCI needs to be launched, due to the continuing plagiarism, but the page's instructions recommend seeking community input in cases where the filer has had disputes with the subject. Perhaps the best route forward would be a WP:RFC/U, to help demonstrate to DE why his edits are problematic. I really don't think that sanctions are the solution here, but believe the user would benefit from WP:ADOPTion to help guide him through all these issues. Unfortunately the user has long WP:ABF of me, so my arguments and advice on these issues is usually dismissed, but I suspect that he might be more receptive to a fresh voice. To date, the user has rejected this option, claiming they already understand all the policies. TDL (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Although, I am mostly not part of this conflict, I was invited by TDL to leave a comment here, if I wanted. TDL and Danish Expert keep having arguments over a number of articles, with TDL sticking too much to wikipedia policies, guidelines, or even essays and Danish Expert usually adopting a very liberal interpretation of the core rules of wikipedia, until everyone else disagrees with him and he lets it go. In this background, TDL has threatened Danish Expert with administrative action and has at least once summoned an administrator to mediate in one of their various disagreements and also most recently reported Danish Expert for alleged copyright violations. In the case where an administrator was involved, the administrator even suggested TDL should plot to get Danish Expert blocked.

I am frankly tired of all the arguments, which usually - but not always - concern quite technical details in the edits of Danish Expert. Usually, TDL is right in these arguments, and often Danish Expert's edits may have some flaws, such as not top quality language, missing references, contain points which are\may be true, but cannot be verified by a source, but over all, Danish Expert is adding valuable content that no other user seems to provide.

Danish Expert usually acts quite defensively to suggestions he may be wrong and, he may try to prove everyone else wrong or insist he understands everything even if he doesn't for some time - some days or 1-2 weeks - until he aligns himself to the general consensus. The problem is that he adds too much content too fast, and no one can really keep an eye on his edits all the time, to fix those secondary flaws, especially since he has rejected the idea of having a mentor.

On the other hand, since Danish Expert has faced consisted opposition and has even been reported or had to face a not-too-friendly administrator, I cannot blame him for acting so defensively. However, both sides, TDL and Danish Expert have acted quite stubbornly at times. I also acknowledge that I may not have acted properly in some of those arguments.

So, in my opinion, the main concern is how to keep Danish Expert as active, but also avoid his shortcomings, without placing him under something that would make him feel humiliated like supervision (by a mentor).

The particular incident reported by TDL here, i.e. alleged copyright infringement is in my opinion quite minor and arguable. In the previous report of TDL against Danish Expert, an administrator has replied to him in quite the same sense. Danish Expert does not willingly and blatantly just copy copyrighted text. Even from the new examples TDL has found, it can be seen that an attempt has been made to rephrase the text or attribute it to its rightful source and that some cases are just ridiculous to argue. For example, this excerpt:

"with roots tracing back to 1884, formerly being the domestic part of [[Glitnir (bank)|Glitnir banki hf.]], but on 15 October 2008 being split from the bankrupt Glitnir and reestablished into a new independent bank. The Bank has a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas, and operates an efficient branch network in Iceland. It is being owned 5% by the Icelandic State Treasury and 95% by "ISB Holding ehf.", which is the creditor group behind the old bankrupt Glitnir bank.<ref name="Islandsbanki financial result 2012"/>"

seems properly sourced to me, or perhaps the source could also be repeated a bit above from where it was added, and it would totally be something I would myself add on wikipedia. Writing that the bank has roots back to 1884 and holds 20-40% of the market is rather a general "fact" or allegation, rather than something that is under immediate copyright. Since the source was properly added, I really fail to see the issue here. In the previous report of TDL, there was an example about Kasidiaris, a Greek politician, attacking some other politicians, which happened on national TV. Arguing the words stating exactly what happened, i.e. this source text:

"An arrest warrant has been issued for Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris after he attacked two female parliamentary candidates on a live talk show on ANT-1 TV. Kasidiaris threw water at SYRIZA’s Rena Dourou and then repeatedly slapped Communist Party hopeful Liana Kanelli during a political debate."

are copyrighted is quite ridiculous in my sense. To explain this, let's assume we are to report that JFK got shot when he was. Obviously, the wording cannot really differ from what some journalist or author has already written on the subject:

"On Friday November 22, 1963, US president John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas."

Even though this can be rephrased somehow, its basic "facts" cannot change and I don't think copyright can be ascertained over this sentence, as it just common knowledge, much like what happened with Kasidiaris in Greece. As long as this is properly sourced, I do not see why it should be considered a major copyright violation.

The latest argument between the two editors concerned the inclusion or not of a specific sentence, appearing in some referenced source and can be found here. This in my opinion clearly indicates that the "problem" is the general actions of both editors, rather than the suggested plagiarism of Danish Expert. Both editors are quite good and add valuable content, usually complementing each other's actions, so I am really against any sanctions placed on either. However, there are general disagreements over style, and more importantly, content added, which should be somehow addressed.

The current disputes, however, are in my opinion, quite ridiculous.

I would advise any administrator that gets involved to carefully examine the edits of both users and their responses in the relevant articles' talk pages and on their user pages, before coming to any conclusions. To sum up, Danish Expert adds valuable content which may often have some issues and TDL has repeatedly tried to address those issues. However, no one can always keep an eye on Danish Expert's edits for potential issues, while also, sometimes TDL overreacts about alleged issues with Danish Expert's edits, failing to use common sense and sticking way too much to "the rules". Heracletus (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, for Heracletus has appointed himself resident psychologist for me and DE. He regularly involves himself in our disputes (even on articles which he has never edited before), thought his "mediation" is usually much more antagonistic than helpful, and usually limited to making personal critiques of our behaviour, rather than addressing the content dispute. (DE has expressed similar frustration with his habit complaining about us.)

"the administrator even suggested TDL should plot to get Danish Expert blocked." I presume that the grand conspiracy to get DE blocked which Heracletus is referring to is this comment made by User:Drmies: "You could gang up with your two fellow editors (while Heracletus isn't watching) and start a revert war to get him blocked. That's terrible manners, of course..." The comment was obviously made tounge-in-cheek, but this seems to have been lost on Heracletus.

Heracletus, you really need to read WP:Close paraphrasing as well, in particular Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Example. You can't just change a few words in a sentence and claim it for your own. If you want to use the words of others, you need to use quotation marks, it's really that simple. Facts can't be copyrighted, but expressions of facts can. And while I agree that many of the issues are relatively minor, the main problem is that this is ongoing, even after being warned about it, and DE (or you) don't seem to understand WHY its problematic, which makes it likely that it will continue. As I said above, I don't think sanctions on DE are the solution. But clearly someone needs to get through to him that these types of edits aren't OK. TDL (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I was notified by TDL about this discussion, presumably because of my involvement in discussion about Latvia and euro. I don't remember noticing anything that would suggest Danish Expert is violating copyrights. Seeing where this is going, though, I offer this - I got impression that Danish Expert is knowledgeable about the topic and probably gets carried away with his own ideas, TDL apparently noticed this and has been stalking him ever since, sincerely hoping to educate him about Wikipedia's rules although he might be pushing too hard; not sure what Heracletus' agenda is, but it seems to me this is not as much about copyrights as these three having longstanding issues with each other, which they can't figure out how to solve ~~Xil (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think it's fair to claim that I'm stalking DE. The articles which we have been in conflict on are restricted to a handful (all eurozone-related) which have all been on my watchlist since before DE began editing in this topic area: [119] [120]. Looking at DE's recently contributions, there are many articles within this topic area of which he is the primary editor and which I've never touched since his first edit: [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]. As far as I can recall, I've never followed him to an article which wasn't already on my watchlist. If I'm stalking him, I'm certainly not doing a very good job of it as I missed all of the diffs listed above when they were originally made. It was only after I noticed an issue on European Fiscal Compact that I looked further into it and found the pattern repeating in other diffs. Yes, I scrutinize edits he makes to articles on my watchlist, just like when anyone else edits these pages and just like he does likewise for my edits. But that's called the normal collaborative editing process, not stalking. TDL (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to revisit my decline, but I'll let the user conduct issues play out first. MER-C 05:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't questioning your decline. In fact, I supported it at the time. TDL (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@TDL (about the past: November 2012): You highly exaggerate the problem. Please stop deliberately to paint a wrong picture of my past behavior, just for the sake of stalking me. The CCI case you referred to from 7 months ago, was closed by User:MER-C, and the plagiarism you claim that I continued to do while being under CCI is NOT TRUE. In addition to your 5 reported examples back then, MER-C was able to find 1 extra backdated example which needed to be fixed. Back then I immediately engaged and solved the problem with missing quotation marks in the 6 examples being reported back then. Admittedly I briefly made one mistake in my fixing process, by accidently opting to use "italic text" as quotation marks (instead of actual quotation marks), but immediately within few hours also corrected that mistake after being noticed by User:Stfg. Back then I engaged sincerely with an open mind, corrected all past issue, and learned from my mistakes and today make far better use of quotation marks whenever needed. As this and this is an example of.

@TDL (about the Latvian case: March 2013): You highly exaggerate the problem. Last time the two of us had a clash (March 2013), was about some content I had added for the Latvia and the euro. It was solved peacefully back then. I agreed with you - and other editors in the talkpage - that certain shortcomings of the content needed to be addressed before upload, and fully accepted not to add it before reaching consensus for it at the talkpage, and until then started my ongoing work to improve the material in my sandbox. As I had a lot of things on my agenda, I have not afterwards found time to conclude it yet. I will refer readers of this point also to read my response about the discussion of my so-called "imperfect upload practice", that we had in the turm oil of the Latvian case at my user talkpage. The conclusion from this case was, that our internal discussion had made me realize in addition to a careful re-read of the wikipedia policies, that I needed in the future to start add a CN tag behind the parts of my uploads where the provided source did not fully proof a part of it followed by a "reason= line" explaining to other editors why this part had been written and no source added for the moment (in situations where the fact was not disputed, but a proper additional source had just been hard to find immediately when uploading the content).

@TDL (about the current case: May 2013): You highly exaggerate the problem. Moreover your "cited" report of my reaction to your notification is highly misleading, and so is your failed suggestion that it seems like I could not "grasps the problem". I invite all who is reading this thread to consult my full reply to TDL in this present discussion, here at my user talkpage, which proof I did grasp and actually fully agreed how this current issue should be solved (by adding direct cited quotes for the source-sensitive material), and even helped fix this issue myself! In essence the present situation was a single case, with 3 content points being clarified by me around the same time in the Content chapter of the Fiscal Compact article, where you (TDL) first corrected the 2 content points, and later discovered the third and got angry. However you entirely miss, that I immediately accepted your "edit summary" argument and correction for the first 2 content points, where you wrote it was better to make an exact quote of the source in situations where the specific line's degree of "own words" at the highest could be 20% compared to 80% identical phrases. When you discovered that both of us had not yet fixed the 3rd content point according to how the other 2 content points had been fixed, and notified me about that, I immediately engaged and fixed the issue according to your raised flag. Your cry that I do not listen, and deliberately ignore Wikipedia policies is utterly false. For unknown reasons you have now suddenly decided to intensify your hunt against me, by launching another broad attack against my account. As I pointed out in my latest reply at my user talkpage, I really genuinely think you exaggerate and hunt the wrong guy here. I acknowledge to have made a few minor policy mistakes in the past, they were never grave mistakes, and I always subsequently engaged to fix the issues you found and learned from my mistakes. If you conduct a more narrow look into my upload past, you will find that I indeed have a track-record of continuously improving my knowledge and adherence to the Wikipedia policies.

@TDL (about the newest 5 example report you launched yesterday in this thread): As a response to your newest report here at this page, where you have reported 5 new examples with a possible WP:PLAG policy breach, I will now briefly respond to you about these issues in the list below:

1. The first case you mentioned does not count as a violation! It was some intermediate text written by me, where I had just forgot to include the <!-- --> to leave it as a hidden note. In fact I returned yesterday to reformulate it into a new version with correct add of quotation marks whenever needed, 45 minutes before your launched this report about it, here at this page. So for this case I have fixed all issues before you reported it as a problem. So this does not count as any grave error. It was only reflecting a minor mistake during my bussy working-process, that I forgot leaving the <!-- --> signs. And yesterday I fixed this issue entirely on my own, before you (or anyone else) alerted me this was even an issue, which by the way also is a proof that your claim for me not to comprehend and act according to the Wikipedia policies is utterly false.
2. The second case contain less than 50% identical words, and in my point of view it does not constitute a copyright-violation. This is because "name of institutions" and "name of policy instruments" can not be replaced by our own invented words for the occasion. If inventing our own words for it, then readers would not know what the section was actually referring to (i.e. "Convergence and Competitiveness Instrument (CCI) within the EU budget", is such a policy instrument name that can not be changed). In addition to this observation, I however agree with you that 2 out of my written 50 lines in the section should be reformulated, as my formulation for those two lines indeed came too close to the formulation by the source. Thus I have now fixed this issue, by reformulating those two lines. All the rest of my written material in that section, do not constitute any copyright violation case.
3. The third case you mentioned was the earlier debated 3rd content point in the Content chapter of the Fiscal Compact article. This again show how ridicules this is. Because within a few hours after you had alerted me that you and I had forgot to fix this point, I entered and fixed the problem in a perfect way. So this problem has also been solved before you opted to open up this thread against me, here at this page.
4. The fourth case is minor. I agree with Heracletus, it is not a copyright violation. Although I acknowledge it is appropriate to reformulate the second bolded line phrase, which I just did to avoid any potential problems. Please note I still left two identical bolded phrases though, namely with roots tracing back to 1884 and a 20%-40% market share across all domestic franchise areas, which however only constitute a part of a much broader line, and thus do not constitute any copyright-violation problem as far as I am aware.
5. The fifth case is minor. On the same lines as with case 4 above, I did not copy any text at all, but actually just happened to formulate the line in a similar way with the source by coincidence (without being aware it was so close). In my point of view it is not a copyright-violation to use by accident a small percentage of identical phrases from a certain line in a source, in cases where it is hard really to formulate the Wikipedia line in a very different way. Both case 4+5 are examples on a situation, where it is impossible to write the line completely differently, and where a google-search would reveal multiple sources sharing the same formulation as also reflected by how it is reported at the Wikipedia page and in the attached source. Nobody can claim a copyright for such identical "phrases of a line".

Summarizing my answer above: Case 1+3 was solved by myself before TDL reported it to be an issue (and should thus not have been reported by him at all). Case 2 was a minor case (with only 2 out of 50 lines admittedly by accident coming too close to the formulated line by the source), which I have solved today. Case 4+5 is not recognized be me and Heracletus to constitue a copyright-violation. If someone else than TDL, think that case 4+5 should be reformulated and/or be reported by an explicit citation (supported by the use of quotation marks), I however stand ready to do so.

My own overall conclusion: At the present there is no grave policy misunderstanding issues being present between me or TDL. All past issues have been solved, including those raised by TDL in this thread. They have all been minor and not major. I always read all "edit summaries" each time TDL perform a change of my edits, and pay attention to everything he say/does towards me or my added content. Whenever I disagree with TDL (or other editors) about some of the corrections to my edits, I then engage to discuss it peacefully with an open mind at the article's talkpage to find a solution, where I carefully listen and argue why I think the content should be kept and/or do not violate a certain Wikipedia policy, and then by argument attempt seeking consensus for my perception of the situation (you can find plenty examples of this in my present edit past). For sure I am not always winning the consensus arguments, but my rate of winning consensus arguments is at/above 50% (meaning that I am fully capable to understand and adhere to Wikipedia policies, and should not be considered to be a blindfolded loose-going missile). So I consider it to be waste of each others time, if I at this point of time should engage with a WP:MENTOR. I admit occasionally also to make minor mistakes, where I did something I should not have done. We are all humans. Whenever someone pointed out I made a mistake, this is however something I fully accept, and I always help then afterwards to fix that mistake. Based on all this fuss launched yesterday by TDL against me, I will now of course be even more careful in the future to avoid making such mistakes. On the other hand, I will however also hope that TDL in the future stop to over-react against me in the way he just did. It is not productive for any of us to blow-up a small wind to a storm, and then use countless amount of hours to navigate through that storm. Wikipedia would benefit much more, if mentor ressources instead are used to address the true damaging storms (fixing ill-behavior by those editors who truly have grave problems respecting or acting according to the Wikipedia policies). Danish Expert (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As I do a lot of copyright work, I was asked at my talk page to look into this. Danish Expert:

• I'm not sure if I am understanding your notes about point 1, but it sounds like you're saying that it's not a violation of copyright policy to include verbatim text outside of quotations if you put it into a hidden note. If so, this is not the case - every time you hit "save page" you are consenting to our Terms of Use, whether the text is visible or hidden. If you need intermediate stages of articles before their completion, I'm afraid you'll have to do it elsewhere. By the time you publish it here, it must comply with policy.
• With regards to point 2, you are completely correct that names are not copyrightable. However, if you look at what you've written in the example provided, there are far more than names involved. Text like "support the timely implementation of structural reforms, on the condition that "contractual arrangements" are concluded between Member States and the Commission" is copyrightable. What you need to watch out for is creating an abridgment of your sources. Abridgments are derivative works and do constitute a paraphrase issue. When you can do what was done in that example and see that there are only a few words of your original text, there is risk you've crossed that line. There is no safe percentage of words you can copy. Copyright law in the US does not work that way.
• With regards to point 3, solving a problem before it is brought as evidence of an issue doesn't mean that it's not an issue. :) It's great that it's repaired, of course, but it can be helpful in documenting a pattern of behavior so that we can suggest corrections.
• With Point 4, let's be clear that we're not talking about a copied phrase but an entire sentence.
• With Point 5, some of the bolded content does not seem to have been copied from the source. I would agree that this is a minor issue, although if it were aggregated with other similar close taking it could become a close paraphrasing issue. It's also a really good idea to use WP:INTEXT attribution when closely paraphrasing your source, to avoid plagiarism.

You need to avoid placing intermediate steps on Wikipedia where you are copying too much of your source, even if you intend to put it in a hidden note. You should also be aware that such intermediate steps done anywhere may lead you to inadvertent issues - creating an abridgment or too close of a summary. (Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some suggestions for avoiding that.) With your final results, please keep in mind that our policies are not engineered to aiming for a percentage of acceptable copying (which, again, doesn't exist) but rather to following the deliberately narrow strictures of WP:NFC. When you can write information you get from a copyrighted source in your own words, you frequently should; when you cannot or it is undesirable to do so (because, for example, you are attributing a point of view), you should generally quote it or (if it is a small amount) clearly indicate that you are paraphrasing your source with intext attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply.

