Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note: I am herewith signing this segment in response to reminder (below). As some editors have noted, Mjpresson has furnished no proof of any "threats' from Tokerdesigner and even, it appears to me, attempted to deceive editors voting in this proceeding by adding his/her own boldfacing after the fact to a comment (cited below) which I did leave on the User:Mjpresson talk page. I have never threatened to "tag", delete or vandalize any article by Mj or anyone. To get an idea of what User:Mjpresson intends to do if User:Tokerdesigner is banned for a week (as proposed below) view recent edits to Cannabis smoking (photo of a "man smoking a joint" promoted to top of article) and my response thereto on Talk:Cannabis smoking. I will also, as time permits by tomorrow, because User:Mjpresson has objected to my defense argument (also below) as too long and even proposes deleting some of it, present my argument at the MP:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page with links to it inserted on this page.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [1]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [2] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[3] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing a future time stamp here, to avoid premature archiving of this thread. Please remove when resolved. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I support this ban. This user causes a lot of cleanup work, and I've been archiving his nasty insults on my talk page for too long. Sorry for not providing more diffs, I just didn't know where to start, but I have begun the process. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural oppose I can't see how this is an administrative issue. It appears to be a content and editor civility issue. While Tokerdesigner seems to be a bit uncivil in their arguments, and constantly points to how an admin (potentially) was banned that may or may not have been related to them, that isnt an attack (more annoying than anything else) they havn't done anything that warrants ban. I could not find the "lets meet in person" that Mjpresson claims happened and Mjpresson has failed to show a diff of it when asked by Atama and even went as far as being uncivil themselves in their response. I would remind both editors to knock off the personal attacks and use proper channels like WP:3O and WP:WQA in the future before ANI. SmartSE's have more strength in the argument than Mjpresson does, but explaining WP:V can be done without a block.--v/r - TP 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, attempts to inform Tokerdesigner of the requirements of the verifiability policy, including a prior indefinite block for violations, have all failed. Exactly how are persistent violations of a core content policy not "an administrative issue", unless admins are supposed to sit idly back while users disrupt Wikipedia, then punt the issues to arbcom? Doesn't the arbitration committee have enough on its plate already? Chester Markel (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of editors being very aggressive with this user. Why not try to get the user involved in Wiki guides or the adoptee program where he can be mentored by established editors? I have a procedural close because I haven't seen attempts to resolve this at WP:WQA or other non-admin venues. Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive - including the user himself. I would like to see everyone calm down, slow down, and try to come to some sort of agreement. Has anyone tried to personally engage this user like perhaps by email?--v/r - TP 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK requires that policies be explained to good-faith users before they are blocked for violations, under most circumstances. But it doesn't set bureaucratic requirements on what form the explanation might take. Discussions at WQA and via email aren't required, if the problems with a user's contributions have been explained to him an inordinate number of times on user and article talk pages. Ultimately, a user has to bring his editing within the basic requirements of core content policies, or he will be blocked. It might seem that "Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive" only because nice explanations, beginning two years ago, didn't work. We don't have to treat editors with kid gloves indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: going from a 20 hour block 18 months ago to a 6 month ban is overkill. Start with shorter blocks and escalate as necessary, per usual practice. -Atmoz (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - (non-administative comment). This is a riled up single-topic editor but I haven't seen any evidence that a 6-month bazooka should be used on him. (By the way, there is something screwed up with the sectional "Edit" links on this page at the moment...) Carrite (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose we should let him have more rope and let him to acknowledge better and change his ways. Switch to Support. He should know not to do that. Also, the 6 months would give hime time to change his ways. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner banned for one week

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of 7 days.

Support as an alternative, per rationale given for longer community ban, and concerns regarding appropriate block length. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Tokerdesigner has been causing trouble at least as far back as 2008, but the trouble he's caused is relatively low-level. If this doesn't get his attention, then heavier penalties may be warranted. Frotz (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Please see [4].Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have provided some documentation on this issue here [5]. Mjpresson (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Thanks in part to the effort of Mjpresson in gathering the evidence, I will present my case day by day as library time permits.

As to alleged "threats from Tokerdesigner":

Revision as of 17:43, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Re: Cannabis smoking edits, and Block Warning)

Revision as of 15:20, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (→Hash Oil)

Please note that Mjpresson, not Tokerdesigner, has added the substantial amount of boldfacing which may make the message appear more menacing than intended by Tokerdesigner. Am I entitled to suspect an intent to deceive editors who may be voting in this proceeding?

Then, in his compilation referenced above, you will note that Mjpresson has added on further quotes, all drawn from October-November 2009 in the period after User:Altenmann (now permanently banned from Wikipedia) had reduced the Kief article from over 4000 to 1000 bytes and Mjpresson had begun curtly reverting efforts by Tokerdesigner to restore (in revised form) a small part of the deleted information.

That is when I contributed small edits to several articles by Mjpresson, mainly by way of letting him know I was interested in learning of their nature. As he admits, none of my edits defaced, vandalized, deleted or "tagged" any of the articles in any way, nor as far as I can see "threatened" to do so. Yet his response to those edits, and to some messages in which I tried to use humor but was possibly missunderstood, was this:

Revision as of 18:23, 31 October 2009 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→A note regarding user "Tokerdesigner")

"... This user is totally stalking me, trying to ridicule my edits, and uses his own wiki-posts as references. This is a complete and utter loser. If you want to see the saga of an asshole, see his talk page. A complete antipolicy wank..." --Mjpresson (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the italics. What is a "wank"? Anyway, I henceforth abstained from any further edits to Mjpresson's articles, or messages to User:Mjpresson until this month after he reduced the length of the Hashish article (which gets 6000 hits a day according to the Full Wiki rating service), in 18 consecutive edits including this:

cur | prev) 03:12, 27 May 2011 Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (9,838 bytes) (Inappropriate catsUndid revision 431098491 by Tokerdesigner (talk)) (undo)

Revision as of 03:11, 27 May 2011 (edit)Mjpresson (talk | contribs)(→Preparation and methods of use: STOP ADDING HOW TO multiple warnings in past)

Revision as of 23:47, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (move hash oil foto)

Revision as of 00:29, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Tobacco: article isn't about tobacco, reference removed as was not allowable as ref)

Note that on 26 May Mjpresson deleted coverage of the practice of mixing cannabis with tobacco, including the reference to the Australian Department of Health warning against it. What's wrong with that ref? (Tokerdesigner then restored the ref, see above.)

As if in answer to Mjpresson's May 26 deletion of the Australian DoH warning that mixing cannabis with tobacco "can lead to unintended nicotine addiction", the World Health Organization issued this May 30 warning:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/wntd_20110530/en/index.html

"... This year, the tobacco epidemic will kill nearly 6 million people, including some 600 000 nonsmokers who will die from exposure to tobacco smoke. By 2030, it could kill 8 million."

Let's do some math: assuming 1% of the nicotine addictions over the past half century resulted at least in part from youngsters exploring hashish having received advice to roll it in a joint together with tobacco (I think the figure is higher), that would account for 60,000 of the 6 million yearly premature deaths (with huge medical expenses in the later stages of illness). (Comparison: Ratko Mladić is in court over a one-time execution of 8300 at Srebrenica. Will the Wikipedia editors of today someday be compared with UN Peacekeepers who stood by at Srebrenica "for policy reasons" while Mladić's troops killed the 8300?)

Where does Mjpresson get the expertise to decide for 6000 readers a day (October 2010 rating for Hashish article) that this "mixing with tobacco" warning doesn't belong in the article?

• Support A week block for not heeding the communities warnings since 2008 to use reliable sources for verifiability seems fair to me.--v/r - TP 00:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tokerdesigner has disrupted this conversation above with his own "oppose" (can he do that?) and a huge amount of lengthy copy/paste inserted. Can this be removed from the conversation? Mjpresson (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might be hatted. But we can take it as read that people can "oppose" their own block or ban, and give a reason why - otherwise WP:ANI would be more like a kangaroo court. In this particular case the reason seems to be rather tangential, and Tokerdesigner is just digging themselves deeper into a hole with the genoicide comparisons, but hey... bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only can someone oppose, it's unusual for them not to, unless they can't for some reason (they are away from Wikipedia or are blocked, etc.). -- Atama頭 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my previous note from here (after justified criticism, below, and because no longer timely. Readers can search it down in "History".) I have added further defense argumentation at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page, at Talk:Cannabis smoking and at [6], the latter also now referenced, below, by Mjpresson. At all three of those venues, if editors will read the entire text, they can observe illuminating one-on-one debate between User:Mjpresson and User:Tokerdesigner, including references to edits Mjpresson has made in the last three days to numerous articles, perhaps in expectation that Tokerdesigner will be banned and other editors intimidated. (See Mjpresson:Contributions page.)

Anyone who has already voted (above) can still-- as of this moment-- change their vote. After reading those further debate installments they may feel they understand the issues better. The issues are complex-- if they weren't, humanity would have solved the 6,000,000-a-year cigarette mortality problem by now, by seeing the diffs between cannabis and tobacco and between commercially advertised overdose cigarette/"joint" "smoking" and a vaporizer or one-hitter-- so regrettably editors have a burden of duty to inform themselves more comprehensively than usual when deciding on this demand from Mjpresson to ban the "anti-policy wank" Tokerdesigner.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the above entry Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito). This is typical of the unintelligible entries we see on a daily basis. I don't understand what it means. Mjpresson (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it means "library". Perhaps that's where most of his internet access is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Because he also stated "I'm ghosthosting on various IP's to avoid getting caught by Big 2Wackgo". I don't know what that means, either. Mjpresson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's code for Big Tobacco? They could be out to get him. -- Atama頭 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an actual conspiracy theory rather than a bizarre conversational gambit, it's definitely wasting other editor's time, goodwill, and attention. bobrayner (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tokerdesigner's self referencing is preposterous. See my reversion of one here [7]. I don't know if the community has noticed this. I have reverted many of these by him.Mjpresson (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That "self referencing" was produced by some formatting machine later, I didn't put the name "Tokerdesigner" in there.

To address this issue now: on the archived section of Talk:One-hitter (smoking) you can find a list of the wikiHow and Wikiversity articles Tokerdesigner referenced, in order to comply with WP:NOTHOWTO which includes an overt directive that readers seeking how-to information be encouraged to seek it at wikiHow.com among other places. Referring to those articles kept that how-to information (how to make one-hitters, etc. in true Wikipedia "do it yourself" spirit instead of buying them from high-price WP:SPAM headshops) out of Wikipedia pages without denying readers access to it. (Those wikiHow articles contain typewriter-generated diagrams similar to ones which Mjpresson has recently deleted from WP talk pages where they were posted in hopes other editors would decide to use the JPG technology to enter them as thumbnail illustrations. Since when is it considered civil to delete talk page postings?)Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And now this [8] unsigned note making false allegations on others' talk pages. Mjpresson (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm a a stooge of the world's leading genocide-for-profit conspiracy?:[9].Mjpresson (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like this to be addressed, please read his entire note if you have all day.[10].Mjpresson (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner says this of me on the talk page: "Using Wikipedia to promote the interests of the cigarette industry (through his advocacy in 44 detailed articles about the chain-smoking movie-maker José Mojica Marins whose main character Ze do Caixão (in English "Coffin Joe"-- sound like Joe Camel?) commits serial murders for sex and personal vindication). I personally couldn't smoke enough tobacco to stay awake sitting through 88 hours of those horror flicks. To reference another BRIC country: a 2004-05 study showed 89% of all movies made in India contained depictions of "tobacco use" (almost always cigarettes)."[11] [sic]Mjpresson (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposed 1 week ban (or longer). Tokerdesigner's crusade (and inability to AGF) is detrimental to the project and to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle _{vécut heureuse}

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [12] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [13] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [14] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [15], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated trolling from now-community banned IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off2riorob- Despite your phrasing of that comment as a question, it's clearly a veiled accusation. If you're going to accuse other editors of not understanding policy, or having forgotten it, you should do so forthrightly. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I was quite clear, my comment above "Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection" - as I was yesterday about your contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Will you lay off the ad-hominem attacks, please? That quote is nowhere in your comment above; had it been, I wouldn't have commented. You asked a question-- "surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFRP - is to request article unprotection?"-- and that's a loaded question. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bolded both comments above for you to see clearly. Can you see them now? So what if its loaded its supposed to be. If you begin to edit constructively and stop disrupting everywhere you go (and I hope you do) all issues with your contributions will cease. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure you're aware that that's not the comment I'm referencing when I describe your question as loaded. I'm happy to leave this where it is, but I would ask that you please stop trying to turn everything around on me in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I suggest you keep out of my way then - disrupt at distant locations, the far corners of the wiki are available for you, this thread is nothing to do with you, you should keep your battling disruptive nose out of issues that have nothing to do with you.Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, okay, whatever. This issue has as much to do with me as it does with you, and you don't own ANI, nor are you empowered to banish me to "the far corners of the wiki." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [16] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [17]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [18], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to SPI [19]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should we start another RfA because of excessive socks, suspicion? In general, misuse of RfA. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.

With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.

I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebe, are you serious right now? "Misuse of RFA"? If nothing else, let the SPI determine if there's actually a socking problem, and in the meantime, assume good faith. Obviously over the last six years there are going to be people who are now known as socks, people who blew a gasket and left, or people who decided to retire. Dragging Elle's name through the mud with absolutely no evidence (socks !voting in her six-year-old RfA isn't even circumstantial evidence) is insulting and degrading to a long-term productive contributor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as Temasek Review Emeritus for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.

In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[20]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds Process

Currently the featured sounds process is in a bit of a controversy. Due to the wording of the criteria, both a video and the audio track from a video can be nominated and passed as a featured sound. This is opposed by many of the regulars to the process. To keep the same arguments from being rehashed in each nomination, the active FS directors (Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs) and myself) put a freeze on all nominations of this sort so they could be debated in one central place. This has erupted into a scene. All of the good faith and will I have has been exhausted. Would a cooler head please intervene. (I haven't exactly kept my cool) thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is here there is support on both sides. I have seen two or three regs who oppose duplicate noms and two or three (including myself) who support them. I am awaiting a substantive response to issue that are repeatedly WP:TLDRed. I am asking for explanation of why they want to run WP:FSC differently than all other quality review processes. I believe what Guerillero seeks is an excuse to continue WP:TLDRing from a friendly admin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) continues to nominate duplicates (videos and sounds, mostly separately and this was all done directly after the wording of the criteria chagned to allow videos and sounds), despite being told not to in addition he also continues to nominate arrangements (mostly brass band) of well known and historical music despite being told not to, now while brass band arrangements aren't all bad they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis (his response above shows he's just doing it because a couple regulars support some of his duplicates), a majority of these nominations have been boring or musically uninteresting music. He claims he's doing this because both files have EV, but take a look at his wall of stars and his first post at WT:FSC, he made it clear that he wanted an FS to his name because FS was due to appear on the main page (this has been pushed back until underlying problems in the process are addressed). His continual ignorance of the concerns raised by others goes against the collegial nature of Wikipedia, it's hindering progress and is downright annoying. It's funny that he should be accusing Guerillero of TLDRing, check his active and past nominations. How incredibly hypocritical. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:14pm • 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When was I told not to nominate them any more? I have not violated any instructions. In terms of arrangements, I am not a musician. I don't know when things are arrangements all the time. I am a volunteer file-hunter and trying to find good files. I have found about 50 good files, so you have to put up with a few dozen bad noms along the way. Are you looking for an excuse to WP:TLDR as well?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just one of a number of issues that need to be worked through among editors at FSC and integrated into the criteria. It's a pity that TTT can't hold off nominating files of the categories he knows have become controversial—until there's an in-depth discourse on these matters, some of which are complicated in their implications. I appreciate TTT's work at FSC, but I don't want to think that there's a mad rush to acquire rows of stars on his userpage for featured content promotions. Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, you are acting like I am nominating a bunch of stuff everyone is rejecting. My nominations have resulted in 49 WP:FS since April 1. Second off, I don't even know that I was told not to nominate audio duplicates of videos (before today).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you were, look through all of your recent 20 nominations. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:59pm • 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

44 of my last 56 file nominees have passed. Check WP:FSL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is this so much an issue with FS than it is with one single editor? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strange Passerby has hit the nail on the head. Although I am no longer an active participant at FS, I do watch it, and this particular problem editor began causing issues while I was still there. TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured. He has exploited the fact that FS does not really have a policy on videos yet, which is the entire reason that he has so many FS credits already. I have advised Guerillero to consider delisting many of them, although it is up to the current participants at FS to decide whether or not to take that advice. The long and short of it is that TTT has exhausted the community's patience. Like James (AA), I've long since abandoned the pretense that TTT is doing this out of purely altruistic reasons. He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego. If his actions at FS were not enough to convince me, recent events at FfD have (see nominations 16 though 71. I don't want to steer this too off track with the FfDs, but I think that this specific nomination, combined with the above situation, shows that TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Though I have no opinion on the FS issue at this time, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago, and then, when he was generally unsuccessful, moved to VPC, where he was active until the project was closed down precisely because it lacked any real drive/direction beyond "WE NEED MORE VALUED PICTURES". He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating) and, though I wasn't involved with this (so please don't take my word as gospel truth), I believe he has been warned about similar behaviour at FAC and GAC as well. Tony takes very seriously the, as Sven mentions, "stars on his trophy wall". While many editors (myself certainly included) like to display their achievements on their userpage, Tony can take it to something of an extreme, which can sometimes lead to issues. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • As the other WikiCup judge, I can second virtually everything J Milburn just said, except that I haven't heard anything about FAC/GAN warnings. Regardless of how the FS issues are worked out, I believe there is a long-term pattern of questionable actions from TTT. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • This is very different than FPC and VPC where I could not get the hang of things. At FS after an initial pass rate of 5/19, I have learned what WP:WIAFS is saying and have had a 44 of 56 file pass rate since.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Amalgamated this and the topic ban proposals to keep it in one piece. MER-C 11:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is classic TonyTheTiger-- he seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself. Last year, he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived. This behavior occurs in any area in which he edits-- I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger

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

1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds

As per my comments above, at the thread "Featured Sounds Process", TTT has exhausted the patience of the Featured Sounds community. I quote from above "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." Until TTT is made to understand that he cannot ignore what other people are saying, and that Featured Sounds exists for more than just to fill the trophy wall that is his userpage, I believe that he is harmful to the process.

• Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• I can only speak from my own experience of Tony at DYK last year, where concerns were also raised (then WikiCup-related) that Tony was spamming, almost abusing, the process just so he could claim more DYKs. As a result I have no difficulty believing he is misusing FS in a similar fashion, and would support such a ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As I explained in the section a few above this one, similar things have also happened at FPC and (before it closed) VPC. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it would be a good idea to extend this topic ban proposal to all featured media processes and similar (GA, DYK, ITN), in that case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as a completely uninvolved editor. TTT is using the process as a personal vanity project by nominating as many files as possible for consideration and hoping some get through. He does not appear to be taking the time to evaluate them correctly before nomination. This is subverting it's intent which is to get the absolute best files featured. Exxolon (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I am pretty new to looking at either FS or TTT, and no axe to grind. Guerillo has been professional and TTT has been moving stuff around on the page in contravention to the Director decisions (as the final acts in a pattern of problem-causing). It's fine to debate the policy, but outright distruption of actions of the Director (elected by the participants) on holding or rejecting nominees, makes the whole place unworkable. Throw into that, that he is an admin and should behave better. And that he is tone-deaf and wikilawyering in interactions. And the history of similare disruption on other Featured Content processs...TCO (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• DON'T TOPIC BANS REQUIRE DIFFS OR ARE ADMINS ALLOWED TO TELL ANY STORY THEY WANT Resoponse to the four claims above by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)
  1. "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing."
     1. Not true. I began participating in FS in April. You might note that my nominations have passed at nearly an 80% (44 of 56) clip since my initial learning period (5 of 19) (Check WP:FSL). I have developed a good understanding of WP:WIAFS and begun only nominating things I view as very likely to be determined to adhere to WIAFS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. "TonyTheTiger ignoring negative responses."
     1. To the contrary I have been learning from negative responses. I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. "TonyTheTiger fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful"
     1. I have recently fought against closures that were against process both for those that were unsuccessful those that were to be successful. N.B.: Yesterday there was a batch of 5 closed unsuccessful without regard to WP:WIAFS that I fought against and last week there was one of my nominees that was moved to nominations to be closed that had 2/3 majority required to pass that I fought against being closed immediately and put back into the queue because I felt it was being closed prematurely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. "TonyTheTiger generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured."
     1. (Repeating from above). I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted. I have not been clogging the system. I have been filling it with stuff that gets promoted about 80% of the time (44/56=79%).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support While a lot of this "content" based discussion passes me by I am capable of determining concerns from reviewing contributions; there are over 5,000 deleted contributions. This is against a total number of edits of around 150,000, or 3% of edits, but of concern is a review of the deleted contributions in detail indicates that this appears to be a persistent or consistent ratio since 2006. This leads me to the conclusion that the editor has not (or cannot) been able to alter their approach to introducing content - the majority of deleted contributions being either "autobiographical" (in the widest sense, content derived from their own sources) or various files - despite some evidence of concerns having been raised all the while. This appears to be an editor, while a good contributor in certain areas (as the 146k "live" edits testify), who does not seem to Get It over certain matters. Removing them from areas where these concerns are manifested seems to be entirely reasonable and, given that this appears to be a long term issue, it should be for as long as there seems to be an issue. Presently, this is apparently the Featured Sound process and therefore I support this topic ban. I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others "liars", and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • I am not trying to impress you by calling him a liar. I am presenting an uncontested fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • You are apparently as eager to test the limits of WP:CIVIL as you admit you have regarding WP:Notability. There are more acceptable ways in which to make a point that anothers accusation are unsupported by diffs/are likely not to be able to be evidenced. Being able to conform to WP practices is part of what is at issue here - and you are not helping yourself. Impressing me is irrelevant, but not impressing me has lead me to my opinion given above and not caring makes me more unlikely to change it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How do I observe my deleted content, I believe there are three or four spikes in this regard. There were probably a lot of deleted edits when Template:NYRepresentatives and Template:ILRepresentatives were deleted. Then when Template:1970-1979VogueCovers, Template:1980-1989VogueCovers, Template:1990-1999VogueCovers & Template:2000-2009VogueCovers were deleted. And finally when the recent user space pages were deleted. I doubt that there is a consistent rate of deleted files, but rather a few spikes, mostly in template space when I was learning what was a good contribution there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There may well be "spikes", but I noted that there were instances going back to 2006 and for every year since. It is still a lot of deleted contribs. As for being able to review them, I do not know how an editor can review their own deleted contribs - I have been a sysop too long and my non sysop account (User:LHvU) has no deleted edits (and very few otherwise). Perhaps a non admin can address this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Obviously, I am going to have a high rate of deletions. I am probably the only editor on wikipedia who has created 100s of reviewed class (GA, FA) articles from scratch without doing the same type of article over and over again. I am constantly testing the fringes of notability with every article creation. Most article space deletions will be from having ventured to the borders of WP:N with my article creations. You will note that I have several GAs of articles that had been AFDed and such. I contest the borders and sometimes my borderline contribution result in early articles for NBA basketball players like Manny Harris and sometimes they end up in deletions. Someone who polices Barack Obama, fights vandals, or perfects the art of creating virtually the same article over and over again will not have high deletions like me. These deletions are basically unrelated to WP:FS and should not be used to determine this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is a project to produce a free encyclopedia, and not an exercise in determining what the base level for notability - or to alter that standard by production of marginal subjects (especially with a relative high level of failure; surely only a small percentage of the other 140K of edits can only be to such content). One of the major tools of content creation is WP:Consensus, where by both discussion and action one determines what the criteria for inclusion is - and once it has been established ensure that contributions are compliant. It is recognised that sometimes there will be mistakes or re-assesments, and that consensus may change. However, it is apparent from both your editing history and your comments here that you either do not care for or are unable to comply with consensus and notability, and nor do you think you should. That is your choice, but it means that those who do work to those standards need not have to endure your disruptive presence. As this appears, per your comments above, to be your standard operating procedure, I continue to support those who wish to continue to act within the expected norms - which in this case are those involved in the Featured Sound process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support this POINT violation makes me beleive that TTT is unable to work well at FS. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per LHvU. Doesn't appear to get it. Noting that I'd prefer a time-limited ban as opposed to an indefinite ban. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per LHvU. I really wish it didn't have to come to this :S —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:59am • 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - A topic ban seems excessive, considering so many of his nominations have already suceeded. This needs a topic RfC or to be take to the talk page and ironed out by all parties, not a topic ban on a highly productive editor. Night Ranger (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I see you aren't very familiar with TTT's edits, it's true he's a generally productive editor. However, a majority of his edits are counter-productive and arguments ensue in every featured process he's been involved with (including the now defunct Valued Pictures process), I'd hoped this would not be the case at FS but in the last 2 months his nomination reasons have been shorter and shorter, his first few FS nominations were fantastic, now he merely uses a useless, unhelpful statement such as "meets all the FS criteria", without going to explain how it meets the criteria and his own reason for nominating (which would be personalised, of course). —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:07pm • 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think there is a broader problem - Tony's interest seems to have shifted from building good content to collecting scout badges which is rather missing the point of wikipedia and is consuming the time and goodwill of other editors. However, this proposal is a good start, and I hope TTT will tweak their priorities a little in future, as TTT seems to have done lots of good content work in the past and I look forward to more of that, both from TTT and from the other people whose time has been wasted... bobrayner (talk)
• Oppose, his nominations have a 79% pass rate, I'd hardly call that spamming FS with material that does not belong there. I mean, can we get some evidence of attempts to actually resolve this without a topic ban please? I looked at his user talk page and it seems the only feedback he has ever gotten about his work at FS (on his talk page) is a barnstar.... jorgenev 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • His pass rate has nothing to do with it. Numerous people have commented that he has abused numerous featured processes, and if you look at WP:FSC now, you can see several flops. His pass rate is high because we didn't have a clear policy on videos, we didn't have a clear policy on length, and we enjoyed, before we found out about the caveats, the enthusiasm he was bringing to the project. Most of his current FSes will be put up for delisting in the near future, because most of them are around an hour long and a good deal of them have quality issues. This is not to say specificly that he is being targeted, as many current FSes are in need of being delisted, but a good number of his will be among them, and that will drop his percentage considerably. Both of the active FS directors, a former FS director, and several people in several other featured processes are all saying that TTT is highly problematic. Looking at it just on numbers drastically understates the amount of damage that TTT has caused. As for the evidence, it is at WT:FSC, the archives of that page, and in the nominations themselves. There is a cumulative affect from the IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the battleground behaviors that is very easy to pick up on, and for lack of a better term, extremely grating over the period of time that he has been at FS. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Reluctantly. I sugggest a one-month topic ban to protect FSC from disruptive nominations and other edits, and to allow it to negotiate the criteria, which clearly don't serve the process well now. This trophy mentality for his user page is over the top. Tony (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved editor. I'm seeing what others do: an editor so intent on using the project to get praise that he threatens the success of the project. --NellieBly (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this particular brouhaha. I've edited minimally in the last 6 months and hoped when I didn't see TonytheTiger at FAC when I got back that he'd learned from his previous issues. That does not appear to be the case; instead, the issues have transferred to a different process. I would support a broadly construed ban on TtT from any featured nomination process unless he can gain the support of a conominator. Someone who can provide a reality-check when TtT's enthusiasm for the process crosses the line. If that's not the case, then I will support a topic ban targeted to Featured Sounds. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed

Over fifty graphs of TonyTheTiger's poker winnings were recently deleted in one day at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1. The conversation at one specific nomination, this specific nomination|this one, illuminates that TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable. Among the items not deleted are two images of the letter T in his signature, a check paid out to him, and a tee shirt he made himself. They are available for viewing at his biography page User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon. He's begun requesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here, and it may be necessary to start a similar proposal there,Edit: Someone else made the move-to-commons requests. however in the mean time, unless he is ordered to stop, I have serious doubts that he will.

• Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, definitely. Still thinking about the proposed topic ban for FS. Unfortunately, I don't see signs that TTT is understanding the problem. Tony (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Not only that, but a good chunk of this user's userspace was recently purged in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template. MER-C 11:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• THIS TOPIC BAN IS BASED ON A LIE BY SVEN MANGUARD THERE EXIST NO DIFFS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS ON WP OR COMMONS (1) ME INSISTING I WAS NOTABLE (2) ABOUT ANY REQUEST TO MOVE FILES TO COMMONS BECAUSE I KNOW I DID NOT MAKE ANY Come on Sven have some class. What other lies are you willing to tell to make a WP:POINT?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to have to Support the ban proposal. Sorry, because TonyTheTiger is clearly a long-standing contributor with a great track record. But I've looked at all that poker stuff - the images and the masses of personal bio material recently deleted - and it has to stop. He just isn't notable, and this isn't a web host - he needs to take all that stuff someplace else and stop trying to use Wikipedia for material about himself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment- I believe the title of this and the preceeding section should win the top 2 prizes for the most unintentionally hilarious discussion page topic headings in Wikipedia history. If you don't understand what I mean, read the two section headings while pretending you are a non-registered, first-time Wikipedia editor looking at ANI for the very first time. No offense Tony. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • At least they're fit for family viewing (you might say they're G-rate!), which is more than I can say for some of our notable subjects' self-images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Isn't a ban suppose to occur after a warning. I was never given any indication that my image uploads were inappropriate. I have not uploaded any since the FfD. What gives with a ban?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support that much vanity content is painful --Guerillero | My Talk 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately, this seems to be needed. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• This makes no sense. I have been participating in XfD for 5 years and never violated a consensus decision. Why would someone say something like this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Fully support Topic Ban - amongst many other reasons the screaming all-capps bold hysterical response from a tiger in a corner above is self evident that Tony's passion is far from acceptable in this arena - indeed maybe Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:01am • 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Completely not involved, but having had a look at his vanity piece, I kind of want to put my eyes out. --Blackmane (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems to be quickly devolving into a huge pile-on. What's next, he's banned from having pictures of tigers on his userpage? He appears to have stopped uploading images and says he has not opposed any kind of consensus at xfd, so I don't see the need for a ban (which I wouldn't necessarily call a topic ban anyway, but I digress). Night Ranger (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Pedro says it well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, he has not continued has he? It seems like editors with some personal dislike of the user are trying to pile as many topic bans on him as possible here. jorgenev 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • First of all, I don't have an underlying dislike for this editor. I think that if he focused more of his energy on improving content and less of it on self-aggrandizement, if he put in the work to earn all the stars he displays on his userpage, that he'd be one of Wikipedia's best assets. Unfortunately, TTT categorically refuses to accept that he is not notable. He has, by now, gone through several discussions where that message has been made clear, most recently the 52 templates and 50something graphs that went through deletion discussions. With this editor's track record on the matter, I do not believe that temporarily stopping is in any way indicative of future behavior. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane. That MfD was one of the worst; other people would have been blocked for such egregious violations of WP:UP#NOT. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That vanity piece of his should be sent to MfD per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:UP#PROMO --Blackmane (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC) - I have just nominated the page for MfD.

Doesn't anybody like working on articles anymore? Who the fuck cares about someone's personal page like this, really?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Unfortunately. That MfD was a textbook application of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Pedro himself also brings up a good point. —mc10 (t/c) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane. I would also caution the editor that BOLD CAPS don't give the impression he hopes; editors may see them not as sincere anger but as an attempt to intimidate or bully, and that is counter-productive to a positive reception of any argument. --NellieBly (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane and WP:NOT#WEBHOST Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Pedro. It turns out that User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon is based on content deleted (unanimously!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Vernon and userfied five years ago. MER-C 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban of Sven Manguard on discussions involving user TonyTheTiger

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.

Not going to happen per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Because Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) resorts to lies in discussions about me, I would prefer not to have to deal with a liar in my WP interactions. At his topic ban initiation you will note that he resorts to lies and does not use diffs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)

1. Lie number 1 "He's begun rewuesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here"
   1. I do not recall requesting that any files be moved to commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      1. He's right there. I admit, on this small point, I got it wrong. Sfan00 IMG put the requests in on the letter and the check, and I'm not sure who moved the ones already in commons over. I can stand by the rest of my argument though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Lie number 2 "TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable"
   1. Why would he make arguments that I am claiming notability. Note that in the arguments he points to I state "I am not arguing notability"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

      You may not be arguing notability, but by trying to host masses of biog stuff about yourself, you're *acting* as though you're notable (or that you think Wikipedia is a free web host) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems to be a ploy to silence sven. You tout your passing percentage but you fail to mention that most of those files passed by a slim margin due to the fact things pass with a 2/3 majority (including the nominator). If you would look at my closing statements they reflect this. For the moving files to commons this link should be helpful. File at commons The file was moved to commons after the local version was deleted at FfD. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• This link? Jarkeld (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be the one --Guerillero | My Talk 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Neither of those is a diff supporting a claim that I have been requesting moves to commons. None of these opposes presents any evidence against the statement of fact that Sven Manguard is a liar.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is just petty retaliation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just silly. TCO (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sven should be proud that all his admin friends think the fact that he is a liar is silly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose if you don't want to deal with Sven Manguard, you don't have to. no one is forced to contribute to Wikipedia. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note - It might be helpful if the "accused" admin would post a diff or two to refute the editor's claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reversal of fortune Don't propose things that are obviously not going to fly. I propose topic banning TTT instead. Jtrainor (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is absurd-- since it's also unsigned, I can't tell who put it up, but it's disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger did, at this diff. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  Um, and also, it is signed... GiantSnowman 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Tiger troll. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

• 'Oppose per WP:POINT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone calm down a little and look at this objectively?

I don't know Tony but from a look at his edits, he appears to be one of the most significant content contributors I've come across. I've read through this and while I see some indications Tony should (1) stop and attempt to form consensus and (2) stop uploading unhelpful files in violation of NOTWEBHOST, I also see no reason to institute topic bans and I certainly see no reason to use comments like "tiger troll" as someone did in Tony's proposal. This is looking like a huge gang-up and it's really not on. Night Ranger (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. TTT has shown consistently over the span of a few months that he is unable to work at featured content processes without turning it into a "look at my featured contributions"-like flood, many editors who have dealt with this across the different processes clearly feel this goes beyond simply FS and this needs to stop, hence the community ban request which is wholly justified. StrPby (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that these topic bans are in fact the best thing for the project. The comments by J Milburn and Strange Passerby, among others both at this thread and elsewhere, indicate that TTT has done this type of thing before. Chances are moderately high that if he continues this behavior at another featured process, the next topic ban proposal will be for all featured processes on Wikipedia, and will have significant support. I, however, chose not to go for that extreme. Also, I was tempted to suggest that TTT be topic banned from creating any page related to himself, be it a subpage, file, or template, after the combination of his 50+ poker templates and his 50+ poker graphs. He's been told repeatedly that he is not notable, and has used, to an appalling level of excess. Again I chose not to go for that extreme, and again I can easily see the community deciding to go for that in the future. This isn't pleasant, I didn't do this for giggles, but I also didn't do this on raw emotion and I believe that I was being objective when I made the proposals. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Night Ranger, I see you've been editing en.Wiki for a few months and have 134 edits; apparently you haven't had the pleasure of dealing with TTT's aim to use Wikipedia to promote ... himself. Your analysis is mistaken. I suggest that any featured content process should enact a clause similar to the one we had to enact at FAC to end the abuse endured there (and I noticed that TTT moved on to disrupting DYK in his quest to win WikiCup, and then to Featured Sounds in his ongoing quest to promote himself, which he admitted at TFA/R) ... FAC's solution to the TTT problem was a rule change:

If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, my account here is new but I've been on Commons since 2007 and have edited here as an IP for a few years as well. You're right, I'm not very familiar with Tony, but from the standpoint of someone who is totally uninvolved and sees someone who has made a great deal of content-based contributions to Wikipedia, it just seems a shame that this has been taken to this level. There has to be a better way to deal with this than topic bans. Maybe not, I dunno. I do know we need more content contributors, not fewer. Night Ranger (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy's and Sven's comments are dead-on. As at FAC, TTT's activity at DYK was the direct impetus for a rule change requiring nominators to conduct reviews on a 1-for-1 basis. cmadler (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't know what you are saying I admitted to. During the 2010 WP:CUP, I happened to be out of town at my grandmother's deathbed trying to edit without a regular connection and I ended up causing a lot of problems at DYK. Then, at WP:FSC, there seems to be a bunch of lies being cast about by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) that I am nominating any old crap, when 80% of my stuff has been passing. Clearly, I never got in tune with FP, but Sven is insistent on categorizing my FS contributions as if they have not been successful and huffing and puffing about how it is just like all other situations. For any featured content review process, 80% pass rate is pretty good. At FAC and FPC, I don't have great pass rates, but at FSC, and FLC, I do. At FLC my last 8 in a row have passed if my records are correct and at FSC, 44 of my last 56. Don't generalize to all featured content processes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your FAC pass rate is what it is because you get other people to pull your articles through-- they almost all appeared at FAC ill-prepared, and you continued to bring them ill-prepared until the TonyTheTiger Clause was added to the instructions. I was referring to your typical self-serving statement, once you realized Featured Lists and Featured Sounds would be on the main page, that "Damn. I have to learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing." After that, you went straight to Amazing Grace and tried to insert sounds just so you could get them featured. It's always all about you all the time. Please stop calling Sven a liar-- that's a personal attack and you should be blocked for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A liar is a person who tell multiple untruths. He has admitted to one regarding whether I have requested materials be moved to commons. Most people would say claiming I nominate wantonly with low-quality nominees at FSC is far from the truth since 44 of my last 56 have passed. He has said I have claimed to be notable when I have stated the opposite. This ban discussion has basically gone down the path of Sven posting lies, me showing they are untrue and people piling on saying that even though the things are not actually true you have a bad attitude and have been a problem in a whole bunch of other ways. How would you like me to sugarcoat this ban nomination. It is a string of untruths put together to instigate a lynch mob of people willing to ban a person from posting images against an XfD when the person at issue has never violated an XfDs in five years on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when I was on my grandmothers death bed, I worked offline and dumped dozens of articles into the DYK process for the CUP causing people to question why I was not using my normal editorial routine (wondering if I was dumping my own work) and creating debates about whether the numerous hooks should be merged as well as causing consternation about why I was not reviewing articles as fast as I was nominating them. At FAC, I'd have to check, but I think about 4 of my last 5 passed. So the complaint you are griping about is from years ago. I have only been nominating with co-authored work of late to keep problems to a minimum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. WRT, Amazing Grace, now that I have nominated 75 FSC, I understand what sound reviewers think improves/degrades articles (as evidenced by my 80% pass rate) and believe the two files that I want to add belong in the article. However, the main editor does not want to talk about the merits of the files and continues to WP:OWN the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My condolences, but please stop throwing numbers around, they're irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that you've been asked to stop and your methods have, in fact, been questioned and you aren't confirming or denying this. You continue to update your biography despite the very fact you aren't notable, while you are thanked for your contributions you seem to be promoting yourself and your work on Wikipedia albeit liberally (your consistant calling up of how many FSes you've made in your comments in this ANI thread are just some of these examples).

