Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359
Incidents (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510
511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520
521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530
531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540
541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550
551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560
561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600
601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610
611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620
621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630
631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640
641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650
651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660
661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670
671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680
681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690
691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700
701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710
711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720
721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730
731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740
741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750
751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760
761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770
771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780
781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790
791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800
801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810
811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820
821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830
831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840
841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850
851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860
861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870
871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880
881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890
891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900
901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910
911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920
921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930
931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940
941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950
951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960
961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970
971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980
981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990
991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010
1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020
1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030
1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040
1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050
1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060
1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070
1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080
1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090
1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100
1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110
1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120
1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130
1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140
1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328
Other links

I'm slightly concerned about this user's edits, which seem to consist entirely of adding information to articles garnered from, a Pink Floyd fan site. Maybe he's just innocently adding information he feels would be of use, or maybe he's "spreading the word" about his website. Thoughts? Parrot of Doom 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think User talk:Paulord is the better place for this discussion, at least as a starting point.  Frank  |  talk  12:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the WP:RS/N or the WP:COI/N. I don't see the need for this to be here. Fences&Windows 21:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Gabriel Cousens[edit]

 – 3 socks blocked for 3RR after warnings to all 3; later all three plus User:OX in the BOX indef blocked as socks of User:Witnesspress.

 Frank  |  talk  19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears I have been the recipient of a legal threat. Please take whatever action is required. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you file something at WP:SPI after someone deals with the threat. All of those new accounts are likely socks. AniMate 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a legal threat; the claim of libel is against the author of the reference we are following. Certainly "banishment" is a threat but not a legal one. I'll address further over there.  Frank  |  talk  16:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. They're saying the secondary source is likely headed for a defamation lawsuit, not you as far as I can see. AniMate 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns? Please. Any Checkusers around? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC for like the 3rd time.) Anyway, I've already created an SPI case, which may be found here. Netalarmtalk 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
"Do you really want to ride that train" sounds like a legal threat to me, personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it is starting to look like a different train is about to arrive at the station, quite apart from any legal threats, perceived or real.  Frank  |  talk  17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Alas, a word to the wise was not sufficient; the train has pulled into the station. 3-hour blocks for 3RR for User:Death and the Maiden, User:Seven Pointed Star, and User:Joe Galaxy.  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns sounds more like an oddly named law firm. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to me. While it smells like a sock, it reads like a weak attempt to hint at legal action, while actually implying that insisting on including a dicey source could lead to a ban[ishment]. Pursue the SPI, but the purported legal threat is too weak for action.--SPhilbrickT 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
New sock has popped up and made the same edits. Netalarmtalk 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by User KD Tries Again[edit]

 – Nothing more for admins to do here, if people are concerned about Cirt's editing they can talk to him or file an RfC/U if it comes to that. Fences&Windows 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion can take place at talk page of WP:V
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

At the article Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant -- KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added information to the article page that fails the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, despite comments on his talk page and at the article's talk page specifically informing him of this problem. Respectfully requesting another administrator to deal with the violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), and also to get the information removed from the article that was added by the user, that fails WP:V.

  • 17:11, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds completely unsourced info to the article.
  • 17:20, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds a link to the restaurant's website, which does not confirm the info added in the same edit, the website refers to a "Chef Chuck", and KD Tries Again adds a claim not backed up by that reference, By summer 2010, Charles Howlett was chef de cuisine...
  • 17:33, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds the info a 3rd time, this time quoting the website about "Chef Chuck", while still failing WP:V regarding his claims about a "Charles Howlett".
  • 17:43, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again removes the link to the restaurant's own website from a reference, instead pointing the link to the restaurant's Facebook page (not sure if this is acceptable).

Will defer to review of a previously-uninvolved administrator. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the information I added is pertinent to [AfD] where I had raised some queries about an article created by Cirt which he is defending from deletion (I actually did not vote delete). The lively discussion there explains the sequence of events I think:
  • I made two corrections at 17.10 and 17.11 and added further information and a reference at 17.20 (revision history).
  • At 17.13, two minutes after I had started work on the article, Cirt sent a message to my [Page] warning me against adding unsourced material to articles.
  • I agree that the first source I provided was insufficiently clear, as it used a nickname rather than an individual's real name. However, the source was the webpage maintained by the restaurant under discussion, which clearly indicated that the existing information in the Wikipedia article was wrong.
  • While Cirt has been starting this AN/I complaint and posting further warnings to my Talk Page, I went and found a good reference for the information. I am sorry it took me until 17.43.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
    • What we see here is a persistent pattern by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) to violate WP:V at the article page. However, with regard to the most recent addition, if indeed social-networking-websites are deemed appropriate for use as references on Wikipedia, then nothing further need be done at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I do take exception to the description of my editing as disruptive and a "persistent pattern" (one edit to the body of the article, with consistent changes in the intro and info box). It took me two attempts and twenty minutes to find a reference which Cirt can't really complain about, and I have been civil throughout. In the light of the last comment, I would request an uninvolved administrator to consider whether Cirt has acted appropriately in posting here about an easily resolved content issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
        • The question is why KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) felt the need to first add completely unsourced info to the page, and then info that failed WP:V, and then info sourced only to a social-networking-website, instead of starting by finding an appropriate reference, and/or discussing on the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Running to ANI at the first sign of a garden variety content dispute is rarely productive, and I see no call for it here. The charge of "disruption" has a ring of hyperbole. You are both experienced editors, more than familiar with our norms of verifiability and discussion. All parties might do well to relax, research, converse and then agree on how to structure the information in question. Skomorokh 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and on that note, posted a question at the talk page for WP:V. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Started discussion regarding use of Facebook and other social-networking-websites as WP:SELFPUB, at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Question_about_SELFPUB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the Administrator who started a discussion here and asked for independent review to then close the discussion, perhaps not liking the response, and shop the topic off to another forum?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
The post to WP:V's talk page is not about KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), it is specifically about use of Facebook as a source (or not) under WP:SELFPUB. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree - it's a separate topic, which is why I think the accusations about me made here needn't have been removed (I know they still appear in the history).KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Discussion is ongoing between the two parties at the talk page of WP:V, though it would be better to get some comments from previously-uninvolved contributors. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment There appears to be another pattern of behavior of note here too with the filing of this AN/I. User:Cirt appears a bit trigger happy about bringing content disputes at the afore mentioned article to AN/I. Just days ago he filed this report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain. Slow down there Cirt. How important is this page to you? Filing AN/I reports left and right, Canvassing people to help you at the RS/N (see User talk:Cirt). I think its time to take a step back and consider a slower more well thought out plan of action here.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Griswaldo, I wanted to ask you the same very question: how important is this page to you? You have made 20+ posts in the AfD (and not short ones either), plus at Cirt's talk page, here at AN/I and at a few other pages. What's up with your preoccupation with this article and this AfD? Do you really have something new to say at the AfD that you haven't said ten times over already? It seems to me that it is high time for you to look up WP:DISENGAGE. There are a thousand other things that need doing here on Wikipedia, that do not involve the dramafest that this AfD has become. In particular, you might actually try creating a couple of new articles... Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Noted. I hope you have similar advice for others as well, but I'll take your advice gladly.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Though if you want an explanation I became preoccupied with this AfD because of the larger issue it represents involving our notability policies and restaurants. There was an ongoing discussion prior to the AfD (the AfD that I did not start nor intend to start) at the talk page of WP:CORP. This discussion was initiated by me after I happened upon the AN/I thread. I guess I got too wrapped up in the AfD because it seemed like the outcome of the AfD would be rather important in terms of this broader situation. If you look at my edit history I've been spending time going through the restaurant by state category state by state as well. But you're right. It's time to disengage. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is an unfortunate habit of Cirt's to leave official-sounding warnings on user talk pages and run to ANI with cries of disruption and calls for severe sanctions whenever s/he finds herself involved in a content dispute with another editor. I commented on this habit just an hour ago, without having seen this latest instalment.
  • As for the underlying question, self-published sources published by the article subject are explicitly allowed by policy, subject to the restrictions at WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB. This even applies to twitter posts, and it certainly includes company websites and facebook pages (if they have one). To drag another editor to ANI over citing an SPS published by the article subject is preposterous.
  • Cirt's complaint a few days ago about Njsustain was equally ludicrous. Cirt had written an article on a probably non-notable restaurant which in Jimbo's and many other editors' opinion reads like an advertisement. Njsustain's "crime" was to have pointed that out. --JN466 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I've marked this as resolved (again), as I don't see any need for admin tools to be wielded. Fences&Windows 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Karthi1522, edit warring and personal attacks made by User:Karthi1522 and User:Kannadakumara[edit]

Relevant page histories[edit]

  1. Puneet Rajkumar
  2. Rajkumar
  3. Ravi Belagere

Relevant user talk page diffs[edit]

  1. First attack on User talk:Karti1551
  2. Response to the above with vulgar language
  3. Second attack after warning on User talk:Karti1551

User:Kannadakumara claims that the text in diff #3 also contains obscenities in Kannada language at my talk page. I have removed the text of the third diff, but left the first and the second personal attck and warned both parties.--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User: vows to continue edit warring[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a month for continual edit warring and personal attacks, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They've vowed on their Talk page to come back when the block is over and pick up where they left off. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DFTT. Fences&Windows 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame articles[edit]

