Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Geneva2011 claims that his Wikimedia Commons photos (covering that of Vivian Balakrishnan) are his own work

Certain photos he has taken are high-resolution and seem to be taken in an official capacity. Geneva2011 has been especially smart to upload them on commons, where the review process (and even speedy deletion) is much slower and where the user faces less scrutiny. User:Strange Passerby has already started a deletion request on one of them here. The Commons deletion process is one thing, but Geneva2011 insists on reinserting some of his images (or posting new ones) when it is likely he either took them while employed by the government of Singapore, or got them from the government of Singapore without an OTRS ticket.

This is of course, overlooking the fact that the user hasn't declared his conflict of interest by being employed in an official capacity. Evidence to this is the perspectives in which File:VivianBalakrishnan03.jpg and File:VivianBalakrishnan.jpg are taken -- I have commented these out on the Vivian Balakrishnan article. However the user insists the images are his. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Commons is out of scope of the enwp ANI board. Try Commons' own AN. StrPby (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I realise this, but I ask for advice on using these images here, and how aggressive we should be in reverting them or even considering blocks. The ideal outcome is that OTRS tickets get issued and we can use these high-quality images. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

COI should only be an issue if the edits cause problems with the article i.e. NPOV, self promotion, etc. Googled for the image of this event, and don't see any image that matches it. However, I did find this [[1]] which is similar. Press photographer using unpublished photos? In any case, it would be great if Geneva2011 could just give us some indication on how he owns these photos. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, people being paid to edit Wikipedia cannot at all be neutral, since they have been given instructions on how to edit, and undoubtedly that means in the very least, not writing any genuine (beyond token) criticism of their employer. You only need judge this user's edits for yourself. This editor insisted on taking down user-taken free photographs and replacing them with "official" photos, perhaps intentionally to undermine the project. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• You could just as easily argue that people who edit Wikipedia in their free time do so because they have an axe to grind. In some cases this is true, and in some cases it is not.
• Unless there is evidence of wrong-doing, you should assume good faith.
• It is possible that this person is a government employee; or maybe he/she is a press photographer; or maybe he/she is a freelance. You are speculating. We do not know. And if he/she is one of these, why should he/she not upload spare photos instead of deleting them? Why should he/she be compelled to out him/herself?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is policy. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is highly likely that the person is in the employ of the Singaporean government, taken in conjunction with the editing pattern. Furthermore, there is a pattern of suspicious sockpuppetry that I think I will need to ask CheckUser for. There is already evidence of wrongdoing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations after accusations. You seem to have forgotten you have repeatedly abused your tools whenever the edits are not to your liking. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that declaring COI is a guideline, strongly encouraged but not a requirement. Also, under COI is a subheading called defending interests which all parties should really take note of, as I see various degrees of evidence of possible questionable editors from various editors with different views in that and related article especially in the past 2 months, with accusations of vested interests thrown all over the place. That is the big problem here, the picture is just a symptom.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, we don't forbid COI editing, we don't even forbid paid editing (though people have tried). If the editor is abusing an alternate account (through deception or block evasion) or otherwise being disruptive then that needs attention. We also strongly encourage that someone with a COI disclose their affiliation for everyone's benefit (other editors know who they're dealing with, and the person with a COI should be trusted more) but we don't mandate that.

For the IP, don't make accusations of the abuse of tools or other accusations unless you're willing to provide evidence (and preferably it should be relevant to the current discussion). -- Atama頭 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[The abuse happened on the same page]. Whenever I make edits, I would be accused of violating copyrights, of being from government, and that i am a sockpuppet. Page would be protected to prevent IPs from editing and La_goutte_de_pluie can edit to her liking even when there's a dispute over information to be added. Each time I asked for new information to be added in, she would act stupid and ask me to do it myself. I am asking you, what's the point of giving La_goutte_de_pluie such rights when she keeps abusing them? Why was no action taken against her? from the above anon IP user218.186.16.247 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, that has no relevance to the discussion here. If you believe an editor is incorrect, you can disagree with them and explain why you believe that your view is correct. Slinging mud about their own actions is hardly helpful to this discussion. You seem to be aware of the conversations that are already taking place, and you can voice your opinion there. I certainly hope you haven't chosen to track edits so you can point out mistakes someone may have made whenever they choose to get involved in a discussion. I am certainly not saying you are, just that such behavior would be less than constructive. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 21:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? All the issues she has a problem with revolves around the same few politician pages. I don't think i hide my opinion about how things are going on around here. I questioned her behaviour and got blocked. There is no need for me to track edits as this has been going on for 2 months and User talk:La_goutte_de_pluie's behaviour is still the same. She's always throwing accusations on people whenever they edit the pages she's "GUARDING". I have also asked for information to be added [here] but was told to do it myself even when page is clearly semi-protected. Is that how an admin/editor behaves? And what's wrong with adding useful information? She seems unhappy about it when it's her own idea to add old posts on other pages and just wants to focus on building up a certain portion where she got an agenda. from the above anon IP user202.156.13.238 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that protected the page. I have nothing against adding more (reasonably sourced) information. I'm not guarding anything. I have something called a "watchlist". I have 3300 pages on it. Cheers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, IP user, none of that has anything to do with what, if anything, to do about these photos. No one has accused you of hiding your opinion. My point was that your opinion of, and allegations against, La_goutte_de_pluie have nothing to do with this discussion. There are numerous places for you to lodge your complaint, and this board may be one of them, but it is inappropriate in the context of this discussion. You may have valid or invalid points about her behavior. I don't know; I haven't looked into them because they do not belong in this discussion. Whether or not she has used similar tactics is inapposite. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