Wikipedia isn't a world stage or WordPress, it's an encyclopedia. All userspace frippery is not helping build an encyclopedia but rather starting unnecessary arguments such as this, I'm sure you know full-well you aren't notable and I'm sure you know full-well no one cares if you're successful or unsuccessful in your poker ventures. Sure you've contributed a lot of content, but showing it off and going around and waving the number of featured content you've nominated/contributed to in arguments in an attempt to coerce others to agree with you seems like you're trying to get the upper-hand, so what if you have good "pass rates", you're starting arguments left, right and centre. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:08pm • 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you are condoning me for following your suggestion. Aren't you the one who said to go count my recent nominations. I went straight to WP:FSL at your suggestion {"look through all of your recent 20 nominations"). Now, that you realize your suggestion makes you look bad, you try and say to ignore the numbers. I don't know if 56 files is exactly 20 nominations, but those are approximately the most recent twenty to have been evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Proof once more

... that handing out achievement badges results in people disrupting the project for the sake of their trophy pages. It's high time we codified that FA / FS / DYK / WikiCup et cetera are strictly intended to make contributing here a little more fun and that editors who take them too seriously will be asked not to participate in them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd wonder whether instituting regular discussions to whether to ban particular editors on the less than clear-cut question of how inappropriately seriously they are taking the processes would end up causing a lot more drama than the status quo. Thinking of the cases of Ottava Rima, Matisse etc. Skomorokh 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that it takes less effort to ban one from, say, DYK than it would to ban them from the whole project. But the point was simply to state up front that we consider these things to be strictly informal games meant to aid the building of the project, such as to dissuade people from treating them like an end to themselves. That way, there would hopefully be less drama when it comes to asking people to voluntarily stop participating in star-collection. I've been meaning to write Wikipedia:You are not your barnstars for ages now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

_delurk A person's motivation for contributing is unimportant. What matters is the end result: does it result in a net improvement to the encyclopedia? Somorokh makes a good point that the informal approach has advantages. Trinket collection is a positive except when it morphs into gaming a process, and usually that self-manages. The drawbacks to formalizing 'don't take it too seriously' is that it shifts attention from project mission to qualitative judgment of the editor, and that type of shift generates conflict. In this discussion (re: the main thread), the basic problem is that one editor who does not take feedback well has nominated a very large number of 'freebies'. Roughly that is like the difference between putting an article through an automated spell check versus manually editing it. Although it does help the project to convert files to .ogg format, it also creates problems when an editor frequently submits nominations that may take more time to review than to nominate. Two approaches have resolved that in the past: reviewers decline to evaluate and/or editors enter informal agreements to shift focus toward submissions where their own efforts have a greater role. In this instance an individual's response became combative after other editors called a break to revise the featuring criteria. New essays aren't needed: WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT already apply. The current friction would be substantially less if an editor had built up a trophy collection of several dozen FS stars by recording cicadas--especially if they created new articles for the cicada species. There's a wide open niche at FS to parallel FP's bird and bug photographers. The difference between conflict and productivity is a willingness to take feedback and step outside the box. Durova⁴¹² 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) _relurk

A person's motivation is important when it's self-promotion that is wearing down other editors who must review ill-prepared work, draining their time, and abusing of the featured content processes. I have never been in favor of banning anyone from a featured process, on the principle that even a stopped clock is right twice a day-- IMO, the solution is to change the rules of the processes to stop the abuse, which is what we were forced to do at FAC because of TTT's repeatedly using it as peer review for ill-prepared articles, after which he moved on to DYK (which he seriously abused in his quest to win the WikiCup) and Featured Lists and Sounds. I also think DYK made the wrong change to their rules, requiring nominators to review, which has only resulted in more faulty DYKs, poor hooks, and ongoing copyvios, but that's another topic. There are other problems at Featured Sounds, which is an immature process-- they should adjust to prevent this kind of abuse, but I don't foresee that happening. Similar problems occurred at Featured Pictures, which is also gameable for those who participate in the "reward culture". The "reward culture" per se is not the problem-- it's editors who game the processes while abusing of editors who must review sub-standard work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The now-banned user ItsLassieTime was notorious for a number of things, including racking up "good article" nominations while apparently compromising many of them with copyright violations (as was later learned). I wonder what the point is? Is anyone likely to list writing wikipedia "good articles" as a point on their resume? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but someone has used good articles to assist in achieving tenure. --70.246.148.152 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy is quite right that negative effects on other editors are an important consideration. It's a difficult situation to manage when an individual consistently leeches productivity from a large number of highly productive editors. She has handled difficult situations and earned a great deal of respect for it--most people would have burned out. I just wish I could share her optimism about formal criteria changes being the solution for FS: both FS and FP are in a situation that FA would face if about 1 in 2000 public domain articles from other encyclopedias were adaptable for FA promotion, with about 95% of those requiring serious work but the remaining 5% of those only needing wikimarkup. That 5% occurs in clusters. Both FS and FP have the same dilemma: although it's useful to this site's readers to import great content to WP and get it recognized, people are human and reviewers get fatigued. The editors who know where the caches are could flood the nomination process with freebies, and if the community attempted to create a formal definition of a freebie they would likely create a gameable definition. In the past this worked out informally because the people who knew this loophole had the project's best interests at heart, and the community would be pleasantly surprised how some "notorious" trinket-collectors were basically enthusiasts who responded to this reasonably. A pragmatic strategy is to deal with an editor's motivations empirically: if the energy is positive it can be redirected into win-win alternatives, although the history prior to FS and the reaction to recent feedback do not bode well. Tony, if you're reading this it would be a really good idea to switch gears: there is plenty of other low hanging fruit at FS--I suggested a couple of types in a previous post. But if the motivation really is to game processes then the most effective response is to disengage. Nobody is forced to review nominations. Durova⁴¹² 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Naive question -- if a contributor is gaming some incentive like FS by flooding it with self-noms, can't people who object just let those self-noms sit while they review others? Or, as a policy fix, set an upper bound on self-noms-per-week? FWIW, I don't know TTT from Lulu the Lotus Eater, and my user page boasts of 8 DYKs. Sharktopus^talk 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Being followed/stalked by two editors

I have created several pages on here, and these two people, user:Reaper Eternal and user:ConcernedVancouverite marked them with deletion, and were quickly declined because they did not justify the right criteria. These pages were redirects to Wiktionary (Groan, Wiseass, etc.). Then, user:ConcernedVancouverite marked 4 pages I have created many months ago, which I believe are notable and deserve their own articles. The page NuTone is clearly a notable, big company that needs page expansion and more sources. But should not be deleted. They have not been marked for deletion before, I don't think its a a coincidence. I am currently finding additional sources and encouraging others to help out as well. Tinton5 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Reaper Eternal CSDed two of your articles while on New Page Patrol. Whereas it appears that ConcernedVancouverite CSDed one of the articles created by you on the 12th of May, and then today PRODed 3 articles and AfDed 1 article created by you. ConcernedVancouverite may have come across an article created by you that he felt did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and nominated it. It is likely that he also checked to see if any other articles you created failed to meet the guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For added clarity, as noted in my reply directly to the editor who raised this issue in this diff [21], "I have explained the rationale for all proposed deletions on the individual pages. Generally subjects need to be notable as documented in reliable secondary sources to have articles on Wikipedia. For those that are not, and for which I can not find evidence of such reliable sources, I propose deletion and explain it as such on each proposal." As I imagine the user may be aware, they are free to remove a PROD if they disagree with it, as long as they address the concern. Also as noted by the admin whom the editor contacted to request assistance on this here [22], "...it might be a good idea to open up a wider debate and/or confirmation that we want essentially empty articles pointing to Wiktionary." (which was one of the speedy deletes I proposed as an A3, which was declined). The other deletions I have proposed were not related to this issue, they were based upon lack of reliable source coverage to establish notability as noted here [23] or lack of any notability claims at all as noted here [24]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion request on a few of the articles. Tinton5 asked me to restore others that were created as redirects/references to Wiktionary, and I suggested bringing it to ANI for more input. Before I go restoring what might be a bunch of pages, I wanted to make sure there was consensus that these pages are okay. In one sense, they could technically be deleted per A3 if you only go by the criterion as written, but we have hundreds of such pages and they seem to provide some value (more than a redlink at least). I suggested an ANI discussion, because on the one hand a lot of people watch this page, and on the other hand there are pages to either be deleted or restored which will require admins to do it. -- Atama頭 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that these "Wiktionary redirect" pages are appropriate for Wikipedia because they are essentially just external links or interwiki links, hence falling under criteria A3. Additionally, many of these pages (like Wisecracker and Wiseass) seem unlikely to ever amount to anything more than a dictionary definition and thus require deletion by PROD or AFD. If, however, consensus is that these pages are appropriate, I will abide by the community's decision. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) (Stricken, per Moonriddengirl below)

(non-admin comment) As a Wikipedian in general, I am all for inclusion, but as a new page patrolman I get incredibly frustrated at A. The amount of BS pages that I have to tag for deletion, and B. The amount of BS pages I know wouldn't pass an AFD but can't be speedied. With that said, I'm actually on board with Tinton's Wikiquote redirect pages. If they don't redirect to Wikiquote I can pretty much guarantee some newbie who doesn't understand/care about WP policies will create that page with something like "A wiseass is someone who makes sarcastic comments." And it will be deleted, and recreated, and deleted, and recreated, and maybe eventually salted. At least this way we keep the place clean and don't have to deal with the "discussion" side of things, nor the constant deletions. N^oformation ^Talk 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm to Wiktionary. Is someone wants a simple definition, off to Wiktionary on your own. Delete redirects to Wiktionary on sight. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• That would seem to necessitate altering Wikipedia:Soft redirect and perhaps WP:CSD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, hadn't seen that page before, so I strike my comment on them being subject to A3 deletion. However, I don't think we should go around creating hordes of these pages that will never turn into anything. Like BWilkins said, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm for Wiktionary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is related as well, because in one fell swoop, User ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) has now also nominated three articles in a row about synagogues for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation M'Kor Shalom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey). He has been requested to clarify at User talk:ConcernedVancouverite#Question regarding New Jersey, USA synagogues. Obviously the articles need improvement, as hundreds of thousands of new and old WP articles do, but the way to go about helping WP is not by imposing harsh deletionist decrees but instead seek a WP:AGF dialogue with the creators of the articles or with those who may know more about it such as at WP:TALKJUDAISM, rather than just simply make blunt blanket statements that: "I have explained the rationale... For those that are not, and for which I can not find evidence of such reliable sources, I propose deletion and explain it as such on each proposal. As I imagine the user may be aware..." Just who exactly is this "I" that can impose policies as if he speaks for the global WP community which he does not! User ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) needs to note that the ways of Meta:Inclusionism are just as valid as his own self-declared "goals". He needs to stop his deletionist crusade and rather seek WP:CONSENSUS with editors who are creating good stuff, especially if it is not in his strictly defined area of interest per se. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, IZAK, there was nothing inappropriate about bringing any of those articles to deletion discussions. Only one has any references (a single one), and the reference supports the notability of the synagogue's founder, not the building itself. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in favor of keeping the articles doesn't hold much weight. You might consider asking the Article Rescue Squadron or a relevant Wikiproject for assistance in establishing notability, but on the surface ConcernedVancouverite seems to have the strongest argument. -- Atama頭 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Atama: Thanks for your feedback. Indeed, as you state, anyone who is going to go on a deletion rampage to knock out three articles about Jewish houses of worship should turn to "a relevant Wikiproject for assistance in establishing notability" in this case it's WP:JUDAISM and he did NOT do that. It is a fine line to know when some articles deserve to be saved or not and that is why WP:LAWYERING should be avoided as an excuse to enforce "the letter of the law" when there are better and WP:CONSENSUS ways of doing things especially in sensitive subjects that concern Jews and Judaism. So perhaps, as you note, that while "ConcernedVancouverite seems to have the strongest argument" it is nevertheless counter-productive when he has never shown any interest, or sought consensus, or expertise in this field and should have rather proceeded with caution. I make it a point to never intervene, especially in areas I am not proficient in, no matter how weak I may find many articles but I keep my nose out of it and leave it up to seasoned editors in that field who will in good time get around to cleaning up what needs to be cleaned up. In this complaint there is another serious point you need to note and that is that ConcernedVancouverite evidently targeted the three synagogue articles for deletion because they too were created by User Tinton5 (talk · contribs) [25] [26] [27] which definitely comes across as WP:WIKIHOUNDING and a clear violation of WP:HARASS of User Tinton5 (talk · contribs). Thanks for taking note. IZAK (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone notices that a person has created an article that may not meet our guidelines, it is normal to take it to Prod or AfD, and to check if other articles by the same creator have the same problems. Nominating multiple, even many articles by the same creator for deletion is not hounding or harassment, but good editing, if the nominated articles (or at least a significant proportion of them) indeed fail our guidelines. And three articles is hardly a "rampage". Fram (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now speedy deleted Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey) for copyright violation. One of the other nominated articles, Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey), also originally was a copyright violation, but this was CorenSearchBot and then removed. Considering that the now deleted article was created 5 months after that earlier copyright violation, and that inbetween most of Bonhamtown, New Jersey had been removed as a copyvio as well, we may have to look closely at the other articles by this editor. Fram (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio problems

Looking further, there is e.g. Betty and Milton Katz Jewish Community Center, which is taken from [28]: e.g.

• "It is a haven for Jewish organizations, children, teenagers, adults, and individuals with special needs. The JCC hosts holiday celebrations, festivals, educational and cultural programs and social activities for the entire community" vs.
• "It is a haven for Jewish organizations, children, youth and older adults and individuals with special needs. The JCC is proud to host holiday celebrations, festivals, educational and cultural programs and social activities for the entire community."

Or Garden State Discovery Museum from [29]:

• "The Garden State Discovery Museum offers educational entertainment at its hands-on best. As children and adults interact in the museum, they discover much more than meets the eye. The museum's philosophy is that they learn about mathematics – geometry, patterns and symmetry – while exploring the arts and enjoying science, too. Visitors can also learn about health and nutrition as they plan healthy pretend meals in the popular Discovery Diner or discuss the science of suds in the Bubble Trouble exhibit." vs.
• "The Garden State Discovery Museum offers educational entertainment at its hands-on best.[...] As children and adults interact in the museum, they discover much more than meets the eye. They learn about mathematics - geometry, patterns and symmetry - while exploring the arts and enjoying science, too. Visitors can learn about health and nutrition as they plan healthy pretend meals in the popular Discovery Diner or discuss the science of suds in the Bubble Trouble exhibit."

It may be time to turn this in a complete copyright violations investigation, I'm afraid... Fram (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplication Detector comparisons: [30] [31]. Additionally Kaitlyn DiBenedetto. Yay. MER-C 13:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all copyright material. Case closed. Tinton5 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bio about me keeps accumulating demeaning and Defaming material

Trevor Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I am Professor Trevor Marshall, the subject of a BLP which was created in 2006 or 2007 (I didn't take much notice at the time). It survived a notability deletion attempt in Dec 2007. But every few months a WP editor comes by and defaces the Bio by adding material which, in total, make me look like a scientific cretin. On 1 June a discussion ensued on Ronsword:Talk between two editors about the validity of the Science contained in our many peer-reviewed articles. In particular, editor WLU said "if you're looking for counter-sources and criticisms of these types of articles, the blogs at sciencebasedmedicine.org .." On 9 June an article from sciencebased medicine.org duly appeared on the BLP about me, posted by WLU, and therefore presumably intended to defame. Here is the total diff of the changes made by WLU on that day. The defamation by editor WLU was executed in at least the following ways:

1. My academic affiliation was removed, all mention that I was a Professor at a recognized university. It is still missing from my Infobox

2. My profession was changed to "an Australian engineer" while for the last decade I have been notable for my work in Translational Medicine

3. A blog from sciencebasedmedicine.org was cited, apparently with intent to demean or defame

I raised a flag for adminhelp on the bio talk page, and admin Atama kindly dropped by on 10 June. I continued to try and discuss with WLU the problems on the discussion page, but was getting nowhere, so I raised the issue on the BLP:Noticeboard. You can see from WLU's recent post to that noticeboard that his intent seems uncompromising (here is the diff). His edits continually citing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which are patently not applicable when so many peer-reviewer opinions and prestigious conference presentations exist. Records of the conference presentations of myself and my colleagues are archived at the Foundation's non-profit YouTube channel. Yet WLU even dismisses a Journal review of my keynote alongside Nobel Laureate Avram Hershko.

WLU has expressed his motivation for defaming my character and my achievements at my own Trevmar talk page earlier today. As you can see from this diff he is promoting the concept that our work

1. "isn't "medicine", it's speculative research that hasn't been subjected to a randomized, controlled trial. Your interpretations of the human genome/metagenome and vitamin D are not mainstream. Possibly yet, possibly never."

I spent many hours trying to explain our science and our achievements to WLU on the Talk page, to no avail. He apparently believes that it is his responsibility to expose "junk science" even when he apparently has no comprehension of its complexities. Our last two peer-reviewed publications have been an article in a Nature.com journal, and our invited chapter on Autoimmune disease in the new Springer textbook edited by Karen Nelson, operational head of JCVI.org, arguably the most prestigious genomic research institution in the world. The introduction to the book was written by no less than J.Craig Venter himself. WLU wrote off both papers as being "unreliable". Any impartial observer would disagree. Yet WLU has continued to insist on edits which denigrated my character and my works. Further, his presence and his interference in every discussion has had a chilling effect on the other editors who have visited the page to offer their help, for example, this diff

WLU is clearly in no position to assess the many peer reviewed papers. He says he hasn't bothered to look at the records of the many mainstream scientific conferences that I attend every month or two. He doesn't care that I am frequently invited to chair session at these conferences. Prima facie, he seems to have a reckless intent to defame, he certainly is doing that.

Sadly, WLU's actions potentially harm Wikipedia. That he is absolutely wrong is easily proven. That his negative editing over the years has done harm is also provable. Additionally, I suspect that editor Ronsword may have a conflict of interest when editing, or colluding to edit, any bio in my name. However, I am assuming that Ronsword will revert to a low profile once an admin starts to take an interest in stopping this defamation.

I still hope that the situation can be resolved by discussion between the editors, but the two posts by WLU, which I diffed above, seem make that likelihood remote, particularly this one.

Can WLU be banned from editing the bio? He continues to insist on making changes to edits of other editors, and the sum of all those edits is apparently to ensure that I look more and more like a fringe scientific cretin. I am sure that lawyers would have a better description of it, but I hope you understand why I am concerned about having to waste so much of my time every few months dealing with educating yet another editor who has wandered by the bio. Maybe WLU could be locked out, the bio made NPOV, and protected, I don't know? What options are available to a Wikipedia admin?

As for sending out ANI-notices, I am a scientist, not an editor. Just putting the links into this post were a challenge for me. Can somebody please help me with sending out those notices?? .. Trevmar (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I will let the users know. notified - User:WLU - I have a degree of sympathy for this issue, the reporter, I assume good faith and from their well meaning comments is the subject of the article struggling with wiki process and attempting to provide support for positions and content that is being editing at his BLP. Recently an anti fringe position has been edited into the article. I also note that Trevor has been adding admin help templates at BLPN and the article talkpage and to my understanding has so far received no admin assistance. The subject is being edited to appear as a quack - there is as I have seen a lot of medical students here editing aggressively against anyone who appears alternative. Could we perhaps allow the subject the respect of deleting his blp so that he is no longer attacked via the project. We really need to discuss and support allowing living subjects to opt out if they feel they are being attacked and misrepresented through their articles here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• I am uninvolved. I am also ignorant of the subject area. I read what's above with considerable sympathy: nobody should be portrayed as a charlatan (let alone a cretin) unless he really is one, and Trevmar doesn't sound at all like one. But then I read more closely; and the more I read, the more I doubt that Marshall is being portrayed as a charlatan. Further, I do not see any intent to demean or defame Marshall, or to demean his work. To my (uneducated) mind, there can be a difference between an (a) interesting, publishable, even promising theory of disease, and (b) medical treatment acknowledged as efficacious. And to say that (a) is not (b) is not necessarily to demean the former, let alone to defame its proponents. Now, even if I'm right so far, it's imaginable that WLU has been axe-grinding, and that WLU should lay off. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoary, I agree with most of what you are saying. But have you not not seen the bio at its worst, before my intervention on 9 June, after all mention of my academic affiliation had been stripped off (for example)? I primarily want to make sure that WLU does not come back and do this again, as he has in previous years. Or indeed, another 'WLU', intent on 'jousting with the bad guys'.. Trevmar (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're talking. This version again does not paint TM as a charlatan, but it does seem to harp on the negative. Two examples: (i) the positioning in the introduction of the material The MP has not been tested in a randomized clinical trial and is not officially recognized as a treatment for any disease. [...] (incidentally raising the question of what officialdom might mean here), and (ii) in 1988 [he] founded the California-based graphics and printing company YARC Systems which went into bankruptcy in 2001; if just about all that can be said about it is that it went bankrupt (a common fate of companies), why bother? ¶ Well, let's see what others say. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and since Yarc Systems was a publicly traded company for several years before it went into bankruptcy, and I no longer had effective control, and a decade has passed since the event, the citation of the bankruptcy is extremely unusual in a personal bio.. Trevmar (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit strange, yes. I'll drop a note on the talk page about its relevance, and if nothing is forthcoming I'll remove it in the next couple of days.

What this article probably needs more of, Trevmar, is eyes. I've watchlisted it, and I encourage a few other uninvolved editors/admins/space gophers to do the same. We'll get this sorted to everyone's mutual satisfaction, probably, though it's likely going to take a little while. In the meantime, feel free to drop me an email at lifebaka@gmail.com if there's anything you'd like me to explain about Wikipedia; I'm always happy to help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Lifebaka, I have sometimes felt so alone these past few days. Like I was talking to a brick wall. More eyes would have helped, although WLU seemed to pick a difference (I will refrain from imputing 'an argument') with every editor who tried to help. The main problem which remains is the quote from Dr Crislip, who never contacted me before he wrote the blog, never sent me a draft for comments (a usual professional courtesy) and failed to correct the errors after he was notified of them. I have left a list of secondary sources which should outweigh his opinions. Thanks for giving me your email address, mine is trevor@trevormarshall.com, perhaps you could whitelist it.. Trevmar (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we do not give undue weight to theories that have absolutely no confirmation in real peer-reviewed journals. Just because this guy has a real life and has "published" one article on this "theory" does not mean that BLP stops us from providing the huge amount of real science (say Germ Theory, but I could go on) that stands in opposition to this. Fringe theories are fringe theories because they stand outside of real science. John Edwards (not the politician, the guy who thinks he can speak to the dead) is subject to BLP, but that doesn't mean we can't show that his bullshit is bullshit. Same here. Until such time that "Doctor" Marshall, who has no training or education in a real natural science (electrical engineering is applied science which means...not real science. And if everyone is going to get all upset about BLP, read up on AIDS denialists like Lynn Margulis. She discovered one of the great ideas in evolution, endosymbiosis. But she thinks that AIDS is caused by syphilis. So, her BLP gets to show that she doesn't know what she's talking about. I don't know if "Dr" Marshall is a well-intentioned, a crook, or has some insight into germ theory that changes our whole idea about the universe (and I doubt that), but these ideas are fringe until significantly published in real science journals. And yes, sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so no one researching this is indicative of how badly this is dismissed by real scientists. The article does not demean "Dr." Marshall, it doesn't say he's a fool or an idiot. It merely states what is available as reliable sources, and there are none. If real science comes about, then we'll change our mind. But seriously, the logical fallacy of his claims are amusing at best, and harmful to patients at worst. Very harmful. If he's wrong, and based on the science, I'm almost certain he is, he should be ashamed at the harm he'll cause humans. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, again, will you please stop editorializing and using profanity? If you can't edit science, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and medical topics with some degree of objectivity and decorum, then you need to stay away. Seriously. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask admins to watch and if OrangeMarlin keeps making unsourced edits like this or this to a BLP, that he be blocked. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Those may sound contentious but they are hardly worthy of a block and they are likely correct statements. N^oformation ^Talk 04:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And Cla68, you've made a personal attack based on.....bullshit. So, unless you have reliable sources that say it is real science, please show it. I know you can't, because I already checked. Now, if you can tell me how to post a reliable source that says "there are no reliable sources", I'll be glad to do it. Otherwise, retract your personal attacks. They are getting boring. I know, my Asperger's Syndrome must be going full blast. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I've read through the last few revisions and I'm not exactly sure that the defamation claim holds any water. As OM elucidated above, this person's work is on the fringe, is in opposition to mainstream science and hasn't been clinically tested, so those are clearly things that have to be mentioned if we want the reader to walk away with objective information. It would be a disservice to the readers to let them believe that these ideas have credibility within the scientific community. That is not to say that the ideas are wrong, just not credible and not tested and thusly not science, yet, or never.
2. I'm more concerned about the WP:BOOMERANG bringing a WP:COI back to Trevmar. Should he really be involved with this article? After reading his complaint I've come to the conclusion that the article is negative but doesn't violate any NPOV critera, and yet the subject is upset that it doesn't reflect his POV. I understand this, as if there were an article about me I can think of a few things that would be in there that I might not want, however, this is irrelevant to the encyclopedia.
3. One thing I don't get is why his status as a professor was removed, if he is in fact a professor then I can't think of why this wouldn't be included in the article. I did not read more than 4 diffs from the current so if this was explained I have not seen it.
4. Regarding the profession change, I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that this was changed to reflect the subject's background as an electrical engineer since he does not have a degree that relates to the field he is discussing. This change may well be inappropriate.