The articles Aspartame and Aspartame controversy are being controlled by a group of editors who will not allow in any data or studies that show any problem with the chemical. I tried again and again to insert studies that showed potential problems, and all were removed, by users with names like "Yobol" (lobbY spelled backwards, roughly). I contend that there are a number of editors who are working here to protect the interests of the major corporations selling this billion-dollar a year chemical: Ajinomoto, The NutraSweet Company, PepsiCo and other soft drink makers. Eventually I was driven from the page and had to create an alternate page at another wiki called SourceWatch. Now any link from the Talk pages to this new page is being deleted on the grounds of "spam", eg diff. I want some uninvolved admins to note that the aspartame pages on wikipedia are effectively controlled by industry stooges who abuse the policies here, such as deliberately misinterpreting wp:MEDRS, to remove anything and everything that puts their product in a less-than-perfect light. I invite admins to study the talk pages concerned, as well as the constant harrassment leveled at me via my user talk page, as well as numerous deletions of my comments from the article Talk pages. These people are making a mockery of this encyclopedia. The editors displaying these behaviours are:
Yobol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Novangelis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) inter alia TickleMeister (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried any methods of dispute resolution to try and solve this content dispute, before taking these users here? Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Blindly referring to people who disagree with you as "industry stooges" is about the worst way to get anyone to take you seriously. The response that you are getting from other editors is probably a reflection of this attitude you are displaying. -- Ed (Edgar181)
I suggest TickleMeister provide diffs for each and every accusation he makes, if he wants to be taken seriously.
Other than the rather questionable removal of talk page comments by Yobol and Keepcalmandcarryon, I see more problems in TickleMeister's accusations above than in any problems with the articles.
I was preparing to revert Yobol's edit myself when TickleMeister made an edit [1] that from the edit summary appeared to be such a revert. However, TickleMeister took the opportunity to add new comments instead, ones that are far less appropriate for the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Question: if an editor is unable to get consensus on Wikipedia for material they want to add and subsequently edits another wiki to his/her own satisfaction, and invites others to use that wiki's page to edit Wikipedia's article, it appears to me they are doing so merely to get their preferred version of the page advertised (and not to contribute to the discussion of improving the actual article in Wikipedia). Now, that seems disruptive to me and is why I deleted it, but I was wondering if placing links to other wikis like this is actually accepted practice; if so I would want to make sure not to make the same mistake in the future of removing links to other wikis. Of note, TickleMeister appears to be edit warring and replacing both [2] [3] comments that have been removed. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed what TickleMeister was doing on Talk:Aspartame at the same time, and no one pointed it out. Given this context, Yobol's and Keepcalmandcarryon's edits make more sense. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
After a cursory look over this situation, I have several comments:
  • First, let's skip any discussion on a particular user's choice of name. Your assertion that "Yobol" refers to "Lobby" is...well, let me put it this way: if you suspect a particular user has a WP:COI, you'll have to do better than that.
  • I looked at Talk:Aspartame controversy and in particular the section Aspartame and premature birth, in which you appeared to be championing the notion that it is connected because a study found a connection to "artificial sweeteners". Further, you made the giant leap that because methanol is a known toxin, and it's a constituent component of aspartame, and aspartame is the most common artificial sweetener, that means aspartame is responsible. That is wholly unsupported by the actual quotes from the source material that are reproduced in that discussion. To me that seems equivalent to claiming that salt is poisonous because it is 50% comprised of chlorine, or that it is explosive because it is 50% comprised of sodium, a metal that is unstable at room temperature.
  • Have you alerted any of the parties above to this discussion, as required (and noted in the edit box at the top of the page)?
  • Comments which start out sarcastically and conclude with "So clearly I am right and you are wrong.", with the edit summary "wrong again, ybbol" (sic) are not going to win friends and influence people around here (or anywhere, really).  Frank  |  talk  15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) WP:BOOMERANG. That's all I should say. However, let me try providing some advice, though I suspect it might be regarded along the lines of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Advice is: Make an edit on safety in a neutral point of view and using reliable sources. You may find this is accepted more positively by the community. You might also try asking the editors in question for help. A browse through WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, along with reading the directions on this page (particularly on providing diffs and notifying all editors mentioned) would help your overall success on talk pages. N419BH 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I should also be listed among those who reverted his talk page comments because, after long consideration, I felt their purpose was not an effort at collaboration, but rather, an effort to draw attention to his version at another site. This is an editor with ongoing civility problems. After issuing an ultimatum to take it elsewhere with "a less NPOV tone", he copied text to another wiki with less than ideal attribution. Linking seems to be intended as a soapbox—an effort to circumvent collaboration. After several other editors concurred, he claimed it was for the sources. He has placed a copy of the BLP-containing text at User:TickleMeister/Aspartame sources. Rather than discuss the issues of keeping an article on his user pages, he wanted to take it to the notice boards. He did not extend the courtesy of notifying me despite his insistence that I notify him.
I should also note that I have no conflicts of interest to declare.Novangelis (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You mention BLP-containing text. I'm wondering if the sub-page should be taken to MfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If I had brought it to notice any administrative boards, that might well have been the one. I was looking at the numerous involved policies trying to figure out which ones were significant and which were secondary, and where it should be discussed, when I was notified about the case. Novangelis (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd cleared up my differences with TM, who claims to be an alternate/new account of another editor. I haven't edited those pages in ages. Verbal chat 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - TM, study the pillars, and be sure all your edits are neutral, verifiable, and not original. If you source your statements, and word them from a neutral point of view, they will be less likely to be removed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, for what it's worth. I responded a while back to an RfC at Aspartame, where there were similar issues, and from what I saw in that brief time, TM had advocated a position that was rather strongly opposite to consensus, and the other editors there were largely acting very much within the bounds of normal and appropriate discussion, nothing lobby-like. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ticklemeister appears to be the only one acting strangely, arguing with everyone, and getting emotional. He also seems to know a whole lot about aspartame and all of the fringe studies that have been done on it. If I would suspect anyone of a conflict of interest, it would be Ticklemeister. SnottyWong spill the beans 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not notifying other users, but it was late, I was tired, and I had to run. I see nobody has studied or commented on how all, and I mean ALL, material that casts suspicion or doubt upon the safety of aspartame has been refused entry to article space on grounds of UNDUE and similar hard-to-argue concepts, where if you're outnumbered, you've lost before you begin. Once again, I ask someone who is interested in how wikipedia can be abused to read the Talk page archives, from the beginning, to see how not only I but other editors before me have been similarly abused by what I contend are vested interests. There is a distinct lack of impartiality in the arguments presented. The articles have a palpable pro-industry POV. I see the forces are gathering against me above. If anyone cares about this project, do the research I'm suggesting. I can do no more than make the suggestion. Billions of dollars are at stake, so it's not surprising I have met such stern resistance, but it's sad to see WP subject to this sort of thing. TickleMeister (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    If it was late, you were tired, and you had to most definitely should not have improperly started an AN/I thread. Regarding the material, I did a review of the current contents of the talk page (see above) and drew the conclusion that you are eliciting responses that are in line with the way you are editing, at least in that particular thread. It is not feasible to ask people here to go back through some long history; your best bet is to take the advice given above (both by me and by others). If you come up with sourced statements - one at a time, if necessary - you'll stand a much better chance of being heard. The sarcasm, shortcuts, and general combativeness will not help your cause. I have no opinion on the merits of the factual material here...I have no axe to grind here. Indeed, truth be told, I scrupulously avoid the stuff and always have. But that's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. If the consensus is that the material is inappropriate for the article, rather than requesting admin action, you should probably try to figure out why such a consensus exists. It's a pretty sure bet that it has nothing whatsoever to do with an industry conspiracy. (Which is not at all the same as saying there isn't such a conspiracy; I'm just saying a collection of Wikipedia editors would be exceedingly unlikely to be involved in such.)  Frank  |  talk  04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Since he has acknowledged the second account, it is probably best to address it here. In his response at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TickleMeister, part of his defense is that I had a conflict of interest in finding him using a second account to refactor archived pages. Since this is the venue he chose to formally accuse me, I am looking forward to his ability to demonstrate my conflict of interest and, even more, his demonstration of psychic powers since he claims he knows what I was thinking.Novangelis (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to acknowledge that not only do you edit with a pro-corporate agenda, but that you also have a nasty habit of revisting other editors Talk page comments, sometimes long after they were made, and deleting diff or collapsing diffmaterial you do not like. Refactoring other editors' comments in this sneaky manner is offensive and high-handed, and not supported by policy. TickleMeister (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, given the number of times you have made the accusation, you still have to prove it. I'm still waiting to see you produce evidence of my conflict of interest (or in this case "pro-corporate agenda") you keep telling me I have. After all, that's why you opened this incident report. All I did was get rid of a few unsightly, non-contributory soap boxes. In each case, I cited the policies under which I acted in a distinct edit summary. I don't know how that is sneaky. It's not like I used a second account after it was archived.
The content of material does not matter. Long examples can be collapsed after discussion has ended. The whole talk page, not just the RfC had been inactive for a week. This was in a quote box that took four edits to format ((one, two, three, four) and the editor who initiated (but did not close) the RfC had announced his departure. The text is still available in the diffs of the work pages and the collapsed box if anyone ever wanted to review it. As for removing a link to another wiki, it was characterized as a moved workpage. It was neither. There is no reason to link to another wiki page that is described as: "This page will be built from a version disallowed by paid industry operatives on wikipedia. Please be patient as it is sanitised in content and format of wikipedia crud." (the closest thing to an attribution, but I mentioned that above).—Silegnavon... err... Novangelis (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative tools by User:Deb[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Earlier today, Deb (talk · contribs) moved, without consensus, the article Russell T Davies to Russell T. Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), citing "naming conventions". After moving the page, she then protected it, with the justification that she was preventing move-warring. However, the last time the page was moved was June 2009, and thus is not move warring under any definition of the term. The move also breaks the vast majority of links, and is not compliant with ENGVAR (no periods after initialisms in British English), RETAIN (as the style has been the same for donkey's years), V (one biography, two editions of his book, and countless numbers of Doctor Who episodes are all agreed on the T not being followed by the period, as it doesn't stand for anything), and two discussions four years apart, here, which affirmed what the sources say. Even the guys at RFPP agree that the justification for protection was extremely flimsy. But the thing that really takes the cake is the fact she did the same thing two years ago. Hence, it is clear that the tools were used to gain an advantage in a dispute, which contravenes the administrator's policy. Sceptre (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with many of Sceptre's comments above, but have to take issue with "breaks the vast majority of links", considering Sceptre has been systematically changing the links to omit the T over the past day or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Moving the article? Bold perhaps but not a serious issue. Immediately using admin tools to move-protect the page citing a non-existant move-war? Not cool, no justification for using the admin tool here, this should be undone. Exxolon (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Sarek: it broke most of the links before I started the AWB run. I believe there were around 800 links to the page, of which around 700 linked to this page. Sceptre (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Just about the links: of course, no links were broken at all, either before or after. Linking through redirects is perfectly valid. Fut.Perf. 19:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This would appear to be a pretty clear instance of using administrator tools in a dispute one i) has participated in ii) has a firm opinion on, which is inappropriate. If the page needed to be protected, there is no reason the admin in question could not have submitted a request at WP:RFPP. Given that Deb has proposed a move discussion on the article talkpage, I suggest the article be unprotected and that no moves are made until an uninvolved administrator judges there to be consensus on the matter. Skomorokh 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment "Without consensus" does not mean "against consensus", which would be a far more serious matter. What I see is no discussion whatsoever on the matter. Yes, protection might not be necessary, as this looks like a 1x-per-year-for-four-years move war, but still, "abuse" is a pretty serious term. I hope Deb will undo the protection to avoid the appearance of impropriety, however thin such appearance may be.  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If you check the archives, Frank, you'll see it _has_ been discussed before, so "against consensus" may be a fair description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm prepared to be wrong, but I did look at Talk:Russell T. Davies and found six threads going back more than three years, with no mention of a move discussion. Did I miss something?  Frank  |  talk  19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It's hiding at Talk:Russell T Davies/Archive 1. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Did I detect a note of sarcasm there? ;-) I didn't see a link from the main talk page so I didn't know there was an archive. I looked - really. Just not hard enough. Still - the thread in question hardly qualifies as consensus, and even if it had been found, one might forgive editors for not presuming a discussion that started in 2005 and continued in 2009 represents consensus of any  Frank  |  talk  19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
That's why I said "may". And no sarcasm intended - I was just linking to the archive page, since it didn't get moved with the main page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more prone to call it "misuse" than "abuse". (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Me too, actually. I almost changed the header, but decided against it. If Sceptre wants to do it himself, that probably wouldn't be a bad thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I would've too, until I found out she'd moved the page before. Because of that, I believe she's deliberately using her tools to gain an advantage in a dispute. Which is a Bad Thing. Sceptre (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Deb hasn't commented yet since this thread started, has she? I think the consensus is pretty obvious that she shouldn't have made that protection, and I hope she'll just do the obvious thing and lift it again herself. As for where the page should be while the content issue is being clarified, may I suggest it's not really important enough to bother much? The wiki won't be eaten by Daleks if there's a period less or more in that title for a few days. Fut.Perf. 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

She has commented here. Unfortunately, her comment is about the title, not about the move protection. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a disappointing move by a respected administrator. I do believe it would be appropriate to unprotect the article on principle alone and allow a discussion to form. Given the infrequency of moves and willingness to discuss, there appears to be no "move [war]" here. I'll save my opinions on the title for the discussion. Matthew (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. How does a move, which leaves a redirect behind, break links? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I am perfectly prepared to lift the protection, and have done so now that a proper discussion has been started. I do apologise for the "Move warring" tag. I didn't use those words and they didn't come up on my screen when I set the protection. All I wrote was "article naming conventions to be observed" so I am quite surprised to see the words that came out on the edit summary (which I hadn't looked at until now). The article came to my attention only because another article on my watchlist was changed to amend a link that appeared to be quite wrong. I couldn't understand how a long-standing article, one which I had even contributed to in the past, had come to be placed at what appeared to be a non-standard title, until I looked at the history and saw a contributor who disagreed with the standard title had systematically moved it back each time it had been moved. I could see that the same thing would happen when I moved the article, so I protected it to give him pause for thought. Maybe this wasn't the best possible action, but at the time it seemed better than getting into a long argument with an individual. (The way that User:Sceptre approached the issue ("move it back or else") was unfortunately what I anticipated and only served to underline my concerns. It was never my intention to leave the protection on, once a requested move discussion had started, and I don't have any personal interest in the article being at either of the titles - though obviously I do think the title that follows naming conventions is better and less confusing for users. I don't personally consider it abuse. Deb (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This argument is about a dot, right? Wikipedia:LAME#Punctuation could do with some more content. Fences&Windows 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • So it seems. I had never heard of this guy before, but it seems he adopted that middle initial, the same way Michael J. Fox adopted his. So it comes down to what, if anything, the wikipedia manual of style has to say about this. But with the redirect feature, the article can be found either way. So it's just a tempest in a T pot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's about spelling someone's name correctly. I'm sure that if it were your name being discussed, you, like the rest of us, would be concerned that it was spelled correctly. Note the talk page discussion. The "T." is, apparently, not an abbreviation to just the initial letter. It's the whole of the middle name. Eric Partridge, for one, is quite firm that if there's no actual abbreviation going on in the first place, one shouldn't have a full stop. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Is it really that, or is it just that the British apparently don't use periods for middle initials? Or do they? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's really that there's nothing, apparently, to abbreviate. Sans anything to abbreviate, how the British (or anyone else, for that matter) abbreviate things is pretty irrelevant. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 – There is no outing here. Also, both editors are already parties to the open arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci is attempting to out me. He claims that I have some connection to the David Kane who writes at "Gene Expression,"