• In regards of point 1: I stand corrected on that, and can promise you never to do such a thing again (leaving copied verbatim text temporarily as a hidden note). This was by the way a one-time incident from my side, where my ongoing work got abrupted, and my intention was to leave it as a hidden note (comprising copied cherry picked key lines from a 100 page long report) -until returning to perfect it (writing it with my complete own words). As mentioned above, the reported issue was fixed 45 minutes ahead of TDL opening up this report about it. So I actually fixed it, before anyone alerted me it was an issue. And all along I acted in good faith, of not having done anything wrong. After your reply, I realize and accept this working practice was wrong, and will avoid repeating it ever again.
• In regards of point 2: Yes, but this line of concern was also something that I have fixed today. I will kindly ask for your opinion about if the fixed formulation I have uploaded today is a sufficient fix ?
• In regards of point 4: Yes, but this line of concern was also something that I have fixed today. I will kindly ask for your opinion about if the fixed formulation I have uploaded today is a sufficient fix ?

Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As no one else has responded to your query, I'll give you my input. While it's certainly an improvement, I'm not sure that revisions such as this go far enough. There are still stretches of text which are nearly identical to the source, there is a significant amount of quoted text (especially in bullet point #1) which might go beyond what is permissible and would be better written in your own words, and some of the things you've put in quotes don't actually seem to match what the source says. Plus, as SPhilbrick says below, the structure remains quite similar to the source. I think it would be better to follow Sphilbrick's advice and rewrite the section from scratch as opposed to trying to paraphrase it. TDL (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw this last night, and was unable to respond then, which turned out well for me as our resident expert has weighed in. I don't want this to be viewed as piling on—I see that MRG has identified several issues and DE seems to be taking the advice appropriately. However, when I viewed the examples (in the collapsed box) I was struck by the similarity of construction. I believe it was SandyGeorgia who pointed out an aspect of copyright that I hadn't appreciated until she explained it—that copyright infringement is not solely the use of identical or closely paraphrased words, it can include the structure as well. That is one danger inherent in starting with text, and continually paraphrasing it until you think it is no longer a violation, you may well have preserved the structure. This is one of the reasons for my usual advice to editors—read several sources, absorb the key message, then lay them aside and write it out in your own words. This is no guarantee, but it will reduce the likelihood that you have copied the same structure.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record: what Heracletus cites is of course incomplete (and in the context of proper citation that's kind of ironic): my advice was to maybe start an RfC/U since, in my opinion, Danish Expert was editing against consensus. Anyone who had read the material and history for Latvian euro coins would have felt the need for a stiff drink or two and since my religion doesn't allow for alcohol consumption I expressed my weariness in another way. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: No offence taken, although your cited answer to TDL: "You could gang up with your two fellow editors (while Heracletus isn't watching) and start a revert war to get him blocked", by most editors would be considered to be an inappropriate response. We should however not make the grave mistake to mix up the old "Latvian dispute" with the "current dispute", as they are completely different in nature, and because I intend to return during the summer with a more in depth response in that case, when first having finished developing my proposed content for the Latvia and the euro article in my sandbox. So I am not ready to discuss this case with any of you at this point of time, but can just briefly say that TDL back then knowingly opted to act towards me according to double standards, accepting that we upload the same table data in the Template:Euro convergence criteria, while refusing to accept that I on the same grounds decided to upload the exact same data in the Latvia and the euro article. I mentioned this to you already back in March 2013 (and to all other engaged debaters at the articles talkpage), but nobody took notice about this concern. I will return later and address this problem by pure WP arguments later in the summer. Simply put, I am just right now drowning in work, and this issue is no longer standing high on my to-do list, in particular not because my proposed disputed content is no longer displayed by the Latvia and the euro article but only visible as an unfinished draft at my sandbox. Danish Expert (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as I've told you in the past, I disagree with the inclusion of your personal analysis on Template_talk:Euro_convergence_criteria as well, so there is no double standard. (And in fact I did notice your comment in March and reiterated this to you, though evidently you didn't read my response.) Just because I haven't had the energy to open up another argument with you about it, doesn't mean that I agree with it. I don't. TDL (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I consider Danish Expert's above opinion to have addressed what I wrote before about Drmies, though, I did not name her myself, therefore, whoever was interested enough about what had happened would unavoidably read all context present. Defending myself on intervening on talk pages of articles that my account had not edited before, I found this edit of mine, which should clearly prove that I was interested in the relation of Latvia to the euro long before the disagreement described above started on the relevant article's talk page. My last advice, to Danish Expert, would be to not promise to never do any mistakes again, just to keep improving, because I'm bored of endless disputes and he will unavoidably make mistakes again, like we all do. Heracletus (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366 at Narendra Modi

Mrt3366 has recently begun contributing at Narendra Modi. Are this edit summary & comment this edit summary and a lot of the stuff here really necessary? I did try to deal with it but was brushed off. Although there has been some heated debate in recent weeks, we have generally managed to keep a lid on things until the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• And can someone else notify Mrt3366, please? I am persona non grata on their talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)ANI is not the appropriate venue for this. Do you want me to get blocked or banned? If not, then this is admin shopping. Before he came here I initiated a discussion seeking his explanation. He shrugged it off and came here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you know that I shrugged something off. What I want is for some uninvolved people to take a look at what seems to berather pugnacious editing by you on that article and its talk page. As I said, things were actually being discussed quite reasonably (the specific section about POV aside) until your arrival. The temperature has suddenly risen and given that this is (i) about a controversial politician, (ii) a BLP, and (iii) potentially one of those awkward Hindu vs Muslim situations that often spiral out of control, it seems sensible to see if something needs doing sooner rather than later. I can't even discuss it with you on your talk page and the article talk page is really not the right place to discuss behavioural things. I'm no prude but shouting out "fucking" in an edit summary that mentions Hindus and Muslims is something that sorta catches the eye, seems unnecessary and perhaps should be revdel'd even if the actual content of your edit is considered to be reasonable & thus reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment MrT is a sometimes passionate editor and gets a little carried away, he does on the other hand stick to NPOV quite well. And saying "fucking" is not a violation of any policy I know given Wikipedia is not censored. I would ask MrT to allow you to post to his talk page so that the two of you can discuss the issue there and should that fail, return here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of him sticking to NPOV quite well? two weeks ago he ws editwarring to insert a claim that Kashmiri Pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race sourced to a 200 year old book. Today he is removing a POV tag from an article that glorifies a hindutva politician during an ongoing discussion of neutrality concerns. I dont think he even knows what WP:NPOV says.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would not ask MrT to allow Sitush on their talk page because I can understand why someone may not want Sitush on their talk page. Perhaps they could discuss things on Sitush's talk page or some other talk page, if it needs discussion at all ...OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Sitush on this. While the f-word is not by itself a problem, this sort of edit summary indicates that Mrt is approaching the article in a less than salubrious way. Regardless, I think a warning and closing this thread is the best action here. --regentspark (comment) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's a fucking good idea. Basket _Feudalist 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Warning MrT for what and what do you want to warn him? Closing the thread is a better idea though.-sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning him that India/Pakistan topics are covered by discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom and that he could be blocked if he continues exhibiting biased editing and intemperate language in edit summaries or elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 11:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Has he shown biased editing? I am sure you have seen other issues on the page of Modi here at ANI, you did not call that bias editing, coming to the edit summary I am sure if you dig out you might find not so good edit summaries on the page of Modi. You can close this ANI though, if you want we can ask MrT to tone down his edit summary if it was that offending.-sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is natural for a Pakistani POV guy to fail to see anti Modi bias even if it exists, but see pro Modi bias/problems even where there is usually no cause for concern.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure who is this Pakistani POV guy you are referring to, everyone commented here commented are pretty reasonable and if you are referring to RP then I strongly disagree. Can an admin close this thread. I don't think it is going anywhere, lest it turns into a slugfest.-sarvajna (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why should a warning be given to Mr.T? A warning should be given only if his introduction of any lines was found to be a POV. Unless that has been established by consensus, how is his editing being considered biased? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The comments, edit summaries, and edits of MrT show that he just wants to display what wrong the "Muslims" did. This may be a violation and breach of Wikipedia policies. The editors should take in account WP:POV. That's all. Faizan 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What POV in it? Those are facts. Do you wanna say those numbers are wrong? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about facts, whatever they might be. Rather, this edit summary Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were FUCKING BURNT TO DEATH by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims. is extremely problematic. More of this sort of thing and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Again, I suggest that we warn Mrt that this is not acceptable and move on. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok read this Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were burnt to death by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims., if you remove the f-word then I don't see any issues at all.I don't see any reason why he should be warned, like I said before this is not a first dispute that is resulting in an ANI and somehow you think that this was wrong.Close it if you want.-sarvajna (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I met Mrt3366 a few weeks ago when he was editwarring against multiple editors to insert a claim that "Kashmiri pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race" a standard Hindutva propaganda claim which he sourced to a 200 year old book. When I reached out politely at his talkpage to let him know that he was about to breach 3rr this was the reply[126]. Now he is continuing the same pov pushing at Narendra Modi where he is joined by a few other likeminded editors trying to keep critical information out of the article about the Hindu National politician. I think a round of topic bans are in order, someone clearly are having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality. Mrt3366 also clearly has a hard time accepting critical messages on his talkpage instead flying off the handle[127], but this is a kind of communication that is vital for wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is someone who is "having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality" then it must be you for sure. Your edits to the page/talk page are clear testimony of that. Also if you know even a bit about Hindutva thing then you will know that they do not support the theory of Aryan race, you still need to do some research in that field I think. -sarvajna (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to you I have a long history of editing things that have nothing to do with Hinduism or Indian policy. I dont have a POV on this topic, but I recognize propaganda when I see it. In fact it is only this last month that I came to the topics and discovered their dire state. And your claim about aryanism not being espoused by Hindutva is of course wrong, they exactly propose the theory that there was no Aryan invasion but that the Aryan race and the Indo-European languages originated in the subcontinent. Im a little surprised you wouldnt know this yourself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So what, yes I edit articles related to India, that is what interests me, I need not edit other articles to show that I am neutral also coming to the point about aryanism they don't believe in the theory that there were people called Dravidans and the theory that aryans came to India and pushed natives to south India is not something that they accept. So the whole point of considering just Kashmiri Pandits as the purest form of aryans is not some Hindutva thing.One more point, the dispute here is not MrT pushing material against consensus like you were trying to do, the dispute here is whether his language in the edit summary is proper or not -sarvajna (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to push any material as you well know, I was trying to tag the article for its obvious lack of neutrality and start a discussion about how to make it conform to NPOV. As for your claims about Aryanism they are contradicted by sources like these:[128][129][130] which describe the racialist element in hindutva thought. The topic here is Mrt editing aggressively in collaboration with a group of povpushers trying to own articles related to hinduism and make them conform to their own viewpoint.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is Mrt's pugnacity and the way that has almost immediately raised the temperature from warm to uncomfortably hot. We were generally getting along ok together until their arrival. The edit summary is one part of that but not the whole. He has been combative from the outset seemingly because he thinks I am not trying to usefully develop the article and am hiding my POV by committing many small edits etc (at least, that forms part of his rationale in the last of my three links above). - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So was there any discussion started when the disagreement began? To be honest I am still not able to understnd the reason why we are here, Sitush, disagreements happen and people might not have the same style as you do. Taking people to ANI because you did not had your way or because you did not like how they did things might not be the right approach.-sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See my 09:38 above. I am not here because I have not got my "own way". I want uninvolved people to look at this, not you or Maunus or OrangesRyellow (who is pretty much always involved with niggling commentary whenever my name crops up here, rather like another user with a fruit-y name once was). Without input from uninvolveds, we are just going to go round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, however you have tried to involve more people [131], [132] .-sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And your point is? I went to Boing! before Mrt posted the last-linked item above and with the knowledge that Boing! had just posted a message in another thread here & thus was active. There was no response from Boing prior to Mrt escalating things further and I had good reason to believe that Boing may have gone away. So I came here. I could have come here straight away but I was trying to keep the drama down. If Mrt had not posted that last comment, I might still have been waiting for Boing now but it seemed obvious to me that he (Mrt) was getting still more worked up. Happy now? - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• With due respect to everybody, I think nobody likes to apologize or to be warned, when they have done nothing wrong but still I have been accused of exhibiting "pugnacity" and it's time I said something about it. If somebody's emotions are hurt because of the valid edit which elaborated (with a reference) how a mob of 2000 Muslims burnt alive 58 helpless Hindu pilgrims, then I am profoundly amazed. If somebody doesn't like my usage of the word "fucking", then I ask others to close this discussion ASAP; it is not the right venue to discuss user conduct. There are other venues to discuss user-conduct. Having said that, I am sorry that any of this is happening at all. Let's close this damn thing and move the discussions to relevant pages. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fucking get on wiv it then Basket _Feudalist 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not looking to get involved here, but I feel the need to point out that user conduct is indeed discussed here (although RFC/U is equally appropriate; it just depends on whether you want sanctions or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Pointing out that User:Ratnakar.kulkarni have now removed a pov tag three times from the article (just today) with no other rationale that he doesnt agree that the article is biased. These are the editors who are accusing me of pov pushing, "mischief" and "aggresive editing". Could we get some fucking admin attention here already? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, you dont get to come and cry here begging for admins. The real problem here is that you simply want the POV tag stayed there on the top of the article. There is absolutely no action from your side to remove it. You have been asked n number of times of what exactly is POVy and what you think should be written instead. But instead of commenting on the content you are being very very fond of this mud throwing at other editors. Its been 24 hours since i have asked you to come up with your version of non-POVy lead. But here you are playing blame game instead. In that vaguely worded RFC you raised you are asking for other editors to come and see if the article is POV. Why will they do that? You think its POVy, you say it why it is. When i said this last time to you, you resorted on personal attacks. Not surprised by that; Chesterton says that people generally quarrel because they cannot argue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because it gets anonoying after having spent three weeks descirbing in detail what the pov problems are and how the article doesnt conform to policy that idiots like you keep saying "so say what the pov problem is". It is pretty difficult to talk to people who are simply not willing to listen. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• How odd. How could anyone deny that this edit here is of a promotional kind? "In 1967, he volunteered to serve the people of Gujarat who were affected by the flood"--sourced to the subject's own website. The additional detail on the 2002 massacre appears to be inserted here to rally anti-Muslim sentiment (58 against 2000); the numbers add nothing to the article's subject. And then Ratnaker has the gumption, after all this promotional stuff was added, to remove a perfectly valid POV tag. I think an ArbCom-enforced slap on the wrist for Mr. T and Ratnaker is in order. And Basket Feudalist, if you got nothing useful to say, then just stay out of it. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely the numbers do not add anything, but don't you have any issues with the other numbers given there? that post train burning killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. If you really cared to see the talk page you will see that I have started discussion on those things. Unlike few other editors who just want the POV tag, I am rather trying to resolve the disputes.-sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Solving the dispute by editwarring and slandering others....Thatll work....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies, the edit does appear to be promotional in the sense that it employs the phrase "to serve the people of Gujarat", but there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for something non-controversial that is not unduly self-serving. The text would have been alright had it simply stated the fact that 'he volunteered during the floods' and so on... and it would have been better had the fact been corroborated through a secondary source. The same paragraph that you point you details the fact that among those dead there were 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. Does that equally seem to prove an anti-Hindu sentiment? I would like to see some unbiased commentary here please from an apparently uninvolved administrator. I would further like to understand your rationale behind the proposal to sanction Ratnakar. Please do elaborate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Edit warring, related to the tag. There is a big difference between saying there were 790 victims of faith X and 254 of faith Y, on the one hand, and saying that a mob of 2000 Muslims burned 25 women and 15 children, on the other. It's called rhetoric, and it's pretty obvious what this is supposed to accomplish. Helping flood victims and all is nothing encyclopedically unless rigorously verified to be non-trivial. You can send a $10 check and write it up in your autobiography. It is not easy to judge whether this is unduly self-serving, but it certainly is self-serving, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Given that Modi is a high-level politician and a former pracharak (propagandist working for the RSS), who is known to be reluctant to talk about some of his early involvements and to have pulled the plug on attempts to write an official biography, I think it reasonable to assume that anything he says about his background etc on his website is self-serving and any source that relies on it is also thus. Nick and I do not see eye-to-eye regarding this, nor about the use of op-eds to contrive neutrality, but while I might give a little on the latter, I'm sticking to my guns on the former: Modi's self-published biography is not acceptable for anything much other than his date of birth, religious affiliation and nationality. Mrt3366 only needed to read some still-visible threads on the talk page to understand the contentious nature of some of his recent edits: he should have continued to discuss, not forced the issue in such a heavy-handed manner. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, I am actually amenable to what you have said regarding the particular assertion and using the primary source above and I am happy to discuss content on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Mrt3366 was involved in a discussion where you pronounced that using the above WP:SPS for an almost-identical statement was ok. From that he may well have been encouraged to make a contribution based on that dodgy source. Like it or not, I think that even many experienced editors (me included) do tend to have a subconscious "they're an admin so I'm alright doing as they say" mentality. On this one, you were way off-base, as I suspect you have been on a few other content pronouncements relating to that article. You know that you are fallible but did Mrt3366? He is responsible for his own action, of course, but it is all a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, you are misrepresenting my position again. The other discussion was altogether different where there were secondary sources available to corroborate the primary source. Please review the discussion again. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That page is such a mess now that I can't even be bothered trying to work out who said what and when. I'll take your word for it and apologise. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment is the latest in a long line of combative comments and edits made by Mrt3366 in the last few hours. He's probably exceed 3RR anyway but will someone please give him a break. He needs to calm down. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor behaviourial issues