N^oformation ^Talk 04:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find some clinical case series and case histories from the clinical validation in the Nature.com journal. Our work is 100% in line with mainstream. The new textbook book edited by Karen Nelson of JCVI.org, about as main stream as you can get, with the first chapter by J. Craig Venter himself, can be viewed at Amazon.com. Chapter 1 is worth browsing, as is the chapter we wrote, chapter 12.. Trevmar (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doctor, I have no doubt that microbes have the potential to play roles in dozens of areas we never thought possible (hence why I'm studying microbiology!). Correct me if I misread your biography, but the statements relating to your work being fringe are not in relation to microbial pathology in regards to autoimmunity, but to the so-called Marshall Protocol, which as of yet is certainly not mainstream science. Also, I have not read your Nature article yet (I will, it looks fun), but does it publish your recommendations for treatment or is it about the potential pathology in general? If my assessment is incorrect, I apologize. N^oformation ^Talk 05:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Our resaerch over the last decade has been open-published, whenever possible. Our collaborative study used both traditional meetings and telephones, as well as a study website. The actual therapy is described by third parties in some of the secondary sources I listed on the bio TALK page, variations have been around since 2002, although it has been changing as the science underlying the pathogenesis became clearer. There is a Wiki which acts as the repository for the current practical Knowledge Base, that wiki is at MPKB.org and no, I don't maintain it. Our collaborating clinical centers and some of my colleagues look after that Wiki. As for mainstream acceptance, I did post the review of the keynote of Nobel Laureate Avram Hershko at WCG-2008, and also of my keynote on the same stage, albeit following his :) You can find it here. I posted many more good secondary sources on the bio TALK page. And although Wikipedia apparently doesn't consider YouTube as a source, you will find video recordings of most of the (mainstream) conference presentations from my colleagues and myself in the Foundation's archive here. Yes, I know it looks like self publishing, so listen to the question and answer sessions at the end of each presentation, and see what real scientists and physicians are saying :) .. Trevmar (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to insist that for the tone of the article to change, the published science has to change. I just read through the talk page and briefly checked your secondary sources but found them unsatisfactory to present what is still clearly fringe as mainstream or even semi-established science. I think WLU gave you a lot of good reasons why your sourcing was not satisfactory. I'm also going to insist that this discussion be closed and moved to the bio talk page. There is clearly no need of admin intervention here. This is a content dispute and no BLP violations have occurred in my estimation. N^oformation ^Talk 05:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The list of trivia you just posted, seems to distract attention away from the very serious WP:BLP concerns that Cla68 just mentioned right above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I organized my response into numbered points makes it easy to read, not trivial. I responded to Cla68 above; those statements are likely true. Jimbo himself just edited OM's additions to the article and found it fit only to remove the comment regarding the germ theory of disease, saying that it needed a source, but he did not remove the rest. They are not BLP violations if they accurately reflect published science. N^oformation ^Talk 04:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noformation. Remember Cla68 is just mad at me all the time, and has a 4 year hard on about me. He even accused me of having Asperger's Syndrome. I tend to ignore his personal attacks, he's kind of obsessive about me. Back on topic, I read over Jimbo's changes (I'm still shocked he edits these kind of articles), and although I completely disagree with his one change, it's kind of a throwaway. As to Demiurge, "Doctor" Marshall is pushing a Fringe theory. Sorry for hurting his feelings about it, but he completely lacks any supportive sources. NONE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Per MastCell on the BLP talk page, [32] because of sourcing problems, I would agree that the BLP be deleted or replaced by a stub. There is no wikipedia article on Marshall Protocol, just a redirect to the BLP. MastCell has indicated that this proposed treatment and the theory behind it have not been discussed at length in mainstream medical reviews (or none have so far been cited in the BLP). It is inappropriate to have a detailed dissussion of this topic in a wikipedia BLP unless independent reliable sources like that can be found. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. While every biography on Wikipedia must avoid unsourced negative material and other BLP violations, there is no requirement that we devote space to explaining all of the views of their subjects. Sometimes it's best to stick to listing biographical events instead of trying to describe theories, especially when secondary sources are unavailable. Unusual medical claims, even those in biographies, need to be presented with care.   Will Beback  talk  —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

I've removed[33] all information about the Marshall Protocol from the article to ensure that both BLP and neutrality are upheld. Chester Markel (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the last sentence in the lede, since "Marshall's hypothesis" refers to the Marshall Protocol. That sentence could just be removed. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed that sentence from the lede. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: (i) Remember Cla68 is just mad at me all the time, and has a 4 year hard on about me: Please spare us commentary on other editors' procreative organs. (ii) "Doctor" Marshall: putting "Doctor" (or similar) in quotation marks effectively lumps the person together with "Dr" Gillian McKeith -- or, as Ben Goldacre neatly describes her, "Gillian McKeith – or to give her full medical title, 'Gillian McKeith'". Goldacre can write this because he has already laid the groundwork for it, and because he's doing so in a newspaper column and a book. However, this, you'll remember, is neither but is instead a dry and neutral encyclopedia. So let's avoid innuendo. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I replaced the info about YARC just because it was there and the content is rather sparse; I have no issue with noting he's a professor, once a source turned up for that I didn't remove it again (same reason I removed the point that he has a daughter - no source); I think there should be some info about the Marshall protocol, even if it's one sentence, because that's really what he's known for. But the lack of attention in third-party sources is crippling. So far I've found one brief mention from 2007 and a letter to the editor, both critical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that editor WLU continues to edit the bio, and that his/her edits continue to convey a negative opinion of our reputation and our works, and that they continue to contain factual inaccuracies. I have added to the talk page a citation showing that the US FDA has reviewed the Marshall Protocol, at the request of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, has provided two orphan designations covering our longterm use of antibiotics for sarcoidosis, and has never raised any safety concerns.. Trevmar (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I further note that is seems to have been editor WLU who removed the FDA citation from the bio.. Trevmar (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Did the FDA express any opinion on the efficacy of the treatment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

An orphan designation is granted if the FDA assesses that a therapy has potential for efficacy in a disease.. Trevmar (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it:

Orphan designation qualifies the sponsor of the product for the tax credit and marketing incentives of the ODA. ... In order for a sponsor to obtain orphan designation for a drug or biological product, an application must be submitted to OOPD, and the designation approved. The approval of an application for orphan designation is based upon the information submitted by the sponsor. ... The approval of an orphan designation request does not alter the standard regulatory requirements and process for obtaining marketing approval. Safety and efficacy of a compound must be established through adequate and well-controlled studies.

I read that as basically a bureaucratic rubber-stamp of all properly submitted drugs, allowing for tax credits and marketing incentives, without regard to safety and efficacy, which still have to be established through the normal approval process. Given this, WLU was correct in deleting the statement from the article, as it was essentially misleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for some more information on this on the article talk page, to help clarify its relevance. Perhaps we could move further discussion of this sub-issue over there? MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I have the impression that orphan designation paperwork (which is about taxes and market exclusivity) is often completed before the standard drug approval. That is, you can know that if the drug is approved, it will have certain financial advantages, without knowing whether it will ever be approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To Noformation: It appears that Marshall's official job title is "adjunct professor". Although I have no information about the specific case, typically, this job title indicates a part-time, temporary teaching position with zero opportunity for tenure. Although I would report a current job title as being the current job title, even if it were "Grand High Poobah", it would not be entirely unreasonable for someone to interpret this as "not a 'real' professor", or to believe that a part-time, temporary job position was not the most important part of a person's career. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe one could just ask, instead of suggesting I might be a charlatan. That lack of concern about defamatory writings is, after all, why this incident was raised in the first place. Let me give you some other possibilities to think through. The position may have been offered as be an honor,maybe tenure is of no interest to somebody who is already notable? Do universities grant honorary adjunct positions, perhaps? In truth, there is a mix in this case, as I have some responsibility -- for supervising a graduate student, and representing the University at the many conferences I am invited to speak at, and chair sessions :) I hope that helps :) Trevmar (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet, you introduced yourself in this thread by writing "Hi, I am Professor Trevor Marshall," giving the impression that you are a full professor. An adjunct professor would normally write something like "Hi, I'm Trevor Marshall, adjunct professor at the School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences at Murdoch University in Western Australia." As with the FDA issue above, the choice of wording seems designed to mislead.

I'm not seeing a significant lack of balance in the article, but I do see a WP:BOOMERANG problem with your apparent difficulty in writing about yourself from a neutral point of view. I believe you should read closely our policies on editing with a conflict of interest and follow the instructions there, including not editing the article directly, instead making suggestions on its talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond_my_Ken, I have never edited the bio myself, I did revert some of the wholesale changes which were made on 9th July, that was to preserve the factual accuracy of the bio. So I am not sure why you addressed this comment to me. As for calling myself "Professor," If you listen to the archives of any of the professional conferences I speak at, I am introduced as "professor" and then, if the bio is read, I am described as an adjunct professor. there is no stigma attached to an adjunct position, and that seems universal, wherever in the world I travel. The conference presentation archives can be found here at the Foundation's non-profit YouTube channel .. Trevmar (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is editing. Please follow the directions at WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was carefully following the instructions in WP:BLP .. Trevmar (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The larger problem in my mind is the "trust me, I'm an expert/the subject of the article/friends with the author" approach taken in this, and similar articles. We don't trust the subjects of articles to edit their own pages, we insist on reliable, independent, secondary sources (with exceptions that are exceptions, not an excuse to shoehorn in lower-quality sources). I can sympathize that this seems absurd, unfair and unreasonable to the subjects of the articles, who can't help but note inaccuracies and can't help but want them corrected. I understand the frustration. But that doesn't change our policies, which do a pretty good job of maintaining quality content if followed. The main complaint seems to be that the Marshall protocol isn't given a sufficiently positive review or portrayed as widely accepted but given the significant lack of sources to portray it as such, I don't see there being much to do. If Marshall's ideas are true, we'll find out about it in time and report this period as a bump on his road to fame. If they're not, then any portrayal of them as vindicated, accepted or even promising is wrong. Having dealt with a fair number of fringe articles and subjects trying to wrestle into mainstream acceptance, I can't see any reason to make an exception here. If the ideas are true, then take the time to prove it, don't bypass by marketing direct to the public (and that includes in scientific conferences). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with many of the recent comments, including those of some of my good friends here. I am not a friend of fringe medicine and science, to put it mildly, but I think the best way to deal with it is to let it be represented with sourced references-- including the view of those who have propounded them--along with sourced criticism. The reader will make up their own mind about the status of the science. It's absurd to remove the Marshall protocol material from this article, though I think I've argued elsewhere that it is not sufficiently notable except for him as to be a separate article. There's a comment above that we only report those ideas shown to be true or the treatment correct. This is diametrically opposed to the basic principle that we go by verifiability, not truth. We are not here to determine what is good medical treatment, but just what is reported by Reliable sources. That we can do pretty well--we do not have the ability or the right to do the other. Evaluations of medical treatments are for peer-reviewed journals, not community editing by whomever care to take part in it. That's the sort of thing blogs do, not encyclopedias.

I am particularly upset by some of the negative comments about the person and the treatment here. Personally, I have an opinion about the probability that his medical views are correct, but even were I a qualified specialist instead of a biomedical librarian this would not be the place to give it. BLP applies to even discussions here, though not with the same strictness as in articles. Whatever the claims of someone may be, even people with a far less responsible background and much more intemperate ways of expressing it, we must treat them with dignity. The reader will judge. Were I a reader, and coming to this with no prior knowledge of the issue and total ignorance of the subject, I would judge from the manner of expression here that the man is a reasonable person, and some of his opponents irresponsible bigots. I know that the second part is not the case, and I urge some of my colleagues here to stop disgracing themselves. That's pretty strong language for me. I would never direct it to my enemies, but to my friends, it's intended to get them to step back and reconsider. Some people here seem to have an attitude to fringe which indicates to me they would do well to avoid the area. Our role is not to disprove (or prove) anything, and when we talk in such terms, we forfeit credibility. Crusaders belong elsewhere, even the most righteous of crusaders. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The available medical sources have been identified and evaluated on the BLP talk page. There are hardly any. Please look at the discussion there: it is far more useful than any general commentary here. Nobody has evaluated Trevor Marshall's research within his BLP: in line with how wikipedia is written, no secondary sources have been found that review his work in detail; there are short articles, including a published letter, which describe research on the Marshall Protocol as inadequate. In another case concerning fringe science, the associated BLP was deleted (after complaints to WMF from the subject); it was replaced by a short stub on the proposed scientific theory—a direct quote from a blurb on the theory written by the BLP subject himself, followed by a list of short peer-reviewed criticisms and a quote from an editorial note by a Nobel Laureate (see ECE theory). Wikipedia can sometimes be used to give publicity to fringe theories that themselves, away from wikipedia, can only be read about by the public or even specialists on internet websites. Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami

In a surprisingly contentious AfD, User:Tothwolf has, I believe, crossed the line. There've been two incidents which stand out in my mind.

First, in the course of the debate, one of the posters launched what I believe to be an egregious personal attack against me. [34] I refactored it, and it promptly devolved into an edit war with Tothwolf, who reverted several times before ceasing.

That being settled, he turned his attention to the {{afdanons}} template. As a casual observer would notice, the AfD has been flooded with anon IPs, egged on by postings in multiple topics on a message board to do so [35] [36], making use of the template not merely appropriate but the very situation for which the template was created in the first place. Tothwolf removed the notice, it was reverted, he removed it again, and - apparently unaware it had been up before - User:Yworo put it up afresh, with the edit summary "surprised no one had added {{not a vote}} despite influx of !votes from forum."

That Tothwolf is strongly oriented towards saving this article is obvious from his postings, but while strong advocacy of one's position is quite acceptable, disruption is not. Thank you for any consideration you can offer to settling the situation down.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, as explained on User:Ravenswing's talk page [37] [38] I take exception to any editor removing someone else's comments, particularly while making false statements that they are "refactoring". [39] [40] [41] When I undid Ravenswing's removal of another editor's comments [42] I also linked to WP:TPO in the edit summary which itself states under "Removing harmful posts": "[...] This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

  I've also made it clear to Ravenswing [43] that mass-tagging good faith comments by others as {{spa}} which had !voted "keep" while specifically choosing not to tag similar !votes of "delete" from other anonymous editors is not helpful. This selective tagging of those whom disagreed with Ravenswing's position [44] makes it clear such mass-tagging was not done in good faith, and was instead done in an attempt to discredit and downplay good faith arguments and discussion from those with an opinion which differs from Ravenswing.

  In addition, Ravenswing has already made it clear that they will try to use anything they can to attack my character [45] [46] including by means of selective removals of material from a discussion thread on their own talk page: "Just not particularly interested." [47] "Still disinterested." [48] (and now, apparently even AN/I).

  Ravenswing, stop playing the victim. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't refactor, you removed, and Tothwolf was right to revert that. I don't care to look in to anything else, but I'm sure someone else will comment. Prodego ^talk 07:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: Yes, I indeed missed tagging the one Delete SPA voter ... but then again, I failed to tag a few Keep voters as well. As Tothwolf removed all those tags, his complaint is rather a moot point. "Refactor" has frequently been a synonym for "remove" on Wikipedia, but that being said, WP:NPA plainly states "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I believe the comment I removed was one, and the passage plainly does not prohibit doing so. Finally, the "selective removal" Tothwolf speaks of are his most recent comments on my own talk page, at the point where I judged that he wished to drag out a slanging match that had no apparent bearing on the AfD over which there is dispute or any other matter involving the editing of articles. As does any other editor, I enjoy the privilege of removing comments from my own talk page, especially when I believe they serve no purpose beyond harassment, and it should not have required a direct demand that he cease posting to my talk page. As it happens, he reverted one set of comments to my talk page, which is wildly inappropriate.

  As far as attacking Tothwolf's character goes, I reject the charge. Stating in a conversation on my own talk page that he was sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility is nothing more than a fact. If he does not wish that fact publicized, he should not highlight it at the top of his own talk page, without which I would not have seen it. Conflating a disinterest in reading over several links defending his conduct in that case into "doing anything I can to attack his character" is pretty far out there and, frankly, verging on paranoia.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring everything but the part about refactor since I must go, see wikt:refactor. Rewriting is the definition of refactor, nowhere on Wikipedia should refactor ever mean remove. Prodego ^talk 08:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just thought of this, but did you perhaps mean redact instead of refactor? There is actually a handy little template for this named {{nono}}. While I didn't undo your edit of the other editor's comments [49] perhaps you could redo your edit and use the {{nono}} template instead? --Tothwolf (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gah, that'd be right: "redact."  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to be all tangential, folks, but WP:REFACTOR point #3 does indeed say "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material". Nevertheless, the context strongly suggests that the word Ravenswing was looking for was "redact" in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

These edits [50] [51] in which Ravenswing removed another editor's comments entirely, did not meet that criteria. That aside, I'm still not happy with Ravenswing attacking my character and attempting to discredit me by linking to part of a past issue which had later finally been dealt with by the community and ArbCom. Perhaps some of this has simply been a misunderstanding and I'm hopeful the two of us can still work this out. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm genuinely curious. In which fashion do you claim your character has been attacked? Were you not, in fact, cited by ArbCom for incivility (by unanimous vote, as it happens), as this link states you were? Were you not, in fact, placed under an edit restriction by ArbCom,as this link states you were? Was not, in fact, my pointing this out restricted to my talk page, until you made an issue of it here? If anyone attacked your character, it was ArbCom, and if there was any discredit to you, it was in whatever actions led them to their decision. I recognize that you disagree with their decision - although I imagine that few editors sanctioned by ArbCom ever do say "Yeah, I had it coming, you got me" - but no one's given me authority to overturn the fact of their decision. You do have an avenue of appeal, but ANI is not it.

That being said, I'm concerned at how readily you claim that people are out to "discredit" you. You used just that language in that ArbCom case against other parties there.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravenswing, if you are genuinely interested in the background of what really happened, why then did you make these sort of dismissive comments: "Just not particularly interested." [52] "Still disinterested." [53] in your edit summaries when you removed the information I previously provided? It seems like as before [54] [55] [56] you are still trying to deflect attention away from your removal of another editor's comments and onto an expired ArbCom restriction.

While the ArbCom case itself was badly flawed (a fact which is not disputed by the current ArbCom), I can't fault the current ArbCom for what happened with a past ArbCom. I can however tell you that the drafting arbitrator made these same types of mistakes in prior cases and it did have an impact on him not being re-elected later. As for an ArbCom appeal, that would make little sense for an expired civility restriction.

The civility restriction itself was put in place because as described in this AN/I (which was the first link I provided you), I made the mistake of allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [57] (where they then also edit warred with others [58]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [59]

Now, as for your previous claim of "[...] and several months down the road subjected to a permanent interaction ban with two of the editors in question." [60], that wasn't what happened either. What had happened is after the continued harassment documented in the ArbCom case (and later) these editors began mass-MFDing everything in my userspace. This is extremely well documented in the same AN/I link I previously provided you. In response to that AN/I discussion, Miami33139 attempted yet again to game AE, and got whacked by their own WP:BOOMERANG in the process. Those events are documented in the second link I provided you (C&C warning for anyone following that discussion link). In response to Miami33139's filing, ArbCom wrote a restriction to prevent them from continuing to MFD things in my userspace. It was worded so simply however, that it in effect made it a two-way restriction, even though I had previously done just about everything I could to avoid these individuals, including stopping editing entirely (also documented in the same AN/I).

That's about all I can really get into here without this turning into a huge wall of text, but for others who are curious about the larger story, these links which I now have on my talk page will help fill in more of the details.