I "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." I have never mentioned this website, or any theoretical involvement there by me, at Wikipedia. I request that User:Mathsci remove this claim from Wikipedia. If he refuses to (as his past behavior suggests is likely), I request that an admin sanction him. WP:OUTTING notes that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." A block would provide MathSci with time to consider how best to work with other editors. David.Kane (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, both you here and the David Kane at write under your full names, and you both have the same interest in race-related issues. But what clinches it is, the David Kane at explicitly claims he is you on Wikipedia [8]. If he isn't, maybe you'd better protest against identity theft. Unless that posting is a fake (and it doesn't look like one), I don't think you have grounds for an outing complaint. Fut.Perf. 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Shouldn't you have raised this issue by contacting an Admin via email? A large fraction of the Wiki community monitors AN/I, only a small fraction would have seen the comments made by Matsci. That Admin could have intervened by removing the comment by Matsci and then a thread could have been started here to discuss measures against Mathsci; the evidence for the outing attempt would only be visible to Admins. Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to add similar thoughts but got edit conflict. I am also of the view that this is not a case of outting. It is not unusual for evidence to be submitted to arbcom regarding off-wiki comments about wikipedia. To use the username David Kane and then claim that you are being outted as being "David Kane" is a mistake. If you used an anonymous username that would be different as you would have a case that evidence should have been submitted to arbcom privately. I don't think there has been any violation of wikipedia policy. If you have an imposter at, then you need to contact If you really are David Kane and you posted publicly on a blog that you are David Kane at Wikipedia, then you David Kane outted yourself, not MathSci.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Dear poor David.Kane, these points and these links have been under discussion for about a month and a half at ArbCom. His edits here simply seem to be a diversion as a kind of attention seeking exercise or a method of creating more disruption. He identified himself off-wiki with this edit [9], a link ArbCom is already familiar with. His edits at the moment seem to be extremely disruptive. Since he doen't seem to be particularly interested in improving content on wikipedia outside race-related articles and even there he is pushing a POV to breaking point with recent edits to Race (classification of humans), already described on ArbCom pages, there seems little point in making any further comment. Presumably this report was made to interrupt my edits to Clavier-Übung III. Perhaps it hasn't dawned on David,Kane yet that some people spend there time on wikipedia doing things other than trying to push their personal points of view on the bioligical inferiority of certain races. Not a very bright stunt really. But a stunt neverthless. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Moreover, D.K. at not only identified himself as D.K. on Wikipedia, he overtly used to campaign and solicit external help for his POV dispute on Wikipedia. While I don't think his external activity necessarily crossed the line into attempted forbidden meatpuppeting, it clearly is fair game for talking about on Wikipedia. I'd say User:David.Kane is in for a warning for raising frivolous complaints in bad faith. Fut.Perf. 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
As other users have mentioned in the ArbCom case and on article talk pages, he is simply gaming the system. A kind of chidlish exercise in annoying other users. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment from dumb bystander. How can you claim outing when you use a handle with your name in it? If you are David Kane, great. If not, why use that handle? Or are you saying you are a different David Kane? Anyways, I'll go back to eat bon bons. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have posted on David's user talk a warning template for trying to gain ownership of article content or article POV by off-wikipedia canvassing as there were no denials from David that this is what he was doing and it is quite obvious this was the case in my view. I have also warned david about not assuming good faith. I guess the admins here can decide whether any further action is needed; if not then perhaps this latest drama on race and intelligence can be marked as resolved and closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously not outing, what a frivolous post. Fences&Windows 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, folks, to be fair, I am not even sure this is "outing," technically, in any event. Isn't outing naming someone's real-world identity? Al we know is that there is a WP user with the registered name David Kane, and at this blog another registered user using the same name. For all we know, David Kane here is a 15 year old girl named Sally living in Portland Oregon, and the David Kane at the Gene Blogi s a 60 year old man named Hans living in Munich. Does that gene Blog provide RW info? I couldn't find it. MathSci might be mistaken in associting two internet personas that coincidentally use the same fake name. That is not outing, even if it is a mistkake. That said, Future Perfect's comment sort of nails it.
This would be amusing but for one thing: it is one more example of the kind of tactic David and his comrade-in-arms (or ArbCom) routinely use: to try to bring the disciplinary machinary of WP down on MathSci as a way of distracting him from the current ArbCom case. Frankly I find this abusive. Forget about it being unfair to MthSci (unfair though it is), it is abusive of our time and good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Not quite, as the David on the genetic website acknowledges being the same David on wikipedia and tries to invite editors to join in a content dispute. I do not understand what you are saying, when you say "the kind of tactic David and his comrade-in-arms (or ArbCom) routinely use"; are you alledging that ArbCom is in cahoots with David? That is a rather strange claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to 'out' someone who already uses his real name. If this person is editing disruptively, that can be dealt with without invoking WP:OUTING. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
CHL has already passed comment on this disruption on the ArbCom case pages. My only possibly disruptive thought today was that I might perhaps be able port this image file over to That thought was suppressed, because I fear the answer is no. But if any administrator who's an expert on copyright thinks the answer might be yes, that would be great. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Update David.Kane has been blocked by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
To clarify - I blocked for article disruption, not for anything related to the outing claim or discussion here. I agree with consensus above but him having made the complaint was frivilous, not actionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
David.Kane, now unblocked, stated that his reason to be unblocked was so that he could participate in the ArbCom case. The administrator that unblocked him Tivedshambo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did not notice how that statement conflicts with the request David.Kane made here. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with El Salvadoran IP editor[edit]

There has been a persistent El Salvadoran IP editor that keeps vandalizing List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and restores a largely unintelligible remark on the article's talk page that appears to be some sort of insult or attack directed at other editors.[10][11] The vandalism takes the form of a false air date of a particular episode. You can see the actual air date at this Hulu links. The edits all come from the 190.86.x.x range and changes from day to day. The article has already been semi-protected for a week once, but the editor simply waited it out and returned to vandalizing the article once the semi-protected expired. An attempt communicate with the editor has resulted in nothing more than the editor posting non-sense such as "pendejo".[12] The editor has already shown that he/she will wait out any semi-protection period and ignores any warnings left about the repeated vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Protected article for three days in the first instance. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the editor has already waited out one 3 day semi-protection period, I don't have much faith that another will have any affect on stopping the vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hence "in the first instance" :) S.G.(GH) ping! 06:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Blocking the IP is not feasible, unless we block the whole /16 IP address space... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
We can block a /16 ... but should only in severe ongoing cases. This doesn't seem that bad...
OTOH, we can indefinitely (or long duration) semiprotect an article if a persistent IP hopping vandal is present. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me dust off my slide rule...2^16 is equal to .... OK, enough of that. Look, we can protect the article or play whack-a-mole with each new IP. Or both. It may be a pain, but what's the alternative? Give in? Take solace in this fact: Wikipedia will be around longer than the vandal.  Frank  |  talk  22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess if he continues a permanent semi-protection would be nice, but really just reverting the one or two edits he makes each day isn't that big a hassle.
The irony here is that he doesn't seem to be bothering the Spanish-language Wikipedia article. Geg (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ackees using Congo Free State as a soapbox, again, after 3O[edit]

This article was brought to 3O after huge WP:POV pushing followed by a series of racist personal attacks in April, see Talk:Congo Free State/Archive 1#Leopold 'civilized' - right!..... User:HelloAnnyong jumped in and tried to help, and User:Rlevse stopped him from further vandalizing my talkpage. The nonsense stopped for a while, but User:Ackees is determined to belittle and attack all others on this article, and it needs to stop. Now. Please.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notifed User:Ackees about this post - please remember you must notify any user you discuss here. Exxolon (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So did I, I was in the process simultaneously.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Understood, apologies for edit conflict. Exxolon (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We will fight them on the beaches. We will never surrender.Ackees (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. I'm also confused by your edit to my user (not talk) page here [13] with the edit summary "(ha ha ha whatever)" - care to explain? Exxolon (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note - "16:45, 30 July 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Ackees (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)" so Ackees is unable to respond here. Exxolon (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Sarek, he blocked for edit warring on a different article to the one above, so this issue may still need looking at. Exxolon (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Before editing again, (if again), someone needs to give him a primer on NPOV and writing in a netural tone, I had a look at a few of his article edits and they were all problematical. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, somebody apparently had in fact defaced the article with racist references to Europeans as the "civilized world" in contrast with the Africans, which is of course patently unacceptable, so Ackees seems to have had some kind of a legitimate complaint. Looking further into this. Fut.Perf. 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Replacing one set of POV with another is not acceptable either, and this has been explained to him time and again. He's apparently familiar with the topic, but too close to it to be able to write objectively. It's not really my topic, I found him because of his brazen and insulting edit summaries and racebaiting, which he tried on me, to no avail. I revert such edits and editors on principle. Racism from any angle is unacceptable here. Some editors are banned from editing certain topics that push their hot buttons, say Kosovo or Palestine. For this user, I would suggest looking further into that.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeah. On the other hand, simply reverting the offending edits and thereby reinstating the very obvious (and arguably worse) offending parts of the previous version, without correcting the latter, was probably not the most constructive thing to do – it was obviously pushing his hot buttons even more. I'm glad somebody now seems to have been doing the obvious thing and taken out that "civilised" vs. "primitive" nonsense. Fut.Perf. 07:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, attention does need to be paid to this page. Maybe the underlying tone came from the 1911 Britannia article some of it was based on? It doesn't read too badly now, but it still does have a general tone of regarding the Congo as the "White Man's Burden". It'd be good to get more of the perspective of the Congolese into the article, if that's possible. Fences&Windows 14:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo (talk · contribs) harassing, posting empty accusations and personal epithets[edit]

 – Taivo advised that it is better not to let frustration spill over, Windyhead blocked for disruptive editing. FOOTBALLPLAYERTHATSHALLNOTBENAMED applies.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, for the last few days Taivo (talk · contribs) supplied every of my post with groundless accusations used as arguments in discussion and degraded to personal epithets.

  • [14] in violation to WP:Assume good faith rejects to accept that I checked sources
  • [15] as arguments uses personal behavior accusations that I "have not read the source" and "you don't like the information" and "can someone step in and shut this guy up", "He is providing nothing useful to the debate, but only complaining that he doesn't like the result"
  • [16] "you to lay off"
  • [17] which I even will not quote here (and it is still not removed)
  • [18] instead of arguments - personal behavior accusations like "Windyhead doesn't like the information because it conflicts with his worldview", "He then began forum shopping here and at another notice board"
  • [19] again empty accusations of not reading the source "You were continually making a mess of the paragraph" , "you worked very hard to not read the sources and to not understand what they said" and "Your "contribution" was nothing and resulted in nothing" , "You'll surely post something self-serving after this"
  • [20] "Removing malicious tags" for tags requesting to verify sources
  • [21] "Windyhead simply refuses to read the sources cited if he disagrees with my interpretation of them", "This is just another case of his forum shopping", discusses my "modus operandi"
  • [22] "Windyhead wasting time with malicious tagging" , "He is POV pushing without bothering to check sources".

Every single of my posts for last few days was responded with some accusation of personal behavior.

He also prepared "edit warring" report on me containing no single revert diff [23].

He also reverted my every single change to a page in conflict during last few days.

Is this kind of behavior is tolerated here? Or is it tolerated but only for editors with "honors"? I mean, may I or should I act like my opponent to get things moving? --windyhead (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor has spent the last week posting baseless tags at Ukrainian language without demonstrating 1) any real knowledge of linguistics, 2) any willingness to actual read sources, or 3) any willingness to read the posts wherein I have explained the linguistic issues to him. If you read his first comments and his last comments at Talk:Ukrainian language, you will see no change whatsoever in the content of his posts or in his understanding of the linguistic issues. An edit warring charge is completely justified as he was told by several other editors and administrators that my actions were completely justified within Wikipedia policy, yet he persisted in posting malicious tags because the phrase he objects to (while completely referenced and NPOV) violates his own personal POV. This complaint is just another in his long series of attempts at forum shopping. --Taivo (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Windyhead, you have all the appearance of being a tendentious editor. Taivo appears to be calling a spade a spade when he criticises your editing. And Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is the place for this, not here. No admin is going to sanction Taivo for his comments, even if they were less polite than might be desired. Fences&Windows 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Actually, this is a prime example of why remaining civil even in the heat of a dispute is important - in many cases, the party who feels insulted is empowered and angered by the insults, and an ANI case or other wider dispute emerge. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson#Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert, something else that came out of a recent ANI discussion above.
Tavio - There are multiple other editors involved here. If you can't respond politely to Windyhead, please let one of the others there handle the ondoign discussions. Continuing to abuse Windyhead would be inappropriate and a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please stop that now.
Windyhead - Fences and Windows' comment about your tedentious editing is something I agree with having read the article and article talk page histories ( Ukrainian language ). A number of edtiors, many of whom are linguists, are clearly countering your tagging and disputes there. There seem to be many sources. If you do not understand the sources or don't agree with one editors interpretations of them, it is adviseable to discuss it on the talk page and attempt to educate yourself further in the specific field. Tagging something that you don't understand well once is one thing; continuing to come back to it despite multiple editors pointing out the sources and trying to explain them to you is not helpful, and ultimately becomes disruptive.
Please make a better effort to work with the editors there and understand their responses.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) WP:OUCH. Reporter blocked 24hrs for disruptive editing. There was a long-standing pattern of hostile spurious tagging of perfectly straightforward sources (such as [24]), combined with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT wikilawyering on the talkpage and forum shopping. Fut.Perf. 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if this was a case of WP:BOOMERANG, I was just about to check. Good block. Fences&Windows 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Breech of General Sanction by User:Triton Rocker[edit]

The above named editor inserted "British Isles" into an an article here in defiance of his/her being sanctioned here. He has already had one block for breaking this ban. Would someone please take action as the two main admins monitoring this issue are on holiday. Thanks --Snowded TALK 05:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Second insertion against sanction here. In this case the change may be valid and I have nominated it on the project page. The sanction however is very clear. --Snowded TALK 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What this editor did ... that's me ... was a series of well referenced work developing the topic along a pattern of well cited and defined geographic areas, e.g. British Isles, Scandinavia etc, that I will continue ... if left alone by trolls who do no work.
Snowded is nothing more but one of a handful of nationalist war gamers attempting to politicise a non-political issue. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Two blocks already for this behaviour and now a personal attack. Editor is obviously unaware of what a general sanction means, or is unprepared to abide by it. --Snowded TALK 06:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've blocked TritonRocker for 48 hours. Review invited. This is particularly frustrating because the 1st set of edits were to an article already being discussed at WT:BISE. The 2nd set of edits, however, were to a completely new article. In both cases it appears possible that they could have got consensus for their change had they only bothered to try. TritonRocker has already been blocked once for violating the topic ban, hence the 48 hour block. TFOWR 07:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Good block, i do not understand why Triton continues to add British Isles to articles without first raising it on the WP:BISE page. He is clearly being disruptive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
All TritonRocker has to do is stick a mention of it in the WP:BISE page and we will discuss it in a reasonable and constructive way. I've found the level of willingness to engage with the issue in an intelligent way there to be improving now that this sanction policy is in place. Please defend the sanction policy. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Tangentially related: I'd appreciate it if other admins could keep an eye on this. Both myself and Black Kite are away until 7 August, and this issue is OK when it's monitored, and blows up when it's not. I posted at AN, so it's possible an admin or admins are aware of this already, but no one's said for definite that they'll watch over the WT:BISE page. Hint hint! Let me know, eh?! TFOWR 09:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • An inappropriate block. TR did not insert British Isles, he merely added a useful reference that happens to include the words "British Isles" in the title. The huffing and puffing by the nationalists on this really shows them for what they are. LevenBoy (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • TR did not insert British Isles Oh, really? Both of the edits that prompted the block involved adding the term "British Isles". Interestingly, every editor who has commented here is (so far as I know) British (apart from me, though I do live in Britain). None of the Irish editors have commented here. TFOWR 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I must admit that I (probably like many others uninvolved in this) have trouble keeping track of who's who and who is pushing which POV. Having said that, I don't think that it's relevant here. That first edit changes "Britain" to "British Isles". If that were by itself, I'd be asking whether that were really worth sanctions.