• I have recently reported Maunus's less than productive behaviour on this page when he went on a campaign to canvass for support on several Wikiproject pages without due regard to their relevance. Their aggressive mode of editing and commentary is counter-productive to any form of dispute resolution on the article talk page. I think that any form of sanction should equally apply to users who indulge in unnecessarily combative behaviour to bully, intimidate and harass other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And that would of course include your twinkle reversion of my first edit to the page[133] (a clear violation of WP:VANDAL which should cost you your access to automated editing tools) and your subsequent unmotivated threats on my talkpage[134]. You know that your accusations of canvassing are unfounded (advertsising an RfC on project pages is NOT canvassing), and your accusations of bullying are gooing to boomerang right back on your own ass. So I think you should shut up with that right about now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, reverting your edit using Twinkle was a one-off mistake. As a courtesy, I left a message on your talk page asking you to discuss prior to making substantive changes to the lead section (even when cited). The rationale behind the reversion is available in my comments. You also appear to have gotten into a habit of clearing out your talk page each time you have an uncomfortable discussion takes place, mostly cases where other users highlight your less than ideal behaviour. Perhaps you should take time to read what you write and reflect upon that. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how many one-off mistakes like that I could find if I perused your editing history. Yes I archive my talkpage regularly - is that a problem? As for my "less than ideal behavior" look at your self in a mirror. I have met few more arrogant admins and admins with less clue about policy. As for your "courteous message", perhaps you could take time to read what you wrote and reflect upon how it looks in the relation to WP:OWN and WP:CHILL. You do not have the right to request from anyone to discuss before they edit, and an edit not having been discussed is not a valid rationale for reverting, not even when not using automated tools. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop treating Wikipedia like your personal playground. You cannot simply decide to barge in on an article and make substantive changes to the lead section without discussing on the talk page first. Please extend some courtesy to other editors if you expect them to extend the same to you. Or perhaps, given your recent experience on the project where you had to give up your admin tools, you no longer believe in civil discussion? The fact is that you edited the article to make inappropriate inclusions to the lead section and I reverted you and left a message on your talk page (which appears to be that of an SPA) informing you that a reversion had taken place and that you were invited to discuss the matter on the talk page in the spirit of WP:BRD. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No? Honestly you call yourself a wikipedian administrator and you think one has to ask permission before adding reliably sourced material to the lead of an article. How the hell did you pass an RfA? And dont talk about courtesy to me: Your first courtesy to me was a threat and a claim of ownership, since then youve graduated to lies and false accusation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to leave this diff here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

/edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A few other one-off mistakes: [135][136][137][138][139] Here is your admission[140] that you know [[User:Kondi] personally. User Kondi who showed up out of nowhere[141] to remove the pov tag that you dont like on the clearly biased BLP article which he had never edited before. Could be a coincidence I guess. But on the other hand perhaps you are not the one to be accusing me of canvassing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it is you who is clueless about policy after all. Or perhaps in the spate of zealousness you forgot to review the cited diffs properly. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They are all reversions of good faith inclusions of cited material with only an automated editsummary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To whomsoever it may concern: I would request you to examine the pages and the changes made carefully along with the corresponding talk pages of the users reverted. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I made a personal attack which I later removed. If you are so keen that people see it i can repeate it here and save "whomseoever" the trouble to go through my editing history. /edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Maunus for 48 as a result of his repeated personal attacks. -- Y not? 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: To return to the supposed subject of this discussion. MrT, I've spent a little time reviewing his contribs over the past couple of weeks and I think it is obvious that he has problems with NPOV over a whole range of articles that involve Hindu-Muslim conflicts. Uninvolved admins should step in before it gets to be an even bigger problem than it has been so far. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner circumventing deletion of Amanda Filipacchi attack page

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

---

Howdy! Kauffner has recently used his userpage to highlight the recent media attention that wikipedia has received regarding Amanda Filipacchi. The page has been blanked three times by both Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Delicious Carbuncle citing CSD G10 attack page (which Kauffner was tagged for), BLP, and BLP a second time. Twice they were restored by people other than Kauffner, (William M. Connolley, and Launchballer) [142] [143]. Kauffner has since moved the content into a sup page and linked the subpage to his userspace. Kauffner has already discussed the matter with Delicious Carbuncle on their talkpage, where Delicious Carbuncle reitterates that this is a biography of a living person issue and that Kauffner shouldn't use his userspace as a WP:SOAPBOX. Kauffner argued that a procedure for removing the content from wikipedia hasn't been followed, and that the page was intended to be both a discussion of current wikipedia events, and that it was intended to be funny. This was brought to the BLP noticeboard, and after very little discussion the sup page was speedy deleted by Alison as a attack page. Alison chose not to participate at the BLPN, but her edit summary was "You don't get to write content disparaging a living person - even under the guise of 'satire' - especially with unfounded statements. Not cool at all."

Kauffner has chosen to circumvent Alison's decision by replacing the initial link on his page, to a link to a past difference of his home page which effectively recreates the attack page. Four editors have now told him that they believe this page violates BLP standards, and two have deleted the page under G10. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All editors named above have been notified of this discussion.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Seriously, why is anyone even bothering with this Filipacchi stuff anymore? Pretty sure most people have gotten over it and I am close to getting over reminding people of that. I can not think of anywhere else that such silly trivialities would be regarded with so much intensity. The little pun page is no longer live so it isn't gonna pop up in search results and it is hardly the kind of thing that would normally warrant deletion. We link people to edits that are actually bad in discussions all the time and those don't get deleted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I bother with it because an editor or two acted like spitefully angry and immature adolescents in their response to the media attention, and other editors bent over backwards to defend and explain their hissy fits. Most unseemly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is about the content of that page, or the events which led to that content, or anyone personal opinion of those events. An editor has effectively circumvented the speedy deletion of an attack page on a living person. Personally I don't think it matters if it was this page or a page on Hitlers living clone, it falls under WP:BLP and should be treated as such. This is one of those rare incidents where a page which was fully deleted under G10 was created in a separate location, and those differences weren't deleted. An experienced editor found this loophole and rather than respect the G10 decision made by an experienced admin, decided to circumvent the process. That is the issue as I see it.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems there are people on both sides who haven't had enough time to cry it out. However, threads such as this are just wasting time for no good reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that the BLP issue was Alison's call. The discussion at WP:BLPN is still open, and several editors have expressed support for the essay in the course of this dispute. Is it being suggested that we can't link to material that uses satire at the expense of a living person? Kauffner (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually yes, I think that linking to material that "uses satire at the expense of a living person" is exactly the definition of a WP:BLP violation.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Say what? What guideline says that? Kauffner (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Right here "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" (emphasis mine). Also "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The style of satire you are using is contentious and intended to spread titillating claims at the expense of a living person.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a titillating claim about Filipacchi's life?? Here I thought it was an essay about Wiki categories and other distinctly nontitillating subject matter. I'll have to read it again, that's for sure. Kauffner (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that these policies require that you claim to understand my point.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here twice; once via mention, once via talk page. Again, please don't bother notifying me of these on my talk page if you are mentioning me. You're wasting your time and mine because I would get a notification of being mentioned anyway and frankly had I wanted to respond I'd've done so by now.
I genuinely cannot see anything wrong with that content. To all intents and purposes, it is a number of paragraphs detailing the controversy of sexism on Wikipedia, with a number of sources. This is not a BLP violation and I think that the stick should be dropped.--Launchballer 06:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way linking to a diff of it is just a silly, trivial matter not worthy of a second thought.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would an admin please rev delete pages like this. That is a revision of User:Kauffner from 21:37, 13 May 2013 which (to use Alison's words) is "content disparaging a living person ... under the guise of 'satire'". That revision is featured in the link in the heading of the current User:Kauffner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to offer one's thoughts on people. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Given that Kauffner has been in hot water for his userpage before (for an admittedly different reason), you'd have thought they'd be more careful... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I even looking at the same page here? All I see is a critique of the current categorisation scheme and the media's response to it. Where is the slander?--Launchballer 07:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the mention of Filipacchi at the beginning of the essay is what people are reacting to. But there I am just using her as a example to explain how the category system works. Kauffner (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You are being disingenuous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree. That page existed to make a WP:POINT, little more. I wouldn't classify the content as a true attack page myself, but it certainly is not an "example to explain how the category system works." Resolute 13:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • That policy says, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". You think I wrote the essay to disrupt Wikipedia? My user page gets maybe five or ten readers a day. Kauffner (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the people who warned Kauffner that their user page was in violation of WP:BLP. After I blanked it, they created a page in their userspace with the same content. I asked them to voluntary delete the page or I would bring the issue here. That page was deleted by Alison as a WP:BLP violation. I warned Kauffner to be more careful, but rather than taking my advice, they have again used their user page as a soapbox. Linking to the content in the page history is not a way around WP:BLP. Can someone revdelete that content and give Kauffner a time-out so they can contemplate our policies? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're here to tell how justified your repeated vandalism was. You have a lot of nerve to show up here. I'm not only who thinks it was vandalism either.[144] Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough. The BLP violation is evident. RevDel the content out of public sight and warn Kauffner that any further attempts to exhume the deleted content will result in suspension of editing privileges.

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi

6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".

In that case, ArbCom also approved the use of administrative tools to suppress inappropriate content which was being made accessible via things to older revisions, as is the case here. ArbCom also ruled that editors who remove such content in good faith are not editing abusively, so Kauffner's claims of vandalism are plainly invalid and should be retracted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I wrote an essay about a current event relevant to Wikipedia as I am authorized to do by WP:FORUM: "Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace." Don't make excuses for vandalism. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Its basically an opinion piece meant to keep controversy on BLP matters, our category system is one of the most complex and esoteric editing areas. It is only done by a handful of editors and requires great care for working in that area, it is one of the few area on Wikipedia that making errors or swapping and renaming tags can cause a lot of harm. I do not see why it is needed given Arb Com's stance and the history of the user over talk page matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the link on this user's page to an old page version of the BLP-violating material in question. It is not a personal essay or an innocent diatribe, it is a snarky, mean-spirited personal attack on a living person couched in essay form . That should not be allowed to stand and should be rev-deleted promptly to avoid linking. Also, I find Amatulic's advice to keep it on a sub-page remarkably ill-advised, especially coming from an admin. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have revdeleted the revisions. The content had been restored by, for instance, William M. Connolley, but they did so without giving a reason for it; the BLP arguments brought up here (by Wolfowitz and Tarc) are not sufficiently countered by "satire" or "who cares". This is a BLP matter and we need to tread carefully. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't a valid RD2 case Drmies. It is used for "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy." Anyone who thinks the few incredibly tame comments about Filipacchi made amidst that otherwise indisputably kosher commentary meets those criteria needs to get a reality check. We don't rev-del stuff like this.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, since you chose the patronizing mode, I'll choose "smug": yes we do. I just did, and I did so with what appears to be a pretty strong consensus from some seasoned editors (that's a reality check, free of charge). In other words, I don't know where you got your "we" from. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• A handful of editors with an opposing POV regarding the underlying dispute (i.e. the categorization controversy) are not a consensus by my measure. Pretty sure those opposed here are sufficiently numerous and obviously other editors objected if they restored the blanked content. Neither policy nor consensus supports the RD2 argument.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So my user page is deleted a second time in the space of six weeks. What can I say? I am a standing affront to the censorship system. Perhaps this page should be protected to prevent me from editing it. A "user page topic ban" may be appropriate under the circumstances. Kauffner (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If there is a censorship "system" you wouldn't be an affront but rather, in this case, a raison d'etre. You could just accept that a bunch of editors and admins disagree with what you were doing and move on. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Woohoo! That will be easy now that it has been resolved that I'm a raison d'etre, the epitome of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The text written by Kauffner should be restored unless there are the sort of attacks on BLPs mentioned by The Devil's Advocate. If some editors still argue that the text is inappropriate, we can then at least see for ourselves what it says and see if there is consensus that it should be deleted. But given what I can read in this discussion, this doesn't look like the sort of emergency BLP attack that has to be immediately dealt with which then doesn't allow the community to look at the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Plenty of editors have looked at it, prompted by this thread and the BLPN thread. May I remind you that this is the Administrators' Noticeboard, not the court of public opinion, and that two admins have now seen fit to delete the material. I refer you to the first instance, by Alison: [User:Kauffner/Restoring human dignity here], in her G10 rationale: "You don't get to write content disparaging a living person - even under the guise of 'satire' - especially with unfounded statements. Not cool at all." Drmies (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would say there is a difference between deleting a page that only existed to contain such content and deleting revisions on a page that has contained plenty of other content. Also, I wouldn't say Alison is completely objective on this either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then put her up for recall, and throw me in there as well. (That's a pretty serious accusation, by the way: put up or shut up.) At some point you'll have to accept that Alison and I were voted into office (at considerable expense to us, I might add--I had to bribe over 200 people) to make these kinds of decisions. I am not aware that I did irreparable damage to the user page by revdeleting a couple of edits. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think a problem here is that we're using the same standard for BLP violations on someone's userpage as we would do for article content. While this seems to be official policy, this is asking for problems. E.g. newspapers don't do this, they are liable for publishing false statements about people in regular articles, but in comments or columns the standards are lot lower. Count Iblis (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to "t we're using the same standard for BLP violations on someone's userpage as we would do for article content" I'd say, well, no shit? That's kinda been standard practice here for awhile now; BLP applies everywhere. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem here is that while obviously the BLP policy should apply to all of Wikipedia, that in itself doesn't mean that what is not acceptable in an article cannot be acceptable for a personal opinion piece. E.g. if I'm of the opinion that Blair lied about WMD, there is no good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to write that up in my userpage. It is then clear that this is only my opinion. If I where to edit this in the article on Tony Blair, then this is a BLP violation because Blair has not been found guilty of lying about WMD. For a text on my userpage to violate BLP on this matter, it must contain outright gratuitous insults that have little to do with simply discussing the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, there'd be two good reasons why you wouldn't be allowed to write that up on (not "in") your userpage: one, it has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia or with collaborating with other editors; and two, it's a violation of the BLP policy, which applies everywhere. It should, and does, apply everywhere on Wikipedia, which does indeed mean that what is not acceptable in an article cannot be acceptable in a personal opinion piece in userspace. BLP is BLP. Full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• But if I were to actually write something like that on my userpage (b.t.w., thank you for the free of charge English lesson), it would likely happen in some discussion relevant to the editing of a Wiki-article. If people understand my perspective on the issue, that can only be helpful. In case of the CRU hacking incident which purported to show that certain climate scientists had forged data, people where free to make such claims on the talk page, but the article itself could not make such claims because there is no evidence for this claim. Obviously, it would have been an outright BLP violation to state that a certain scientist forged the data. However, the bad editing climate which led to the CC ArbCom case would have been cleared up at that time if all the involved editors actually explained their positions better. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• No need for that. I am not suggesting Alison's deletion was a problem, but her remark about it was excessive and you shouldn't use that remark as a basis for invoking RD2 where it really doesn't apply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion in line with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion This really isn't the time or place for this kind of content, regardless of what namespace it was in. If you really want to post this kind of materiel, go to Uncyclopedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, bury the horse, burn the stick, and get on with actually...gasp...building an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (and Drmies's RevDels) and suggest that if Kauffner continues to misuse his userspace he be banned from using it for anything other than drafting articles. (I should note that I planned on suggesting the latter point before I noticed Kauffner had himself mentioned the idea in a somewhat less pleasant tone.) As Drmies rightly notes, the fact that this is the second time in six weeks that the community has censured Kauffner for his userspace content is indicative of problems in his behaviour, not in everyone else's. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Its not censorship when you knowingly engage in violating talk page guidelines and do so willingly after a recent warning. Even if it was more soapboxing, a userpage is not meant for that fashion and the image in question should not have been allowed either per guidelines, and lastly, trying to use that soapbox to provoke and sustain controversy is a concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say that it is not clear to me what warning or guideline is being referred to above. My story about how I was wikistalked was simply deleted with no suggestion that I couldn't write other things. I wonder what basis people are voting on now that the material in question can no longer be viewed. Kauffner (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I saw the page before it was deleted, and am confident in saying that it was a BLP vilation. The Bushranger and Nick, of course, can see the page whenever they want. As I said, maybe you should focus less on deflecting everything said against you, and more on remedying the issues other users are pointing out. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and any future recreation of this material. Not only does it violate BLP but it represents the worst aspects of Wikipedia. I will suggest that a future recreation should be followed by an immediate block for protection of the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• But without clear evidence, isn't the assertion that Kauffner is guilty of high treason against Wikipedia itself not a BLP violation? Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - and I strongly suggest that Kauffner gets a sanction for creating yet another dodgy userpage, and for their continued WP:IDHT responses to pretty much everything. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• No trace of BLP violation to be seen in Kauffner's opnion piece'. I'm reverting NE's close of this discussion, because this discussion is not based on an evaluation of the primary facts. Few people have read the actual opinion piece written by Kauffner. Kauffner emailed it to me, and having read it I see no problems whatsoever with it as an opinion piece. Therefore I will ask that an impartial jury of 10 volunteers will read the text and if more than 6 of them say that this is unacceptable as an opinion piece in someones's userpage, it should be declared as such. Count Iblis (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I read it and your opinion is clearly not the consensus. Satire is a wonderful thing but satire about living people does WP:NOT belong here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • But even if we don't want such satirical opnion pieces, it should not be framed as a BLP violation, in the real world the media doesn't do this either. So, even if a newspaper would not publish a satirical column, it would have rejected it on its own merits, not because it failed the standards for a regular article. So, the big problem I have here is that we don't distinguish between opnion pieces and articles. It is hard to see that we would really be consistent about using this standard, because this would hamper discussions if e.g. the inquiry about WMD in Britain would return with some ambiguous verdict on whether or not Blair lied about WMD. Can such a matter then be discussed freely on the talk pages, or would the editors who defend the position that Blair did not lie, shut down talk page discussions on this matter? Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      • In general User's opinions are irrelevant per NOT:Forum. They should be discussing what reliable sources say, and how to represent those, if at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Canoe1967 and the spamming of his own pictures in cosplay (possibly other articles too)

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

---

One swordsman defends against five others in a display at Calgary Expo 2013

I've attempted to explain to him how this is not even cosplay and it's not a proper way and how any more illustrations are not needed at all here, what he should do instead (and which is what I do, myself).

He responded to doing this and... this.

The picture attached is what he thinks is essential to be pushed into the article about cosplay (yes, a random photo that is not even showing cosplay), so much he's going to edit war about it (perfectly knowing he's edit-warring), just to have his own photos shown on Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Not because of any claimed COI, but just because it's irrelevant. I've long had doubts about Canoe1967's judgement across a range of edits. This sort of behaviour doesn't improve my opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you consider my pictures as spam. I take good photos an only upload the best. This is my category at commons. I have 1000s more pictures that I could upload but I don't because they are crap in my opinion. I also have 1000s more that I haven't had time to upload yet. If you are really nice I may upload as public domain. It seems a shame that only me and a few just hoard it on our desktops. The cosplay article is a huge mess of few sources and mucho text of fan input. Editors should should focus on the quality and truth of the text and not the few images it has to fill it out.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of the word "irrelevant"? Given your para above, it would seem not.