• Wikihounding and disruptive editing?
• Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf
• Down the Rabbit Hole (Material linked to during the above two discussions)
• Harassment of Tothwolf by Theserialcomma
• Blocked: personal attacks, baiting and hounding
• Blocked: loss of talkpage access
• Special:Contributions/Theserialcomma
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma/Archive
• On the subject of COI
• Personal experience with an editor gaming AE (Statement made during AESH case)
• What about the issue of "Block is AE block because I say so" (Additional comments made during AESH case)
• One second blocks
• Case naming (Lengthy and contains many additional links)

There is of course still much more to it, but I'm trying to provide as much information as I can without it becoming too much of a wall of text. Ravenswing, thanks for pushing me to finally begin the process of documenting all of this in one place. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• As it happens, I was not interested in you rehashing your case on my talk page; that is why I removed your attempts to do so. I am not interested now, which is why I shan't comment on your numerous links, any more than I did earlier. And as far as any "deflection" goes, I am responding to your comments about "attacking" your character. These matters wouldn't keep coming up without you continuing to rehash them. Suffice it to say that how ArbCom ruled on your case is a matter of record, plainly spoken and set out, and I reiterate that should you desire to overturn that, this is not the venue to do so.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ravenswing, no... it is readily apparent to most that you thought you would be able to bring up a past issue unrelated to your own behaviour in an attempt to intimidate me. When your initial attempt on your own talk page failed, you then tried AN/I. I seriously doubt anyone here will be fooled by your attempts to spin discussion over your behaviour at AfD of removing others' comments and attempting to discredit and downplay other good faith discussion from others with mass-spa tags.

  Ravenswing, something else you need to realise is I put up with far, far worse from one of the individuals involved in the material documented in those links. I would much prefer that you and I not end up in some sort of long drawn out argument, but all you seem to want to do is bring up past stuff about others which is unrelated to your own behaviour to try to spin the discussion to anything other than your own behaviour.

  Ravenswing, let me be blunt: Stop trying to intimidate others. No one here is afraid of you. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This conversation has become more than a bit ridiculous. Here's my semi-uninvolved, no-longer-lurking take:

1. Ravenswing was wrong to excise the entirety of the comment that incorporated a personal attack against him. I don't think that point is being disputed by anyone at this point. Perhaps Ravenswing is. If so, he shouldn't be. Removal of the offending portion of the comment is fine, but the rest of the comment made some clearly salient points to the AfD. Phew! Tothwolf 1, Ravenswing 0!
2. I don't see why Tothwolf felt the need to remove the AfDAnon tag, when there are clearly a number of SPAs in the discussion. That tag is plainly helpful and was clearly relevant to the issue, and it neither disparages nor discourages legitimate contributions to the discussion. Sweet! You both made boo-boo's in the AfD! Score tied!
3. One of you missed an SPA or two when tagging SPAs in the discussion! The other then deleted all of the tags! Score still tied!

The rest of the conversation is where it goes completely off the rails, as far as I'm concerned. I see no attempts to intimidate (seriously? "intimidate"? what is this, a John Grisham novel?), engage in character attacks, discredit, or anything else. I see some snarky comments on both sides. It is, however, perfectly clear that neither of you are currently capable of just dropping this, which is what you ought to be doing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

UK privacy injunctions and BLP

There is currently an ongoing discussion as to whether the David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn articles should contain information currently sealed by a superinjunction. The issue primarily comes down to one of notability. There are reliable sources, but there is disagreement on whether there is enough attention to satisfy the requirements for including negative information in a BLP article. This is a situation that may crop up with increasing regularity in the future, and I believe a discussion on how we should deal with superinjunctions and BLP articles is warranted. Polyquest (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't superinjunctions a British thing? If so, I don't think a site with a Florida-based server has to worry about it. So long as the editor putting it in is not a citizen of the United Kingdom themselves. I am no expert on those though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this information is true, and that the London tabloids have wanted to publish it for weeks. The problem for Wikipedia is that is covered by the injunction ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd and it would be contempt of court to publish it in England and Wales. This is exactly what happened with Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas in CTB v News Group Newspapers a few weeks ago. The Irish media has published the names, because Pauline McLynn is Irish and the injunction does not apply there. My views on this issue are at Talk:David_Threlfall#WP:BLP:_notable_or_not.3F. This type of situation is undoubtedly a headache for Wikipedia. The issue here, though, is not legal but BLP notability--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We aren't covered by the injunction - the servers aren't in the UK, nor is the organization, and neither US courts nor US law nor the Foundation nor the english language Wikipedia community are particularly inclined to comply with that aspect of UK legal affairs.

With that said, the question of whether the sources which did publish in Ireland meet our normal BLP reliable source standards is valid. Our rule is "verifiability, not truth" - we can verify that a source said something, and we can make a judgement that the source is reliable (by normal standards, or by BLP standards which are somewhat stricter). Even if it's (almost certainly) true, rumors and tabloids aren't good enough. They wouldn't be good enough on a celebrities childs' name, much less on an affair.

I recommend the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, they're used to trying to figure this kind of thing out. I am not familiar with the newspapers in this case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The names of the people are accurate, the Daily Mail could barely bother to hide them here by saying Shameless twice and working itself into a lather here, but the injunction was not granted by their favourite legal hate figure David Eady. The details of the affair would usually fail WP:BLP, but have become involved in the 2011 injunctions controversy. The publication of the names took place over a week ago, and if the lawyers for the two people named were going to hit the roof it would have happened by now. So far, complete silence has occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that the assertion that it would normally fail BLP notability; it's certainly something worth investigating more. That it is now tangled up in superinjunction geopolitics is indisputable, here as well as in real life.

BLP requires that negative living person biographical information have higher quality sources proportional to the negativity of the claims. If the subject of the article is notable enough for an article regardless of the alleged affair, then mention in the article (if properly reliably sourced) is not unheard of - many many other articles describe people's affairs or flings, especially where someone else's marriage or relationship ended due to one.

But the sources do have to be good, and it has to be notable enough. This should not be excluded due to the superinjunction, but that properly doesn't support including it either. It has to stand on its merits as relevance to the person and their life, quality of sources regarding the alledged affair, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is now a classic Catch-22 (logic) situation here: no notability without coverage, and no coverage without notability. The injunction has turned a routine piece of showbiz gossip into a cross border incident which can be reported in Ireland but not England. This is daft and has to be seen as one of the unacceptable consequences of this type of injunction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who went through hoops to get a section in the Ryan Giggs page on his order, I am not so sure that we have to be hyper-careful here, as long as it is clear that the page is covering the reporting of the alleged deed rather than passing off the deed as fact. for example "In Somemonth 20xx, xyz newspaper reported that person y was behind a gag order to protect details of an alleged affair with person z". VERTott 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The risk of defamation action on this is zero, but at the moment neither of the BLP articles gives the information. The names are in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy as there are no legal problems with publishing this information outside England and Wales. The Streisand effect has become involved once again, and made all of this look more notable than it actually is. Wikipedia is read all over the world, and most people are not itching to hear about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely we don't require British sources in order to include the information? So long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:BLP and the sources are reliable, the information can be included. As for whether the British superinjunction is valid anywhere but Britain, I'm going to go with "no". If we're wrong, Wikimedia has lawyers for a reason. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The situation has been simmering since 8 May 2011, when "Billy Jones" tweeted this along with the claim about Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas. The naming of Giggs on Twitter sparked legal action, but so far there has been no legal action over Threlfall/McLynn. One thing to bear in mind is that the Daily Mail is wetting its pants to publish the ETK names, and may say "Look, folks, they're on Wikipedia". No problem, as long as the names are reliably sourced. Unfortunately, the London courts need to move with the times and accept that this type of injunction is never going to work in the age of the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this material (of which I know nothing) noteworthy in the normal (Wikipedia-nonspecific) sense of the word? If it's about very minor celebs and the Mail is wetting its pants over it, I strongly suspect that it isn't noteworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mail has previously tried to use Wikipedia as an injunction-busting tool [61] and mentioned that ETK's name has been on Wikipedia here. So what? Since Pauline McLynn is Irish, this was always likely to happen. I don't know what they teach at English law schools these days, but it obviously isn't common sense. Injunctions like this are unenforceable outside England and Wales, as Ryan Giggs showed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is unenforceable, BLP is not wholly about not getting sued, and Wikipedia is not a proxy for the British gutter press. The sensible option is to wait it out until the injunction is either lifted or rendered invalid, at which point we can tell the whole story courtesy of reliable sources. It's bound to happen in the long run. The alternatives will lead to Wikipedia getting a tremendous amount of negative press over utterly trivial taboid gossip. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese Government denies the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and punishes those who report on it. Should we strike that from the project as well? Certainly this is a much different circumstance, but our criteria for inclusion should not depend on the outdated and unenforceable laws of any particular country. If it's worth putting in the article on its own merits, then we do so. WP:BLP is not about not getting sued, it's about not ruining people's lives and acting as a codifier of slander. The Brits can sue the Internet if they want to, but their laws have no bearing on Wikipedia. The only laws that matter are those that govern the territory where Wikipedia is hosted, and where the Wikimedia Foundation is registered. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend how you managed to accurately characterise BLP in your third-from-last sentence while missing it completely in every other part of your response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I only mentioned it in the third-to-last sentence. The rest of my response covers the question of whether we are legally obligated to adhere to British law. I say we aren't. Whether or not we choose to include the information should be determined by our standard procedures outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. You seem to think that BLP is the overriding issue, and I agree with you. Given, however, that the section is entitled "UK privacy injunctions and BLP", and that there are those arguing that we are beholden to the superinjunction, I felt it necessary to comment on it. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely infer that this is about two or more minor celebs, and about two people who aren't married to each other bonking. This sounds very trivial. If I'm wrong and there's a nontrivial aspect (if for example the gagging order itself merits coverage), then it's sure to get coverage somewhere credible, and then WP can write this up. Meanwhile, the Mail can continue wetting its pants. -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What is notably missing from this conversation is anyone taking either extreme position that we should not publish because of fear of the law, nor that we should publish just to stick it to them. I'm pleased to see that. Additionally, the overall theme of this discussion is - correctly - that our own quality editorial standards are what matter here. I don't know whether in this particular case a BLP threshold has been reached - that's dependent on the specific facts, which I have not studied in these cases, but I do know that ordinary routine BLP thoughtfulness is what should rule the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no assertion here that W should be subject to English law, and the repeated refutations suggest the issue is a straw man. Notability and reliability are addressed, maybe not resolved.--Egonb (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is rare for me to agree with the Mail, but it is a farce when something can be published in a newspaper in Dublin but not in London. This suggests that little has been learned from the Spycatcher affair in the 1980s. The extra-marital affairs of minor TV celebrities are not issues of state security, and should probably not be gagged. TMZ and Perez Hilton must be yawning over this non-issue. The only notable thing is the injunction itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the SPEECH Act of 2010 makes these injunctions basically worthless in the United States. -- Selket ^Talk 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of laws is a field of study unto itself and has much jurisprudence and case law. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't do any editing in the area of minor celebrities, and I haven't followed the story beyond reading about the British courts' attempts to silence it. I have no opinion on whether the information that is trying to be suppressed belongs in any of the relevant articles, but the superinjunctions themselves and their ineffectiveness could probably be included in articles such as Streisand Effect or Superinjunction. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue is a classic example of the Streisand effect. The alleged affairs are trivial, and of no interest to me (indeed, even after I heard the names of the alleged miscreants, I wondered who they were); but the attempt to suppress this, and even to suppress the information that this has been suppressed, guarantees increased coverage and interest and makes it significant. I have not the slightest interest in what two B-list celebrities get up to; but I do care that the rich are able to prevent the gutter press from discussing this, while most of us would not have the means to prevent such prurient intrusion into our private lives. And I wonder what else, of possibly greater public importance, has been suppressed. RolandR (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Interest in intrigue for intrigue's sake, regardless of the people involved, is precisely why tabloid rags make so much money from this sort of thing. Let it go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to follow them. This is not a scandal sheet. While the celebs involved are minor, they have their own articles and are therefore presumably notable; but their affair is not worthy of mention. Nor does the Streisand effect or Superinjunction justify mentioning it in those articles. The idea that its reportage (or not) is enough to make something notable has been rejected before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But the reporting and sources that mention a given piece of information are a primary part of how we are supposed to make an interpretation on whether something is notable. If there are reliable sources how can we toss aside its notability so easily, especially when the sources that are supposed to inform that decision have been distorted by government action. Polyquest (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't evidence of government involvement, still less of government censorship. Indeed they appear intensely relaxed about the whole thing. At the heart of the matter are the expressed wishes of parents to maintain some stability in their lives in the interests of the children, and to protect them from peer abuse. Hard to argue against that. Instead the story has been given prosthetic legs by associating it with "super-injunction" - a red herring - something which came into view when serious journalism sought to expose evidence of corporate criminality. As to what else may be being suppressed: doubtless the tabloids will be hoping from more salacious stuff to emerge to feed their obsession with celebrity gossip, and to keep afloat in a competitive market with less pressure to tackle real issues of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egonb (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

While it would appear to be the case that Wikipedia's geographic location grants it immunity from court orders made in England and Wales, it is always worth bearing in mind that Wikimedia Inc has past form for submitting to them, including handing over IP addresses - see eg G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc Keristrasza (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo was asked about this on his talk page recently, and replied: "As I am neither a lawyer nor staff of the Foundation, I can't speak for them. However, as someone able to closely observe the general opinions of the board and staff and legal team of the Foundation, I can say that it would be very unlikely that the Wikimedia Foundation would comply casually with a request from a non-US court where no ones life is in danger and there is not clear evidence of libel. Certainly, it is perfectly legal for American citizens not currently in the UK, such as myself (sitting in Paris now), to say that Ryan Giggs is reported widely in reliable sources to have been one of the footballers taking out a superinjunction. I won't type that when I'm in the UK, as I'm not currently looking for trouble. My views are pretty clearly reported in today's Independent and should be no surprise to Wikipedians. I strongly defend the right of all people to speak the truth, and that's particularly true in the context of an NPOV discussion of information already reported in reliable sources - there should be no controversy about this at all, it isn't even borderline. (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_76#About_Super_Injunctions...)

There are no 100% guarantees given that WMF would not hand over details of users in response to a court order, but yawnworthy tabloid gossip with no threat to life and limb does not fit the bill.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One sobering point to keep in mind is that there are some stark differences in the free speech philosophies of the US and the UK. One of these is that in America, the truth is usually a valid defense in libel suits; hence the old saying, "Never sue - they might prove it!" In England, though, there is an attitude that the press can be censored, even on matters that are not anything close to national security, for example, and that the truth is not a defence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed - this is not the RefDesk, Bugs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

English defamation law#Defences to defamation. "A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Then how can they censor the news this way? Something doesn't add up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, Bugs, this is not the refdesk. The place to ask questions about the things that don't seem to make sense to you about decisions made by British asses lawcourts, is the refdesk, not here. Otherwise we all spend hundreds of hours arguing about what all our personal opinions of that are, without helping in any way at all with deciding how issues should be dealt with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line question is: Does wikipedia need to care about this so-called "superinjunction", or is it garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you didn't manage to answer that question for yourself, after all of the many quite sensible things posted on this topic in the last few weeks and months. Let me assure you, a UK superinjunction has no effect on Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not in the UK; UK superinjunctions are routinely disregarded by the majority of the British public; UK superinjunctions are regularly rendered impotent by UK politicians using parliamentary privilege; UK superinjunctions are regularly criticised or indeed outright derided by senior and influential British politicians; UK superinjunctions have sometimes been taken out in England but not in Scotland, thus rendering them particularly nonsensical; in short, what exactly is it about a statement of a lawcourt somewhere in London that you consider so important but the rest of the world considers laughable? A judge somewhere said something silly, why are you hanging on their every word? The only caveat is the one already hinted at by Jimbo; someone typing in the UK probably shouldn't deliberately and knowingly and openly break a superinjunction if they are not "looking for trouble". Unless of course, like many other people, they want to be Spartacus.

Does Wikipedia need to care about the many silly laws passed in the USA (see News of the Weird), or are they "garbage"? Not quite the same answer, but almost. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's no issue, why isn't this section marked "resolved"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue is effectively resolved for the time being, because the consensus is to give the names in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy but not the BLP articles involved. This strikes a balance between freedom of information and not hyping minor tabloid gossip. The only notable issue here is the Spycatcher effect of the injunction. Also, libel was never an issue with ETK as there is no real doubt that the people named in the Irish media are the correct ones. There would be potential libel if a person was named as having an affair and taking out an injunction if they had not. This happened with Gabby Logan a few weeks ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is this supposed consensus? And what exactly gave you the impression that Wikipedia was about freedom of information anyway? You're at the wrong wiki for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at Talk:David Threlfall and on my talk page. Chris is taking a hard line here, and if the names are removed altogether, someone will put them back and we will be having the same discussion again. Personally I am happy to mention the names in an external link. The comparison with WikiLeaks is wholly unnecessary, as this is not an issue of state security and the material has already appeared in the Irish media..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That editors will add scandal here at the drop of a hat is why we have a BLP policy in the first place. And BLP applies everywhere, not just on specific biographies. If we're going to take the "avoid doing harm" part of BLP seriously we should follow it at the superinjunction page as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the details of the ETK allegations are not a big issue in BLP terms. However, this has now become Round Two of the injunction war (Giggs/Thomas was Round One). The names of the people in ETK are reliably available, and this should not be hidden. As said previously, I would be happy to give the names in an external link only. The "harm" was caused by the Irish Sunday World when it decided to break the injunction, not Wikipedia.[62]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As the names are not (at this point) important, I'd abstract it even further and only use secondary sourcing for the naming (so we link to someone who points out that the Sunday World printed them rather than linking to the Sunday World itself). I do not agree that we're off the hook simply because it wasn't us who published the names first, as I presume we're rather more widely-read than any of the sources who have printed the names. What you call "hiding" I would prefer to call "discretion"; we are not obliged to cover anything here, after all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy for the article not to give the names, but to cite the Sligo Today article.[63] This is how the article 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy looked before someone put the names back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'd prefer we abstracted further, as I just said. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it looks like we have reached an impasse, and in best Wikipedia debating tradition, are no further forward than when we started. There is nothing substantially wrong with the Sligo Today article, and the sky will not fall down if it is used as a citation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Insult and threat from IP User:88.233.98.18

Resolved

 – Contentious WP:PRIMARY information removed by expert User:Bobrayner. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I was recently assaulted by an IP:number. The background is the following: the IP:number in question has recently rewritten and deleted information from several articles, especially the article of Safiye Sultan, withouth any references, or indeed anything but, as it seems, his or hers personal POW. One one the things was, for example, a deletion of a theory that Nurbanu Sultan and Safiye Sultan was related. The IP deleted this on the grounds that : "relatives must love each other and therefore they could not be related because Nurbanu hated Safiye": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Safiye_Sultan

This is obviously POW. Because this IP has deleted information from articles without any base other than POW, I have been reverting the IP:s changes. I have now been subjected to something which seems intented to be a threat and an insult of some kind, by the IP, on my personal discussion-page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aciram&diff=434274094&oldid=432663388

I suspect that this IP is infact the same IP which have been editing the articles of Nurbanu Sultan and Safiye Sultan many times previously in the same fashion and was warned that time. I am not sure how to handle this. I would like to report this user. I do hope this is the right place to do so. If not, can you direct me to the right place? Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly an WP:NPA violation, and the user's tone on two different talk page comments (here and here) is pretty iffy. But the post to Aciram's talk page linked above is pretty obviously unacceptable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I warned the IP. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I also warned the IP regarding their deletion of the RP's comments above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IP expressed regret on my talk page and apologized (sorta...for the personal attack, anyway) on Aciram's page, so as long as his cooler head continues to prevail I think the NPA issue is relatively resolved. No opinion on the remainder of issues brought up above. Could be content type stuff best suited for article talk page discussion, unless there's a more serious problem here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the subject of the content dispute dates to the 17th century, I think we're going to have to wait to see who can produce WP:RS material to support their position. I've commented on the article Talk page to that effect. I also think the IP was unclear regarding the described relationship, although I'm unsure of it myself...the article topic is described as being "captured by corsairs", yet the disputed material talks about "following in her cousin's footsteps". I think there's a disparity between the two, and it may take an expert opinion to resolve it. With all that said, I'm pretty sure there really isn't any admin action required right now, so someone wandering through can likely mark this issue Resolved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I found what caused the problem in the first place. The biggest of the issues is apparently described in the article Esperanza Malchi; Esperanza was Safiye's economic agent, or kira. An allegation was apparently made, by an official in the British Embassy of the period, that Safiye and Esperanza were lovers, and that seems to be what got the IP's blood pressure up. I can't prove or disprove the allegation, and I don't see anything in the single reference for the article on Esperanza that states whether the relationship was proved or simply an allegation. I think I've taken the only action that can be taken at this time: I flagged the allegation with {{citation needed}}. If there's an expert in medieval Euro-Asian history lurking about, feel free to chime in. Otherwise, given what I've dug up, this episode can be closed out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You rang, m'lord?