          The second edit is the problematic one. It removes any mention of the separate legal system of Scotland, bunches England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland into one, and calls it "added refs". That's certainly problematic editing, both as to the cavalier regard that it towards factual accuracy that it demonstrates (not only does one of the sources cited explicitly say "The AHA 1986 and the ATA 1995 do not apply in Scotland, where the relevant legislation is largely contained in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991." but even the article itself before editing stated that Scotland had a separate legal system), as well as the misleading edit summary. So whilst the first edit doesn't indicate tendentiousness here, the second seems to be a strong indicator (as does the name-calling on the article's talk page), and is good evidence that sanctions against such tendentiousness should be applied. When nationalism overrules accuracy in one's editing, then one has become a problem for the encyclopaedia.

          I've put Scotland back. Shame on you nationalist warriors for having an article lose an entire country's legal system as a side-effect of your bad editing! Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

          • I agree with what Uncle G says. Under the cover of adding references, that edit unreasonably merged all of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland into one section, when they actually had/have separate systems. Damned nationalist POV pushers, Wikipedia would be better without all of them. Fences&Windows 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I think, to be honest, I would have blocked on the first edit alone. TritonRocker is topic banned, and required to not make that edit - regardless whether it was correct or not. They've already been blocked once (admittedly by yours truly) for violating that topic ban, so I take the view there's systematic behaviour here and that the original topic ban (applied by Black Kite) was correct. There is a process in place at WT:BISE which the vast majority of editors appear happy with - editors of both persuasions. TritonRocker's behaviour seems to me to be somewhat "newbie-ish" - a belief that the way to get things done is to rip the piss out of WP:BOLD - there's a WP:DEADLINE, things must be done now or we'll lose the WP:BATTLE. Plenty of us were exactly like that not so long ago. The problem here is that if that behaviour goes unchallenged it provokes other editors. This area was a nightmare when Black Kite wasn't involved. It's not too bad now, because the provocations are kept in check. Editors seem pretty happy with a "raise issue, discuss, get consensus, make edit" process. Well, most editors, anyway... TFOWR 14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Just for the record, the agreement on the talk page was to keep the three legal legal Jurisdictions separate. After they had been artificially bundled together to create an excuse to use British Isles, I separated them again, doing my best to preserve some good content changes that had been made by Triton Rocker (he is frustrating in that he does good work but ignores agreed process and sanctions). So I think it may have been my fault that Scotland got lost in the process for which apologies - I was avoiding a simple revert. Thanks for putting it back in. Not sure if the insertion of British Isles as a term can be laid at the feet of nationalist POV pushers, but not to worry. What is clear is that the sanctions are preventing edit warring and creating a better editing environment with most issues now being settled quickly. If the sort of behaviour that Triton has displayed is not subject to sanction then there is no constraint on another outbreak of edit waring. --Snowded TALK 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a silver-lining to TR behaviour, though. He's giving everyone involved, an example of what happens when the sanctions are breached. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If TR wants to continue to shoot him/herself in the foot, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

IP following me around, reverting my edits and typing "ugly bitch" in hebrew in edit summary's[edit]

This IP has been following me around to several articles, reverted all my edits while typing "ugly bitch" in Hebrew in the edit summarys.

You can see what it means in google translate:

Arak (drink): [25][26]

Salvia palaestina[27][28]

Salvia hierosolymitana [29][30]

Brown Bear [31][32] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first step is to warn the user, which I've done.  Frank  |  talk  16:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
In addition, after digging a little further, I suggest (and will also suggest on your talk pages) that you and User:Chesdovi avoid editing the same articles, or at least avoid confrontation with each other. Nothing good will come of insults being lobbed back and forth across an old and continuing dispute.  Frank  |  talk  16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have blocked this user for unacceptable personal attacks in an edit summary. Crum375 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the edit summaries I saw -- not sure I got all of them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bambifan101: The last straw.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He's done it again: User:Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé 88 has been tagged and bagged. The problem here is this: I've contacted Jimbo Wales about this idiot and apparently nothing is being done.

I have blocked four or five complete IP ranges, one school IP range, reported this little freak countless times at CU, tried three times to mentor him, gotten my offers shoved in my face and still he continues.

Unless and until this freakazoid is shut down once and for all, I am off this project. Leave word on my talk page if you have any questions; my e-mail's been disabled for a little while due to a technical issue on my end. Disgusted, I remain, PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that'll sure put him in his place. Bravo, you, and keep reaching for that star. HalfShadow 03:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think you're feeding the troll just a tiny bit? What precisely are we supposed to do, send out the hunter-killer robots? Fences&Windows 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but as long as there are proxies, there will be compulsives like Bambifan. He's not unlike MascotGuy, in that he's easy to spot and catch. His edits don't last for more than a few seconds before he gets blocked. They're not bad enough to require revision deletion. I say we just keep RBIing him. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want done that hasn't been tried. Sometimes, nothing works, and you just have to keep up RBI until someone changes their medication. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist, but I make it a point not to punch people out. Kind of a general guideline in my life. Need a break anyway and I'm going to be on vacation next week; hopefully, I won't be anywhere near a computer. OK, I'll be fine...this has gone on for yearsand I just want it to stop. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It will. He can't possibly continue for more than another 80 years. Maybe less. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope cause some other guy will take his place. Wikipedia will always attract "Bambifan101s", the best way to combat them is to just WP:RBI.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think PMDrive has a right to be frustrated with both the vandal and Wikipedia's impotence in dealing with that particular brand of stupidity. Has anyone ever tried filing abuse reports with his IPs? There has to be some way to get tough with these folks. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Could a checkuser figure out where that looney is physically located and deal with him somehow? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel your frustration - I've been targeted by another serial, IP hopping vandal. Just RBI. Connormahtalk 05:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've always thought the best approach to the whole abuse report thing is to schedule an in-person appointment and show up with file in hand...because then you're right there with evidence in a place where they can't just ignore it by getting off the phone asap or ignoring emails. Ks0stm (TCG) 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of you may recall that I was really wrapped up in combatting this serial idiot a ways back. I felt the same frustration, but I dealt with it by removing all the BF target pages from my watchlist. Enough users are aware of the problem now that the same two or three users don't have to do all the work anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a technical solution here. The edit filter can see the underlying IP range from registered users, we've just disabled that because of privacy sensitivities. Re-enabling that would go a long way towards preventing edits from editors like Bambifan101 and Brexx. I get very frustrated dealing with this crap for pretty much the same reasons at PMDrive1061: it feels futile at times, and knowing there are technical fixes for most of it makes it worse.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA not apply here?[edit]

No. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned by the application of the terms "freakazoid", "idiot", and "looney" in the above section than I am with the general pattern of comments made by User:PMDrive1061 who is an admin and should therefore make a better attempt to follow our policies. Some recent samples:

Far more troubling is the overt threat of violence "I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist...". There is absolutely no justification for this type of comment. This seems to be a recurring pattern for PMDrive1061 (although I have just used recent examples). PMDrive1061 seems to get stressed out by "vandal fighting", which is precisely why he should not be involved in this area. Note also that a user brought a complaint to ANI PMDrive1061 told a user to "piss off" (page now deleted by PMDrive1061) but it was deleted and ignored. Sometimes even the trolls are right. This pattern should not be allowed to continue - at the very least, PMDrive1061 needs to voluntarily withdraw from "vandal fighting" and leave it to admins who are able to WP:RBI, but I think a block may be in order for the threat of violence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 'retarded apes' comment was directed at 4chan vandals. I believe that's a scientifically accurate description of them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is also a clear violation of WP:NPA ("some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: ... or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities)") and while "retarded" as in "mentally retarded" was once considered inoffensive, times and attitudes toward people with difficulties in cognitive functioning have changed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
4chan aren't people. I firmly believe the members are some form of cockroach. I may go so high as 'rodent'. HalfShadow 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the advice to PMDrive to frequent other areas of the project will be heeded. Regardless, however, I don't think a block is justified here. We put up with far more from far less productive users; while I agree the sentiment was slightly inappropriate, I think the point has been made here. If you disagree, perhaps WP:RFC/U is a more appropriate venue.  Frank  |  talk  12:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that PMDrive1061's activities are far more productive for the trolls and vandals than they are for Wikipedia. Threats of violence should not be dismissed so blithely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I shouldn't think that Bambifan101's sensitivities are being assaulted in this instance, since they are very unlikely to be reading these pages; it does not form part of their preferred area of operations. I also think that PMDrive1061 should not withdraw from vandal fighting, if that is what they want to continue doing, because I do not want to see another editor driven away from this site - Bambifan101 has already been the cause of one contributor to withdraw. As for the other comments directed at B101, I don't think they are reason for rebuking the editors concerned; B101 seems to think that Wikipedia is a convenient arena for them to indulge in their fantasies and appear uninterested in helping build content, so it is not as if we might upset someone who is adding value to the project. It might be unseemly if a third party came across the comments, but such is the case on many pages on WP. I think that people displaying their frustration at an unrepentant vandal's continuing contempt for the purpose of this website is quiet understandable. Perhaps you, Delicious carbuncle, might like to take on the role of being the principle combatant of this particular editors disruption - walk a mile in PMDrive1061 and Collectionian's shoes, rather than chide the indiscretions of those who have been clearing up after the little shit these last few years. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no desire to be the "principle combatant", although I will take your suggestion as an endorsement of my upcoming RfA. As I've said elsewhere, I do not believe that "fighting vandals" is productive and any admin who adopts that mentality is playing a losing game. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If someone can't stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen. Those types of comments are completely unbecoming of an admin. What's wrong with recognizing the good vandal fighting work being done and admitting that this language should not be used? I understand that people get frustrated while doing thankless work, but understanding why remarks like that come out is not the same as condoning them. Let's not condone them here please. Someone should tell the admin to cool it with the remarks and to take breaks as needed if the vandal fighting is getting too hot.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of admin mentality and endorsing RfA's, I don't think I will endorse anyone to become an admin when they have the school playground mentality of running to the headmaster when someone else does something naughty. "Sir, sir, PMDrive has said a dirty word!"[33] Fram (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you are unaware of Jimbo's well-publicized personal interest in the issue of civility, which was my reason for posting on his talk page. Do you have any comment on the issue at hand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That he is interested in a subject doesn't mean that you should go and invite him over here. Inviting people to a discussion when you know beforehand which position they have, and where their position seems to coincide with yours, is canvassing. It's small scale (only one person), but an appeal to authority which is hardly needed or helpful. Anyway, "First, and most importantly, we need to create an online culture in which every person can participate in an open and rational exchange of ideas and information without fear of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment or lies." Since the other party here has not worked on an "open and rational exchange of ideas" but is a relentless vandal, one can argue that the "unwarranted" cluase of Jimbo's thoughts has become invalid here. Consider his final comments: "But we can only do so if we prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us with hostility and incivility." If you consider PMDrive as one of the worst, and BambiFan as one of the best among us, then I don't think we have naything more to discuss here. If you don't, then I don't see how the statements by Jimbo are at all relevant to what has happened here. In any case, your answers still haven't given me any reason to believe that your post on his talk page was anything but an attempt to get authoritative support for your position. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Fram, would it be acceptable for me to call you an asshole, an asshat, a retarded ape, and a moronic little child? Would it be acceptable for me to state a desire to do something violent to you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Does whether someone else has violated policies justify your actions? I am not discussing what PMDrive did, I am discussing what you did. Using the wrong methods for what may be the right desired outcome is still using the wrong methods. Your question to me is a nice diversionary tactic, nothing more. So again, your answers still haven't given me any reason to believe that your post on his talk page was anything but a canvassing attempt to get authoritative support for your position. Fram (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who calls your attempt to get back to the topic a "diversionary tactic". Fine, I'll agree that my post on Jimbo's talk page was canvassing. Now, would you like to answer my question? Would it be acceptable for me to call you an asshole, an asshat, a retarded ape, and a moronic little child? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The topic of this subthread was your convassing, not the comments by PMDrive. That you didn't want to recognize your coanvassing for what it was made areasonable discussion of it difficult, not that I wasn't fooled by your diversion. Anyway, since I haven't acted like an asshole or a retarded ape (or at least not as blatantly as Bambifan), and have many mostly constructive edits, it owouldbn't be acceptable for you (or anyone else) to call me such names. More in general, I don't think it is ever constructive to call people such names, but in some cases (like here), it is perfectly understandable. Yes, it is a sign that PMDrive should move (temporarily or definitely) to other on-wiki actions, so that being on Wikipedia for him or her is a fun or a rewarding experience, not a mainly frustrating one. But just like someone venting on his talk page when being blocked is usually not grounds for an extension of the block, so should someone venting here in such a sitaution as this one be calmed down, not attacked or blocked. You could have discussed this with him on his talk page, and asked him to refrain from such language and behaviour in the future, and suggested some ways tio avoid this. Or you could have recognised that he has taken a wikibreak, and that all this isn't helping anyone at all. Fram (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Fram, we seem to be getting closer to some form of agreement. I understand that PMDrive is frustrated with the situation, but this is a situation in which he placed himself and which he could have chosen to leave at any time. Instead, he resorts to name-calling and incivility. He was not venting on his talk page, he was being abusive on the talk pages of others and here at ANI. This is not a new situation with PMDrive and I believe it has been discussed before. There is also a larger issue of admins flouting WP:NPA when dealing with vandals, which only serves the vandals' interests (in my opinion). I was fully prepared to be attacked for making this post (and I have not been disappointed). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Block PMDrive to avoid further disruptive violations of our civility and personal attack policies. There is plenty of civil editors that can fight vandalism, and if an editor does not follow policies, he/she's not less a vandal than the ones he/she fights. --Cyclopiatalk 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. That would be nothing but useless escalation. No vandals were harmed in the production of this drama. The purpose of NPA is to protect a constructive work atmosphere; with Bambifan there is no work atmosphere to be protected. He will never read this, and if he does, so what. Occasional venting is only human; vindictive NPA policing just for the sake of it is pointless. Fut.Perf. 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know that a block was needed, but the "constructive work atmosphere" does not simply include the vandal and the potty mouth. It includes all the rest of us. Using this type of language does indeed have negative effects on that entire atmosphere (see this conversation for instance). Once again I think the black and white way of looking at this is completely unproductive. Let's not "vindictively police" this but lets acknowledge that the language is unproductive and should be avoided. Why is that so hard to say out loud? Why is it so hard to ask the admin to refrain from this in the future? I don't get it. Let's move on, but lets do the mature thing first.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The negative effect on the working atmosphere here was not caused by his cursing. It was caused by the hysterical over-reaction to it. Fut.Perf. 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Funny, I was almost entirely certain I had typed WP:HORN* into my address bar to arrive at this page? jæs (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
*Wikipedia:Hysterical Over-Reaction Noticeboard.
  • Chicken here egg there, I really don't think identifying one as the cause is objective observation of the matter. I would tend to agree about most of the comments made being molehills and not mountains, but where I come from using the word "retard" is like using the word "fag", both of which are completely inappropriate. Those who are mentally disabled do not deserve to be associated with childishness and vandalism. Just because carbuncle has had an exaggerated response doesn't change that fact either.Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not block for incivility. That will just provoke a huge, wasteful drama. Instead, start an WP:RFC/ADMIN instead, and request removal of sysop access via ArbCom if the RFC reflects a consensus to do that. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not block. Yes, those comments were inappropriate. But all that is needed is a request for some civility. Daicaregos (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No block required. PMDrive notified of thread.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not block User was obviously stressed and verging on ad hominem territory. He has since recognised this and taken a wikibreak. GainLine 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. I hit a wall after cleaning up after this kid for four years. That's why I posted my frustration here. I have, until now, refrained from using really vile language to describe him. His behavior is simply unacceptable and no one who actually pays to run this project seems to be aware of what goes on in the trenches. As for the language, mea culpa. That's why I'm taking a break and apologize for the drama. As for the "piss off" comment, it was made to a sockpuppeteer spamming on behalf of some pharmaceutical firm who first told me to do likewise and wished for me to become sick so that they could "withhold" medication. Another sockpuppet cried foul and "reported" me for the comment. Sorry if I opened up a can of worms, but between those vile, unrelenting insults hurled at us through 4chan/ED and the unrelenting attacks by Bambifan, I just boiled over. By the way, my "threat of violence" was meant as a joke if you'll read the rest of the comment. I have no real desire to physically harm anyone, let alone some kid. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One point to note though, if you show frustration with colourful comments then it is more likely to lead to further mischieviousness - bit like getting a reaction from teasing. I do think it is probably easier just shouting an expletive at the computer screen while typing calm and neutral language rather than typing out frustrated words (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you express too much frustration, then they know they've won. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have blocked Delicious carbuncle[edit]