I didn't remove this photo because it was "spam" or because it was "crap", I removed it because it's not cosplay. Cosplay is something else, other than this type of re-enactment. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that you're still edit-warring and re-inserting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's "a huge mess" currently, go and see the original version just 1 year ago. But you're actually right about the text (or actually, a need for more references), because the article is already perfectly well illustrated, and indeed no more pictures are needed there at all (which is what I tried to explain to you, ironically enough). --Niemti (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that since I rewrote the article last year (the article used to be a complete mess), I've kept the valuable pictures that the other people added (after uploading them). The ones with Superman and Batman, with Amidala, and with Link, and even of this panel too, because they're actually well illustrating the relevant sections, and also they're not bad - I just edited the captions, including removing the names of cosplayers/photographers from the display in the article so it wouldn't be so blatantly promotional (they're still in the descriptions of the files, just not in the article). But obviosuly it's not the case with Canoe1967's spam. --Niemti (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This sounds like a content dispute, thus I recommend WP:DRN instead. Even if you find the behavior problematic, I think you need to establish the issue with content and offer an opportunity to stop doing this based on the input of fellow editors before coming here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know they had sweatpants in medieval times. Unless we have articles on bad cosplay, these images appear rather useless. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They needed sweatpants for their turkey legs. Duh. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

At least Niemti is trying to bring this matter up for discussion and not engage in edit warring himself. And yes, this is a content dispute perfect for WP:DRN. Which according to the content discussion here will likely be a formality, but I suggest having it done anyways. While this is not the preferred venue, to remove himself from edit warring and bring it somewhere is an improvement and shows that Niemti is willing to bring problems to other editors. That's a good improvement in my book. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. There were still 4 reverts, just not within 24 hours... Minimal discussion on talk page or edit summaries either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think Canoe1967 harass Niemti by placing 3RR notice to his talk page [145], whereas Niemti made only one revert in this article during last week or so. And that is a behavior problem on the part of Canoe1967. Saying that, I think Niemti should simply take a wikibreak and relax. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Its a poor choice, given that its over a week late, and in poor taste, considering Canoe was equally guilty, as he reverted it 3 times as well, but I don't know if its really "harrassment". More like poorly timed and hypocritical. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am sure that posting unjustified messages like that by a person who is actually involved in edit war represents Wikipedia:Harassment, plain and clear. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Really? Then why didn't you revert the same warning that Niemti gave Canoe1967? Seems to me, both editors are edit warring. No matter who is "right". Looking through the sequence of events that lead up to this ANI thread, it seems that bot users are at fault, but Niemti is exhibiting the same type of behavior that has had the editor blocked before. Canoe1967 added an image(one that seems to actually fit the article) with the edit summary of "Expanding article". Niemti undid the edit without comment. Canoe1967 readded the image with the edit summary of "Please explain on talk page or edit summary and seek consensus before further removal". To which Niemti promptly reverted with the edit summary of "Not needed(and ugly)". Which evolved into the edit war above, with both editors reverting each other. So this is at least both editors fault, and if Niemti would stop editing in the abrasive manner, perhaps he/she wouldn't find themselves constantly at ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Both users kept on reverting each other with minimal discussion or edit summaries, and both left warnings the same warnings about edit warring in bad taste, so I can't classify any of this as "harrassment". Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Re. I did not remove 3RR notice from talk page of Canoe1967 for two reasons. First, he indeed made two (or possibly three) reverts in the same article over a few hours, unlike Niemti who made only one revert during a few last days. Second, it was Canoe1967 who placed this message first, which obviously provoked the response. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 userpage encouraging vandalism

Am I the only one concerned that Canoe1967 has a request on his userpage for others to vandalise the userpages of "deletionists"? — Richard BB 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. I would think that he's free to have his image about deletionists, but not free to tell people to use it for vandalism purposes... Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely. Any request for people to vandalise any area of Wikipedia is unacceptable (and it seems that he's trying to make a point in retaliation for something he added being deleted). — Richard BB 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask him to remove this unless anyone opposes? Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It was removed, he re-added. I have re-removed, and unfortunately full-protected his userpage for now - until he recognizes that consensus has always been that encouraging vandalism of any form is verboten - the consensus above merely solidifies existing consensus. Any similar re-addition anywhere on this project should be considered disruptive and handled accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unquestionably, that kind of posting is a WP:DE issue and isn't even a point worth debating. I think protecting was the best of the two options as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is incredibly silly. YOU ARE CENSORING HIM FROM HAVING THAT GENTLE JOKE ON HIS OWN PAGE!?!? There is no actual vandalism threat and the fellow has had that thing on his page for ages with no problem of people vandalizing with it. And Bwilkens has a long history of having a hard on for over-regulating others. But I'm going to counsel Canoe, to just ignore you little chipmunks while thinking to himself how silly the type of people who frequent this notice board are.TCO (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC applies, and while the ideal method would be to notify the matter first, this call to vandalize a group of editors, namely 'deletionists' is an example of one thing that is not favorable. The anti-admin banner on your page is probably no different. Censorship does not apply when you knowingly and purposely seek to create a divisive or launch attacks at other users, user pages are no exception. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TCO, you might want to mind WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem isn't his viewpoints, he's free to hate deletionists or admin or whatever as long as their not personal attacks, which this example is not. The problem is that he's very literally encouraging people to do vandalize other's user pages. Vandalism = bad faith edits. It'd be one thing to encourage others to use the same tag, but if he's saying vandalize, it seems like that's putting that tag up on people's user page against their will. How can you possibly justify someone coming into a group with established rules, and saying "Hey, let's break a very basic and clear cut rule." You complain about censorship, but promote the forcing of viewpoints on to people's user pages? Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's now come to my attention that Canoe is deleting GiantSnowman's comments from his talk page with a misleading edit summary (and has apparently been doing so for some time), by declaring that GiantSnowman is "banned" from his talk page. Not the most friendly attitude. — Richard BB 14:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty more diffs in the talk page history of exactly that kind of behaviour, simply search for my name, you will find Canoe almost immediately reverting me with "copyedit (minor)" or similar as the summary. I eventually gave up trying to have reasoned discussion with him and moved onto other things; it appears he has failed to do so seeing as he 'notified' me to the fresh discussion on his userpage, despite me being completely uninvolved with any of it, and despite us not interacting at all for God knows how long. GiantSnowman 15:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That checks out. [146] Removing ANI templates with the same edit summary. [147] And even refactoring blocking comments of other users. [148] A long history of removing comments and warnings with this tag is apparent. [149] At this point, I think it is a chronic problem that needs to be dealt with. Altering blocking comments being a major concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If everyone would just calm down a bit, I've had pretty much worked things out him. Through calm discussion, he said he now understands why the bit about the vandalism is wrong, and seems to agree not to add it back in to his userpage. As far as declaring people "banned from his user/talk page", no, you can't formally ban people from it, but people are free to remove other people's comments from user/talk pages. Its generally considered bad form, but his is free to do so. If people would just tone it down a bit and stop nitpicking, we can work this out. (Yes, altering warnings is not okay, and he should be instructed as such, but he's not currently blocked or anything, so it's not really the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous This is just a ridiculous pile on -- having been brought to ANI, a search for more bad "stuff" about a currently unpopular editor is executed. The "offending" text was inserted 24 April 2012. Lacking any diffs of a rash of vandalism on so called "deletionists," there's no evidence that the content was causing disruption -- the disruption here is 1. nitpicking about it on ANI, 2. an editor editing another editor's user page, and 3. fully protecting the page. It's obviously a lame joke and best ignored. (Attempts at) humor are not prohibited on Wikipedia; if they were we should be sanctioning User:Drmies for bribing their way to admin per their recent "confession". (I'm offended, of course, not on principle but because I wasn't one of the 200 beneficiaries.) NE Ent 13:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ent, I still don't know what happened: did I PayPal the $100 to the wrong email address? I'm sorry. Or was it not enough? Also, yeah, "calling" on editors to vandalize this or that is probably in poor taste, but one would have to be kind of a moron already to follow that kind of "advice". I don't find this actionable and I think we have bigger fish to fry here and elsewhere. I just read that of all wiki edits 95% take place on the English wiki--no doubt that number would go down considerably if we stopped fussing over every little thing here. Thanks Ent, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

Alright then, through discussing with the user, he now understanding the issues brought up here, and has stated he will stop, and check with others first before adding potentially controversial things to user/talk page. As such, I'll be removing his page protection now, as its no longer necessary. Let me know if anyone opposes this, as I have no intentions on wheel warring, though I really feel that this has all been closed up just fine now. Lets all move on to other issues/projects. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Close thread User has agreed not to post any more inflammatory content on their user pages. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Close thread - Well, that's all folks! Now, go edit somewhere else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Close per above. As someone whom has requested action on userpages in the past, I had noted this one long ago, and, although I found it a bit out of order and stupid, decided to ignore it. As most people clearly had as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• User page has been unblocked. Everything's taken care of. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats, User:74.218.250.83

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

---

Anon user 74.218.250.83 was blocked for the persistent false addition of material to various Ohio State related pages, namely, that one Giovanni Strassini or Giova Stroh had played football and baseball for the school and had won various honors. Those names appear nowhere in any reliable source and the claims are demonstrably false. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#.22Giovanni_Strassini.22 for more on that. Once the IP was blocked, the user continued editing from other IPs, which were also blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/74.218.250.83/Archive for some but not all of these. The subject IP retained the ability to post to his Talk page, and has done so. It was fine (if unenlightening and a bit of a waste of time) until recently when he began removing from others' comments the names he'd previously been trying to insert into the articles, and then posting legal threats when other editors restored their own comments. E.g. of perhaps two or three instances. I ask that the IP's access to his Talk page be removed, and that the IP be blocked for whatever length of time is deemed suitable. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Said IP was the one to introduce the names in question ("Giovanni Strassini" and "Giova Stroh") to various Wikipedia articles (e.g.,[150], [151], [152]). Only now he began to refer to those names as his name [153] and started to delete them from other users' discussion entries because of claimed violation of privacy laws. This is by no means a violation of anyone's privacy laws, because said IP deliberately invalidated them for himself. --bender235 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• TPA revoked. If someone feels the block should be lengthened, go for it--I think this is run-of-the-mill vandalism of the stupid kind and it will blow over. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But - um, two minutes later he's still posting to the page? JohnInDC (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm now that he still has Talk page access and is making the same edits and threats. JohnInDC (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a slip of the button on Drmies's part. Changed the block to correspond to his comments.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly understand slipped buttons. (There should be a preference for iPads to require two clicks on a rollback button!) Thanks for cleaning that up. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! My apologies. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Can someone please block this obvious sock, Special:Contributions/Stroh013, and semi-protect the IP Talk page? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Kww. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I got this message from 168.215.131.150 (talk · contribs) which is an obvious sock. Left a message on my talk page, here. Directed to OTRS, but the clear evidence of a massive campaign for this hoax is disturbing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me to be one of two things. The first possibility is that a wholly innocent Giovanni Strassini of Charlotte, NC, has been the unwitting victim of a 4+ year scheme to portray him as an OSU football and baseball star, which scheme has extended to impersonated appearances in Charlotte bars with an OSU alumni group, extensive interlinked Wikipedia entries (all by Charlotte IPs), bio postings to IMDB, two Facebook pages and a Twitter account, all of which became known to Strassini only during a recent 48 hour period when Wikipedia editors began to strip the articles of the unsourced (& false) information; whereupon Strassini raised his concerns editing from, and on the Talk page of, an IP address that only about 12 hours earlier had used by the conspiracy to add his name to the encyclopedia. That's one. The other possibility is that Strassini was a participant and, now that "proof" of his athletic career has been removed from Wikipedia, he now seeks to remove discussion of the circumstances of its removal. Maybe there's a third possibility that somehow logically weaves in the claims about ID theft, but I can't think of what it might be. I guess it's up to OTRS to sort it all out. JohnInDC (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

When dealing with issues like this, the simplest explanation is often the correct one. And editing from the same computer within 48 hours from the issue, seems a bit much. So is the confirmed proxy (public IP) used on my page. The level of forgery to make a fake ring and sign a bowling pin and place it on display seems to me that this might be an elaborate and perhaps deliberate hoax put into Wikipedia as some social experiment. Professors have put their students up to this before as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It could be a lot of things I guess. Googling this name turns up, in addition to a bundle of user-supplied references to an illustrious (albeit wholly fictional) OSU career, an Ohio court decision about a former North Carolina and Ohio resident bearing that same name, which decision does not cast the person in a favorable light at all. Wikipedia may be the point of the hoax or just collateral damage, hard to say. In any case the OSU information is false, it's gone now, and editors know to look for it if it returns. So I suppose no matter what else happens we're better off now. JohnInDC (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible violation of WP:NLT at Talk:Kermit Gosnell#Legally dangerous wording

Specifically referring to the comments of User:Yug User talk:Yug in that section of the talk page. It is in the gray area and so probably deserves a look by an administrator. Safiel (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to be a threat against the editor or Wikipedia but more a concern of a future legal matter because of the wording. Yes it is borderline, but the matter of copyright and libel comes up regularly with contested issues and editors holding those concerns do not get warnings or blocking for NLT. "Remove this or I'll sue" is a legal threat" And after the NLT matter came up the response included "... This is a political POV issue, and doesn't stem from any concern about Wikipedia's perceived legal risk. Federales (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)" Because we have WP:BLP I believe it is fair to say that an experienced editor like Yug did not intend a legal threat in any shape or form, but was corned about BLP matters and specifically cited the reason why. Poor wording when seen out of context, but not a legal threat and not deserving of action. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no plausible legal threat made by User:Yug in the discussion. They are simply pointing to the possibility of a lawsuit by a third party over which they have no control or influence and the resultant hurt that may be caused to the Foundation as a consequence. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons says: "Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles [...]." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am agreeable with the sentiments expressed by both above editors. I decided it would be prudent to bring it here, as some editors had expressed a concern, but yes, it looks more like a bad choice of words, rather than a violation. Safiel (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yug: To keep it short, my concern was indeed following WP:BLP recommandations, best expressed in "From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles [...]." The former "babies/infants [...] hundred [...] spining" means hundred cold blood born babies killing and is extremly shocking. A good wiki POV push to be taken by "muckrakers" journalists to create an artificial controversy. Yug (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's quicker to read the talk page than it is what's written here. There's absolutely no legal threat here, this has no business at ANI. Quoting a grand jury report in the U.S. in the way it's done here isn't even in the same ballpark as libel. The real dispute is over whether to use the term "infant" or "fetus", presumably because one assumes personhood and one does not. I have no interest in getting involved in that debate, but none of that has anything to do with ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation

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

---

Hello,

I was about to create a new article under the form of a translation which would have been issued from a text which was originally published in French, but I have found this warning message → [154].

I do not know what the subject of this aforesaid deleted writing was. Nevertheless, the new text that I was about to integrate is specifically linked to a well known Swiss healer who has been the main subject of one of the weekly TV show entitled Passe-moi les jumelles which was broadcast on the Radio télévision suisse : → [155]

Question:

• Am I allowed to create this new article, in spite of the fact that a former text (which, I presume, was probably not connected to the original content) has already been deleted?

Thank you for your help and advices!

Kindest regards!

euphonie ^breviary
00:23, 03:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• You can create it without a problem. That just means that someone else had created the article before and an admin deleted it because the person that created it was a WP:sockpuppet. When someone abuses multiple accounts, we delete the articles created by those socks as long as no one else has contributed anything important to them. It isn't a warning, it is just a notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! Kind regards! — euphonie ^breviary 03:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Wajidafridi1

Wajidafridi1 (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose sole purpose at Wikipedia is the promotion of Pakistani politician Haji Baz Gul Afridi. He has a history of writing clearly promotional prose without sources (the "Since 1999, He has not being directly involved in politics" claim was later proven false), of edit-warring to keep his preferred picture of Gul (which showed him with the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan, now deleted as a likely copyright violation) on the article [156][157] [158][159], and as a masterpiece claimed on IRC that his life was in danger if the article mentioned smuggling despite the New York Times reporting on Gul's arms shop in that context, a claim that got parts of the article revdeleted until the Office decided to take no action and to leave the article's content to the discretion of the community. I had hoped that now that the election is over Wajid would vanish again and that we wouldn't have to take action. Not so: Today he removed sourced content on Gul's 2008 election defeat (see "not being directly involved in politics" above) and simultaneously inserted an apparently fake claim of a re-election in Gul's 2013 district (not mentioned by today's Daily Times article, for example; he has now presented a "source" which doesn't mention Gul's district). He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and this disruption needs to stop. Huon (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconding what Huon is saying. My experience with him is that he's a liar par excellence, having never spoken a word of truth in #wikipedia-en-help to anyone trying to help him, and when called out leaving quickly or trying to change the subject. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is WajidAfridi1. I would like to say that this whole thing against me is motivated due to personal differences between me and some people. There have been numerous times that they have ignored Wikipedia rules and taken it personal. When I uploaded an original picture, a user [Demiurge1000] took it off, not because it violated any rules or anything, but he told me that he will continuously dispute me until I stop editing Wikipedia.

Please check the following exchange of messages in IRC - When I asked him why did he remove the image, his reply was [05:13] <+Demiurge1000> I'll restore it on 12 May 2013, how's that? [05:15] <User1> You'll put it back on the wikipedia article__ what, now? or on 12th of May? [05:15] <+Demiurge1000> 12th of May. My Question is that why the 12th of May? Surely this has nothing to do with any date.. but the whole 12 may thing by him was because that is when the elections are over! Why is he seeing this as personal. Later on, he made some statements which was targeted at me, Implying that I am some sort of a terrorist due to my background.. and I was offended by them. [05:21] * Demiurge1000 falls asleep, strategically. Someone please poke me with an AK47 when something exciting happens. -17May2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajidafridi1 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Three observations:

1. It's claimed above that Wajidafridi1 (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose sole purpose at Wikipedia is the promotion of Pakistani politician Haji Baz Gul Afridi. Yes, even a quick look makes it very clear that Wajidafridi1's sole interest is Baz Gul Afridi. (At this point I'll refrain from commenting on the claim that promotion is the purpose.)
2. There is an extraordinary resemblance between the names "Wajidafridi1" and "Baz Gul Afridi". Simply, there are two possibilities here. Either (A) the former is (or is employed by) the latter, or (B) he is not. If (A), then we have a conflict of interest. If (B), we have a potentially deceptive username.
3. In this edit, Wajidafridi1 alters the article in such a way as to claim that the ordering of a re-election by the Election Commission of Pakistan is itself backed by this source. That assertion is not backed by that source. Wajidafridi1 thus added an untruth to the article. There are two obvious possibilities here: (A) mere incompetence and (B) an intent to deceive.

So I have two questions for Wajidafridi1. First, are you (or are you working for) Baz Gul Afridi? Secondly, how do you account for your attributing to a web page an assertion that the web page does not make? -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that copy pasting IRC chat logs here without consent is a pretty big no no, but I'll leave that to be dealt with at the admin corps' discretion. I've notified Demiurge1000 seeing as their name was raised here and sought their comment. Blackmane (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wajidafridi1, it is not permitted to record material from the help channel and then publish it somewhere else. Please don't do it again, or your access to the help channel will have to be removed.