The article, and the contentious claim, all came from this which looks basically OK but not the most reliable historical source. Digging deeper (though sourcing is probably not a matter for AN/I) I could find nothing. Lamdan's "Jewish women as providers in the generations following the expulsion from Spain" hints at a close and personal relationship, with Malchi handling certain discreet matters for Safiye, but mentions nothing sexual. Dursteler's "Renegade Women" is similarly mute. Kayserling's "Die jüdischen Frauen in der Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst" just calls her a "favoritin" - my German is very weak but I doubt that a sexual relationship is the only possible interpretation, and it's using a translation of the same primary source used by Lamdan. There are fictional texts too, but let's not go there.

I will update the article accordingly, and add a better source. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some letter which supported the claim, but it would be silly to trawl through huge archives just to find some gossip in a primary source. It's removed now anyway. I just found the original text of the letter to Queen Elizabeth I (in Italian); the "articles for ladies" she wanted to handle discreetly are oils and perfumes, rather than anything more salacious. Case closed? bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern with user reverting speedy deletion tag on a category he created

Resolved

 – as per KWW's comment below.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jj98 has twice now reverted a speedy deletion tag that I placed on Category:Animation portal selected lists, a category he created. I reverted with an edit summary explaining that it was against Wikipedia policy to do this, but that was apparently ignored because he reverted me again. Even if he believes this is the type of category that is exempt from C1, which he apparently does by his placing of the empty category template on the page, that is an argument he should have made using the hold on template. I would personally say that this is not the type of category exempt from C1 - this is not the type of category intended to be empty on occasion. If the animation portal has not "selected" any lists yet, then this category does not need to sit around empty for an undetermined amount of time until the portal has a list selected. In any case, the debate as to if C1 applies is secondary in nature to my main concern that this user is reverting my placing of the tag in violation of Wikipedia policy. If a neutral party reviews my tag and declines, that is one thing, but the category creator doing it is another. Thanks. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Category:Animation portal selected lists classifies as a featured topics category, which is exempt from C1. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that featured topics are different from "selected lists" (or any "selected" content) on a particular portal. Namely, I was under the assumption that everything that fits in that exception is in Category:Featured topics. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've created this category myself for each selected lists for the Animation portal. The selected list parameter has not been used yet for the WikiProject Animation banner. It's at the sandbox. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note that there many Featured lists like List of The Simpsons episodes and Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1). JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether the category is eligible for the CSD category is irrelevant. Jj98, as creator of the category, cannot remove the CSD tag. He can contest the speedy, but removing the tag is generally considered a blockable offense.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I've should have done that myself. I've working on WP:ANIMATION for months to try getting the Animation WikiProject riving for years to get many new members. Yes, I've violated a little bit, and I've should been blocked just like last time when I got blocked for messing around the non-free copyrighted images for three weeks. Still, I am not really happy about it, but its not going help me. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is over, so I'm not saying you should be blocked now. In the future, though, use the button that says "contest the deletion", don't remove the tag.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin Abuser Barek

A wikipedia administrator named Barek(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barek) kept banning me from wikipedia without warning or reason. I changed the the page armour to american english and it got reverted. I changed it once more and received a warning for doing so. I stopped immediately after, but still got banned for a day with a warning on my page. I blanked my page after the ban as the warning was redundant. Barek reverted the edits so I blanked the page once more. Then he proceeded to ban me again without a single warning. I've been banned 3 times by him so far and every time without a warning or reason. WP:BLANKING clearly states it's only against the rules to delete sanctions that are in affect. I just don't want to continue using a website with poor administrators. I hope something can be done about this. Thanks --70.186.166.251 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could block him again if he continues to remove the ISP message on his talk page and other people's edits at Jimbo's talk page. He's been warned again today. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(section title has some ambiguity that amused me... Barek has been abusing admins? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWB#37Observations on Wikipedian behavior #37. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that it seems pretty clear that a page with the title 'Armour' should use British English, any debate on that is a debate over the title and belongs on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why in (insert Deity of one's choice)'s name would anyone change an article with a British English title to American English text? (..and Barek, stop abusing admins!) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP did a suicide-by-admin and is now blocked again. Admins can check this revdel'ed contribution. Favonian (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes, that "contribution" reminds me why I blocked the IP. —DoRD (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)That was quick, he's got a new sock already [64]. Undox (talk · contribs) needs to be blocked. Any takers? --64.85.214.184 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Taken. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness to the IP, I reviewed the events involved, and did spot an issue with categorization of the tag on the IPs talk page. Per WP:BLANKING, fourth bullet point of items that should not be removed from a user's talk page:

• For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address.

I was surprised just now to discover that {{ISP}} is not included in the referenced category. The tag still shouldn't be removed because it would qualify under the second half of that bullet point, and in this case there are secondary factors including personal attacks and sockpuppetry; but I can at least see the potential for confusion by IPs in general. I'm going to be bold and add the category to the tag now - if there are reasons for it not to be on that tag, others can remove it and we can document the reason on the tag's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

admin decision taken by HelloAnnyong

Hi all, three different people reported user :Tajik who has been banned 20 times but is now using sockpuppet (user: Lysozym) and admin HelloAnnyong refuse to take action.[65] Admin HelloAnnyong was told by admin Kingturtle in email that Lysozym is sockpuppet of Tajik. [66] and then admin HelloAnnyong said "I'm closing this case with no further action taken". [67] Can someone please explain what's going on here? Is it normal for someone to get 20 bans and then 3 months later come back and create a fresh new account name?Tofaan (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

By my count, Tajik was actually blocked (not banned) 15 times plus once per self request. Also, I have notified Lysozym of this discussion. —DoRD (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The decision seems quite reasonable and policy compliant. User: Lysozym has a note on his userpage informing of his previous account. It appears more of a case of remaming via a new account creation than a WP:CLEANSTART so nothing to see really. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The user seems to have answered you at the bottom of the SPI and the answer looks legitimate. N^oformation ^Talk 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, the Tajik userpage and talk page should be redirected to his new account's pages. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP's concern is around this:

• user had socked, and had been blocked for it
• even if user requested their last block, was it an attempt to preempt an impending longer block being enforced
• was their new userid therefore considered to be evading that

At least that's how I see the situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should explain to User:Tofaan the most basic Wikipedia policies (THIS, for example, is totally against Wikipedia policies!) as well as the meaning of a "sockpuppet". My major account is de:Benutzer:Lysozym in the German Wikipedia. A while back, I decided to take a break from Wikipedia - both the German one and the English version. A day or so earlier, I had - by mistake - created an additional global account (my current one) on WP-Commons in order to upload a few images (actually, I just wanted to create a simple account for Commons, but it turned out to be a global one). So, by mistake, I suddenly had 2 additional accounts, one in the the German and one in the English version. I immediately contacted admins and told them about it. In the German Wikipedia, I requested a permanent block of my previous account. In the English Wikipedia, I contacted User:Kingturtle and explained everything to him (including that I wanted to take a break). So, for a while, all of my accounts (including the current one) were blocked on my own request - in the German and in the English Wikipedia. Now that I am back (after a ca. 3 months longing break), I decided to use my new global account only and use the same nick for the German and the English version. My other 2 accounts - the German and the English one - remain permanently blocked. I am not evading a block, I did not use multiple accounts at the same time, there has never been a secret about this (in fact, admins were informed even before I asked for the Wiki-break), I did not have any problems before I took the break, I was not banned or blocked, etc. To keep it short: none of this was against Wikipedia policy or rules. I even "sacrificed" my rights to vote (at least until I have the amount of edits needed).
As for User:Tofaan: I am not sure if he is a new user or not, but what is certain is that he is an extreme POV-pusher, he has not the slightest qualification in respect of Islamic history, he has not the slightest knowledge what a "reliable source" is (→ WP:RS). He was putting false, unsourced, and misleading information in the article Ghurid dynasty. I removed that nonsense and used a quote by Jimbo Wales as a justification: NO information is better than FALSE and MISLEADING information. Misleading information - especially those that are explicitly disproved by standard academic reference works (in this case Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Americana, Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc.) - should be removed aggressively and without any compromises. Not the quantity of sources is important but the quality. And I will continue to do so if he decides to insert that wrong and misleading information in the article once again. --Lysozym (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC) PS (@ Burpelson AFB): I think that's a good idea. Either redirect the userpage or put a sign in it explaining that the account has been deactivated permanently. --Lysozym (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts might help, such as {{Template:User previous account|Username}}. Singularity42 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This one looks fine. --Lysozym (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported Lysozym as well - obviously not aware of this story because I wasn't very active when his account was blocked by Kingturtle upon his request. Once a new account was created, there was no reference to his old account until June 14. And the other problem was that there were e-mails flying from one admin to another and we were kept in dark. The case was closed but no reason was given. It would have helped a lot (transparency wise) if the admins had used the SPI page. This way there would have been no reason for User:Tofaan to open this issue once again in here. Now that everything is clear, let's get back to work. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

Perce, Quebec

I noticed that the article on Perce, Quebec was edited by 174.91.247.221 (talk · contribs) to be included in the Wiki category "Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations" and was curious as to why this community was added. In a brief online search, I could not find anything to substantiate this, and so was curious about the (anonymous) user's other edits. I found that the same user made over 60 such edits in the course of one evening (14 Jun 11), most only minutes apart, so I would assume that this is a bot of some sort. Is this an acceptable edit (list)? HiFlyChick (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

With the right internet connection, making a paste edit at 12:01:01 and 12:01:59 is quite possible to do manually. Many of the other edits on June 14 were 2 to 3 minutes apart, so I doubt that this was an automated bot. However, the truthiness of adding that category is probably questionable - if it's unsourced, and likely untrue (what is the definition of "significant"?), then it's a content issue - remove the cat if needed, unless it's appropriately sourced inside the text iteself in the demographics section. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, to this anglophone Quebecoise the categories seem likely to be fine. There are pockets of anglophones all over, including in the lower Gaspe, as mentioned by this government info sheet.[68] Slp1 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pockets" are one thing; "significant populations" is completely different...however, this is now becoming a content dispute, which should be argued elsewhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat regarding film articles

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film)#Images and Copyright: "Fair use", critical commentary vs simple illustration, Amadscientist (talk · contribs) started a discussion about whether or not film posters were appropriate in articles. The discussion focused on the inclusion rationale for a poster, as well as the template used to display the rationale and the theory that including posters affected their "original market value". Amadscientist did not find editors agreeing with him and recently made this comment that says, "...and make sure my friends know how wiki film articles work. I will encourage all directors, actors and producers I know, meet or work with in the future to voice their opinion with legal action instead of discussion because talking on the very page devoted to improving the MOS is discouraged" (italics mine). Per WP:LEGAL, the threat foreshadows two problems:

• It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles.
• It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith.

I was not sure how outright a threat needed to be to count, and I request for admins to review Amadscientist's comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't view it as a legal threat as such, or at least not something that would lead to a block of the account, given the way it is couched "I will encourage....". The tone and rhetoric is disapointing however, albeit likely borne from frustration, and I'd urge Amadscientist to retract it. No comment on the background or other aspects of this, just over the diff you provide. Pedro :  Chat  12:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that he's basically saying "since it's useless to try and change the MOS here, I am going to tell everyone I know in the film industry to sue Wikipedia in order to get it changed" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my reading as well. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily mean that genuine legal action is about to hit wikipedia, but that's not the only reason why we have WP:LEGAL - it's also there as an acknowledgement that sometimes people try to get their way by threatening that lawsuits will fall on those who disagree when they have been unable to gain consensus by more appropriate means - such behaviour is also a Bad Thing regardless of whether or not the threat is truly serious. bobrayner (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's one step removed from actually threatening legal action oneself. That's why I cited the rationale for the policy, that such statements can severely inhibit free editing of pages and creates bad feelings. It's still an attempt to intimidate change just because the talk page discussion was inconclusive for that editor. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be offered the opportunity to retract the remark prior to any sanction under WP:LEGAL personally; Noting that the editor is based in California I assume he's probably in bed by now, which may mean several hours. Pedro :  Chat  12:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Can't find it right now but we have blocked for exactly this sort of thing before, threatening to get others to sue. Why would we wait before blocking? The block is a request to retract, and if he retracts there's no problem, if he doesn't we'd have to block anyway. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be thinking of this prior case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive698#User:Kronikerdelta making threats against editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

{{uw-ltblock}} DMacks (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked and left appropriate template. This will ensure that his first action when he tries to edit is to read the reson for his block, come here and view why, then forumlate an appropriate unblock request in order to retract his statements. It will not stop him from following through with his threat (which would be pretty silly to do anyway), but it will remove the cloud of fear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed, about the same time he made the comment, he removed the WikiProject Film template from the talk page of The Rocky Horror Picture Show as seen here. He's the primary contributor of that film article. While it's not directly pertinent to my initial complaint, it seems part of the editor being combative toward WikiProject Film due to dissatisfaction. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have any room for editors who play the "I didn't get my way, so f-you" childish game (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this falls, strictly, under NLT. NLT includes an exception for "polite, coherent" statements concerning copyright claims, and doesn't say the exception won't apply if the statement is polite and coherent but thoroughly wrongheaded. Were the user to have said, for example, "legal action beginning with DMCA takedown notices," I think no block would be appropriate, at leastnot for the statement in isolation. If the posting editor were to clarify that he was not encouraging or suggesting action against individual uploaders/editors, or otherwise trying to intimidate them, I think that would be sufficient. Not all wrongheaded comments with disruptive tendency deserve indef-blocking; while this one probably crossed the line in terms of disruptive potential, it didn't do so by very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As a legal threat it's really borderline, and it follows a lengthy discussion about using film posters as "decorations", about which he's got a point. Back when I used to do fair-use uploads from time to time, I was frequently lectured about using them as "decorations". Which is why I stopped even trying to do fair-use uploads. In fact, I'm surprised that the resident deletionists haven't zeroed in on these glaringly-obvious items. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There was an RfC about such cover art (a larger discussion than just film posters) that I shared with Amadscientist. You can see it here: Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. Amadscientist acknowledged that conclusion and focused on whether or not the boilerplate templates were sufficient and if use of posters threatened their "original market value". Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The user formerly known as Betacommand is the strictest non-free-content rules enforcer that I'm aware of, so I've asked him to come here and offer an opinion. Frankly, I don't much care for the idea that some fair-use stuff is OK for decorations and some is not. The posters are hardly ever discussed in the film articles, and the information listed (such as the cast) is typically already given in the article. I can think of a few cases where the contents of the poster itself became noteworthy, for example the brouhaha over the poster used for For Your Eyes Only, or if there's something unusual in a poster, such as the billing order of the actors. In general, to my mind, the fair use rules are way too restrictive. But I understand the reasoning behind them. I don't see how a film poster gets to slide by, while the cover of a biography book is somehow not allowed because it's "decorative". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the topic is appropriate to discuss; the issue was Amadscientist's specific legal comment. Betacommand's comments are welcome at the WikiProject Film discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also a question of fairness about the block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If we wish to revise the policy, a discussion on that can be taken at the proper place, but there is a clear understanding that these illustrations are permitted. (I think such an attempt would not be productive, as the current support for them is even stronger than in the past.) DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In talking with Delta about this, I have concluded that the posters are allowed, as they are an important identifying illustration, as with sports team logos, company logos, and the like; hence they don't have to be directly discussed in the article. They also amount to free advertising for a given film, so the studios are very unlikely to sue over the use of an index-card sized reproduction of a poster. Therefore, the issue raised by the complainant about "market value" can only refer to the poster itself. That leads me to believe the guy is a collector rather than being connected with any studio. And his threat to "tell everyone he knows in Hollywood" to damage wikipedia in some way is most likely a self-serving bluff. Hence, it qualifies for blocking under the spirit of No Legal Threats, which has to do with intimidation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have unblocked as the user has promised to retract the legal threat [69] Pedro :  Chat  08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Lianalupe at Histrionic personality disorder

User:Lianalupe seems to have a serious gripe against Histrionic personality disorder and keeps editing totally against consensus. Can somebody do something. Thanks. --Penbat (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They were being blatantly disruptive, so I've given them a day off from editing. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The user's talk page seems to warrant a uw-npa template but I didn't want to over-template them (and I'm also unsure if that falls under WP:NPA or merely WP:CIVIL), so I figured the better action would be to mention it here, where the admins can decide what action (if any) to take on that. - SudoGhost™ 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A day off is nice and pretty short, given the amount of disruption and name-calling. I declined their unblock request. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be some disruptive sockpuppets and/or SPAs at work at that article too. Perhaps an SPI would be helpful. Deli nk (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A Swollen Butterbee (talk · contribs) made one single edit that falls in that category, yes. But Haveanicelifeconsciousness (talk · contribs) plays the other side--unless it's that old good hand/bad hand thing, but that seems unlikely to me. Where Brokencurio (talk · contribs) comes from is anyone's guess (what they removed wasn't irrelevant--just unsourced and not in the proper encyclopedic style). But I'll tell you one thing that irritates me: the undertone of anti-feminism I detect in comments made criticizing Lianalupe, this talk of "propaganda" and "POV". Drmies (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE, with trouts all around

OK. I've spent some time on this matter, and I think there's something to be learned from this experience. Let me give you my conclusions first: User:Penbat and User:Seduisant really should reconsider how they interact with other editors, especially new ones. Two other editors, User:Brokencurio and User:Haveanicelifeconsciousness, are SPAs who likewise deserve a kick in the rear.

One other remark beforehand: calling Lianalupe's edits "a pile of uncited, irrelevant, feminist drivel", vandalism, or rants, or whatever, is nonsense. You may not like her Luce Irigaray-influenced commentary (of course it's unverified, POV, etc--Lianalupe clearly has no experience editing Wikipedia), but it's not nonsense, and anyone who spends some time studying the matter knows that there is sexism involved in the matter.

On June 8, Lianalupe completes a series of edits that culminated in this. Granted, this is not an encyclopedic addition by our standards, and it's not verified--but these are the user's first edits. Immediately an editor slaps a set of templates on it, here. Three days later, User:Brokencurio makes her only edit in article space and reverts the lot, with an edit summary that says "Removed irrelevant, unsourced section." (As an aside, I'd like to know how Brokencurio got there, and where she learned the ropes.) Over the next few days, the section is restored by Lianalupe, ending here. On June 14 Seduisant tags the article as "nearly unreadable"--not a nice thing to say. Mind you, by this time Lianalupe hasn't even received a welcome (and future discussion on her talk page indicates clearly that some aspects of WP were not clear to her). Out of nowhere comes a new editor and removes the lot, with no explanation--no edit summary, no message on the talk page, nothing; that same editor does the same thing fifteen minutes later, this time with the added insult "removed 'feminist critique' section. propoganda, misinformation". That edit summary is an insult, and indicative not just of insensitivity but also of an utter lack of knowledge. I am saddened to see that the removal was applauded by User:Seduisant on User talk:Haveanicelifeconsciousness--and Seduisant saw fit to refer to Lianalupe's addition as a "rant". Note that at this time Lianalupe's talk page is still empty. The removal by Haveanicelife is apparently endorsed by User:Penbat, whose edit summary is instructive.

By now, Lianalupe has been bitten by an SPA (Brokencurio), another SPA (Haveanicelife), and two established editors (Seduisant and Penbat). She has yet to have someone explain to her what was wrong with her edits in the first place.

Lianalupe restores, Seduisant removes again, Lianalupe restores again, and now Penbat removes. By this time Lianalupe has been welcomed by an uninvolved editor (who immediately gets called a bad name by Lianalupe, to be sure), but neither Seduisant nor Penbat see any need to post anything on Lianalupe's talk page, who by now is frustrated and starts edit-warring, blanking sections from the article. Next thing you know, Penbat is here, opening up an ANI thread, and Lianalupe gets blocked as a result.

Penbat and Seduisant, if you have paid more attention, and if you had taken the time to explain what was wrong with the editor's contribution, this would never have gotten as far as it did. You should be trouted for it--especially since Penbat made some useful comments on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"What talk pages are for"

I am always willing to learn. But since I have a history with a certain one-agenda user on English WP and thus find it very hard to deem his repeated attacks on my work here (for years now) as good faith edits, what I need today is some neutral input as to what talk pages are, or are not for. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I concede that "one-agenda" may have been a slight exaggeration - but "favorite-agenda" would be spot on. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like what you posted to the talk page was in an effort to help improve the article, which is exactly what talk pages are for. The only reasonable objection to that information would be length, you could always add a collapse template so that it doesn't overwhelm the talk page. -- Atama頭 21:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't those childish cap locked edit summaries be deleted too? Seriously. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to put in the collapse templates myself, it really is a huge chunk of text. I'm hoping that mollifies Pieter Kuiper too. -- Atama頭 21:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson's behavior

User:Pmanderson and I are currently participants in an RfC submitted by another user to gauge how the community feels about our romanization of Russian guideline. The guideline in question was proposed by me in 2007 and adopted by a universal consensus between a dozen editors after being open for discussion for over a month. The person who submitted the RfC believes the consensus no longer holds in relation to a specific part of that guideline, namely the one prescribing the way to deal with establishing a conventional name for a place in Russia. While I disagree there is a problem, I readily admit it is a reasonable request which deserves wider community attention.