A quick look at Dc's most recent contributions shows that they were making pointy edits to WP:NPA to "reflect" the discussion above, and edit warring to keep them there. I considered it disruptive, and blocked them 24 hours. Since I was involved in the above discussion, and had previously blocked Bc, I feel my block should be reviewed and varied if considered appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed edits. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this block was unnecessary and punitive. Delicious Carbuncle is a regular contributor and was given no warning of any kind. I do agree that his edits to WP:NPA were POINTy and unncessary - but a block was neither necessary nor helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think your opinion is in the minority here. Delicious Carbuncle was effectively harassing another regular contributor who was clearly showing signs of burnout. Sometimes we should ignore the rules out of respect for our fellow unpaid & far too often underappreciated volunteers, & not worry about the tender feelings of some vandal who is wasting our oxygen. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo, I know this is your site, but you haven't dealt with DC. He has drove at least three users away, harrassed a fourth, put me in semi-retirement for 4 months, causes problems wherever he seens fit, trolls the Wiki for nonsense and makes long, never ending threads about them, I could go on. DC needed to be blocked a long, long, long damned time ago. I would die a happy man if DC was never seen on this site again, but I will have to wait for that. Jimbo, good block by LessHeard, best damn block I have seen in weeks, and ZERO need for overturning it. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
If that isn't the very definition of punitive, I don't know what is.  Frank  |  talk  15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary, perhaps - I did consider warning, but the reverts to NPA were against good faith corrections of Dc's edits lead me to believe that they were not interested in communication - but a matter of opinion, but never punitive; I don't do that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering that DC does not view the edits as pointy [34], I don't see how the block could be considered punitive and not preventative. Obviously if they don't see the problem, why would they stop being disruptive? --Smashvilletalk 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It would have taken only a few seconds to say "Your edits to NPA are POINTy, stop doing that or I will block you." I think there is no question he would have stopped, even if he didn't agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it concerns me that a user was blocked without warning because they were arguing a point that was unpopular. It comes across as being very heavy handed. While I don't agree with a lot of what DC was saying, a warning would have been a good start. I have seen far worse behaviour not resulting in blocks in the past. GainLine 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that line of thought, Jimmy, is that it leads to an editor forming the belief that they can edit war to make a point, inserting the material three times over a period of over two hours, up to the point that they are threatened with a block. Contrary to what you may wish to think, a block has more than a preventative effect (although prevention was sorely needed in this case); it also strongly reinforces the lesson not to do it again. Personally, I do not see that as punitive, but as an extension of prevention, YMMV. The block may have been harsh, but well within normal practice, LHvU. --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. A regular here edit-warring on a policy page should not need to be warned -- they should know better. Requiring a warning under these circumstances is a license to disrupt.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
He wasn't blocked because he had an unpopular point of view. He was blocked for edit warring on a core policy page in order to make a point (a particularly baseless point, but that doesn't really matter). Jimbo is entitled to believe that DC would have stopped edit warring if we asked him to, but I don't think that's a hardline requirement before blocking in this instance. Admins aren't clairvoyant, but looking at his contribs immediately before he was blocked gives me the impression he was on a tear and hadn't stopped at the moment of decision. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I feel that the block placed on me by LessHeard vanU was unnecessary. I have to give LessHeard credit where credit is due for once having blocked User:David Shankbone for calling another editor a "cunt", and I didn't make a fuss when they blocked me previously in what they admit was abuse of their admin powers, but I would prefer not to become a favourite target of theirs.

I waited out my block rather than inflame the situation, but look at the facts - I made good faith edits to a policy based on what is clearly common practice, even just based on this thread. I was reverted with no explanation by a shared UK GOV IP, and then by an IP whose edit summary was "rv. Delicious carbuncle needs to give some thought to finding a new hobby if he is going to behave like a juvenile.". Would anyone care to own up to that one? I was perfectly willing to discuss my changes, but neither of those to reverts seemed like anything other than someone trying to be annoying. Incidentally, I will start a discussion on the policy's talk page soon. In the meantime, let me point out the following ignored breaches of WP:NPA just in this thread:

  • User:PMDrive1061 - "idiot", "litle freak", "freakazoid", and "I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist"
  • User:Beeblebrox - "this serial idiot"
  • User:FisherQueen - "Well, the 'retarded apes' comment was directed at 4chan vandals. I believe that's a scientifically accurate description of them."
  • User:HalfShadow - "4chan aren't people. I firmly believe the members are some form of cockroach. I may go so high as 'rodent'."

Three of those are by admins. Are they serious breaches? For the most part, no, but it is ridiculous to pretend that the policy is being followed as currently written. We should either change the policy or change our behaviour. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the block for the same reasons as given by Jimbo. A warning could have been given first. Only when you know beforehand that this is pointless, e.g. based on the block log, you could decide to block rather than e.g. engage in a long discussion. It can be the case that you suspect that such discussions would escalate in insults leading to an even longer block. But I don't think that in this case this was a factor to consider.
Then the edits the dispute is about were made in a pointy way, but there is clearly an issue here that the NPA article should address. DC did not do that in a reasonable way, but it seems to me that there should be a section in that article devoted to dealing with problem editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo (note: I have often, and publicly, disagreed with him). Poor block, a warning should have been given. The block key is a last resort, not a first. Adminship should be exercised with deftness and nuance.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous is not a member of the wikipedia community. Bambiefan is not a member of the wikipedia community. Casting aspersions at 4chan or at whataver malign soul is behing bambiefan may be poor form, but it isn't against any sensible policy we adhere to. There are general suggestions, such as "don't insult the vandals" and explicit prohibitions against personally insulting users on the site. But there is no and should be no wikipedia policy which restricts me from talking freely about people outside the wikipedia community (w/in the confines of BLP and NOT). I assume you are merely confusing prohibitions designed to make the community work, and not purposefully missing the point. But I'm growing less sure of that. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm clearly not smart enough to get understand the subtlety here, Protonk, but you appear to be saying that you both think I should have been blocked for my changes to WP:NPA and stating a position that exactly corresponds with the changes I was blocked ofr making. What am I missing? (And this section of WP:NPA defines "every person who edits an article" as a "Wikipedian" - if that's not the case, let's change it...) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Look. Your opinions about NPA are your own. you were blocked because immediately following the closure of a block discussion you initiated you went off to change a policy page in a POINTy manner. The underlying dispute over what NPA should say is almost immaterial. Focusing on it misses the point. In fact, focusing on it obscures the point. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the comments which were called out were venting - which we understand. But venting is inherently unprofessional (as it were). It's tolerated, because people are human, but it's still unprofessional.
We should minimize using it for a couple of good reasons, one being that it makes us look bad to outsiders. All of what's on Wikipedia is "on the record" - it may show up in the Media, in outsider complaints about how we run things, and excessive behavior along these lines gives people an impression that we're a locker room full of jocks rather than a bunch of encyclopedia writers with a serious committment to information quality, freedom, and a good set of core values and policies.
Also, a lot of people see the terms in use and then start using them against other Wikipedians, where it's much less appropriate.
Regarding the POINTyness of the particular edit here - it was pretty much the definition of POINT. Whether blocking immediately was an appropriate response or not I don't know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You understand the subtlety yet don't WP:HEAR the point. In fact DC remains one of the most masterful pointy editors anyone has had the displeasure of "working" with. No concern for anyone who agrees with their POV however, just everyone else and editors who shrug off the constant ANI groupie activity and trouble-stirring. Media parent (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
An account with all of 3 edits is insinuating that I'm a sockmaster? Funny stuff. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait? Bambifan101 is still active? I feel sorry for those who have dealt with him all this time! --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, WP:NPA shouldn't apply when we are talking about someone who has caused mountains and mountains of stress. I stand by the fact that Bambifan101 IS indeed a pest. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Threats to go to the press[edit]

 – Unless we get some specifics, there's nothing for admins to do here. WP:NLT does not apply to running to the media. Fences&Windows 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is any administrative action necessary if a user threatens to report an issue to the press if they don't get their way? I am aware of WP:NLT, which doesn't specifically mention situations like this, but the consequences to our collaborative environment seem to be roughly the same to me whether the threat is take legal action or to take it to the press. (I'd rather not be specific yet, because if no admin action is needed, avoiding the drama of ANI would be best.) Gnome de plume (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the issue at hand. If a Wikipedia or WMF policy is being violated, I think it should be brought to the attention of someone who can do something about it, despite the threat. If the threat is being made solely to get a different result in a discussion, I'd ignore it. It's a free internet. (Besides, if we change decisions just to avoid press scrutiny, that will generate press scrutiny in and of itself.)  Frank  |  talk  18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Attempts to apply outside pressure to editors are a no-no. We have a specific policy on legal threats, we also stand against attempting to reveal editors real-life identities. This should be treated similarly - as should for example a threat to contact an individual's employer. We must not tolerate "chilling effects" of this type. Exxolon (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly agreed; those are different than "I'll go to the press". Even so...our "toleration" of such behavior isn't a prerequisite for it being carried out; nor is our intolerance any guarantee it will not be carried out. But I agree our stance should be firmly against that sort of thing.  Frank  |  talk  18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do be specific, here or at another noticeboard. If someone thinks they need to go to the press, others should be involved. It's not the same as a legal threat, but it suggests there's any issue that needs resolving. Fences&Windows 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but let's entertain the possibility that the "issue" is simply that someone wants to get their way. If that's the case, a big yawn might suffice.  Frank  |  talk  22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Legal, press, or otherwise, threats should not be welcomed. At the minimum it's a poor attempt at intimidation and thus blockable. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 01:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Intimidation is against the rules. I have to wonder, though, about what kind of a threat they think "going to the press" is, considering that wikipedia is already visible to most anyone with internet access. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I really think a threat to go to the press should be met with "...and?" followed by a yawn. Most of the time, threats are only threats if they are treated as such. Discussions like this seem to me to be equivalent to feeding the trolls.  Frank  |  talk  01:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. What exactly is wrong with going to the press? Unless they provide false information to the press I would say nothing because we live in a free world and wikipedia cannot prevent editors going to the press. In most cases the press won't be interested they have other things to do than write about wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's similar to threatening a lawsuit. Wikipedia can't prevent someone from filing a lawsuit over the actions of an editor. In every case where a lawsuit is threatened on-wiki, such a suit would be laughed out of court and would most likely result in sanctions for the plantiff. As such, a threat to sue is not really a threat to sue, but an intimidation technique to gain the upper hand in a content dispute without addressing the actual issues involved. Threatening to go to the press is a similar technique...there's no real danger resulting from it, but it is an attempt at intimidation that should not be tolerated. Bobby Tables (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat similar except that it is harder to cause harm (though not impossible, see the case of Ms. Sherrod) by just going to the press than it is by bringing a legal threat into the mix. I could have no standing or injury and could still reasonably threaten anyone in the US with some crazy lawsuit. The editor on the receiving end of the threat has little choice but to treat my threat as serious, because ignoring it could result in summary judgment, etc. Threatening to go to the press is a few steps above threatening to blog about a content dispute. Intimidation might be present, but making that decision would have to rely on context. Also, there is the slight optics problem of getting into the habit of blocking editors who want to talk to outsiders about wikipedia. All that said, I'm a fan of BB's approach. If someone wants to inflate their own sense of self-importance and threaten to write a sternly worded letter to their local paper about some WP:LAME edit war, it should be standard practice to treat such threats with indifference. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm left wondering how we avoid the appearance of tolerating (or present the appearance of not tolerating) such threats. My own feeling is that pretending they mean anything by welcoming, discussing, or reacting to them is far more tolerant than would be ignoring them. By pretending (no, behaving as though) there is something to not tolerate, we give the impression that going to the press (or, indeed, a legal threat) actually means anything. I, for one, think a simple "so?" is sufficient to deflate a majority of such cases. This is especially true when there's almost nothing we can do to prevent it anyway. If politicians and public figures spent time denying every untrue (or partially true) bad thing said about them, we'd have tabloids full of such stories. Oh yeah...we already have that...and some folks pay attention; most don't. So, I ask: how exactly do we "not tolerate" threats? We allow people to behave in all sorts of rude ways around here (far ruder than threatening to go to the press) without blocking them, so...where's our stick for this one?  Frank  |  talk  12:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a stick. This is "threat" is basically "I'm going to tell on you", and without further information we have no reason to believe that the media would be interested in any particular content dispute. What we need is for more editors to be involved, because a dispute is obviously escalating and should be resolved. Hence we should stop pontificating on generalities and be told what the specific dispute is. Fences&Windows 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree about not needing a stick; I was questioning how we would "not tolerate" such threats without one.  Frank  |  talk  20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