UTC)

The point is that La_goutte_de_pluie has lodged a malicious and facetious complaint, and there is obvious evidence of her bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.143.39.4 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:David r from meth productions

As I understand it, this semi-regular user has been involved in adding negative information to articles about journalists involved in spats with Johann Hari (that they were alcoholics and anti-Semites and so on) and in fluffing the article of Hari and some of his friends. The account was at one time found to be using an IP at the The Independent, Mr. Hari's paper. It was claimed that the account was a Hari acquaintance at The Independent. Hari was suspended for 2 months today because of concerns about all this and because of accusations of plagiarism (which The Indy appears to take slightly more seriously -- slightly -- than Wikipedia). There was a discussion of this at the COI noticeboard that petered out inconclusively [2]. I propose at minimum a topic ban from all journalism and political articles, broadly construed, but really an indef block for this kind of behavior is the right course of action. Guardian article on the suspension [3]. Influential Brit blogger on the allegations related to Wikipedia [4]. The Spectator's Nick Cohen (one of Hari's "opponents") on all this [5]. He hasn't edited lately, but his pattern has been long pauses and bursts of activity all along.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You want to do a pre-emptive topic ban or block? This is nonsense. As you say, "He hasn't edited lately". From WP:BLOCK:

Blocks should not be used ... where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

The same goes for any other sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right? He's been vandalizing BLPs inserting unsourced claims that his real world antagonists are anti-Semites and so on and puffing up his own work, and there's no sanction necessary? That would strike me as preventative of further abuse. How is any of this "preemptive?" It appears this account has been quietly editing with an agenda to defame other people for years here (years in which 2-3 months pauses in editing have been quite common). This should be left open for further discussion. The account has done harm and caused real world distress (if the comments of the targets are accepted at face value) and "nothing to see here, move along" as the first response to my post strikes me as both irresponsible and callous.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been significant recent press coverage alleging that this editor has committed BLP violations of a serious nature, in connection with articles involving rivals. I have not investigated these allegations in any detail, at least not yet, and Toddst1 is quite right that David r has not edited in awhile, but I do not think we can afford to be so instantly dismissive of the concern that has been raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The COI thread seems to have been edited by an IP address from the same ISP used by David R (though it's a big range); this IP address seemed to argue that any talk of sanctions against David R should be put on ice. Other IPs from the same telco seem to have been active, at times, on the same cluster of UK journalist articles. For instance, consider [6] [7] [8] - I expect there are more like that. So, if there's an investigation, it should not be limited to the activities of the David R account alone. bobrayner (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I respect Toddst1, but have removed the resolved tag for now - this is a fairly high-profile issue and I think it's worth waiting at least a few hours for input from others (not many people in the UK are awake right now), whether it's about external coverage, or activity by other accounts/IPs, or indeed something about David r himself.