For context, my reference in the above-quoted conversation to the world's most popular firearm, was because the article which we were discussing was about an arms dealer (as is reliably sourced in the article itself).

The "me with my friend the former Prime Minister" photo was deleted on Commons after I raised the possibility that it may be a copyright violation. The photo currently used in the article is far more appropriate in any case.

It does not necessarily follow from the username that Wajidafridi1 is the subject of the article or is employed by them. (They could be a close relative, a distant relative, or just someone who shares one of the same names).

Wajidafridi1 should seek consensus on the talk page of the article before making any further removals of content, or potentially contentious additions.

Wajidafridi1 and others should refrain from using the help channel to discuss disagreements about what should be in the article, disagreements about Wajidafridi1's identity, location, or motives, disagreements about whether he has misled anyone about any of these things, disagreements about what that would say about him as a person, or disagreements about whether one or more people are personally biased against him.

I don't currently see an immediate need for administrator action. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoary I just want to point out that the surname Afridi is a common surname, and hence its no extraordinary resemblance. However, I do say the (A) possiblity is correct because of all the facts I know in this case due to my heavy involvement.

Second, adding untruths to the article is not unheard of from Wajid. In the original article that I modified and then approved from AfC (A move I retroactively regret), we see the line "Since 1999, he has not being directly involved in politics but remained a key figure in the region". This line was uncited, but it appeared non-controversial and there was no need for me to suspect that, so I did not remove it.

However, the current version of the article states "Baz Gul was a candidate for National Assembly seat NA-47 in the 2008 General Election. He was third, with 20% of the vote". This fact is now sourced. When I asked him about it, Wajid claimed he did not know about it, but I find it implausible and highly suspicious, given the amount of detail he did infact know about the article subject [See the old revision for that].

Its therefore very clear that he is lying on this issue.

More comments on the rest of the statements shall follow in a short while. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Or maybe in a slightly longer while. Waj has repeatedly lied to all of us about everything here, including lying about alleged threats to his life from the article subject to prevent changing that article (to me as well as other editors). I have logs which I am willing to share with any admins to show his lying, and I am willing to try to find further proof of the same too. In my opinion, he deserves nothing short of a topic ban, and possibly as big as a possible block because of his disruptive nature and willingness and attempt to decieve all of us. [Did I tell you about the one time he came to the IRC pretending to be Jimbo, and "ordered" us to not attack that article?] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The majority of people who come to the help channel are single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest. A substantial proportion of them are deliberately misleading in some manner while there (e.g. pretending they don't have a conflict of interest). What makes this one special? (Why would anyone be attacking the article - your word - anyway?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/50.73.253.49

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

---

50.73.253.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (notified) is an uncollaborative and disruptive unregistered person residing in Southern United States. Apart of his/her two-months-long disruption in articles, formerly as 99.102.158.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), s/he tried two times to alter the posting of an IP user from Russia, the second time in spite of an explicit warning that it constitutes a serious offence. I request a block to this IP for a reasonable term, not just 24 hours. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked them now for a month; if they continue after the block expires a longer block will be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Emergency protection needed on Rob Ford

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

---

Gawker Media has released a "news story" in which they allege that the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, has been caught on video smoking crack, according to an unnamed source. They say in the article they cannot prove it until they can purchase the video from the source. This is bordering defamation, but that's Gawker problem and I assume they are pretty much lawyered up. The issue is that now people are adding these "facts" (again, unproven) into Wikipedia's Rob Ford article. These very serious allegations have yet to be proven and carry a massive libel potential. This article needs to be protected ASAP. UpstreamPaddler (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This especially true considering the subject is a WP:BLP. UpstreamPaddler (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd point out that this is not only Gawker Media. Still, what you say is basically right, and I have therefore semi-protected the article. See here for my (I hope innocuous) comments. (As I've said there, if full protection seems to be called for, go ahead without consulting me.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's probably good enough for now. I have no problem with the inclusion of the allegations if/when they are proven or if Ford resigns or whatever, but until then, it's a shaky story, relying on a whole lot of "my guy says so," "appears to be", and "according to"s. Given that Wikipedia is dead serious about BLPs (and rightly so), it seemed a wise move to protect. Gawker and the Toronto Star have the means to disregard ethics and/or fight libel lawsuits, the WMF much less so. UpstreamPaddler (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Lfdder and accusations in lie

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

---

The user got upset that the Chalkidiki Greek was taken to AfD instead of speedy deletion (which it is not amenable to), and accused a user in being "dishonest". I asked them to assume good faith and stop accusations. Then they accused another user in "lying". I had to go to their talk page and warn them that next time they would be taken to ANI, and also asked them again to be civil. They obviously read the warning since they reverted it calling it "rubbish". Now, the "next time" came in a couple of hours, when they insisted on the accusations in lying and additionally accused me in being "a bunch of muppets". (They also implied I am a friend of User:Dennis Brown, which I am not - I have no firends on Wikipedia, but I can survive this accusation). I am afraid time for blocks has come. Enough is enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have to support a block. I can't claim to have been 100% level-headed in this dispute, but Lfdder is bang out of order yet again; instead of apologizing for being deliberately disruptive earlier, and promising not to do it again, they're attacking anyone who wants to follow due process and who disagrees with them. Also, someone needs to speak to User:Taivo about WP:NPA, whom has made some inappropriate comments about Dennis Brown (and admins in general), simply because Dennis chose to follow guidelines to the letter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I trust Taivo shall be whipped in the most righteous manner. — Lfdder (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• I unprotected the article for the sole purpose of it being sent to AFD and stated as much, with the comment that I would send to AFD is no one else did. As with any article where there is controversy with its deletion for any reason and CSD doesn't apply, AFD is the venue of choice, something every experienced editor and admin should know. As for the personal attacks and snide comments made by a few, I'm not affected as they say more about the persons making them than it does about me. The overall unprofessional behavior and drama mongering is a larger concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It should really not be necessary to re-hash the procedural disagreement here, but since you reopened it, I have to say I am disappointed with the dismissive tone with which you are now presenting your choice as the only procedurally correct one ("something every experienced editor and admin should know", no less!), seemingly oblivious to the well-founded procedural objections to it. The disagreement is this: AfD as opposed to Prod is the only method of choice not simply whenever "theres controversy with its deletion for any reason", but only when there are actual objections to the outcome of a deletion proposal. In this case, there had been (regrettable) brouhaha over the deletion process, but, as several people have been reminding you, not about the merits of the case itself. I continue to hold that de-prodding and opening a pro forma AfD instead in this situation was a poor choice and by no means proper process, and it played an unfortunate role in permeating the drama. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It wasn't the only choice, but it was the forum of choice as it guarantees an outcome within a week and the time to thoughtfully discuss it. And one I clearly indicated I would pursue as a condition of unprotecting. As for permeating the drama, you could have chosen to simply comment only on the merits at the AFD just as I have, but sadly, you did not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • • I commented on your choice of process at the AfD because I felt your choice of process was worthy of criticism. You got a problem with that? – Oh, and your argument now ("I set it as a condition for unprotecting"), with which you have again failed to address the substantive objection I raised and which amounts to little else beyond "because I said so", will do little to allay other editors concern that this whole thing looks like evidence of an admin on a power trip. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)Yes. Commenting on the motivations or methods of the nominator is inappropriate at AFD for any editor to do. It was drama mongering, just as your tone here is. I expect it from new users, but not from admin. You could have taken it to my talk page, or at the ongoing ANI discussion (or better yet, just !voted and left off the commentary), but you chose to be the first to comment and the first to drag the drama into that process. And since I was essentially reverting another admin without consulting them first, setting that condition was reasonable considering deletion was your objective anyway. You could have taken it to RFPP or asked DGG to self-revert. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
          • You might note that the article has now been deleted via SNOW, faster and more sure than a PROD, and now it can be deleted via CSD#G4 if it shows up again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
            • You just don't get it, do you? FutPerf didn't set the spark off; you did. Stop trying to put the blame on him 'cos all you'll achieve is to drag your credibility even further down. — Lfdder (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • A condition? Who are you to set conditions? Should've just left it there till it expired then. Would've saved us all the trouble. — Lfdder (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, the moral high ground. Very easy to climb when you're the decider. You moved the process to AfD for no good reason, Drmsomething throws a tantrum, DGG protects a page out of nowhere, but that's all overlooked. I point out you lied (which you did), feelings hurt all around, block this imbecile who dare question admins authority and integrity. — Lfdder (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• The user got upset that the Chalkidiki Greek was taken to AfD instead of speedy deletion I did not get upset that it wasn't speedy-deleted. Need to get your facts straight. — Lfdder (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  Not really a good excuse for grossly incivil and clownish behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, did you just call me a clown? Off to ANI. Oh wait.... — Lfdder (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Copyright concerns regarding User:USchick

I think we may have a problem regarding User:USchick, who appears to be copy-pasting material (with occasional minimal rewording) into articles: see for instance this edit [160], and compare to the source [161]. Another example can be seen here [162] which again contains material copied from the source, and here [163] (in this example I'm not sure that USchick was solely responsible. I raised the issue at User talk:USchick#Copyright violation, but the response has been dismissive, with accusations of "stalking harassment on [my] part". [164] Since I clearly don't wish to be accused of harassment, and consider the issue of possible copyright violations of real significance (as our policy makes clear), I would ask that uninvolved contributors look into the matter further, to see if there is a deeper copyright problem with USchicks editing, and would also ask that an uninvolved person makes it perfectly clear to USchick that copy-pasting material into articles is unacceptable, and if USchick is unwilling to abide by policy, there are likely to be consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

According to policy - "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed." Instead, AndyTheGrump has been stalking my edits and reverting them. I have posted the copy in question on the talk pages of both articles for comment. In addition, I would like to point out that if you look at revision history for AndyTheGrump, [165] his edits consist mostly of acting belligerent toward other editors. I request for him to be reprimanded. Thanks. USchick (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting suspected copyright violations is entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to behave like this? Quoted from your talk page: "even if it involves breaking a rule or two, and telling the less clued-up 'contributors' to go boil their heads. This will of course put me at risk of getting blocked, but I think the results are worth the risks" USchick (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be dealt with at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems noticeboard. Count Iblis (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If this was a single incident, I'd agree: but there seems to be evidence that this is an ongoing problem: compare this diff from February [166] with the cited source: [167]. Almost the entire section added by USchick is copy-pasted, with minimal changes. Compare the source "These weapons included an infertility toxin to secretly sterilize the black population; skin-absorbing poisons that could be applied to the clothing of targets; and poison concealed in products such as chocolates and cigarettes" with USchick's edit "These weapons included an infertility toxin to secretly sterilize the black population, skin-absorbing poisons, and poison concealed in products such as chocolate and cigarettes". If USchick has been doing the same thing in multiple articles, it clearly needs wider attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note. I removed the material referred to in the above post, as a clear copyright violation - USChick has just reinstated it: [168]. Given this clear refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy on copyright, can I suggest that at minimum USchick be formally warned that further violations are liable to result in a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm quoting Andy from my talk page "Copyright violations are exempt from edit-warring policy." Please make up your mind, are they exempt or not? I don't appreciate being threatened. USchick (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Deleting copyright-violating material is exempt from the edit-warring policy. And asking that you be obliged to abide by policy isn't a threat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please check your belligerent attitude per Wiki policy. USchick (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Final warning given, including a link to the relevant section of the US Code. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked her to clarify whether this is a habit or a lapse. If she doesn't know, that's bad. --John (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time ever that this issue has been brought up with me. It has not yet been determined how many of my edits (if any) are actual copyright violations. USchick (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're at four right now. Are there more? --John (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have strong suspicions that the problem is extensive, then this should be taken to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where should I complain about being stalked and harassed by AndyTheGrump??? ;-) USchick (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The stalking section of our harassment policy notes that it's appropriate to follow someone else's editing for the purpose of fixing "violations of Wikipedia policy"; when you're infringing copyright and claim not to be aware that you're doing it, your edits definitely need to be followed. If you're not able to determine whether you're infringing copyright, I strongly suggest that you refrain from adding substantial content to any articles without first discussing your additions on a talk page (article or user) or a Wikipedia: namespace page (e.g. WP:HD), since it's lots easier and much less disruptive to remove infringing bits from a talk page or WP: namespace page than from mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, when he started stalking me it was because he didn't think anyone should be editing an article that he wants to delete. [169] First he reverted my edits by claiming that they didn't reflect what the sources said. Then when my edits used the same words as what the sources said, he accused me of copyright violations, except this time he also claimed that he wasn't edit warring because copyright violations are exempt. How convenient. So that's why we're here now. I don't expect you to do anything about it, I'm just saying on record that AndyTheGrump is a bully. USchick (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple question, USchick. Do you accept that the material I have linked violated Wikipedia policy on copyright? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing here [170] and you reverted, claiming that's not what the source said. When in reality, that's exactly what the source said. As a result, I started quoting sources more closely, and that's when you accused me of copyvio and then you hid behind an excuse of being exempt from edit warring. Then you escalated, by stalking my other articles. That's as simple as I can answer. USchick (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

USchick edits articles on recent breaking news events a lot; editing these articles makes one vulnerable to this problem. When I was last editing such a page (about the London Riots, I think I saw USchick editing there too) I found it quite hard to avoid copying texts from sources. But then these sorts of articles are edited by quite a few editors at the same time, so I think the editors should collaborate with each other better (perhaps in some WikiProject) and discuss these sorts of problems. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a problem here at all, because most sources allow copying of their texts as long as the source is cited. You then do need to make it clear that you are quoting directly from the source, e.g. you can write that source [X] reports: "......". Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

USchick did not indicate that the material had been copied directly from the source - which constitutes plagiarism even if it isn't a copyright infringement. As for what may be legitimately done when clearly marked as a quotation, that is another issue, of no relevance to this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You reverted this edit, a direct quotation. [171] Now that we're here, why don't we let others determine what they think is relevant. USchick (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There was more to the edit than the quote, as anyone can see - 'Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro said the criminal justice system can't be "complacent" as it has only 60 days to accept the charges against the suspects' isn't marked as a quote, is it? Now, I ask you again, do you accept that the material I have linked violated Wikipedia policy on copyright? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered your original question above. Now about the rest of that edit, can you please explain what you see as the problem? "New Orleans residents expressed outrage over the violence and questioned American apathy toward inner city crime and gang violence." And why were you not willing to discuss this on the talk page of the article in question? USchick (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Block Proposal

I think that it is evident that USchick is refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem here - and accordingly, I again suggest that this contributor be blocked from editing until they agree to comply with policy. Wikipedia has to take copyright violations seriously, to avoid possible legal repercussions, and failing to deal with a contributor who seems to think that compliance with copyright policy is optional doesn't exactly reflect well on us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't read that into USChick's replies here. Avoiding copyright problems isn't always easy, it becomes a lot more difficult if the editors are fighting tactical battles instead of editing collaboratively. Editing like playing chess with a potential copyright problem as a check situation on the board and claiming checkmate on AN/I if the opponent doesn't concede, isn't a good example of collaborative editing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Block With the hope that USchicks failure/refusal to understand the copyright violations she adds will not escalate further. I'd hate to see another topic ban, but at this point that doesn't look very far away. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block. There are some copyright problems here that do need to be dealt with, but you shouldn't do that the way AndyTheGrump is intervening in the editing there, as that's basically a guarantee that the editor he is dealing with is not going to listen to him. It seems that we're not learning anything from all those long term disputes we've had on Wikipedia. What's needed is better collaboration, so I would suggest that we advice USchick to read a lot of articles she likes to edit, to see how you avoid copyright problems and to find some other editors who also edit a lot of recent news articles and collaborate work with them. I note that AndyTheGrump's position is that Wikipedia should not have any articles based on recent news articles. While we can all respect his position, his interjection in the editing of these articles led to this copyright issue escalating to AN/I, instead of being dealt with at the talk page level. Count Iblis (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So your position is that if a contributor violates copyright policy, and refuses to acknowledge that s/he has done so, no further action need be taken to ensure that policy is complied with? Somehow, I think that the WMF may take a different view, as might the copyright owners of future material misused in this way. As for 'collaborating' on articles, I see no reason why I should be obliged to assist people who don't understand policy in creating articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place (as the AfD seems to be making perfectly clear) - and please note that I've already found an example of blatant copyright violation in an article which was in no way news: [172][173]. If contributors can't be trusted to comply with a policy that has potential legal implications for Wikipedia, they shouldn't be editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we should certainly help USchick with complying with our copyright policies. But that does involve assisting the editor with editing the articles, pointing out where she went wrong and how she can improve her writing skills. Blocking should be the last resort for truly disruptive editors. The problem is that if you storm in, don't show much interest in actually editing the article for content, her replies to you will be rather unhelpful, she won't show much interested in your problem either, even though the copyright problem is actually an important one to deal with.