Here is how the events unfolded:

• The RfC was opened on June 9, and Pmanderson added his oppose on the same day.
• I added my support soon after, and commented on Pmanderson's opposition, citing a specific example from Britannica (an acceptable reliable source per WP:NCGN).
• In a different section, Pmanderson states that he is going to change his vote and will "remove the disputed text". The latter part is the the beginning of the trouble—we have two people opposing something (including Pmanderson), one person supporting it (me), and the discussion which is going on but is nowhere near completion, yet Pmanderson sees nothing wrong with unilaterally deciding the part is question "is plainly not consensus" and removing it himself. For now, however, we can write it off as the "bold" part of the BRD cycle.
• Pmanderson changes his vote as promised and declares that we should not use Britannica because it uses "pidgin English" (I'm not kidding) and because WP:NCGN needs to be amended anyway.
• Next he compiles a list of the grievances he has with the entire section of the guideline. Not a part of the original RfC, but OK—all editors have a right to identify potential problems, and adding this to an already ongoing RfC makes sense.
• His next steps are editing the guideline as promised, classifying the parts he censored out as "strongly disputed" and "dubious". Now, at the time of this edit, the only person who "strongly" disputes these is he himself; most of the parts he took out have no comments from any other editor (even me). This is the first time he does this, so, let's put it into the "B in BRD is for 'bold'" bucket.
• I reverted the changes when I saw them the next day, pointing out that such sweeping changes should not be made while the discussion is still young. Welcome to the "R in BRD is for 'revert'" part.
• The next step in BRD is, of course, D (discussion). Not according to Pmanderson. Note the threat in the edit summary.
• I decide to try restoring the last stable version (the one being discussed) once again. The ANI remark is more of a representation of how flabbergasted I am, not something I intended to do at that time.
• In response, Pmanderson reverts once again, accusing me of treating the page as my "pet project". In practice, we now have one concerned editors who finds it perfectly OK to demote a standing guideline to an "essay" status merely because he disagrees with it.
• This is supported by a comment previously made on the talk page, where Pmanderson is "genuinely shocked" with the wording of the whole guideline and declares "most of it" to be "contrary to usage and policy". A certain passage he describes as text which "contends ethnic nationalism" (the final parts of this diff). These are opinions he is entitled to, but not shared by anyone else on the page. My feelings are summed up by the last paragraph in this diff.
• Not to bore the reviewers with unnecessary details, the situation only goes downhill from here. In the course of few days, Pmanderson:
  • decides that the guideline does not even deserve an "essay" status and marks it as "historic";
  • describes my request to respect previous consensus and to follow procedure as "the demand of our more unscrupulous bullies" and assumes (indirectly) that I cannot be a "reputable editor" (apparently, because no "reputable editor" would ever support something Pmanderson is against). Later he described the request to honor process as "power gaming" and stonewalling.
  • further describes my request to respect procedure as a "bad-faith revert war" and the whole guideline as a "private opinion of a Russian editor" and parts of it as a "nationalist diatribe";
  • produced this opinion of Britannica as a source, with a thinly veiled characterization of me as someone among "non-anglophone nationalists like those which inflict themselves on Wikipedia" who "should be banned". At this point even the person who submitted the RfC asked Pmanderson to chill and to respect the process;
  • started to present my two reverts as "interminable", pretending not to understand the reason behind them (something already explained to Pmanderson by two people), and trying to turn the tables around (either discuss what other people want, or acknowledge that this is your private project), wondering at the same time how can one disagree with his opinion "without being a Russian nationalist";
  • recognized his earlier remark about my two "interminable" reverts as a factual mistake and corrected it to "revert-warring to the unspeakable". By this time, Pmanderson is still the only person who thinks of the guideline as "unspeakable", yet instead of a discussion all we have is a steady flow of attacks in my direction;
  • has been asked by the RfC submitter to stop calling me a "Russian nationalist";
  • called to ban me flat out (as "the author of this" and "POV pusher");
  • decided he had enough of my opposition and made the final recommendation;
  • voiced an interesting opinion on how changes to our guidelines should be done (by observing that it has changed in response to ongoing discussion), which is in direct contradiction with the procedures outlined in WP:HISTORICAL;
  • speculated that the 2007 consensus was due to me gathering "my handful of friends" and described his unilateral decision to change the text and status of the guidelines as "specific proposals"
  • promised to make an edit to prove a point and proceeded with it. Whether the glaring mistake he made in that edit is intentional, is anyone's guess;
• continued and continued with his insistence to pass his own opinion, unsupported by any other single person, as something "the discussion has established".

And all this in relation to a standing guideline with the discussion ongoing. To say I find Pmanderson's behavior and attitude flabbergasting is to put it mildly. What's even more flabbergasting is the fact that edits to the WP and WT namespaces constitute over a third of all his edits, and if he shows this kind of even on some of them, the problem starts looking serious indeed. In my seven years with Wikipedia, I've never seen an established editor who in one fell swoop managed to dismiss others' opinions while aggressively promoting his own, expressed battleground behavior, engaged in personal attacks (no matter how craftily veiled), and usurped the power to make the final decisions while stomping out the opposition. This report is not the indication of how offended I am personally; it's an indication of how concerned I am that similar things are occurring elsewhere in the policy space where Pmanderson participates. As far as I can see, this is not an isolated incident. An RfC concerning this editor's behavior was filed last year, followed by an ANI report in January, followed by another ANI report in January, followed by a trout wacking for making comments which are perceived as abusive and racist, followed by another ANI report this May, followed by an accusation about edit warring with regards to the guidelines (where the user finally self-corrected).

This is how I see things. This (and this) is how Pmanderson sees them. Comments from uninvolved parties would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

TL;DR. Can you summarise please? What specific incident requires administrator intervention here? Have you notified Pmanderson of this? I know his obdurate refusal to maintain his talkpage in a manner which allows people to actually edit it without waiting five minutes for it to load makes it difficult, but you are required. → ROUX ₪ 19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, too long indeed. My apologies. The middle part is just a list of diffs to refer to; the first paragraph provides a background, and the last two summarize the problem. If any of my accusations in the last two paragraphs raise an eyebrow, a diff to support them can be found in the mid-portion. The user has been notified. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:26 (UTC)

From my point of view what happened is much simpler:

• This guideline has sat undiscussed since 2007. User:Mlm42 filed an RfC questioning one part of it; that part has received no support but Ezhiki's. It seems to me to have other quite serious flaws. I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted.
• At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only, and he would revert any effort to change it or indicate that it was the product of a very dated and local discussion. I so tagged it, hoping that this would inspire actual proposals to meet the complaints of several of us.
• Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed, and I did a draft, expecting that novel language would provide an opportunity to converge. Instead, he objected on purely procedural grounds, insisting that he alone could formulate proposals, and that they must have a formal vote. I agreed, skeptically, to wait a couple days for these propoeals.
• Instead of formulating them, he has come here.

In short, this is a classic case of dressing up a content dispute in which Ezhiki is the minority (and a WP:OWN claim) as a conduct dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how discussing my behavior helps your position any. If my behavior needs to be discussed, you are welcome to submit a separate ANI report. Here, let's stick with yours.

To the points:

• A guideline sitting undiscussed since 2007 is not a problem—it's more of an indication that it works, if anything. However, once a discussion is open, editors are expected to discuss, not, as Pmanderson did, to jump to conclusions and hastily tailor the guideline according to their own vision.
• The reverts I have made were to ensure that proper procedures are being followed (and there is nothing wrong with "insisting on procedural grounds"). Pmanderson is welcome to make suggestions for amending the guideline, as is anyone else, but it is unacceptable to insist that changes must be made immediately when the RfC was up for discussion for only one day (!) and no other opinions supporting most of Pmanderson's views have been voiced, and that Pmanderson has a right to make changes, while another editor doesn't even have a right to disagree with them.
• I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted. True, and this conforms to the B and R of the BRD cycle. What Pmanderson omits is that instead of discussion (D, step 3 in BRD), he re-reverted and kept insisting on his version. See the evidence section above for specific diffs.
• At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only.... It may have become clear to Pmanderson, but no one else shared this sweeping assessment, which Pmanderson continued to pass for "consensus". This is actually a perfect example of Pmanderson's overall attitude—make a statement, and then keep referring to that statement as if it were true forever and is universally supported.
• Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed. I would appreciate if my agreement were not referred to in such terms.
• As for the proposals, I discussed the possibility of submitting them with the RfC submitter, and mentioned that I will collect and post them after a few days once other potentially interested parties had a chance to join the discussion. I did not come here instead of making proposals (a suggestion itself showing the lack of AGF), I came here because I saw a larger problem. Besides, the "couple days" to which Pmanderson "skeptically agreed" have not even passed! Another example of unexplainable hastiness exhibited by this editor.
• The WP:OWN accusation I'm not even going to comment on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 20:50 (UTC)

I started the RfC which kicked all this off. I thought we were starting to make progress towards improving the guideline, but the incivility levels between Ezhiki and Pmanderson have been steadily rising.. in my opinion the incivility has mostly been fueled by Pmanderson, who appears to be upset about the (perceived) inconsistencies between the guideline WP:RUS (maintained mostly by Ezhiki) and the more widely accepted guideline WP:NCGN (maintained mostly by Pmanderson). I'm hopeful this can be sorted out, to the satisfaction of both of them, by making better wording choices in WP:RUS. Mlm42 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if it could be settled by such means; although WP:RUS much more seriously conflicts with core policies which I rarely edit. As for WP:NCGN, I have undertaken from time to time to summarize a discussion, or react to an instance of actual consensus in Wikipedia space; but I have attempted to do so only when nobody else had done so; certainly I have not prevented others from doing so. I doubt Ezhiki is entitled to say the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• AS for Ezhiki's particular comments: the word "percieved as racist" was anglophone, by an editor who plainly has no notion what it means.
• Similarly, if If you must, then was not intended as grudging, then I must regret Ezhiki's use of an idiomatic expression outside the sense it customarily bears. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  How can the presence of an open RfC on the guideline's talk page not clue you in that "attempts to do so" (i.e., to reach actual consensus) are being made? Why such hastiness? And what "instance of actual consensus" did you have in mind while making this edit (note the impeccable grammar)? Or this edit? Or this edit? There's certainly nothing on the talk page (beyond your own comments, that is), to indicate a "consensus" of any sort to substantiate any of those edits.

  On the ...who plainly has no notion... bit, here we again have Pmanderson making an assumption, formatting it as an obvious truth, and expecting others to take this blatant lack of good faith to heart. A perfect illustration of the problem, that one is. And misspelling a common word in a sentence which accuses another editor of poor grasp of the language? Oh, the irony.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

• Information here may be relevent to this discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. --Jayron32 22:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢: Generally, whenever Anderson is involved in a discussion, we're going to have problems with civility. That's reflected in his blocks. It's a shame he hasn't learned from them, but he often succeeds in getting other editors riled up (as he has with me), so perhaps he feels the rewards of attacking rather than cooperating are worth the occasional block. His modus operandi is that whichever POV he supports is 'consensus' (even if he made it up just then), that others defending established consensus is 'ownership', that his wording is 'English' (despite the fact he has yet to master English grammar[70]—that just happens to be the edit I saw before coming here), while any competing wording is 'not English', unprovoked personal attacks, 'I didn't hear that' when evidence contradicts him, etc. Sometimes he may even have a valid point, but it tends to get lost in all the bombast. BTW, I've heard the 'doesn't know what anglophone means' dispute before, with the same complaint that it was covert racism. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, kwami has just summed it all up—I'd agree this is exactly what's going on on the WP:RUS RfC. Looking at pretty much any discussion Mr. Anderson had participated in, if there is a disagreement of any sort, the same pattern of behavior can be expected again and again and again all over. How can one have have six blocks in the past twelve months alone (all for personal attacks, harassment, revert warring, move warring, and a 3RR violation), be a subject of several ANI reports and a conduct RfC, and yet still be allowed to devote a third of his editing time to policy space, where following proper process is of paramount importance? How many times will incidents like this one have to repeat before sanctions are imposed? Blocks clearly don't work; on two occasions he had been unblocked for "seeing errors in his ways", but the consequent blocks and ANI reports indicate very much otherwise. Saying "I didn't do anything wrong but I won't do it again" just isn't good enough any more. How long will this kind of behavior be allowed to go on?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

Snowded persistant problems on BNP page

The user snowded will not allow the BNP page to be updated. An argument has been going on for months about updating the BNP page, especially their ideology box, but the user Snowden constantly deletes peoples material.

He also has just vandalised the ethnic nationalism page.

Viewing his profile, it turns out Snowded is this guy here: Dave Snowden - a far-leftist who posts rants on his personal blog etc about how much he hates BNP. Clearly there is a problem here with NPOV. Why are biased editors allowed all over the BNP page?

Thulist88 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask...Thulist88, are you related to the Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs) account? — Scientizzle 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No. However i've followed his debates on the BNP page (along with others) who have noticed that the British National Party political box is not neutral. Snowded and the user multiculturalist are both biased anti-BNPer's who are objecting to anyone updating the article more neutrally.

Also note that anglo was banned for defending the British National Party, while users like multiculturalist get away with posts like these:

- 'but let's face it, we all know who the racists are and it is those who do nothing but defend the BNP' [71]

Multiculturalist continues to get away with labelling the BNP as 'racists' 'idiots' or 'nazis' and doesn't get even a warning. Thulist88 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever, he hasn't edited the BNP page, just arrived at the talk page today.Snowded edited the BNP page once today, the last edit before today was the 11th, then one on the 7th, so there's no edit warring by him. I'll let him know about this. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

- Please update the BNP political box. The BNP are not white nationalists but ethnic nationalists. See the BNP talk page. - I suggest a topic ban for Snowded on the BNP page. Repeatedly he has shown he opposes NPOV. He is a far-leftist who is only on the BNP page to cause trouble hence he won't let anyone near it for it to be updated more neutrally.

- Btwm BNP will also be personally contacted over this, and i think a fine article will be made and posted on the main site about how BNP supporters/members on wikipedia are discriminated against and banned (like anglo who only wanted to page to be neutrally presented). Who are the real fascists? Thulist88 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposals made on the BNP page were ether unreferenced or OR from misinterpreted sources. Similar material was posted to the ethnic nationalist page. It looks like sock or meat puppetry given some of the comments and "knowledge" evidenced above. Otherwise I'll let the rant above speak for itself, although the final comment sounds a little like a threat. For the record in five years of almost daily bloging I have briefly mentioned the BNP once --Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist. There seems to be a fair bit of quacking but I'd like a checkuser confirmation. -- Atama頭 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

- Someone who supports NPOV please go over the sources posted. Snowded has no interest in reading them, everything that is posted he rejects and just posts back with a rude one liner. As i said, and others have pointed out, Snowded Dave Snowden is biased against the BNP and he should be topic banned. How is it that BNP supporters are banned like anglo but far left wing anti-BNPers like Dave Snowden are allowed all over the article? Thulist88 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Anglo's "brother", again. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thulist88 has been blocked as a really obvious sockpuppet of Anglo (it seemed like a waste for checkuser after the comments at the SPI page). I still firmly believe that Anglo's brother has edited Wikipedia under a different account, but he is now indefinitely blocked also (partially per his own request, partially for conduct problems). I think this matter is done unless Anglo decides to come back again as someone else. -- Atama頭 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept the "brother" claims. A sock-master is quite capable of editing in different styles with differant accounts. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To what purpose? Between the two main accounts, of thousands of edits, only two edits overlap to the same article. How is one supporting the other? They edited very different topic areas. Are you suggesting that it's impossible for two different people in the same family to share a computer? I also don't see the point in Liveintheforests coming to me to tell me that Thulist88 is indeed a sockpuppet of Anglo Pyramidologist, if they're actually all the same person. -- Atama頭 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems a pointless discussion anyway, unless LITF changes their minds about accepting a block. If he does, we can discuss it then. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the "brother" story, but I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't true. LITF seemed very willing to get indef'd this time, after previusly fighting it. I think the key will be to see what happens next, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting choice of username. A Thulist was a member of the Thule Society, while 88 may represent "HH". TFD (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, assume good faith. He said 88 represented the year he was born. So it follows that his actual birthday was probably April Thule's Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bugs will be here all week. Try the veal. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cripes, but didn't xe's username Anglo Pyramidologist ring alarm bells from the get-go? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor keeps inserting unreferenced and falsely referenced material

Moalli (talk · contribs) has a pattern of inserting material into various geography articles purporting to report the 2010 U.S. census results. The problem is that the data are not sourced (e.g., [72] and [73] (there are dozens if not hundreds more); or (like [74] and [75], and dozens if not hundreds more), in which the editor adds data to a paragraph that contains a citation giving the false impression that the data is referenced. All of these edits, hundreds of them are made without edit summaries. Moreover, this editor has broken down the data in a way that the census department does not. In presenting the 2000 census data, and except for this editor nearly all editors in presenting the 2010 census data, breaks out the population by the races defined by the census department: White, African American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, other races, and two or more races. Hispanic or Latino population under the census definition may be of any race and those are reported separately. This editor removes Hispanics and Latinos from the numbers of Whites and sometimes African-Americans (without explanation - like the rest of his/her edits) which apart from any bias this may evidence, makes the 2010 census numbers impossible to compare with the 2000 census numbers. In addition, this editor has deleted referenced census data that doesn't comport with the way he/she wants to break down the races. Since I am involved and this editor has already been warned by several editors (myself included), I'd like some neutral eyes to figure out what's going on, because cleaning up hundreds of articles (and no doubt hundreds more before anything comes of this) is a massive project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin. observation) Sounds like a content dispute, but if he is not responding to queries regarding his editing, and its going against established procedures, then a temporary block might get his attention. Phearson (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

introduction of false or misleading information is a content dispute? Yet another example: East Palo Alto, California where the editor introduced this population data for the 2010 census: 0.1% Native American, 3.6% Asian, 7.4% Pacific Islander, 0.2% from other races, and 2.2%

from two or more races, citing a reference allegedly accessed in 2008. Now, it seems that the census department isn't so good as to know to the tenth of percent in 2008 what the population of any city in the America will be in 2010. In any event, the data the editor entered is WRONG; population of other races are 38.0% not 0.2% (10,694 out of 28,155); Native Americans are 0.4% (120 people out of 28,155), etc. This borders on a WP:HOAX. Fake references. False data. No comments. Massive quantities of this crap. Only a content dispute? This is the sort of stuff that makes wikipedia unreliable and no one bothers to stopping it is what makes good editors leave. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CreatureKawa moving pages

Resolved

 – I have indeffed - but in the "until they respond and agree to abide by policy" sense, not in the "don't come back" sense. Any admin can unblock on positive response on their talk page and an unblock request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

CreatureKawa (talk · contribs) has been moving pages to disruptive titles. Just look at his log. He moved John Adams to Atlas of Independence Adams, Caroline Kennedy to Caroline Schlossberg and most recently Ross Perot to Henry Ross Perot, Sr. He has been warned on this talk page countless times. I think it's time to block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. This has been going on for quite some time. The editor has made some very strange page moves (for example, moving Susan Ford to a form of her name that turned up no Google hits other than the moved article names) as well as some rather wacky edits about elections four-six years in the future. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Contentious block of admin