URGENT ! ![edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wikipedia:Child protection next time. TFOWR 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 – HalfShadow 18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

somebody please performs CU and alerts the Police of User:Pompous Trihedron.  Dr. Loosmark  18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you direct us to some of his edits? That would speed things along much faster.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he is refering to his userpage. TbhotchTalk C. 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive, box it up. The "complainer" is trying to make a point that there shouldn't be special sensitivity to pedophiles here (guessing). The pompous editor calls himself a "wikipedophile" on his user page. If it really bothers Loosmark, i suggest he contact the editor in question and ask him to remove it. But really, this is a troll.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive report, already removed once by User:SarekOfVulcan. Mauler90 talk 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Child protection describes what should be done in these cases. Since this seems to me like a poor joke (the editor has also been a "wikipiano"), I have blanked the userpage and left a note on their talk page. Loosmark is welcome to contact ARBOM if they feel there is genuine cause for concern. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Maybe Loosmark could spend a few days making himself useful instead of complaining about everything he comes across, yes? HalfShadow 18:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if the guy was only joking. Maybe he was and maybe he was not. And frankly even if he was joking I find such "jokes" not at all funny and very bad taste indeed and it simply should not be allowed. It's also disturbing that the so called "admin" Sarek attack me and call my report "disruptive".  Dr. Loosmark  19:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what does a "wikipedophile" do, tag 5-minute-old articles for speedy deletion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, far, far worse than that.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Careful; PT could be luring his computer into a dark alley with promises of candy even now... HalfShadow 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
@Loosmark: you've been linked to Wikipedia:Child protection above. If you thought it was serious, which IMO it almost certainly isn't, you should be following that, which includes "should not be the subject of community discussions or requests for comment or consensus.", I think, so not discussing it here, really...  Begoontalk 19:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Like I said I have no idea if it was serious or just a very idiotic joke. What's really appalling is that the 3 clowns above keep making mockery of me for reporting the situation.  Dr. Loosmark  19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a clown; I'm a mime. (I'm typing, so technically I'm not talking). HalfShadow 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)@Loosmark: Ah, ok, well I'll leave you to it, then. Just wanted to point out the correct, drama free procedure, in case you might have missed it. ttfn.  Begoontalk 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, lay off folks. The link was all that was needed. I'm closing this off and suggesting that humour is best found elsewhere. TFOWR 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but... "Wikipedophile" is a term of abuse used by Something Awful, Encyclopedia Dramatica, 4chan, etc. to describe Wikipedians. That editor notes that they read Something Awful see this comment. Their edit summaries also make clear their contempt for Wikipedia. So not a very constructive editor and I'm surprised they were never blocked (though their recent edits seem innocuous), but also clearly not someone self-identifying as a pedophile. Fences&Windows 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gilad Atzmon -- restoration of material in violation of WP:BLPDEL[edit]

Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a couple of editors bent on smearing the subject of this BLP with accusations of anti-semitism. I have twice removed a sentence based on a "working paper", noting that a working paper by definition is not "published" and fails WP:RS, particularly as used for support of highly contentious material in a WP:BLP. WP:BLPDEL requires that material deleted on such grounds cannot be restored until there is consensus, and it is nonetheless being restored. I'd be grateful for some admin input here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would note that both editors, Drsmoo (talk · contribs) and RTLamp (talk · contribs), are essentially SPAs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have edited on a multitude of articles as one can see by checking my editing history. Not that it is in any way shape or form relevant to the notability of this or any other article.
Here is the article in question It is also worth noting, contrary to any "poisoning the well" that Atzmon regularly proclaims himself a "proud self hating Jew", allies himself with and reposts articles from far right authors and Holocaust denier, is published regularly on KKK sites, and in no way shape or form distances himself from any of his antisemitic comments. Despite the above editor's contention, most editors on the article are merely accurately reposting the most notable sources which discuss the subject. Drsmoo (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Prolific non-admin AfD closer redux[edit]

As a follow up to this ANI thread involving my actions at AFD, I've started a discussion at WT:DELPRO about the practice of closing AFDs that lack participation as "no consensus" instead of a second relist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors[edit]

Normally I would take this to the edit-warring board, but this is broader and speaks to larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk.

The dozen articles have to do with Japanese adult video actresses. This is a subject many find touchy, but Wikipedia is not censored, and each image has a proper and comprehensive fair-use rationale. Japanese laws have particular requirements that private photos of celebrities are most-often out of bounds, so for AV actresses, separate rules apply, which have been pointed out to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. On his userpage, he states "The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to." The three editors he is warring with have kept fully within policy, it is he that is being aggressive. I hesitate to label it a crusade, but jihad is a little strong.

Users Testales, Dekkappai and I have repeatedly directed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to please read WP:NFC#UULP and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Acceptable sources of fair use photos before removing images.

Articles I am aware of include Junko Miyashita, Bunko Kanazawa, Madoka Ozawa, Haruki Mizuno, Manami Yoshii, Kei Mizutani, Kazuko Shirakawa...

--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that existing copyrighted images can be made free by the copyright holder through a license or a complete release into the public domain. Whatever right of publicity an actress may enjoy in Japan does not override the fact that the copyright holder (normally the photographer or the company that paid for the shoot) controls how the picture is used according to US law, not the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the issue here is over the images. We can discuss those and determine their appropriateness. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' continuous edit-warring. When reverted he, without fail, simply reverts. Whether he is right or wrong in individual cases is one thing. The issue here is that he nearly always gets his way through strong-arm editing tactics. I think he has made several good editors sick and tired of this behavior, and that is what this notice is about. Dekkappai (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what the etiquette is in terms of displaying disputed non-free images. I know that clear copyright violations should be removed immediately but don't know beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hullaballoo's edit-warring goes far beyond the removal of Fair use images. Characterizing legal Fair use as "copyright violation" does not change this. Dekkappai (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking over the applicable policy, WP:NFCC, "Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added" and "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof" applies here. Saying that no new free content can be created because a person is too old or protects her privacy is not true and may not be a valid rationale. It would be nice for HW to explain why he thinks the rationale is not valid or suitable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
For the last time: This is not a discussion of fair use images. This is a discussion of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' editing behavior. Had HE instigated such a discussion in this case and in many, many other cases, he and the many editors he has instead offended or driven off Wikipedia could have come to an amicable agreement. Dekkappai (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The edit warring is over the images though. The burden of proof to show that something adheres to policy is on the editor who adds the item. Are there examples of the editors actually trying to initiate discussion with HW explaining how it does comply before adding the images back? Are there specific examples of HW responding or ignoring the discussion? These are diffs that admins will need to look at rather than try to dig through the article histories. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not a discussion of images. There is a long history behind Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' hyper-agressive editing. Please do not further attempt to derail the discussion to fair use image policy. I did not get involved in this after Hullaballoo first removed these images-- all my uploads. I was tired of this editor's non-stop battle tactics, and was in fact prepared to let him have these. I resent my time being used in this forum as well-- I am here at Wikipedia to contribute content, not to play these childish battle games which editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz create. The editing history of the pages below show that I did not get involved until other editors raised objections. It was the fact that Hullaballoo steam-rolled over them that got me involved. For just one example of the recent spate of edit-wars:

The exact same pattern can be seen at: Kazuko Shirakawa, Bunko Kanazawa, Kei Mizutani, Marina Matsushima, Nao Saejima, Haruki Mizuno, Madoka Ozawa, Manami Yoshii, and Kimiko Matsuzaka. Again, this is all just one instance of this editor's agressive editing technique, but to cite even a fraction would be far beyond the scope of this page. A full RfC is probably in order. Dekkappai (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the discussion on both sides in the Miyashita example is inadequate since they are solely using the edit summaries to do this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And do you also see that it is one editor warring against several? That is the point of this ANI, and you have been asked to address this specific already. Please do so.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
A bunch of members of the wanking fraternity (sum of all human knowledge, you know) complaining that perhaps innapproprietly licensed images are being removed? I'm shocked.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a well founded and sophisticated formulated reply. Maybe you can write it a bit more insulting?! I am shocked even more. If you have problem with pornography, please keep it for yourself. If you see despite Wikipedia:Sexual_content a problem with pornography related topics beeing part of the Wikipedia main project, I would even agree with you. But in this case you should consider to put that up for discussion at a more suitable place. I will write more later on the actual subject, so please see this just as a reminder to keep this discussion at a certain level. Testales (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let me be direct. No I don't have a "problem" with pornography -- an occasional consumer of it myself and I believe that there should be plenty of coverage of the subject in an encyclopedia -- from truly famous pornographic movies, to some discussion of genres, to sociological/political looks at it. What i have a problem with is a bunch of fanboys scrabbling around filing wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible, and then complaining when someone takes notice and tries to clean up after them. I mean look at this articles created list: [35] which includes vital encyclopedia content like Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs, Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil and Continuous Adultery 2: A Portrait of Incest between Sisters. The wanking community needs less input on content here, not more.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have anything of value to say? If you think any of those notable, award-winning erotic films are unworthy of articles, take them to AfD. In either case not one comment, not one personal attack, not one display of ignorance, bias and prudery that you have made here is of any relevance whatsoever. I'd suggest you apologize and leave this discussion unless you can say something constructive about the actual issue. Dekkappai (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well played sir. "Fourth place" at something called the "Pink Grand Prix" definitely justifies the loving treatment you've devoted to Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs. Yes, I guess the wanking material must stay then. The stuff all fails the GNG, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with your emissions. Someday, maybe, actual standards will be set and this stuff can be cleaned up wholesale. In the meantime, good on wolfowitz for trying to do the right thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, if you have issues here, this is WRONG place. If you are not happy with the current WP:GNG, WP:NF or WP:PORNBIO go to the related talk page and DISCUSS. Until this you have absolutely no right to disapprove the work of other editors. I am also very aware of the work that Dekkappai does and I was also critical to that and I am still regarding some aspects, see this and that for example. But if there should be additional and special restrictions for adding Pornography related information then this can surely not be solved within the scope of WP:P*. These "non-notable soft-porn" films (does soft increase or decrease the value btw.?!) have won notable prizes and it also seems that especially Pink films can not easily be compared with certain western low budget trash productions, they seem have a much higher cultural value as one may expect. But either way, calling hardworking (and truly!) contributing editors like Dekkappai "fanboys" is without any doubt a serious personal attack. Testales (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you and I disagree. I think this is the RIGHT place to discuss problem editors. My ultimate hope is to draw attention and to convince people with power to eventually take action. I understand you're not happy that scrutiny has shifted onto you and the folks you made this complaint with. So it goes. The de-bodiced images placed on wikipedia to promote the films are soft-porn. My problem with them is that none of them approach, or could even begin to approach, proper encyclopedia articles (since there's no scholarly consideration of these individual films, no reviews outside the porn-industry marketing conspecifics, no consideration of their merit and importance set within a larger context, etc...) My objection to this content is much the same (philosophically) as my objection to a great deal of wikipedia content that has nothing to do with pornography. There is nothing remotely educational or enlightening about these "articles." In Dekkappai's case, it's basically just a video directory for people who like to masturbate to rape fantasies and the like. Since the subjects are frequently illustrated with pictures of purely prurient interest (that are generally not fair use), that the "actresses" frequently wish their past in porn forgotten when they leave the industry, since the articles are maintained and compiled by obsessives from within a walled garden, I suppose the porn is a bit worse in my eyes than, say, the obsessive science fiction and video game ghettos. Again: I understand why you'd like to make this about one editors conduct rather than content. I just happen to believe that the underlying content issues are the ones to focus on.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like Hullabaloo is in the clear here: WP:3RR grants an exemption to "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy", and the example above certainly seems to fall into that category. Wikiproject guidelines cannot create an exemption to WP:NFCC, and any Japanese laws concerning fair use have no impact on Wikipedia, making the images wholly replaceable.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what did he have to lose by discussing rather than edit-warring? Dekkappai (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussing would have been better. Ultimately, though, all those images have to go. If he had notified me (or probably most admins) of the problem he was facing, he could have received assistance as well. This is one of those cases where the people reporting the problem are more at fault than the one being reported: removing NFCC violations is the obligation of all editors and admins, while chronically inserting them can result in blocks.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Not discussing is what caused this issue to come to a head. I was long prepared to see all these images removed. They are not the issue. The edit-warring is the issue. Other editors brought up concerns which needed discussing-- and which, though it doesn't matter here, you ignore. Even had they eventually been thrown out, the place for that discussion was THEN, not here. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' constantly aggressive, edit-warring behavior. Here is another recent example. This one doesn't involve images:
  1. Rather than tagging for sourcing, he simply removes a list of interviewees in a film
  2. He is reverted noting that the film is the source (a WikiProject film guideline with which I happen to disagree)
  3. Rather than discuss, Hullaballoo reverts, instigating an edit-war
  4. After an editor takes up the task of sourcing each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list
  5. a third editor reverts Hullaballoo
  6. :::Hullaballoo again blindly reverts