Of course, you don't have to assist her yourself, but we can ask other editors who do freqently edit the news articles to assist her. If later it turns out that she can't collaborate well with these other editors who do passionately edit the news articles, that she still is making mistakes w.r.t. copyright, then that is a sign that she can't function well in this sector of Wikipedia and then we could think about topic bans or blocks. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds are you assuming that USchick's problems are confined to 'this sector of Wikipedia'? I've already found one non-news-related violation, and see no reason given USchick's responses at User Talk:USchick to assume that there aren't more - several contributors have asked for clarification, with no meaningful response. I'm reluctant to do more searching of USchick's edits myself, having been accused of stalking, but nobody else seems to be dealing with the possibility that there may well be other undetected violations. This needs addressing properly, and cosy talk of 'collaboration' isn't going to get us anywhere as long as USchick fails to admit that policy has been violated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of a vast numbers of edits a few where found to be problematic, she's clearly not a copy and paste bot that has to be shut down. Then those few copyright violations do point to a problem she needs to address, for that we need her to see the problem and learn what she can do about it. The approach you took with her made it a lot less likely that she would seriously consider the copyright problem. Admitting that there is a copyright problem was complicated by that becoming a sort of recognition of the unequal situation between you and her, because you are not there editing with her collaboratively. If you had just put your own preferred version aside and explained to her how she could actually edit the text she wanted to edit without violating the copyright, that would have gone a long way of solving the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Out of a vast numbers of edits a few where found to be problematic"? Really? As far as I'm aware, there has been no systematic investigation into USchick's edits at all. If you are saying that there has been one, can you provided a link please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you have been advised about how to go about doing that. Have you done that? You like to escalate things, don't you? USchick (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to de-escalate things by giving a straight answer to the questions that administrator John asked on your talk page two days ago: "Are [all your edits] copyright violations or only some of them? It would make it easier for those of us who have to check if you could help us", "Are you saying you don't know what is and isn't a copyvio?" AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer is yes, I know what it is. Now I'd like to ask you a question. If this is an issue for you, why are you unwilling to address it on the talk page of the article? USchick (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you know what a copyright violation is, why did you violate copyright? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered your question, and your refusal to answer mine is further evidence of your unwillingness to collaborate. I request a block of AndyTheGrump for whatever numerous policies his actions violate. WP:TEAMWORK His constant reversal of other people's edits without any discussion is disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus. I feel like the only reason he brought me here is to make a point. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. USchick (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I like to (try to) deescalate things. Yes, Andy is eponymously grumpy; while not "ideal" his behavior falls inside the big vague gray box known as the "Wikipedia (lack of) civility policy." What I'd like to see is a simple affirmative that USchick will refrain from edits that could be construed as copyright violations; then we close the thread and move on to other things. NE Ent 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would consider doing that if Andy was reprimanded for his underhanded editing tactics and his attempt to "exempt" himself from edit warring. Looking over his edit history, his contributions seem to be of limited value, since he spends a lot of time bullying other people. His knowledge of various policies could be put to better use if he was willing to collaborate with other editors. USchick (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He brought you here for violating copyright, and reverting copyright violations is an exemption from 3RR. And you have the cheek to ask for him to be blocked for bringing this to the community's attention? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning. I accept it. Now I expect someone to deal with Andy the Grump for his violation of policy as outlined above. The appropriate thing for him to do was address it on the talk page, which he refuses to do even now. USchick (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the appropriate thing to do was bring it to your talk page, which he did and you brushed him off from what I can see. Then he brought it here, which is also the correct course of action. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm interpreting USchick's comments as a request that AtG "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users."; personally I don't consider statements such as "Are you being deliberately obtuse" as meeting that goal. Unfortunately, this community has never been able to converge to consensus on what is and what isn't okay. NE Ent 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He reverted edits that had nothing to do with copyright violation, he claimed the edits did not reflect the sources. I submitted new edits that more closely reflected the sources, and that's when he claimed copyright violation repeatedly. I was coerced into creating a copyright violation and then he claimed to be exempt from edit warring. This is VERY unbecoming of an experienced editor and needs to be stopped. USchick (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the ArbCom climate change case a big deal was actually made about even less problematic editor behavior. In the article about the CRU-hacking incident, climate sceptical editors wanted to edit in favor of unsupported allegations that scientists had falsified data. This was reverted per the usual wikipedia policies, but the way that happened created a bad climate on that page, some experienced editors where actually topic banned for a while. But what happened was is still far from playing hardball, you could e.g. imagine invoking BLP to revert more than 3 times, or to even shut down talk page discussions about whether some scientist had falsified data because that is in itself a BLP violation. None of that happened, so I'm not sure we've really learnt anything from what went wrong on the CC pages. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to look past Andy's bad attitude. What I think needs to be addressed is his underhanded tactic of coercing someone to create a violation, bringing them to ANI and then claiming that he is "exempt" from creating the problem. USchick (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the lead up to the climate change ArbCom case a system was put in place by Admins here to try to resolve the problems by strictly enforcing rules but that backfired because the editors where constantly at each other's throats by playing games with the rules. What this shows is that the whole attitude that rules are rules won't work in the abstract away from the context of actually editing the articles constructively. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The person who brought me here was unwilling to cooperate on the talk page and he is still unwilling to cooperate. So nothing has changed. USchick (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you copy from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you copy from two, it’s research. :) .Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This actually contains useful advice for editing news articles. Suppose you have two sources reporting about the same event, you can then simply combine what you read from the two sources to avoid literally copying from either source. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If only it were so simple. I did that and was accused of WP:SYN. USchick (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If what you wrote is supported by both sources, Synth doesn't apply and if the editor keeps on complaining about that you just invoke WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious editing by IP

I have a high level of suspicion regarding the editing from the following IP addresses I believe them to be one and the same. 94.2.4.145 94.9.98.107, 2.120.46.143 and 130.88.52.43 are all one and the same editor. I originally had a dispute with IP 94.2.4.145/94.9.98.107 who then became 2.120.46.143 which is not suspicious in and of itself. That dispute went away and now today all of a sudden a brand new IP 130.88.52.43 appears and begins to rubbish me as an editor and back up the positions of 94.2.4.145/94.9.98.107 as if they were a separate user. They have also made identical edits of 94.2.4.145 and used identical language such as to maintain "consistency" and only editing County Council articles. If specific diffs are required just ask and they shall be provided. Sport and politics (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably move this to ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that I am not the same person as 94.9.98.107. However I do feel that it is important that I am open and honest in saying that I am editing from a public Library and that this therefore not my own IP address. I have however picked up where 94.9.98.107 has left off. I waited a few days for the page to go cold before doing so. Given Sport and politics' recent edits and reporting to this page, I sincerely hope that they are not taken seriously. many Thanks 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I quite simply do not believe a single word that there is somehow a brand new unrelated IP who has coincidentally just happened to be editing all of the same pages as the previous IP as their first edits since 2008. The probabilities are just way to small the suspicions are way too high. The activity is classic tag teaming .Sport and politics (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The ones the OP linked are all on the same ISP, except for one, which is at a University, but it's also a very common ISP in the UK. I don't know anything beyond that. Shadowjams (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe what you like, it is not your word we will be going with here, given your warning! Are you going to accuse User:Pilchard of the same thing? they have been making multiple edits to these articles to 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am editing from a Library. I have done nothing wrong. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please run a search on the ISP I am accused of being and that should hopefully solve this. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the continuation of the same edit warring beheaviour here by 130.88.52.43 that was a direct continuation from the same beheaviour of 94.9.98.107 here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats it then they are the same person they have simply moved from their domestic IP to a Library IP. Simple case conclusion the editor has simply moved from where ever they are living to the library and hey presto new IP address with identical editing.Sport and politics (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hangon a minute, lets wait until we find out where this other IP is. The odds are that that IP isn't even in the same city as me, seriously what are the odds? I am not the same person and you are beginning to really get on my nerves, a complaint with a fully documented record of your behaviour will be provided if you do not stop this childish behaviour. You are digging yourself a whole here. I suggest you stop before an administrator provides the evidence to say that the other IP is nowhere near I am, which no doubt they will. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A new IP editor shows up editing using the same language such as accusing me of being a vandal, and then stating that the editing is for consistency. Edit warring to restore the older IPs preferred version of pages and using nigh on the same language in the edit summaries. The IP backs up the other IP to the hilt on talk pages and the only pages edited are exactly the same as the other IP. this is very reasonable grounds for this referral and the suspicion is more than justified. This is a very obvious case of tag teaming by moving IP address. Sport and politics (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I say, when locations are checked your assumption will be proved false. However, I will address your points:

1. "Vandalism" is a clearly defined Wikipedia term. Removing "sourced material" is considered to be "vandalism". the language I am using is in fact Wikipedia's language.

2. I came across the pages after the event and could not for the life of me understand why an info box was so objectionable to you and why that also meant you had the right to remove other "sourced material". When there are multiple articles around the same thing, it is Wikipedia policy that we at least try and be consistent. I have read your heated exchange with the IP and they were right to point out that there are election boxes on every other kind of elections page. Your excuse was that they had local politicians and would violate Wikipedia policy by giving prominence to minor politicians. Since politician's names do not appear in these info boxes, your point can be disregarded. It is clear the edits were made to suit your personal preference, as your edits added nothing to the article. I can't see any other reason why having all these articles following the same template as other similar articles is so offensive to you as it is fully compliant with wikipedia policy.

3. As for your accusation of "tag teaming" via multiple IPs, this accusation will unravel when the location of the IPs announced.130.88.52.43 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We will see i am sure of it i still do not believe a single word that this is all happen-chance and coincidence . The editing beheaviour is far far far too similar and the pages edited are very limited and exactly the same, Asofor a "new" IP to suddenly appear and do this adds to the lack of coincidence. Sport and politics (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC),

I do not accept that. This is not a new IP in the sense that you imply, I have edited wikipedia from time to time from this library if you look through the range of IPs you will see this. many other students do as well. You clearly do not understand how it works. Its not my logon that has an IP, it is the computer I have logged into. I have logged into maybe a hundred computers in this library over the years. This is the first time I have sat at this particular PC, so my other edits will be registered to other similar IPs. If you understood how it worked you would probably be a little less paranoid, you might need to see someone about that by the way. Don't take that as an "act of bad faith", its more of an act of concern for you :-) 130.88.52.43 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Sport and politics is making reference to Wikipedia:The duck test. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I realise that but we have a much more conclusive test: checking the location of the IPs. [User:Sport and politics|Sport and politics]] can quack all he/she likes but if the "duck" is in the Arctic it probably isn't a duck ;-) 130.88.52.43 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably re-read WP:VANDAL. Also note that in Wikipedia's language, vandal and related words use an 'a' whereas both 130.88.52.43 and 94.2.4.145 seem to prefer an 'e'. Probably just another coincidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• 94.2.4.145 - Sky Broadband, London (the Large ISP mentioned above)
• 94.9.98.107 - Sky Broadband, London
• 2.120.46.143 - Sky Broadband, London
• 130.88.52.43 - University of Manchester, Manchester (oddly enough)

The fourth doesn't seem to be the same individual, the first three may be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly 94.9.98.107 is 94.2.4.145 and 2.120.46.143. I don't trust geolocation tools too much, but I would say they put these IPs about an hour or two east of Manchester, which is where 130.88.52.43 is editing from. On the surface the IP seems to be full of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case. can we end this nonsense? Better still can action be taken against [User:Sport and politics|Sport and politics]], this is after all the 2nd time that they have wasted admin time in the space of a weak by making accusations. Bearing in mind they have already been warned, please see bottom of this link, the user seems to have removed it from their page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sport_and_politics&oldid=554762900 I recommend a 1 month block. There is nothing to say that [User:Sport and politics|Sport and politics]] is going to stop misbehaving. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

An hour or 2 East of Manchester, that is ages away. That could be in anywhere on the East Coast, or even in Wales for heaven sake, I can hardly be going that far to edit Wikipedia for heaven sake!130.88.52.43 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction, I get East and West muddled :-s That could be anywhere from Newcastle to Peterborough and anywhere in between. My geography isn't quite that bad lol 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.52.43 (talk)

In terms of geolocation accuracy, you are practically sitting next to each other. What is it, an hour's commute to the Uni? Have you considered dispute resolution? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Say what you like you and the other IPs from a beheaviour analysis are identical. Sport and politics (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on the looking at the beheaviour pattern of these edits it is plainly obvious that all are the same. Simply stopping editing and upping sticks back to uni from London is not uncommon and not unusual. This I{ is getting away with wild and unfounded accusations and bizarre demands of blocks for beheaviour. They also seem not to understand that users can remove what they like and keep what they like on their user talk page. Can an admin just do a simple beheaviour analysis, then the clear cut nature of this multiplicity and tag teaming will be stupidly clear. Sport and politics (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I would wager on somewhere near Huddersfield, and that the train to Uni takes a little over half an hour. Let's assume this is the same user (I would suggest you do the same in the future), and that they have been economical with the actualité on this particular noticeboard. Remind us, where exactly is the problem? This seems to me, and I would guess not just me, like another content dispute where both users are trying to get the other side banned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see below some diffs to illustrate why the new Ip address is suspicious. [174] The new ip jumps in to talk page discussion backing up the other ip in the talk page.
[175] where the edits the same articles as the previous IP when the edits are the first edits by the IP address in over 5 years. The other IPs edit history can be seen here
referring to me as a vandal and claiming consistency 94 IP, 94 ip and 103 iP.
identacle reverts as other ip othere edit seen here This shows the beheaviours is the same and not a new supporting IP editor who just happens to have shown up now.
If you would like more evidence just let me know. Sport and politics (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, these seem to me to be part of a general content dispute, with reverts and everything. Things tend to look different once you know that it's the same user. Unregistered editors often change IP addresses, depending on where in the library they sit, or the nature of their ISP, or whether they commute (or all three). I will concede that the use of the word vandal is incorrect. I would suggest getting wider input into the centralised discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How much clearer can i spell this out The user is beheaving exactly the same way as another editor who they claim not to be. And therefor trying to claim that there are two editors instead of one. they are doing what if effectively IP sock puppetry. I have provided clear evidence that they are the sam person in terms of their identical beheaviour. This user will continue to act with disdain if this is not taken seriously. As if a registered user did this with two accounts they would be banned for sock puppetry. That is waht is happening here and the IP editor is getting away with it it is not acceptable sock-puppetry where ever it occurs and it is happening here by moving IP addresses. Sport and politics (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This sounds very much like Sheffno1gunner. The editing interests check out, as do the IP ranges, and the habit of using different IPs to try and seem like multiple people. I've increased the rangeblock on the University of Manchester IPs and semi-protected a bunch of the articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner for the details. Further evidence is probably best submitted there rather than here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:SzostakJack and User:MDPub13

Followed some problematic contribs from a user elsewhere (inclusive of "needing" Twinkle access after a week, and ended up finding a crossover of activity at Abiogenesis. While going through diffs, I find a reference to a "Dr. Jack Szostak" who does research in abiogenesis. Finding this an odd coincidence, I go to SzostakJack's userpage, where he denies being or being related to the doctor of the almost same name (apparently reversing it means he's a totally different guy), and he's dumped the Abiogenesis article onto his userpage, which we do not allow. I also noted some interesting stuff on his talk page, not limited to: a weak request for name change, and what looks like off-wiki canvassing. Someone with the power to enforce the rules here needs to explain to this user what our rules are.

As for MDPub13, he is involved in the same pages, seems to be willing to actively edit-war to get what he wants, and seems to be pretty familiar with SzostakJack already. MSJapan (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What does "needing" twinkle access after a week have to do with anything. What is twinkle why are you citing it as evidence and what make you think that this "needing" is going to be twinkled. You should know that my organization will stop at nothing to accurately represent scientific findings. We are establishing an international collaborative, a web, if you will and it can exist without me. However, I would prefer to stay. Thank you kindly. SzostakJack (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of this incident very well, but something is very fishy about SzostakJack. The user page isn't about him, it's about some science stuff. This seems to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, but no criterion in WP:CSD seems to match it, so I don't want to tag it when I should not be. Help, anyone? WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 00:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also an ongoing sockpuppet investigation here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think they are the same person, but CheckUser has the answer to that. I haven't gotten to thoroughly look at the SPI closely, let me see what the dealio is. Both of the accounts tried to call each other meatpuppets, but that basically gave away that they are meatpuppets, as MDPub13 even said, " These accounts do what I tell them to do. That is a dead giveaway. Best regards. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHILDPROTECT needs more eyes

user:Jehochman has at least twice edited this policy to include his currently proposed addition to the policy. He has done this at the same time as proposing the addition on talk, and despite early comments clearly showing no consensus about them (two users commenting, 1 supporting and 1 (me) opposing). Even after being explicitly told to gain consensus before editing the policy he did so again. I have reverted twice and will not do so again (I do not want to edit war), but the page needs more eyes watching it and the discussion on the talk page needs more input before there can be consensus for or against the addition. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have full-protected the policy page in question (for 3 hours). Thryduulf, despite your protestation, you already DID edit war on the policy page, and that is not vaguely OK. The others involved also edit warred, rather than continuing discussion on the talk page and firming up the consensus there.

This type of behavior on policies is not vaguely OK. All sides are cautioned not to repeat it.

I believe Thryduulf is also misreading an evolving talk page consensus but, in the interests of separating resolving the behavioral question (edit war on policy) from content question (what the policy should say, consensus on the talk page there) I leave that to others to review and determine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that I edit warred, but I am not going to argue about that. Four reverts from Jeochman is not at all appropriate though. There has been additional input into the discussionon the talk page since I reverted, but what I see is emerging consensus for the principle but not for the specific words. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to repeat that 3RR is not an entitlement and EW is not exactly 4+RR; policy pages are particularly much more sensitive, and a high rate of change back and forth on one crosses the line much faster.

I agree that the change happened in advance of a fully solidified consensus, but BRD should have been followed. BRD is not BRRD or BRRRRRRD ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In practice, the editing of these sorts of policy pages proceeds by someone editing in texts that give Admins new rights to ban/block people and limit the possibilities of review and overturning of such bans or blocks. It will then be claimed that such a text does have consensus and reflect current practice, therefore a big consensus is needed to revert back to the old version. Count Iblis (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Failure of all sides to respect BRD and use talk pages - trying to fight it out on the policy itself rather than gain consensus - is neither particularly unusual nor acceptable. Nothing here raised to the level of being worth sanctioning or threatening sanctions, but it isn't the right thing to do. A short little !vote on the proposed change establishes a consensus or NoConsensus within a reasonable time period. It's not wrong to try a bold proposal in advance of such consensus building, but it is wrong to insist on it in the face of objections and prior to consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've popped over there to support the change. I do hope something can be done now rather than procrastinated. Long overdue and massively needed. Thanks again. Begoon ^talk 23:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So, an idea for these sorts of things (brought on by the confluence of minor copyediting to an article at the same time as reading a hitherto-unread policy): why not require citations (internal citations) on policy pages?

Bear with me here. Definition of specific infractions and resulting actions come about in three ways:

1. Informal community approval (WP:SILENCE, basically)
2. Formal endorsement (Precedent set by discussion on, in order of perceived authority: user talks, article talks, RFCs or other 'officially organized' discussion formats, top-level noticeboards such as AN/AN/I, Arbcom)
3. WMF directive

If policy pages (and rewrites thereof) required citations to the canonical discussions/directives on a given point, addition or subtraction of a given set of material is easily handled. Yes, granted, we might invite meta-arguments on 'is this the current truth or not?' but I think the benefits would outweigh this. One can always link to diffs of closing summaries and such, which would be a good thing. Plus, the people who tend to be involved in policy page edits are the same people who have been around a while, and thus have become used to seeing and evaluating citations, as well as adding them, so no real behavioural change would be needed. (Citing WMF directive should also be as simple as linking a diff, or to a relevant press release or WMF posting; RS issues aren't applicable).