Resolved

 – ...and everybody had a good hug and cry--Jayron32 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just blocked Andrew c‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 1 week for moving Abortion-rights movement to Pro-choice movement, despite the last move discussion having closed as no consensus and the article being full-move-protected to prevent moves without discussion. Since this is sure to be a contentious block, I'm bringing it here for review instead of waiting for Andrew to post an unblock request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that this was the second time he had moved it to that title -- the first time was on May 2nd, which was promptly reverted by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs), after which Airplaneman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) move-protected the article with the comment "Protected Abortion-rights movement: no need to move without prior discussion (hot-topic article)". He has participated on move discussions on the talkpage in February and May.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin, he should know better than to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A week for a first block seems a bit severe. Sarek - are you WP:INVOLVED in the article or the general dispute? Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about an admin here. If the block is upheld - even for 24 hours, we should be talking about de-sysop. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not terribly involved -- most of my editing in that area has involved trying to keep people from edit warring. I have no particular opinion on which way the title should be, except that I'd like pro-life and pro-choice to eventually settle on parallel titles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1, no need to go that far yet, in my opinion. Sarek, the block was an OK one to me. If I made one at all (and I'm thinking I might have settled for a final warning instead), I would have either made it 24 hours or indefinite, depending on the point that was trying to be made. NW (Talk) 00:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Sarek. I see also now that the article and talkpage history reflects your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit further, I do indeed have strong opinions on the subject, but in this case, that makes me work harder to keep them from affecting my article/admin work.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly big hammer, but admin was clearly involved and used admin tools to try to win the content dispute. Unambiguously a violation. I agree with NW that perhaps this was an un-optimal time period (final warning or 24 hrs seems more appropriate). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He's apologized and requested unblock, and I think that reoccurrence is unlikely. I have to go and am not going to action the unblock myself as I'm not going to be here to respond to questions/feedback, but I would support someone else doing so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Andrew c but his comments in his unblock request strike me as quite sincere: he performed the action at a time he was feeling a little heated, and as part of that he did not notice that the page was fully move-protected. He's saying he won't move the page again, and I think he's sincere about that. I would support an unblock at this point; lesson learned. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He's probably learned his lesson, but I find it disturbing that he clearly states, "In fact, it still isn't clear to me what the violation was." Perhaps someone needs to explain that very clearly before he is (theoretically) unblocked? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The part of the WP:ADMIN policy (in the "nutshell") that says, that admins are "never to use [their tools] to gain advantage in a dispute"...? Yes, fair point. That needs to be highlighted to him, although he seems to get that (partially, perhaps) with his comment that what he had done was "worse because regular editors couldn't undo it due to the move protection". I'd still support unblocking. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblocking - as he should have received a final warning and has no block history (or history of abusing the tools). AGF and allow him the ability to account here and explain to him if he doesn't understand.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblocking here as well. Admins should know better, yes, but a revert and a 4im warning could do that as well. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• He's apologized, said that he regrets moving the page, and promised not to move it again. Which sounds like a good reason to lift the block. MastCell ^Talk 03:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• He crossed a pretty bright line, so I don't think you can argue that a block was inappropriate (if anyone indeed is). In addition, though he's making all the right noises, he did say that it wasn't clear to him what the violation was. But there's probably no need to prolong the block. Unblock is fine, but there was a real issue here that went beyond a simple warning level. RxS (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

and I do not seem to see the need of a desysop, unless he should do the like again. I am a little troubled that he does not seem to understand the reason why he was wrong, but we can judge by what happens in practice. If he avoids such situations, that will be sufficient for all practical purposes. I think we can end the block. It's done what it was supposed to do. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a block for "time served." --Rschen7754 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Block lifted per discussion above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, and I am truly sorry for my actions. I feel bad about the whole thing, and ashamed, and now I have this blemish on my previously squeaky clean record which will haunt me forever. It's like getting an F on a report card back when I was in school (though honestly, that never happened to me). I just want this whole thing to be over and behind me. But I will prolong it just a little further. I understand 100% that admins should never use their tools to gain favor in a dispute, and I agree that is terrible offense. I was confused about the block because of the length, because I received no prior warning of any kind (nor a final warning as some above mentioned), because I wasn't aware I had used my tools to make the move in the first place (ignorance, I will admit), and because Sarek brought up the general sanctions and 1RR (which I don't think directly applied in this case). I understand completely the stated reason for the block "moving a contentious full-move-protected article without recent discussion", and that clearly is my fault, even if I wasn't aware at the time of the offense (also causing some confusion). Hopefully, this explains why I said "it still isn't clear to me what the violation was." If the violation was I used my admin tools to move a protected page without a clear prior consensus thus gaining favor during a content dispute via admin tool abuse (or, another way to look at it would be a admin revert against another admin's move and thus wheel warring), then I understand my offense, and I can say it won't happen again on that article ever, and I'll be much more careful in the future. If there are other compounding factors, then I may still be missing something. Thanks for your comments and the unblock, and again, I am sorry and hope to put this behind me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your summary above gets most of it, but misses the part where you had argued in two move requests for the change, hadn't gotten your way, and had previously moved it to that title and been reverted within an hour. It wasn't just that there wasn't a clear prior consensus for the move, it was that the consensus was leaning in the other direction, and that you move warred knowing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs

Would an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs again? The debate started on 31 May 2011 and remains open. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuous disruption by User:Ibibiogrl

In response to a content dispute, Ibibiogrl created a series of malformed, vindictive edit warring reports involving Kwamikagami and I. Despite an explanation of the WP:3RR, provided by Crashdoom, these erroneous reports continue. A quick glance at the history of the article in question reveals that neither Kwamikagami nor I are responsible for edit warring: [76].

Apparently, the issue underlying this disruption is whether the Nigerian language Ibibio is a subtype of Efik: [77]. Ibibiogrl appears to be pushing a particular point of view on the subject, most recently: [78] [79].

Ibibiogrl's disruption includes personal attacks, whereby s/he referred to another user as 'slow', 'stupid', and 'dumb': [80]. In an effort to abruptly end content disputes, or merely to vent, s/he also blanked pages: [81] and [82], and attempted to delete two articles: [83], [84], and [85]. S/he received a final warning on 14 June: [86]. Meph^talk 00:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to this, which was posted well-after the final warning, I'm leaving a final warning here. If the editor violates any policy again, please feel free to issue a suitably-lengthy block. m.o.p 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable block of Δ

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Asterion (talk · contribs) has just blocked Δ (talk · contribs), claiming civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring. As there's no warning on Δ's page on this, the best I can surmise is over these series of edits on Croatian kuna : [87], [88], [89], [90], and [91]. I will also note that he created a new section on that article's talk page [92] after he was reverted but before reverting a second time (eg 2RR). He did not exceed 3RR. This is also NFCC work that has been broadcasted well beforehand in March for the various numismatics projects and discussed at length at NFCC, and while not 100% resolved, there is consensus for these removals until the issue is resolved. He engaged with discussion and I see no signs of incivility there Talk:Croatian kuna.

Δ's requesting an unblock: were I not involved, I would easily remove this as there's no justification for it, none of the reasons that Asterion gave - while suggested by community sanctions - match up to the actions I'm seeing in light of the community sanctions - and if they are, they we need to reclarify them because I cannot see what he's violated. Unless Asterion has other reasons to justify this, I recommend Asterion's block be reviewed. (A message to Asterion will be dropped shortly). --MASEM (t) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question is subject to community restrictions and has been warned and blocked in the past. Failure to engage in dialogue and treat other editors in a respectful manner is clear indeed. Regards, --Asterion^talk 03:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by that second sentence. It's not so clear to me. NW (Talk) 03:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And exactly what disrespect did Delta give that we let other editors get away with all over the place without question? I see that you declined to remove his block, claiming that he threatened a block via this edit, but clearly he used "may be blocked" which is far from a threat or uncivil. Ignoring some parts of a comment while still responding is also far from being uncivil, unless there's a new line in the sand we expect Delta to practice. Additionally, as it remained unresolved from the last time Delta was here, there are no new restrictions on him for maintaining the NFC policy, though clearly he's taken steps to clarify what he is doing with the right edit summaries and talk page discussion. One could argue he is being selective on the policy, but the policy assumes limited exceptions, meaning that if it is an exception should be discussed first before adding the content back in. So again, none of these are against anything in his community restrictions, and the block seems extremely inappropriate for these actions. A warning, yes; a possible ANI discussion yes, a block, heck no. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, this is not the way I see it. Even if not intended, the civility issue is still there. I do stand by my actions but would not oppose to a reduction in duration if deemed appropriate by the wider community. --Asterion^talk 03:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah, you'll never count me as a "supporter" of Beta/Delta in any way; but I seriously can't find a single thing he said in the diffs you provided on his talk page, or indeed on anything he has said in the past few days, which would justify a block, of any user, under any set of civility restrictions. Like, not even close. I am a frequent and vocal critic of Beta/Delta's interaction style, however this is not even remotely blockable in any way. I am the civility police that everyone complains about, and even I cannot find anything uncivil which has been said. Please unblock him. --Jayron32 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am Spartacus! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This block appears unsupportable to me. To my mind, there is no civility issue here at all. I'm also less than impressed by the blocking administrator reviewing his own block and also reverting the disputed article to his preferred version. CIreland (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing incivil in Δ's comments. I agree with Jayron32, please unblock him. 28bytes (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? Asterion both blocked him and declined the unblock request? That's not how it's supposed to work. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's how I'm reading this as well. That's really not kosher. Courcelles 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (Also, bad block to begin with, should be lifted ASAP. Delta has the ability to be uncivil, but this wasn't it. Courcelles 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

Blocked him, declined the unblock request, and restored the images to the article that Δ had removed. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please stop abusing Δ? For god's sake this is the third block in about as many weeks. I know that Δ, with his long record and questionable civility, is an easy target, but I've seen a whole lot worse behavior go by without even a stern warning. Yes, Δ should know better. Yes, Δ needs to be careful. Yes, previous blocks should factor into future blocks. This is, however, getting out of hand. Δ does good work. He's worth keeping around. Continuously blocking him, which is functioning as a long term ban, when no discussion on a long term ban of Δ has reached a conclusion favoring that outcome, is unethical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have unblocked User:Δ per the consensus here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Asterion: You acted way out of line here for not only blocking Δ, but also declining his unblock request. Further, going on to restore the images in violation of our guidelines and policy was wholly out of line. If you're going to police Δ's edits in the future, I strongly suggest you gain some understanding of the NFCC policy and let other administrators step in with some advice if you begin to think it a good idea to block Δ again. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1. First, I think delta is a problem with WP. I've supported his outright ban from WP.
  2. Second, "I've seen a whole lot worse behavior go by without even a stern warning" is a weak cop out. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
  3. Lastly, I don't see ANYTHING in these diffs that was uncivil. It seems pretty standard and follows WP rules/customs. I don't see a reason for a block here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • What I meant was not that bad behavior justifies other bad behavior. Instead I meant that civility rules are applied unfairly towards him. As to your first point, I would politely suggest that you drop the issue. You and he are on opposite sides of an active Wikipedia-based ideology war, just about everyone who works in files knows that, and therefore if you start any action against him, it will be seen as inherently tainted, and you might get boomeranged for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If we are going to be blocking on community standards, I would expect Delta to only be blocked on the same type of incivility charges leveled against any average user which would normally take them to WQA, RFC/U, or AN, or maybe just let off with a warning. If, instead, the community routinely ignores some incivility (like swearing) but insists that Delta be blocked for violating it, that's a double standard. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one who has clashed with Beta/Delta on a number of occasions, this particular incident seems rather mild. It might be a good idea for Delta to be a bit more selective with "you may be blocked" warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand by the community's decision. As for the unblock request, this is probably the first block I have enforced in around 4 years, so no conspiracy here. I was simply trying to explain my reasons to him, not denying any kind of appeal. As for comments like this, I have no opinion whatsoever on the article or on the images yes/images no issue, so let's just not extrapolate and fall foul of the same lack of civility. This is *all* I have to say about this. Good luck with the project. --Asterion^talk 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It is understood that not everyone has the block procedure down pat. Hammersoft is being a bit too harsh. And Delta will be up for another block sooner or later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the blocking admin has retired. That's a shame, hopefully he will reconsider. 28bytes (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's rather an extreme reaction. If everyone retired after making a mistake, there would be (almost) no one left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I sta...checked his contribs and he has been incredibley inactive. You are not losing much.

2. Admins that quit like this show a lack of the maturity and ability to deal with conflict that we should expect of RFA candidates.

3. If all the drama and wacking were to go away...but the articles still needed work, how many people would stay to work on them?

TCO (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As the person whose quarreling with Δ led to the block, I guess I should say something. I agree that a two-week block for him would have been excessive. I already told him publicly that his block threats were being silly and that IMO was punishment enough :) It is true that Δ seems to be making a pretty generic deletionist argument against the content in question, and being a bit of an ass in the process (JFTR I saw absolutely no hint of consensus or indeed consensus-building for this "work" at the discussion page I was pointed to), but I'm an admin and my skin is thick enough to deal with that - it needs to be. So while I appreciate Asterion's intervention for the sake of civility as such, as well as the difficult predicament in dealing with disruptiveness, the block, particularly of such length, does seem a bit too trigger-happy for this particular incident. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed Asterion put up a 'retired' sign on their talk page. OK, that's also a bit excessive, please don't take things to heart this much... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a case of, sorry to see you go, thanks for your contributions, please leave your tools at the door on the way out. An almost inactive admin that blocks when they don't understand blocking has no right to be retiring in a huff and keeping the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed a rash of returning old-school admins lately who have have the policies and guidelines change without them realizing it, only to make a questionable decision with the tools, and end up here on ANI? Just sayin'. --64.85.216.2 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that and some other strange stuff going on lately involving long-absent admins reappearing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone using Wikipedia to sell his obituary website

• RajithR (talk · contribs)
• Patrolling Admin, please see the guy's talk page for further details. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the poor advertising, and am watching the page. Did you notify him that you had brought him here to ANI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• In my haste, no as I had to attend to some RL issue before getting back. My bad! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you've rectified that now :-) ... and you also know that we do not typically fully delete usertalk pages ... how would anyone know that he's already been welcomed (shown the rules) and warned (really shown the rules) if we delete the entire page and its history? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(NB: I have notified the editor of the ANI notice and the resolution) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• oobituary.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.oobituary.com

Tracking. MER-C 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on article rescue

Since Avanu (talk · contribs) is not showing that he can differentiate between useful and unhelpful contributions on the subject of Article Rescue, I propose that he be topic banned on the subject for one year. For example, he added a section to Template talk:Rescue last night about an article that had been "rescued" without the use of the tag, as an indication that the tag wasn't required. Since most of his contributions on the subject seem to hover around that level of logic, I think he needs to stay away from the topic altogether.

• Support as proposer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose because if we started topic-banning editors just because they happen to make a few bad/controversial edits, based on a "low level of logic," around a particular area, then we would quite likely need to exclude every single IP editor from topics to do with the US government, and from sci-fi, and from cartoon shows. We'd lose quite a lot of editors. Topic-bans, especially for extended periods of time, should only be used on the most compelling and serious cases, and I'm really not seeing that here. What I'm seeing is a lot of discussion and engagement on the talkpage, among other things. This is clearly a good-faith contributor; perhaps slightly misguided, but really not at the level of desperate incompetence which should be the domain of the topic-ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Further observation: Avanu's engagement on the talkpage seems to be pretty mature in comparison to some [93] I might add! ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the poem was clever, and friendly. However, if you don't think so, it would appear that an interaction ban is probably the right thing because if that's all it takes to get sand in your shorts, and you can't help but turn everything SoV does into something worth whining about... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Interaction ban" you say? Funny suggestion.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Let me get this straight. You're proposing that an editor be topic banned because he made a talk page post that doesn't run afoul of any policies or guidelines, but, in your estimation shows a "low level of logic?" Can you please either provide the diffs of disruptive or otherwise problematic editing in this area that would show the need for a topic ban or withdraw your proposal? Right now the proposal looks awefully spurious, and given your history with Avanu perhaps it looks even worse. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by Avanu - Sarek, if you think I was saying the Rescue tag *isn't* required, then you completely missed the point of what I posted. The thing that myself and other editors have all been trying to get the 4 or so of you to recognize is that we are in favor of Article Rescue, *but* we're not in favor of drive-by tagging. For some reason Sarek, DreamFocus, and a few others feel incredibly threatened by anyone suggesting that the Rescue tag follow its own guidelines. The story I posted last night was an amazing example of an editor doing things right and being about more than just talk. Sarek, I'm not sure if you read any of it or just simply did a knee-jerk reaction, but frankly I was really impressed by the story of how that Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) article was rescued.

Note: I have a feeling that if people look deeper into this Sarek, they're only going to see what we've all been seeing in your conduct and others' conduct, but you brought it here, so, ok. -- Avanu (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Note: I'm posting the diff to my very first discussion on the Rescue Tag Talk page. I notified people that I was making a WP:bold suggestion for change, and the first person to reply to my post was Sarek, where he immediately phrased it in terms of WP:ownership. diff Essentially this has been what the discussion has been about. 2 or 3 Article Rescue Squadron editors who express a strong strong ownership of this template, versus several others who are trying to get them to see that their cause would be much better supported if they weren't being so touchy about following policy and the tag's own guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - As an uninvolved editor, I read the current Template talk:Rescue. While, at first read, I believe Sarek's perspective on the issues raised there is the correct one, the issue raised here seems more like a content dispute. I think both parties are operating in good faith, but the tension on the talk page is a bit too high. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk)

• We have never been in the business of attempting to silence editors who voice strong opinions about our processes, so far as I know. It's not exactly an uncommon opinion that ARS is far from a net positive in its current form, and editors who are part of ARS should accept that the onus is on them to either reform the project to be more universally accepted as productive or to convince its detractors that it's fine as it is. The diffs provided certainly don't warrant a topic ban on the entire process of "article rescue" (a phrase which had never been controversial until ARS started up, by the way). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the justification for a topic ban. I do see an editor who is being tenacious and borderline disruptive. I'd strongly recommend that Avanu take a break from ARS for a while. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• LOL. If we're going to topic ban editors from Article Rescue for having a "low level of logic", that's going to be quite a cull. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Peraonal attack/uncivil behaviour

Editor in question disagreed with changes I made to an article, but when he wrote his reason for reverting my edits; instead of citing WIkipedia guidelines or some other valid reason (ie. the source doesn't say that), he made a personal attack: "revert massive changes by vehement enemy of Jefferson -- to maintain NPOV article please take to talk page and make only incremental changes" [94]. I warned him I would report his behaviour [95]; instead of responding or apologising, he deleted my comment [96].

He claims that editors must discuss changes with him (not a wiki rule). I'm happy to discuss these things, and had already begun to do so, though he ignored my comments, as this section clearly demonstrates [97]. He, in the talk page, provided not one reason for reverting my changes twice: he claims NPOV on my part; he needs to demonstrate it. I have already had to report this editor to the noticeboard for WP:OR & plagiarism [98] when he claimed insisted on posting things that violated policy in the Monroe article. I must assume his refusal to allow my changes in the Jefferson article and his personal attack today are something personal. Be that as it may, why is he allowed to attack me like this, and how can I seriously be expected to engage in conversation with someone who deletes my comments and refuses to communicate? He's very quick to make reverts, but extremely slow to discuss the changes to the article.Ebanony (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony in a few minutes deleted dozens of fully sourced statements that had long been in the article with the statement that some of them were inaccurate. I and other editors insisted that changes be incremental, taken one at a time, with his evidence of inaccuracy stated and discussed. Ebanony has numerous edits here and on related pages [TJ and Slavery] designed to diminish Jefferson's historical stature, that makes him an enemy of Jefferson. ("vehement" yes...Random House Unabridged definition #1 = "zealous; ardent; impassioned: a vehement defense; vehement enthusiasm.") Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits may be problematic, but using a term such a "vehement enemy" is wrong for more than one reason. It is an inference, rather than established fact, and it is a comment about other editor not the edits. Please don't do that, and it will be easier to support you if the edits are problematic.--SPhilbrickT 13:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.Ebanony (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Selfrules

Selfrules (talk · contribs) has made no other edits than to his user page which is now 722k. I will leave a note on his user talk page. I'm not sure what to do, but there is no contribution to the encyclopedia and his user page just takes up space, lots of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say make an MfD nomination. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as G2. It's either pure test code, a web-space scratchpad for homework, or a bizarre SEO attempt. I'd have just deleted it, but might as well give the user a chance to respond. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The page should clearly be deleted, as it is being used as a personal web space, with no indication of any intention of contributing to the encyclopaedia. The only question, in my opinion, is whether to regard it as a speedy deletion candidate or to spend time putting it through MfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both G1 and G2 specifically exclude material in userspace. So by the letter of policy, it has to go through MfD. Still, WP:WEBHOST applies, whether the content is meaningful or not. Perhaps this is a sign that G2 needs to be re-examined. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That name sounded familiar. Why is it that so many new editors I welcome end up being blocked after four edits, or use WP for stuff like this? Am I really cursed? Drmies (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this before; it was due to a disability of some sort of which the name escapes me. It seems like an admin once tried mentoring a user like this before -- even started a subpage at ANI, I believe. It did not end well, or even begin well. If it is in fact some sort of disability, while it is unfortunate for that user, it has never seemed to be beneficial to the project to spend any time trying to help them. As cold as that sounds. Seems like maybe IAR would be appropriate; speedy the userpage, see what reply they have on their talk page (if any), and go from there. --64.85.217.79 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we revdel ebay listings?

Like this one? a_man_alone (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not unless they meet one of the RevDel criteria, no. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Another useful link I've learned. Cheers. a_man_alone (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism or censuring of a cervix image

I loaded File:Cervix2.jpg used in the article Cervix. Its history[99].

• 58.8.233.125 deletes[100] cervix image, no edit summary, no other edit

• 71.231.76.130 deletes image summary[101] and DELETES THE LICENSING[102] from cervix image, no edit summary, no other edit
• Sfan00 IMG notifies[103] me that the cervix image is tagged for deletion because of missing copyright info

I bring this to AN/I because the two IP users above appear to have no other purpose than to censor the image by covert acts. Sfan00 is notified of this post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the IP blanking summary and licensing is clearly wrong to do so. Revert them and move on. Removing the image from the article itself is a content issue. I don't see any vandalism, or any issue for ANI there. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But also, part of this is ancient history (the removal from the article took place in February). Besides, and you're not going to like this, Cuddlyable, but the image is of really poor quality and as such contributes nothing to the article. If anything, it's a (cell phone?) photo of a speculum. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor claims to be article subject's ex-wife

I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to raise this issue but it is such an odd situation that I'm not sure where else would be appropriate. I had done some editing to Stephen Moore (economist) when I saw that User:Strongerone removed the name of his wife. I undid this revision, citing unexplained removal of content. The user posted on my talk page that they are the ex-wife of Stephen Moore and they do not their names or the names of their children in the article. I tried to reason with them, citing WP:V and WP:COI, but to no avail—I have been engaged in a slow-moving edit war with them and an IP (User:173.66.243.145) which I assume is them. What is the appropriate way to handle this situation? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)