Again, this has nothing to do with images-- I was long prepared to see those images removed anyway. This has to do with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' CONSTANT edit-warring. Dekkappai (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh-- your reference to Japanese law was confusing at first, because no one has made such a reference. The references the other side made were to Wikipedia policy. Your use of this imaginary claim to join in Hullaballoo's edit-warring, just because you think he is in the right, confirms the faith expressed in you at your RfA, KWW. Dekkappai (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Let me explain what I see here: The issue-- HB's edit-warring and aggressive editing patters-- are OK as long as certain Admins agree with his position. So much for "consensus", and I am out of here. Dekkappai (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As an admin, I am responsible for upholding WP:NFCC. Most people who voted in my RFA expressed faith that I understood policies and would enforce them fairly. I believe I have done so. As noted above, removing NFCC violations is an explicit exemption to 3RR. Doing so to the same article repetitively is no more of a problem than repeatedly removing vandalism. That's the issue you face: HW has not committed any offense against Wikipedia policies or guidelines by repeatedly removing these images.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have come across the user at issue in addressing a similar discussion, and I came away with a good impression of his understanding of Wikipedia's policies. We are dealing here with sticky issues of copyright and BLP issues (not arising in this particular case, but in other articles that this editor works on). He is, obviously, a stickler who does not always take the time to communicate his concerns in a way that makes others feel that they have been addressed civilly. However, he is largely on the right side of policy. I would suggest that he bring these issues here before reverting an alleged copyvio addition a second time. Other than that, I do not think administrative action is warranted at this time. bd2412 T 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another recent instance of Hullaballoo's edit-warring and bullying can be seen in the history of where he repeatedly removed sourced information eventually leading to the article's protecting, and then a ridiculous level of over-sourcing to quell his alleged concerns. (Russ Meyer known as "King of the nudies?" nine sources for that potential BLP violation...) But, as the ignoring of the above non-image-releated second example shows, the point of this discussion is being purposely avoided in line with ideological biases. Some openly stated, others hidden by unrelated policy discussion... Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic In regard to these pictures, I have one question that should Wikipedia use nude picture such as in the article Kaoru Kuroki? It should be a image with high commercial value which is described in point 2 of the WP:NFCC. And I also think that nude pictures like this one are the reason why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz act so aggressively.--AM (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really off-topic. The fair-use argument is predicated on the concept that Japanese law applies to Wikipedia, which is not true.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
So now we're supposed to believe that the reason for Hullaballoo's edit-warring over content, images and sourcing is because of... one image he didn't remove? Makes as much sense as the "Japanese law" argument Kww is refuting, I suppose, which, again, no one ever mentioned during HB's Wiki-approved edit-wars. Why not join the edit-war and threaten blocking too? Might get you an Adminship here. Again: The images can go. And they would have without controversy if Hullaballoo had not instigated edit-warring. Hullaballoo's behavior in many, many articles is the issue here. The images are just the LAST instance of his violation. Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The reason for my assumption is come from this edit. I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz don't like to see a gallery of content which is both erotic and non-free. Nevertheless, noone answer my concern yet. Should we use copyrighted and erotic contents to illustrate these kind of articles (assuming that these uses are fair enough)?--AM (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following this logic: If wolfowitz hadn't tried to remove the images they... would have been removed anyway? And appropriately trying to remove copyrighted images was the problem because it led to edit warring on the part of editors (including yourself) who wanted the images to remain? But you don't really care about the images anyways (i.e. "they can go.")? And compounding the problem was another editor joining in and helping to remove the problem images (the images you say you don't care about but are the "last instance of (wolfowitz') violation)? And the "Japanese law argument" that was brought up by the original complainer, right here on this page, was not in fact ever made? It's all so confusing.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming in late today on this, and find that I have very little to add to the analysis of Morbidthoughts and, in particular, the thoughtful comments of Kww. Where other editors have attempted to meet the burden required to meet NFCC requirements, I've participated in discussion, as at Talk:Nao_Saejima and given even fuller explanation at User_talk:Tabercil#HB_at_it_again and at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_July_27#File:Kimiko_Matsuzaka.jpg. Without any substantive defense of such dubious content (as Bali Ultimate and others pointed out last year in a BLP dispute we were both involved in), requiring editors removing that content to engage in extended discussions simply frustrates policy enforcement. The underlying issue is a well-settled policy question; as is demonstrated, for example, in the extended discussion over the use of a nonfree image in the Twiggy article, the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support. On the other hand, statements like one referring to the subject's "big bust," as is the case in one of the articles in dispute, hardly require visual aids to be properly understood.
Dekkappai and I have been engaged in a long-running series of content disputes over BLP sourcing, and from the beginning [36] [37] [38] [39] Dekkappai has engaged in uncivil personal attacks, a pattern which extends to his comments on other editors (note, for example, this edit summary from the current discussion [[40]]). I hope greater attention is paid to this behavior in the future; it is disruptive and deters participation by other editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it is apparent that nothing relevant to the purpose of this noticeboard will come from further discussion of the topic. I suggest closure of this discussion. Policy disputes can be handled elsewhere. bd2412 T 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing on the behavioral complaint[edit]

Comment: This entire discussion has become pointless at the moment an administrator demonstrated that WP:BATTLE can very well lead to success. It might have been understandable to do such a mass-revert again while the discussion is still running if there were a reason of urgency but I can't see any. The very root of this is - I repeat it once again - that small policy note of WP:NFC#UULP which even has an own shortcut. As despite at lot of pointing to that it was continously completly and simply ignored, I will quote the deciding part again too.

"However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.".

Several of the models in question have retired and/or have visually changed a lot. Furthermore the notability of a model is inherently connected with his or her visual appearance. Porn stars are usually models too, some even get shoot for erotic art and by notable photographers and notable magazines. It should also be obvious that a very ugly actor can not become notable in that business. At least I have never seen or heard that say a distorted or handicapped actor has been given a regular and notable award even though there are handicapped and distorted actors doing pornography. Very old people who start in pornography are not awarded or notable either here although there is apparently some demand for grandmas having sex on camera. So it should be absolutly obvious that [[WP:NFC#UULP] can be applied here without any doubt and this was also the reason why this time some editors rebelled against Hullaboos agressive and massive deleting/reverting every day. It should be obvious but no... As it is impossible for some people to admit mistakes but also hard to just override what a policy page clearly explains (and only having WP:NFCC would leave A LOT of room for interpreation), some ridiculous justification is improvised. I seriously doubt that there would be consensus in the claim that the visual appearance is not important for a model's success. I also get the STRONG impression that there is actually a proxy war behind the scenes, waged by some people who are very unhappy of having pornographic topics on Wikipedia. I think Bali ultimate was very direct here, even going to personal attacks which makes wonder whether Wikipedia:CIV is accepted to be ignored for some topics. I also read several statements regarding that which clearly prove no deeper knowlegde, just the impression one may get at a quick glance and biased with the base attitude that there is no way pornography can be notable or were notabilitly can be reduced to "their willingness to have sex in a studio with bright lights and cameras." as Kww puts it "thoughtfully".

Regarding Hullaboo, no he nas not broken clearly any policy rules. He is also super active but I doubt that he in his many 1000s of edits has added a single byte of new information. He also completly seems to ignore any constructive ideas behind WP:RV, including the very basic advice "reword rather than revert". At least I have never seen him actually improving something or trying to find a better source. There is always only reverting and deletion. (Feel free to prove me wrong.) That may be against the idea that was originally behind Wikipedia but it is not against the current "rules".

Furthermore it is plain wrong (to say it nicely!), that there was no substantive defense. In fact it took several reverts by other editors to make Hullaboo even start to discuss and even then he "left" [the middle]. Instead of that, he created a IfD. While it may bascially be a good idea to have a representative case that was firstly quite late and secondly he didn't even leave a note on the already ongoing discussion. I furthermore see no clue for "the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support". I also doubt that this is only suggested as policies are "binding" and not mere guidelines. There is also no indication for rare aside the point that non-free material should generally be used rarely. He never brought up this argument anyway.

So this is the situation here: An admin says the visual appearance of models doesn't matter and therefore the rule doesn't apply and an editor claiming that this rule is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support (whatever this would mean in this conext). I am always suprised how even for very simple and clear rules there are always people who are still able to interpret them in a different way.

I initially planned to add some links here which may enlight a bit the typical behaviour of Hullaboo usually beeing not very communicative (nicely said again) and always in clear contrast to WP:RV but the unopposed harsh statements of User:Bali ultimate) and the quick and symbolic actions of an administrator make that rather pointless. That also shows there are is apparently a problem with at least pornography related topics that must be discussed in wider scope - on a different place.