Maybe this should be an RfC or something, I dunno, but the thought occurred and it might help out a lot in clarifying what can be at times a distinct difference between policy-as-stated and policy-as-enforced.  The Potato Hose ↘ 00:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Silence is never to be used as consent with policy drafting or be taken as informal approval as the essay points out and so does WP:SMN, neither are policy and informal community approval means absolutely nothing at this point because it doesn't exist and ideally, anything surrounding policies and guidelines should go through a talk page. Any challenge to it can come at any time and that is a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have completely misunderstood me. Not everything on every policy page has been discussed to death; some stuff has been added, not contested, and thus stood. I.e., WP:SILENCE/lack of opposition has encoded things into policy. Nor am I suggesting that policy shouldn't be challenged, not by a long shot! What I'm suggesting is that had Jehochman's original addition to the page (and I am commenting specifically on mechanics here, I am agnostic on the addition in question) looked more like:

Users uploading or including sexually explicit images or videos in Wikipedia must present evidence that the subjects are adults. "Sexually explicit" means any depiction or simulation of sexual activity or lasciviousness involving one or more persons. Mere nudity, such as artistic photography, or photos of medical conditions or anatomy, are not considered to be sexually explicit for the purpose of this policy. Because Wikipedia is not censored, sexually explicit material may be included where relevant, subject to age verification.

...then there would have been a nice easy way for people to agree (WP:SILENCE), as they could easily check exactly where the assertions came from. It would also streamline the disagreement process, as people could point to a given statement/source and say "Well that was seven years ago, and isn't applicable now because of the more recent decision by Arbcom here (link)."

(Please also note that I am aware there are other procedural issues swirling around this, which again, I am deliberately not commenting on as I DGAF in this context.)

Extrapolating this idea out to all policy pages would mean discussions could proceed in a more orderly and streamlined fashion, and indeed could spur discussion/updating when people notice that a given policy is linked to a given AN/I decision from eight years ago (hypothetical example).  The Potato Hose ↘ 05:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:86.129.86.242

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

---

Keeps editing Lee Westwick into the List_of_British_actors_and_actresses and List_of_The_Bill_cast_members. Suspect user is actually Westwick and he has already had one article he wrote about himself deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lee_Westwick Aleczandah (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

First, you should have notified the IP of this discussion; I've done so for you. Second, this post is a bit much, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you meant this post... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Still getting my head around Wikipedia edits, sorry! Still vandalism though Aleczandah (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for a week by Shirt 58. In related news, I've gone through the edit history of Lee Westwick and found it contains three SPAs with a potential for socking/meatpuppetry. It might be a bit late for a checkuser but we should watch out for similar edits by new accounts. Also, when Aleczandah nominated that page for deletion he did not notify the author LadyBeewest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). So, for the record, the next time you nominate a page for deletion by speedy, prod or Afd, please use at least the templated messages provided in the instructions to notify the author. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User:Alansohn

On the Red Bank, New Jersey article, I removed this material for reasons that I spelled out in the edit summary. A comment about Red Bank increasingly becoming a high-end shopping mecca was not found in the cited source, nor was the statement about "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". The cited which only supported only the opening of a Tiffany's, and the source in question was a press release by Tiffany themselves. This left only a mention of a brewery, supported by a book archived at Google Books, and a what appeared to be a personal fan site. I didn't challenge the reliability of the book, but this raised the question of whether one business merited its own section, and more importantly, whether mentioning individual businesses is even relevant or salient, particularly when there is nothing unique about that business (like whether it's the flagship store or headquarters).

Alansohn reverted the edit, saying in his edit summary "rv removal of sourced content, with some editing". This despite the fact that the source did not mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters", something Alansohn did nothing to address. For this reason, I again reverted the unsourced material, saying, "Revert. A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS, and it doesn't mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". That leaves one brewery, which doesn't merit a section."

Alansohn found a source for some of the material, and restored it, leaving out the unsourced information, but did so with the edit summary "rv malicious removal of sourced content, all material that was easily sourced; press release from a top firm meets all requirements of WP:RS, though feel free to replace it".

First of all, whether something is "easily sourced" is irrelevant. The material was not sourced, and it is not my responsibility to source material added by other editors. That I already do so at times ([176],[177]), despite my already heavy edit workload, is a courtesy, not a requirement, and I'm tired the obnoxious edit summaries in which Alansohn implies otherwise, a practice in which he has been engaging in for some time now.

Second, my edits were based on sincere, good-faith readings of Wikipedia policy on my part. They were not motivated in any way by "malice", nor has Alansohn even bothered trying to illustrate how he knows my state of mind. Material that was not sourced was removed, in accordance with WP policy, and he himself omitted quite a bit of it in his most recent restoration of some of it, presumably because he saw that it was not found in the source cited in the article, or even in the new one he found (despite it being so "easily" sourced). If that's the case, then how could removing it have been "malicious"? His comment is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and is unacceptable. Someone needs to politely inform him of this. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Alansohn was well out of line here, but I'd be interested to hear their side of the story as well, to see why they acted like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is rather clear: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step..... If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I believe that all editors have an obligation under policy to preserve content and I will take all reasonable actions to preserve it as required (see this edit for a recent example) by seeking out possible sources; Nightscream follows a We had to destroy the village to save it approach in which he usually fails to make any attempt to find sources, blindly removes the content and then WP:BITEs newbies with claims of WP:V / WP:NOR that are unjustified in most occasions. In this case, removal of sourced content was even less justified. No one ever challenged the material in the Red Bank, New Jersey article. The material was reliably sourced (note that per WP:SELFPUB, a press release is a reliable source) in addition to other sources in the section. Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification. The material was then reinserted with additional sources intended to address any possible objection that Nightscream might ever have. Over and done, one would think. Nightscream seems to be upset that sources were added, as has happened many times before in articles we both edit, where Nightscream removes unsourced content and I reinsert it with sources found with trivial ease. See this edit, where Nightscream removed material regarding a proposed Formula One race that was on the front page of every newspaper in the New York City metro area calling it a "WP:V/WP:NOR" violation, while I reinserted the material with appropriate sources (here) minutes later. This process has happened often and it seems to bother Nightscream deeply. Besides, claims of NPA issues coming from someone who as standard procedure berates, belittles and maliciously attacks other editors on a rather personal basis for rather trivial violations of his expectations ("Really? You can't even capitalize a proper noun? Or format the movie in the same way that all the other films above it and below it are?? Or spell it properly? Seriously?", "No one gives a shit about which studio animated it.", just from the past two days and I could provide hundreds more), I would hope that Nightscream would be better able to recognize legitimate criticism of improper removal of sourced content. And I'm not the only person with these concerns with Nightscream and his editing practices. Take a look at User_talk:Nightscream#Dan Brown, where one of many editors complains on his talk page about unjustifiable removal of what he defines as "Original Research", and see User_talk:Nightscream#Your behavior at Talk:A Scause for Applause, SPI for strong criticism of his attacks on other editors. Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oyi, this fight again (not you two, but lots of others have gone down this same road). In my experience it is a good idea to remove only material you can't easily confirm. If we deleted every unsourced sentence on Wikipedia, we'd have about 10% of the content we have right now. The "challenged or likely to be challenged" part is the key. And you did yourself no favor by referring to a reliable source as not being reliable and deleting material on that basis. That said, if you do feel the material has an issue, you are 100% correct to remove it. And Alan needs to AGF on that. But did you seriously have doubts about material in the press release? If not, why did you remove it? I can see why Alan would get frustrated, but I also understand why you are. If you showed a bit more care and Alan had a bit more patience, things would go a lot smoother... Hobit (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hobit's points are well taken and I do want to apologize to Nightscream for my snarky remark; Frustration may have been an acceptable rationalization at the time but it isn't an appropriate justification. Nightscream and I are inevitably going to overlap on editing a significant number of articles and I hope that we can find a more effective way to work together towards the goal of building an encyclopedia rather than trying to score points. I do appreciate that Nightscream will lean far more towards removal of unsourced content added to these and other articles, but I am more than willing to work in a partnership in which Nightscream tags (rather than removes) and discusses legitimately questionable unsourced / poorly sourced content, while I will be happy to reference sourceable content and to remove content that is irredeemably unsourceable based on my attempts to find decent references. I thought that we had been heading in a more productive direction in recent months since our earlier confrontations and I hope that this "incident" can lead to mutual agreement on a path to work together in reasonably harmonious fashion rather than to escalate a needless conflict. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Qworty

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

---

As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia editors following his participation in the Filipacchi fiasco, the editor's real-life identity has been revealed in the media and acknowledged on-wiki.[178]. Related discussion on and off wiki is going on with some fervor; a highly credible case involving abuse of multiple accounts has been presented. Qworty's repeated use of Wikipedia discussions as platforms for rather venomous personal attacks on article subjects has been noted for at least five years [179], yet he somehow escaped any serious sanctions. In January of this year, Qworty accused a BLP subject of "stalking" and expressly alleging criminal behavior. Jimbo Wales himself intervened, telling Qworty "Do not do this again or I will see to it that you are swiftly and permanently banned from editing Wikipedia.[180] Nevertheless, Qworty repeated this behavior during the Filipacchi dispute, alleging that the author (and Wikipedia critic) "had sent thugs after certain Wikipedia editors" [181] and repeatedly alleging death threats against themself and their child, distressing both Qworty and their "husband". [182] [183]. Qworty has now been identified as male, without, it seems, a spouse (of any gender) or children. The threats and other allegations of criminal conduct, to say nothing of any association with Filipacchi, remain entirely unsubstantiated and, given the extensive misbehavior associated with the individual editing as Qworty (and other named and IP accounts), may safely be inferred to be false, and made without good faith. It is time to avoid further drama and impose the penalty recommended by Jimbo Wales for continuing this gross misconduct, which reflects so badly on the project and its legitimate editors: an indefinite block and site ban. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was looking for on-wiki reasons to ban Qworty, but you beat me to it. I was considering putting together an SPI case to identify all the past Qworty socks on one page, which I thought might be a step in the proper direction, but I like your swifter thrust to the heart of the matter. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Qworty's outbursts a few weeks ago were unacceptable, and his entire history as described in the Salon piece is outlandish. This must end now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification please. You say that As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia editors could you indicate who these were? John lilburne (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban. This is severe abuse, and not for the first time. Massive breaches of trust. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Hey, I saw that feller on the news last night. He's nearly famous. Basket _Feudalist 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on the grounds that the user has self-declared that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I have indefinitely blocked the editor in question; admins with an issue with this can freely revert it. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Good block/ support site ban for apparently many longterm abuses. LadyofShalott 17:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Good block/support site ban - we also need to review all 13k edits to purge the maligning effect this editor has wrought upon our project. I am willing to help if someone coordinates such an effort. My76Strat (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• support site ban, blocks are too little for a editor able to repeatedly and shamelessly game the system. Cavarrone (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This once again shows the bizarreness of Wikipedia's "outing" policy. If Qworty hadn't "come clean" about his real identity on-wiki, then merely linking to the Salon article naming names would be a blockable offense (User:Cla68 remains blocked for similar activity), which would squelch all discussion of the conflicts of interest involved. It's only after he outed himself that anybody could mention the subject here, and this resulted in him soon getting indef-blocked, showing that coming clean about your real identity is a losing move; if you maintain even paper-thin secrecy about it, you can stay scot-free on-wiki while anybody who goes against you gets banned instead. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. For those of you who don't read Wikipediocracy for whatever reason, I'll quote my own words from there: "This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information..." Carrite (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of digressing, Cla68 did a lot more than "merely linking". He posted an outing link in a website that is famous for doing outings, of an editor he was involved with, out of the blue, and he posted the link again in his unblock request, with even more information. Then he refused to give assurance that he wouldn't "out" anyone else (see the request made to him by NewYorkBrad[184]). --Enric Naval (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment "As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia Wikipediocracy editors" FTFY. The source specifically says so, you see.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we should require people to formally identify themselves to the Foundation before being allowed to edit. And perhaps the Foundation could request their professional credentials, if any, so editors could be prevented from editing subjects they have no expertise in. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Credentials are not necessary here, and there is no need for editors to identify themselves on most articles. But anyone adding content to a BLP should certainly be firmly identified as a real person. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block and site-ban This is purely a punitive measure as Brad already left a comment saying Qworty would be on an indefinite BLP restriction if he continues editing, and Qworty has indicated that he would not.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Good block/Support site ban User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and their blatant intent to continue their disruption and abuse tells me that they are not planning to change their ways anytime soon, if ever. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• No sense dragging this out. Would an admin please place the site ban notice on User_talk:Qworty per WP:CBAN? No sense in waiting the usual 24 for many additional editors to vote. (Blanking and tagging the user and talk pages optional per closer's discretion, personally I think it unnecessary and unseemly.) NE Ent 18:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Clarify - Please make it perfectly clear that it is Robert Clark Young that is banned, and any other account discovered to be Young should be immediately blocked as well. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  Er. Why? It is the occupier of the account 'Qworty' who is blocked. That's the only important thing here. Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good block/Support site-ban Qworty has already proven that he is not here to collaborate. Contrary to what TDA says above, a site-ban will prevent Qworty from pulling this kind of shit ever again. Ishdarian 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is punitive because the BLP restriction Brad imposed is already preventative.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I really have to disagree. The severe breach of trust with the community doesn't lead me to believe he has the integrity to abide by the BLP restriction. You may see it as a draconian measure, but it's for the protection of the 'pedia. Ishdarian 18:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are you saying you refuse to believe that he will adhere to the BLP restriction yet believe he will somehow adhere to a site-ban despite a history of using multiple accounts?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I'm saying. It's the difference between wasting everyone's time reporting an abusive user and reverting them on sight. Thank you, but I'm done responding here. I've voiced my opinion. Ishdarian 19:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good block and Support Site Ban- Support an ArbCom case which will bring scrutiny to the entire editing history of Qworty. There is undoubtedly damage that needs to be fixed and the scrutiny associated with an ArbCom case would help this effort. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not their job. This is not an issue the community is unable to resolve; suggest posting a request on WP:AN and / or WP:BLP to solicit editors to review Qworty's edits for possible BLP violations. NE Ent 19:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, adding my support of site ban above, which would be the predictable result of an ArbCom case. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban. Enough is enough, we cannot have this abuse any longer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Ironholds block of Qworty. There does need to be a look at what edits Qworty has made, identification of any sockpuppets, meatpuppetry and indeed any tag teaming that has gone on too, before everything is tagged and fades from the memories of all concerned. Nick (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree the Salon article appears to be RS and describes extensive WP:Battle behavior, so block/ban appears warranted -- to the extent there needs to be further investigation/appeal, then something to the arbitration committee maybe warranted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't a ban discussion like this be at AN? Shadowjams (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:CBAN: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

AN might have been a preferable venue, but I don't see much value to moving the discussion now. However, someone might post a cross-reference on AN to the discussion here, to cover the unlikely event that there are people who watchlist AN but not ANI.Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not trying to be a stickler for procedure; I'm feeling self-conscious since I've done this twice this week already... anyway, carry on. Shadowjams (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite ban. I've had positive interactions with Qworty but this is a bit too much. It only takes one trusted editor gone bad to make us all look like vindictive morons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban. These are serious allegations, and Qworty's admitted that they're true, but why can't he edit other things instead? I'd say the best course of action is a ban from BLP editing with a guaranteed indef block for the first ban violation, but we should unblock him at the same time as we impose the BLP ban and the indef guarantee. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have also had positive interactions with Qworty but this abuse moves from basic COI to a much more severe charge of using wikipedia for individual blatant professional gain. I disagree that a BLP ban is sufficient. This is a case of long term abuse from an editor who obviously knew what they were doing. I would suggest that an indef is excessive though. I believe in the principle that anyone can become a good editor in spite of past history, and many of Qworty's edits did support the project. So perhaps giving them another chance after... an extensive block followed by BLP sanctions until they can convince AN that they should be lifted. I also agree that we should probably request a checkuser to look for socks. my 2 cents. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support complete ban. Conduct this egregious demands a complete ban. Wikipedia should have no place for this editor on any page. Kablammo (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Should have been done a long time ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