Testales (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's time rather to re-focus on the root problem brought to this forum: HW's repeated incivility and hostility toward editors with whom he disagrees, as this IS the place to deal with repeated edit warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV when other means of resolution have proved ineffective. As Wikipedia encourages discussion as a means to solve differences of opinion and/or to clarify one's comments, to instead choose to NOT begin or involve himself in such discussions acts against policy and guideline... making Wilipedia an unpleasent place to even dare offer an opinion... and THAT's why this ANI was opened... to gain input about repeated edit-warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV. While HW can indeed be a productive editor, and has contributed to the cleaning of many articles, he is not the final arbiter, and he does not WP:OWN any of the articles he chooses to edit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Then bring forth examples of bad behaviour. This complaint was framed in terms of his removal of images that are clear NFCC violations. Since that behaviour is clearly exempt from our edit-warring policies, there wasn't much to be done (and I'm sorry, Testales ... the violation is clear and unambiguous, as the arguments you apply are equally applicable to thousands of mainstream performers where NFCC has been held to prohibit the image use). I'm perfectly happy to examine misbehavior on HW's part if someone brings forth examples of it.
As for my opposition being to pornographic pictures, I think an quick examination of my deletion log and speedy nominations show that most copyright violations I delete or nominate for deletion are of mainstream celebrities.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And I have myself repeatedly stated that I do not think pornography belongs on an open Wikipedia. However, here's a recent example of incivity and lack of discussion and skirting 3RR as if he WP:OWNed the article: 9to5 – Days in Porn: Repeatedly reverting editors[41] until literally forced into discussion,[42] when a simple removal of mis-linked names would have easily sufficed. And then there are examples of his taking other's comments of of context, twisting their words, impuning their integrity, while at the same time insulting the editor. There was absolutely no cause for his rudeness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination), or his calling another's comments "ranting" as he did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Li (2nd nomination), or his attacking the editor and not the edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (3rd nomination), or his wikilawyering at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Costa (2nd nomination). Please... do I need to find and offer all such examples of negativity toward others? What is ironic here is that in his own words, HW states "One of the least civil aspects of Wikipedia is the way some combatants in AFD and other areas engage in content-free needling of editors they disagree with rather than engaging in civil, policy-based discussions,"[43] when yet he is so often guilty of that very same behavior. Again, he does some fine work, even though he rarely contibutes content or searches for sources, and he is far more likely to scold others for not doing the searches or content contributions he himself does not do. But what I think what is needed here is simply his being urged/asked/instructed to be more civil and not assume the worst in other editors. Or is my opinion here just "whining"? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm on my way out the door. I'll look at this in 4 or 5 hours.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've looked. I can see your point It's obvious that he has formed a low opinion of several editors, and it shows. It doesn't rise to block level in my mind, but it would be quite adequate fodder for an RFC. I don't think ANI is the appropriate venue for it.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
And sadly, he and these others (myself included) do not always disagree... often finding common ground for deletes or keeps at various AFDs... and contrary to some of his far-too-often repeated accusation that I try to keep "virtually anything that's ever been mentioned online", I am quite willing opine delete at AFD and have done so in agreement with him many times. It's just that when he decides that he and he alone is right, it's a bad time to have a differing opinion. Perhaps incivility toward only certain editors and only at certain times may not in and of itself be blockable, but it is his willingness to escalate to insult and create a devisive atmosphere that is of concern. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there's cause for concern. I just think RFC/U is the more appropriate venue.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Quick comment, if a number of editors disagree with an action, even a NFCC action, and they have a valid policy argument, there should be actual discussion, not repeated direct action. Yes, removing non-free material can be exempt from 3RR, but when a real issue is raised, and of a certainly the claim that this is a situation where "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" has come into play means this should go for a proper discussion (at FfD in this case). This might well meet our guidelines and policies for inclusion. Ignoring for a moment if HW was abusing the tools or not I think restoring and listing at FfD for cases where reasonable policy arguments exist would be the best action at this point. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
If the images managed to survive FFD, then putting them back in the article would be justified. Removing them from the article is not deletion.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Correct, my mistake in understanding what's going on. That said, if they are removed from the article and thus aren't in any article, aren't they eligible for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free images? Did that sentence even parse? I'm off to bed...Hobit (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That's part of the reason for the 7-day interval requirement for orphaned images: it gives time for FFD to run its course.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe Hobit has hit on the important point in this matter: the need for discussion, even when it concerns applying policy. There has been a common misunderstanding that Wikipedia policy is somehow the equivalent of rules or laws, & therefore needs to be enforced. Policy is nothing more than the consensus opinion about a number of issues, & the way that consensus is applied is through discussion. That means not only does one need a plausible & reasonable argument for invoking Wikipedia:ignore all rules, but also one for getting other Wikipedians to follow policy; saying that something "violates policy" or "violates consensus" is an acceptable explanation only for the most obvious instances. (This approach has been more or less described at WP:BRD.) Sanctions only come into play when an individual refuses to participate or accept plausible arguments, because this is disruptive & harms Wikipedia. The original complaint -- that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was repeatedly unlinking images against the wishes of others without discussion -- thus is valid. But if HW understands that she/he was mistaken in how she/he was applying policy & is willing instead to use discussion in the future, any form of sanctions here would be inappropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
But he was not mistaken. Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Given that this is _exactly_ the case spelled out as an exception to the general rule, I think it's reasonable to say that edit warring to keep it out isn't the right way to go. BRD applies when a good faith objection is made and execpt in the case of vandalism or other bad faith actions, discussing is always the right thing to do. Further, you are saying that those wanting the image in the article take it to FfD and need to do so immediately when someone removes a non-free image from an article? How the heck are they suppose to know that? My understanding for AfD is that you are only supposed to do that when you want it deleted; people have been told they are violating WP:POINT for bringing things to AfD they want kept. Is FfD different? Hobit (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the exception case at all. No one has demonstrated the existence of any source whatsoever that indicates that the appearance of these particular women is in any way unique or relevant to their notability. I know it creates a Catch-22 for people that get caught by someone that is anal about "don't nominate for deletion unless you yourself want the deletion", but there was no consensus to include the images: the very fact that WH removed them a second time proves the lack of consensus. Whenever there is a controversy, policy favors removal of the controversial material, not the inclusion.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kww could you please prove this strange point? What about WP:STATUSQUO?! Not to mention that ideas behind Wikipedia:RV have one again completly been ignored by HW. Testales (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No more than they were ignored by people that inserted it, and somewhat less since he accurately pointed at a policy. WP:BURDEN is overarching: people that want to include material have to prove their case, people that want to remove it do not. And, responding to your comment below, this isn't an "extreme" interpretation of WP:NFCC. This is run-of-the-mill. There are tens of thousands of biography articles without pictures because there aren't free images available, and there is no particular reason that Japanese porn stars form an exceptional group.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kww, one of us is missing an important point here. As I understand what happened, HW acted, was reverted & asked to explain himself, & he replied by reverting. No discussion, simply reversion; removing content without any discussion is not challenging the content, it is... well, frustrating. Okay, let's use policy-talk & call it disruption. In any case, there is no discussion, no defense or attack on policy, just one stubborn editor deciding she/he didn't want something in Wikipedia, & refusing to discuss the matter. Years ago, maybe before you joined Wikipedia, there was a certain user who would revert edits without an explanation -- unless someone challenged him on it, & even then would sometimes continue to edit war in support of how he wanted the text to read. Eventually he was banned from Wikipedia -- twice, since he came back under another username only to drift back to his old habits. So if I'm correct in understanding the situation, HW is following in this banned user's steps. So I'll repeat my earlier conclusion -- the complaint is valid & HW needs to discuss his edits in the future when challenged. Especially when several people are insisting that she/he stop & discuss the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Llywrch, I believe you're missing the important point. None of the disputing editors asked me to explain myself; the basis for my action was made explicitly in the initial edit summaries, and no one claimed it wasn't clear. Instead, the other editors involved, using identical edit summaries (which I found a bit curious), reverted, alluded to a possible exception to the policy involved, and implied, without any substantive discussion, that it was my responsibility to prove that no exception could apply. As Kww quite accurately pointed out, this goes against both established policy for handling such issues and established practice for handling nonfree images. It's just a tactic for gaming the system to avoid the requirements of WP:BURDEN and to tie down editors trying to enforce a well-established policy consensus. Even now, only one of the three editors pressing for restoration of the images has advanced any substantive arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Hobbit either you are one of apparently few editors left who seem not have to forgotten the original spirit or your comment is just funny. Just open your eyes, it's not even that policies are treated word-by-word as ultimate law but they same applies even to guidelines. If you want to deleted something, just point to a guideline that may in extreme way POSSIBLY be interpreted as supporting the delete and you are done. Not discussion needed, because you "improved" Wikipedia by enforcing its "law". (Can give an example where even a very experienced editor obviously even confuses policiy and guideline). Furthermore, I mean we are talking here about some icon-sized images who show even less than the cover of a typical TV guide. Images that have been on Wikipedia for years and which existence is even still CLEARY allowed (there was still no argument real against it!) by the currenty policies. So even if there are such apparently idiot-proof explanations on a policy page there are still people who simply nullify that, just read that section here. So because there is one guy deletes ONLY who wanted to have a set of fairly uncritical images deleted and (at least) 4 people don't agree with him. Still he enforces that with edit war and gets even support here by an admin. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. As if that would be not enough, the involved editors even get called "gang of pornhounds" and "fan boys". At least half of the editors that were against the removing do not even work regulary in that area but still, they are just "wanking community". Wikipedia has become quite an unfriendly place as it seems. Now I really need to go to a policy discussion to clear up a point which is actually not missunderstandable, only because somebody want to deleted some harmless images for a questionable motivation. No, I am unable to assume good faith here, not seeing the edit warring to enforce this deletion. Testales (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The full story[edit]

Ok, let's focus on the actual case, I tried to keep out the policy question from start anyway, see my replies to User:Bali ultimate. So here is the full story, sorry if this now gets a bit lengthy but it should allow to judge the situation. I hope it's ok that I created another sub-section because of the length, if not feel free to merge it with the other one. Let me also say that the behaviour on both sides was not perfect and if very well meaning seen it possibly could even be seen as bad timing combined with missunderstanding. But unfortunately this seems to be more a typical pattern of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz practices.

It all starts here:

Extended content


  • 05:51, 19 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 05:52, 19 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 05:55, 19 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 05:57, 19 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 05:59, 19 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 06:01, 19 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 06:03, 19 July 2010: Nao Saejima (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 06:04, 19 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 06:06, 19 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox)
  • 06:08, 19 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (nonfree image in BLP infobox)

Note the quick timing, I left out no other edits here. What may have HW searched here and with what intention?

Anyway, some days later when I was reading policies again, I stumbled over WP:NFC#UULP. I verified this by checking the corresponding point at WP:P* again, which states:

Fair Use - see Wikipedia:Image description page for rationale for fair use. Publicity photos are often useful for this, but be careful - non-free (fair use) images are only allowed if a free image could not reasonably be created. If the person is dead, is a recluse, or currently looks significantly different than during their career, then the image is not replaceable. But for most active stars, a non-free image would be deemed "replaceable" and would be deleted.

So I was convinced (and I still am) that this is enough to justify reverts while pointing to these rules in the summary.


  • 18:23, 25 July 2010: Nao Saejima (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.)
  • 18:27, 25 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Reverted, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.)
  • 18:36, 25 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (Reverted. A non-free promotional image is acceptabled here due to WP:NFC#UULP : subject has retired and her earlier visual appearance is of importance.)

I had only reverted the 3 most obvious cases, that means either the subject has retired or looks significantly different which one can expect if an actress is now over 60 and got known while she was say arround 24. I was not sure about the other cases, that may have to be discussed I thought, and wanted to see what happens next. Now another editor appears who picks up "the ball".

Kintetsubuffalo, reverting more "contributions" of HW:

  • 10:08, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.)
  • 10:09, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.)


  • 10:16, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.)
  • 10:17, 26 July 2010: File:Kazuko Shirakawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.)

I actually expected at least some REASON from Hullaboo either seeking discussion or only not accepting questionables cases. But no...


  • 17:20, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513204 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk))
  • 17:21, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513127 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk))
  • 17:22, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512866 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk))
  • 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (Life and career: promotional/spam)
  • 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (unsourced/OR)
  • 17:26, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512687 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk))
  • 17:27, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512558 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk))
  • 17:28, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512327 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk))
  • 17:29, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512172 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk))
  • 17:31, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (unreferenced; Undid revision 375511182 by (talk))
  • 17:32, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (External links: remove category not supported by reliably sourced article text) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 17:34, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (phony claim supported only by subject's own promo bio and publicity based on it; see extensive earlier discussions)
  • 17:37, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (Film and television: clarify, show never went beyond earliest stages of development)
  • 17:40, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use;Undid revision 375392644 by Testales (talk))
  • 17:41, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375391492 by Testales (talk))
  • 17:42, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375390917 by Testales (talk))

Seeing an upcoming possible edit war, I did the first step by seeking discussion now myself and expecting that HW would at least WATCH the articles he simply mass-reverts.


  • 20:00, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: new section)

Dekkapai, also seeing edit war starting but refering to a basic priniciple of Wikipedia editing:

  • 22:19, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - ANOTHER edit-war started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitiz - read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and STOP this disruptive practice of yours!!!)
  • 22:44, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle DISCUSS, and stop trying to get your way through edit-warring)
  • 22:45, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now)
  • 22:46, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you edited, you were reverted, now YOU discuss)
  • 22:47, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now, you don't edit-war)
  • 22:48, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv - you were reverted, now you discuss, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle)
  • 22:48, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Undid revision 375562959 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle)
  • 22:49, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle)
  • 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle)
  • 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you discuss now)

Which does of course not impress our Hullaboo even a little and at this point it has definitly turned into edit-war:


  • 23:08, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (reinserted spam by uncivil user; Undid revision 375609626 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:10, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614607 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:11, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614263 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:11, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614515 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:11, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614413 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:12, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613989 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:12, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613755 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:12, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614145 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:13, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613680 by Dekkappai (talk))
  • 23:13, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613496 by Dekkappai (talk))

Dekappai, now only 1 representative revert and also notifying Tabercil who is an active admin and member of WP:P*

  • 23:12, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - What part of "DISCUSS" do you not understand?)
  • 23:21, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: new section)
  • 23:23, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: correction & bit more)

Testales, as it's obviously only possible to draw HW's attention to a discussion by reverting, so 1 revert here too to "trigger" him:

  • 23:18, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (RV, HB, you are the guy who doesn't even look at the talk page!)

Hullaboo, still reverting:

  • 23:21, 26 July 2010: File:Kei Mizutani.jpg (ffd notice)
  • 23:22, 26 July 2010: File:Manami Yoshii.jpg (ffd notice)
  • 23:23, 26 July 2010: File:Haruki Mizuno.jpg (ffd notice)
  • 23:24, 26 July 2010: File:Madoka Ozawa.jpg (ffd notice)
  • 23:26, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (ffd notice)
  • 23:27, 26 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd notice)
  • 23:30, 26 July 2010: File:Junko Miyashita.jpg (ffd notice)
  • 23:45, 26 July 2010: File:Nao Saejima.jpg (ffd notice) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]

Hullaboo, finally the first reply in a DISCUSSION:

  • 23:51, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r to miscitation of policy)
  • 00:05, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r)
  • 00:59, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r)

Testales, replying, HW has still completely ignored WP:NFC#UULP, he was only refering to the a template which is not policy:

  • 00:56, 27 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r)

Cherryblossom1982 jumping in, confirming our position:

  • 02:02, 27 July 2010 Cherryblossom1982 (talk | contribs) (5,476 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg) (undo)

Followed by Dekkappai:

  • 02:11, 27 July 2010 Dekkappai (talk | contribs) (6,680 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: c) (undo)

Tabercil on his talk page, knowing both editors and beeing neutral while having computer problems which prevent him from having a closer look:

Hullaboo, not replying at the discussion anymore but instead creating an FfD:

  • 16:58, 27 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd nomination) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]

Kintetsubuffalo, also now doing some reverts and preparing the ANI entry:

  • 05:21, 28 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.)
  • 05:22, 28 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 05:23, 28 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?)
  • 05:24, 28 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?)
  • 05:24, 28 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?)
  • 05:28, 28 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?)
  • 05:28, 28 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?)
  • 05:45, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors: new section)
  • 05:46, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)
  • 05:47, 28 July 2010: User talk:Testales (AV: new section) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 05:48, 28 July 2010: User talk:Dekkappai (AV: new section)
  • 05:49, 28 July 2010: User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (July 2010: new section)
  • 05:51, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

(ANI discussion starting)

Hullaboo's ANI reply, now even claiming there was no "substantive defense" (sic) and improvising an argument by simply declaring the policy rule in question "is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support":

  • 23:26, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

I hope I have not forgotten an important part. I intentionally left out the discussion which Morbidthoughts has started after the the ANI discussion started. He bascially stated there that the fair use photos of WP:P* may be outdated as beeing written in 2007.

I also considered starting a discussion about this point before my first reverts but then I thought the wording is rather clear and consistent with WP:NFC#UULP. This and that WP:NFCC alone leaves a lot of room for interpreation was later confirmed by Epbr123 who is administrator and listed active member of WP:P*.

So after all I still think that at least my initial reverts are very justified and that there was no point for HW to start and/or focus on a little edit war to enforce his point of view - as usually, I would say.

I hope this helps a bit to enlighten the reason for this ANI discussion.

Testales (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The major takeaway for me was that Wolfowitz has been more than patient in dealing with a gang of pornhounds dedicated to confounding the enforcement of basic standards. We should give wolfowitz a parade, or a chocolate chip cookie, or something.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
We need to stop with the insulting language from both sides of this. Porn isn't any more trivial than the Disney Channel, and we certainly have enough of that on Wikipedia. "Pornhound" and "wanker" don't add anything to the discussion. There's a walled garden problem here, but the insults aren't necessary.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. How about a "group of people who appear to be gaming the system to keep non-free images in a host of articles with titles such as Immoral First Love: Loving from the Nipples, Housekeeper with Beautiful Skin: Made Wet with Finger Torture and Female Prisoner Ayaka: Tormenting and Breaking in a Bitch?"Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Focus on the behaviour and NFCC implications, not the underlying material. This is no different than people trying to get copyrighted pictures of Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez into their biography articles.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
My ability to tolerate your continued incivility rapidly vanishes, Bali. If you continue to act that way you may become the main subject of a similiar discussion too. Although that doesn't seem to impress you very much as you seem to be regular customer here [44][45]