*Comment Isn't there a ready-made 'banned' template that can be applied to User:Qworty? I'd say that's a violation of WP:UPNO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• What's the point? Even now, Robert Clark Young is largely the work of the soon-to-be-banned editor, with a big ol' tag at the top acknowledging that fact. What's the point in getting rid of the COI editor if we're going to keep the COI edits? Multiple people, myself included, have tried to restart the article from scratch with a short, neutral stub, but the folks that own the article have decided they'd rather have the COI version, or perhaps a slightly watered down variation of it. Which matters more to the readers of this site: that a certain misbehaving editor can edit, or that a certain article is neutral, accurate and free of bias? It doesn't matter one whit whether Qworty is banned if we're all willing to let the COI edits he made stand. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that his article is ridiculously puffed up, I'm concerned that you seem to think that the main problem here is that he edited his own article. It isn't. That matters very very little compared to the attacks he made on other people. Those attacks and trying to limit them are and should be "the point". 87.254.72.244 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Qworty the sockpuppet... For the record, I started a list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty. I wonder why Qworty was not blocked earlier, after being ID'ed by checkuser as a sockpuppet? Very strange. By the way, I think the block is a good one, and that the person behind Qworty should be site-banned. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and site ban - We have no need of editors who use their edits to promote themselves and slag off their opponents. Such a person cannot be trusted even to edit unrelated articles - what happens when they get pissed-off at their bank, or cell phone provider, or the supermarket chain they shop at? With their track record, how are we to believe that they won't take out their ire with revenge edits? We can't, nor can we know what Young will take a disliking to, or where his biased editing will take him. A site ban is the only reasonable solution to protect the project from a proven danger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I was going to oppose per TDA, but in light if the sockpuppettry highlighted by Bink, this is too much.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support site-ban - he isn't here for to better the encyclopedia, he has been pushing his own agenda through sockpuppets for years which has proven to be detrimental.LM2000 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Frankly, we have no alternative than to block & site-ban for such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - After a thorough review of his actions, I believe a block and ban is warranted. 173.58.54.157 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that the above is the first and only edit that has been made from this IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please read User:PinkAmpersand/IPs can't be "new users". Oh, huh, I still haven't written that? Well, you've been here long enough that you can probably imagine what it should say. Could be a troll, could be a long-term contributor with a dynamic address who happens to prefer to not log in. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Doesn't really matter, in either of those two cases the !vote should be ignored as illegitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • . Is there a policy that says that? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Tentatively oppose as punitive. I really don't wanna see someone wiki-lynched out of mere spite, no matter how well-placed that spite may be. I don't know much about Qworty's editing history here (I've seen his name tons of times, but never formed anything of an opinion), so if someone can present evidence of abuse in areas other than biographies, I'd consider supporting. But the existing BLPBAN, perhaps along with a formal one-account limitation, enforced by periodic CheckUsers, seems sufficient at the moment. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. That's more deception than I can stomach. I even defended the editor in the Filipacchi discussion since the edits to that article I looked at were congruent with policy. That there was another layer to it, and a motivation displayed abundantly by some of the socks fished up in the SPI, I did not see or did not want to see. The butchering of Barry Hannah is the icing on the cake; I wish I had seen that earlier. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Indefinite ban for sockpuppettry Mlpearc (powwow) 03:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block and community ban; my thanks to those who have brought this character to justice. Long overdue removal of a stain on the encyclopedia. Clearly a protective move and not merely punitive. Also thank Drmies, as it takes a big person to admit a big error. Jusdafax 04:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know about big--overweight certainly. I'm not sure about "error" either (in, like, some technical or legal sense), but I feel pretty bad about not having looked at Qworty's rants and forming my judgment, at least on the first day or two, only on their edits to that and related articles. Keep in mind also that there was apparent socking going on one the other side, of the apparently promotional kind; Qworty's tone on the talk pages of the affected articles struck me as just irritated with that. Still, I think I was wrong, yes, in supporting Qworty as long as I did, and it's making me sleep very badly. I haven't felt this shitty about a wiki thing since, say, the Pastor Theo affair, and I'm going to make sure that I look around more next time. I don't think that such deceptions can be prevented, really, but in this case I could have figured something out earlier. Again, I wish I had seen earlier what he did to Barry Hannah. And again, sjeesh, what childishness. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Given the last warning from Jimbo and the latest stunt, plenty to warrant on the most recent drama. Though I do not like the sockpuppetry, it is old, the current edits are also problematic. This diff is a little extreme, going so far as to remove persondata and data that is okay per WP:ABOUTSELF. [185] Misleading edit summaries to axe large amounts of content. [186] Axing without real reason, [187] Basically axing entire pages for 'unsourced' content, including summaries and characters and categories. [188] [189] [190] A common thread? Works of writers and writers themselves. Enough is enough on many accounts, the damage to Wikipedia and its credibility and image has been massive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ban (Personal attack removed) EEng (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to engage in Two Minutes Hate... Please think about redacting the excesses... Carrite (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it appears EEng has no intent to do this, I've removed it myself as a fairly clear NPA violation, not to mention a BLP one since it's talking not just about Qworty the Wikipedian, but Bob Young the notable living person. I should note that I consider this wholly separate from my tentative !vote in opposition: I won't lose any sleep if Qworty gets banned for this; I will, however, if comments like this are allowed to stand. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban. A very devious individual who has jeopardized the reputation of Wikipedia in the eyes of the public. Totally unacceptable. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment -- Several people have written that Robert Clark Young "understood what he was doing". Hmm. I don't know about that. I read the Salon article before I read this thread. It notes that Young/Qworty asserted that all his edits complied with wikipedia policy. It notes the years of hypocrisy, where Young/Qworty claimed he was fighting conflicts of interest, while actually serving as the poster-child of a conflicted editor. This suggests to me he may not have understood what he was doing was wrong. We block vandals who know what they are doing, and we sometimes have to block individuals over issues of competence. I suspect that Young/Qworty, while obviously intelligent, is not competent to edit the wikipedia -- demonstrated by the claim that they don't believe they have done anything wrong. Geo Swan (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin closure needed. I've just reverted a good faith NAC -- while consensus is overwhelming here WP:CBAN requires an admin close. Per the "any reasonable admin" gestalt of involved I think it'd be fine if someone who's already commented completed the task. NE Ent 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• Comment - This needs to be reopened, debate continued, and closed properly (i.e. overwhelming consensus for site ban). Otherwise, this is headed for ArbCom. I have never seen a contradictory, "edit conflicted" second close before, and I do not believe that the "edit conflicted" close reflects the consensus here. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Qworty is sitebanned User_talk:Qworty#Site_ban, [191]. NE Ent 17:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because of the possibility that journalists may reference this conversation, let me expand on the above. Qworty was site banned by the Wikipedia community. No administrator or group of administrators decided to ban him. An administrator has to do the nuts and bolts work of actually implementing the ban, but he or she has to do what the community decided (except in weird theoretical cases where the community decides to violate one of our core principles). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Vinson wese

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

---

Vinson wese has repeatedly added material to Emmelie de Forest that violates both WP:undue and WP:BLP. he has been warned repeatedly by myself and other users, inluding bishonen and babbaq. also has posted a lvl-4im for section blanking on my user page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:BabbaQ and co. have been involved in a section blanking effort to remove (very well) sourced content on the Danish Wikipedia and here. Their edits have been reverted by numerous editors over at the Danish Wikipedia as well, most recently today. The story of royal ancestry has received significant media attention in major media like DR, and we don't remove it because one editor doesnt like it. Also note that they are edit warring against a version here at the English Wikipedia that was mostly written by User:DrKiernan and has been stable for weeks or months. Vinson wese (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User has been warned several times now. I will not respond any further to this user as he has no interest in having a discussion and has never had. Emmelies article should not be trashing her and her dead fathers reputation with tabloid gossip, edits looked like a small article in The Sun newspaper. Winson has been told several times to stop. Latest one today by admin Bishonen who Winson labelled "rv troll" in his edit summary.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is re disruptive editing on a BLP, which is currently also an unfolding event. I warned VW strongly today on their page (removed, like a previous warning in April) and have now blocked them for one week. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

Matter solved. Good decision Bishonen.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum: this user has shown themselves aggressively impervious to advice since I first encountered them in early April. Checking out the history of his talkpage now, I note the edit summary reasons he gives for wiping my warnings and BabbaQ's ANI alert ("rv troll" "rm/trolling/vandalism"); just another illustration of his indomitable WP:BATTLE demeanour. I'm rather tempted to up the block to indef per WP:NOTHERE, but I'm probably a little too annoyed to be the right admin for it. In case somebody else wants to, I've no objection. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

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

Clearing one's own talk page

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

---

I am writing to receive confirmation that users, with few exceptions, are fully permitted to remove content from their own talk pages, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED ("Removal of comments, notices, and warnings"). The two pages are very clear. They say, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages...The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users" and "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages...The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so."

The reason I am bringing this issue here is because an admin, Bwilkins, is claiming that that I am wrong. Because he's an admin, I feel it's vitally important that he accept this right that editors have and not give them the wrong information, especially when sanctions may be involved.

This matter started when I noticed that an admin, Ymblanter, told a blocked user, 68.50.128.9, that he was not allowed to remove warnings he received prior to getting blocked.[192]. When I saw that, I posted a comment to Ymblanter in this thread on the blocked user's talk page that he was incorrect; that a user is allowed to remove warnings received prior to a block. I included the links to WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED and pointed out the primary exceptions were declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, any other notice regarding an active sanction, Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) and Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help). As you'll see in the thread, Ymblanter wrote back quickly and acknowledged that I was right.

It was after that when I noticed that Bwilkins also told the blocked editor about not being allowed to remove comments from his talk page. As you'll see in Bwilkins' decline, he said, "I see that you improperly removed comments by the blocki0gn admin from this page, thus attempting to hide evidence and valid commentary required by patrolling admins."[193] When I wrote to Bwilkins on his talk page to let him know IP 68 was allowed to remove that, he response was, "It's been held by the community that an editor may not remove comments related to the block - the blocking admin has a responsibility to be accountable, and explain their block as well. As such, the IP cannot remove the comments related to the block." I asked him to please provide evidence that "It's been held by the community" (I'm not even sure what "held by the community" means) that editors' can't remove items (other than those on the exceptions list) but he never replied. He had posted something on IP 68's talk page also and I replied there too asking for evidence, but he didn't reply to that either. And 90% of what he had posted on IP 68's talk page had nothing to do with the issue of editors being able to clear their own talk pages.[194] I also included a comment on IP 68's talk page that another admin, Orangemike had said what I'm saying.[195]. I've also seen many other editors, including admins, make comments about how editors may clear their own talk pages, except for the items referenced in WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. I've even seen admins warn editors who reverted other editors who cleared their own talk page content. Most of the time, the other editors apologize and say they just weren't aware that editors could clear their own talk pages, but I've never seen anyone deny that WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED are valid.

IP 68 is currently blocked, but he is still allowed to remove everything on his talk page except the declined block requests for the current block. If there was a block notice for the current block, he couldn't remove that either. But I don't see one. He is allowed to remove all the old declined block requests; the ones for the previous/expired block.

I'll close by saying I have idea who IP 68 is and have never crossed paths with him. I just happened to end up on his talk page after seeing something on the talk page of an admin I had been communicating with. From the looks of IP 68's talk page, he has a pretty ugly history for being on such a short time lol, so my interest is certainly not in defending him, but rather to defend this important right for all editors in general. I would appreciate feedback, and if there is consensus for my position, I would ask that Bwilkins please acknowledge that he will not tell any more editors that they are not allowed to clear items on their own talk pages unless it's on the exceptions list. And I hope that if he sees any other editors giving the wrong information, he will correct them. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed information should be available in the page history, and no admin should unblock without first attempting to confer with the blocking admin directly. Those two facts mean there's no reason why keeping stuff on a blocked user's user page is worth spending time fighting over. Let it be removed, because it doesn't help anyone do their job any better, but it does waste time and make lots of people unnecessarily upset. --Jayron32 04:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course you can remove stuff from your own page. That said, this doesn't appear to be the case. If this is an IP editor (as it appears to be), then it isn't really their page. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's a dynamic IP address, and the user has changed, there's no reason to keep messages intended for someone else. If it is the same user using the same IP address for a long period of time, there's no reason to keep messages around that have already been read. No user page "belongs" to anyone other than Wikipedia, and that includes users with usernames and users without. There's no inherent reason why they should be treated differently. --Jayron32 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Niteshift, that's incorrect. Per WP:REMOVED, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Per WP:OWNTALK, "This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users." IP editors are not second-class citizens in this regard. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I am a bit concerned by this comment. It looks to me (unless I am getting the policy wrong, which is always a possibility) like an administrator who is using a blocking criteria that is a direct contradiction to WP:BLANKING. I say "it looks to me" because what I think I am seeing is actually fairly unlikely. What am I missing here? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I hesitate to speak for BWilkins who is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I imagine he is interpeting the language in policy broadly so that "notice" doesn't just mean the initial block notice but any notice (or comment) from an admin about the block or about the reason for declining the block. With that said, I'm going to close this discussion as I believe we are into diminishing returns here.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Arthur Rubin

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

---

Can someone tell User:Arthur Rubin to stop rolling back all of my edits without discussion. I have tried to post messages to the talk pages of the articles in question, and to his/her talk page, with no response. I don't plan to edit any more number articles until this is resolved, to avoid edit warring. Thank you! 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You changed the format, contrary to the specified format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Number. I suggested you post there before making other changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what? That page doesn't exist and what does that have to do with Linden, New South Wales? 174.56.57.138 (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, which makes no mention of the infobox, so what is your point? And again, why are you reverting my edits on Linden, New South Wales? Seems like an abuse of rollback, which should be revoked for your account until your knee stops jerking. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur is an administrator so his rights can't be removed lightly. IP, please stop calling Arthur a vandal. This does not explain his queer behavior on Linden, New South Wales or his apparently counterproductive edits removing information from number articles. Shii (tock) 05:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I changed "Number" to "Numbers"; it must have gotten lost as part of an edit conflict.
2. Before your edits, "prime = nth" was never in any of the infoboxes. "prime = yes" was. You should have verified consensus at the appropriate project page, at least once I removed your edits.
3. You have given no reason to remove the template from Linden. I assumed it was a change to your preferred format or data, again without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, your approach to the rollback tool is unacceptable. Do you not see the words ": cannot have more than one primary tag per page" at the bottom of the Linden page? Shii (tock) 07:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• @174.56.57.138: As you know how to fix Linden, New South Wales, and you know how to file a report at ANI, you should know that an edit summary of "revert vandal" is not helpful when undoing a revert. Instead, repeat your first edit summary, with a bit more detail to explain that you are not making arbitrary changes to articles. If that doesn't work, post a polite message at the user's talk—you can add a bit of snark if you like, but templated "I undid ... because it did not appear constructive" has no chance of being helpful. Yes, Arthur Rubin should have noticed the red text, and should have taken ten minutes to work out what was going on, but the reality is that a lot of nonsense edits are made, and perfection in reverting them is unattainable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've "fixed" it by removing the template. Perhaps now we can move on?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea. I was about to investigate the article but got called away. Having now had a quick look, my guess is that the problem was put on the article a long time ago, and the recent change of {{coord}} to use Module:Coordinates resulted in the message being displayed. It also put the article in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags which had one other article, which I just fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Before we get too distracted; while this situation doesn't particularly cover anyone in glory, I think you should both learn and move on from this. IP: in future, try explaining what you were attempting to do if you run into problems like this. Arthur; attempt to exercise a wee bit more good faith. Changing date formats, even if that was what they were attempting to do, does not necessitate the use of the rollback tool. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, what the IP was doing on the number articles was changing "prime = " and "divisors = " in the numbers infobox for most prime numbers, claiming he was standardizing formats. He may have been standardizing formats, but changing a majority of the prime numbers is a change of format, not consolidating formats. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't doing that at Linden, New South Wales, which should have been obvious from the first edit, and its associated edit summary,[196] as well as the fact that when you reverted a red error message appeared. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is 3rr 1, 2, and 3 restoring a version of the article that resulted in a big red error message. This is inappropriate conduct for any editor. NE Ent 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Both editors reverted 3x; neither breached WP:3RR. As for the red error message, I understand what the IP was doing. I still don't understand what Arthur was doing or thought he was doing (I can't follow his explanation just above).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule says: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." They each violated the spirit of 3RR. This is AR's n'th time doing so. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd like to hear Arthur Rubin's explanation for the edit warring. NE Ent 20:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat

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

---

Would someone be so kind as to block this IP [197] as he is Nangparbat and chatting to himself via his mobile on this talk page. And making a great many personal attacks at the same time. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of quick action here please? Or do I have to just spend my day reverting this crap? he goes after them like a nazi after a jewish childs blood Darkness Shines (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion will be, don't revert more! You have already reverted 4 times in Talk:Sarabjit Singh. Wait for sometime until someone handles it here. --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Er. Why? The three revert rule does not apply to vandalism. I've blocked the IP in question. Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, however he is still using the mobile IP to restore the personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings, those are not "definitely" vandalism. Undoubtedly those are serious personal attack with rough tone, might be very serious... But, "Harassment and personal attacks" are primarily WP:NOTVAND. In addition, Talk:Sarabjit Singh edits are definitely not vandalism.

They might be sock of someone (which also provides WP:NOT3RR benefits, but, I was trying to understand their arguments! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

They have no arguments, they are sockpuppets. Socks get reverted on sight. Nangparbat has stalked and insulted my now for over a year, I know him when I see him. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Msoamu

Msoamu (talk · contribs) has had quite a few ANI cases filed against them recently. They've literally just come off a 2-week block for large-scale, long-term sockpuppetry, and immediately returned to their editing style of pushing their own POV, whilst accusing other users of doing the same, ignoring consensus and making allegations about other users' religious stances. Diffs (note these are all post-block):

• [198] - restoring a whole bunch of unsourced information, which had been removed for that reason, citing POV pushing by User:MezzoMezzo as the reason for their reversion.
• [199] - allegations about editors religious stances, allegations of POV pushing, failures to abide by consensus.
• [200] - various unsourced comments, more allegations of POV pushing.
• [201][202] - restoration of unsourced information, despite two seperate editors (one whom I've not seen in any of the disputes) removing it for being unsourced, again initially citing POV-pushing.

I think it's time we either gave Msoamu an indefinite topic ban on editing and referring to all religious articles, broadly construed, or a simple indefinite block. There's no point giving any short-term topic bans/blocks, because this is a 6 year old issue, and previous blocks haven't achieved anything. User:Qwyrxian, MezzoMezzo, User:GorgeCustersSabre and various other editors are probably all equally as fed up of Msoamu's actions as I am. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban I've seen this user at AN/I enough times to know the amount of pot-stirring and disruption this user causes. Action at this time is not only warranted, but necessary. It's time for the project to get back on track. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 20:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict), reply to Lukeno94. I would support a topic ban at minimum. I haven't been as involved in this as some others, but I did try to help out on Barelvi some time ago, and found it an incredibly frustrating experience. Dealing with Msoamu and socks made it too tempting for me to break the 3RR, and I ended up taking the relevant articles off my watchlist to save my sanity. I think we have a serious case of failure or refusal to get the point here, with perhaps a sprinkling of competence issues. (Quote from the Competence is required essay, "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively.") Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, the content he was edit warring in was also a copyvio from here which he must have known as he added the references. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

4 Socks

Koertefa (talk · contribs) Borsoka (talk · contribs) Fakirbakir (talk · contribs) Norden1990 (talk · contribs)

Disruptive similar patterns on Eastern European articles. Hortobagy (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not Socks I've had enough expierence with these editors to know that they aren't socks. It should be noted that Hortobagy started editing only a couple days ago, with little editing outside of Hungary-related articles, and has already been accused of sockpuppetry by one of the editors in question. I believe a Wp: Boomerang is just around the corner. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Abuse at Don Gerard AfD

I'm not sure if this is the right place, since there are elements of sockpuppetry, vandalism and conflict of interest here. In the last hour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard has twice been closed [203] (by Dgerard65 (talk · contribs) whose username matches the subject of the article) [204] (by 174.253.17.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The user alleges that the nomination was made in bad faith (which may well be true) but also claims there's a strong consensus for keeping the article, which is not at all true. In both cases, the attempted closure is the user's only edit of Wikipedia; but vandalism of the Don Gerard article including some from the same IP range [205] has led to that page being semi-protected. (Note, though, that the diff I just linked added content to the article that was negative in tone towards Gerard so the closing of the AfD, even though done in Gerard's name, may be an attempt by somebody else to discredit him.) I have additional concerns about the COI editing of DonGerard65 (talk · contribs) and DonGerard (talk · contribs) who have both edited Don Gerard and nothing or little else. Semi-protection of the AfD page would seem to be reasonable. Dricherby (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Holodomor

This article likely needs someone conversant with translations to see if an apparent edit war (one editor being accused of being a sock) has any value thereto. I warned the IP editor previously about doing multiple reverts - but the editing has taken more twists than a maze at Hampton Court. No editor is being accused of anything by me, but this is an annoying enough situation that eyes would likely help. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Davidcole1992, the return of Whitechristian2013?

Davidcole1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Ani#Whitechristian2013_and_the_Turk_Nazi_Party for background.

This new user's first contribution was a repeat of blocked user Whitechristian2013's addition of the putative "Turk nazi party" to the List of white nationalist organizations. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Likely Spock Pretty much the same information. A CU would be helpful, but I think we can assume this is probably Whitechristian. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas

Blocked user Raulseixas still evades the block using his IP sock 201.3.220.69 and continues to remove a content without giving any arguments like there[206] and there[207]. As you can see he is edit warring in these articless since late April, using also his second IP sock 187.63.215.95--Oleola (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)