Also, since that account has been intermittently active, in the same areas, for several years (and IP addresses before the account started) I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the problem has gone away just because that account hasn't edited recently. Sooner or later, the same person can be expected to return to similar articles, with or without this particular account. bobrayner (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This person should be community-banned, if for no other reason than that the lack of such a formal signal of disapproval by the community would bring the project into disrepute. Also because of the possibility that he might try to come back. Banning him now is preventative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This user has been violating BLP in a slow, but persistent manner for over two years now. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Courcelles 06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call; I've been digging into this editors contributions and there are multiple issues (mostly now all resolved) relating to serious libel on BLP articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree also, good call. But I would also like to second the call above for a full community ban. This is the kind of thing that puts the whole project in disrepute. There are no valid excuses for their behavior. And as bobrayner noted above, gaps in their editing are part of their pattern and sooner or later, the same person can be expected to return to similar articles, with or without this particular account. A community ban would allow the immediately blocking of any new accounts and immediate reversion of any edits. This would be a preventative measure to protect the project. Heiro 19:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Additional concerns about other accounts & IPs have been raised here and here. A couple of people above have already suggested that a community ban would be appropriate. So: I propose that the person behind the User:David r from meth productions account is community-banned due to concerns about long-term BLP problems, apparent socking, and/or pov-pushing.

• Support as proposer. bobrayner (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support clearly a longstanding problem with COI and BLP violations, possibly abusive sockpuppetry. No evidence this editor has any intention of contributing productively and has damaged the project. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd prefer if the editor was around to speak for himself, but I think the editor's actions already speak for themselves. This person has caused more damage to Wikipedia than the most annoying vandals and sockmasters I've dealt with, even bringing Wikipedia into disrepute in the media through his actions. -- Atama頭 16:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian solutions - I strongly suspect that the user is a tad unlikely to draw attention to himself in the future by making improper edits, for sure. The horse went out of the barn, and locking the door is a teeny beit futile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Brings the project into disrepute and has been editing abusively for years, apparently. Night Ranger (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - For reasons already given: up with this sort of thing we should not put. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - there's not much worse than BLP libel, and this has been going on for far too long. --NellieBly (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as noted above. Heiro 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose If his harmful edits only involve any article that has something to do with Johann Hari wouldn't a topic ban be more appropriate?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. With the hope that people will remain vigilant re suspicious IP and possible sock edits to articles this guy has targeted in the past. We simply can't tolerate this kind of behavior.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor could be topic banned, but community ban is way too strong for him.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Topic Ban Proposal

Instead of an outright ban since it appears that he is only making harmful edits that either involve journalism or biographies. I'm instead proposing that he is topic banned from all articles covered under WikiProject Journalism, and articles cover under WikiProject Biography

• Support as the proposer.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support as more measured and rational. Collect (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Indirect personal attack

No action needed. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – blocked for disruptive editing / NPA (not the first block for this issue) Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Unresolving it. This block has no merit IMO. Please discuss below. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC). So at this discussion, Dekkappai (talk · contribs) tossed off this rant: “ If I might be permitted a minor digression by way of illustration of the problem articles on non-notable subjects like this pose Wikipedia: Not long ago I had to start articles on several Rimsky-Korsakov operas. Now, I don't need to tell you, Rimsky-Korsakov's operas are the crowning achievement of the oeuvre of this Russian master, yet we had no articles on them until I started these pathetic stubs. What did we have instead? Articles on these fucking country clowns! It makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. No, gentlemen. We should all be working towards improving Wikipedia's reputation, not dragging it down into the mud and the gutter with some whiskey-soaked shit-kickers singing about beating their wives and they're so lonesome since their dogs ran away, and oh, how great the U.S. of A is, and all that drivel. I realise this is the project for the deletion of images, but someone really should bring this problem to the attention of the appropriate project for the deletion of articles. For the good of Wikipedia, please delete this aural excrement. They're all potential BLP violations anyway. ” I think that this is a stealth attack at editors such as I who are into country music, making baseless stereotypes like "dogs ran away" and referring to the genre's singers as "fucking country clowns" and "aural excrement" — the whole thing reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, since he's just bitching about how he hates country and derailing an overall decent thread. Looking at the posts on his talk page, he also got yelled at two other times for WP:POINT attacks — including another filibuster at this AFD where he tells other editors ("We welcome you with open arms if you come here looking for articles on some things, but not this. Why? Because we like some things, but not others. If you boo-hoo that Wikipedia is "not censored", we are forced by policy to agree. But we do have Notability and other guidelines which allow us to remove things we don't like. You got a problem with that? FLIP OFF!") He has also ranted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paula_Rosenthal, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pinky_(pornographic_actress) and elsewhere — literally nothing but ranting at AFD and fora since April at least. He's clearly got an axe to grind, and someone should put an end to his detrimental editing and ranting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comment I was drawn to this entry by the amusing rant quoted above. Dekkapai obviously has behavioural problems but I didn't find any evidence that his/her incivility is directed at anyone in particular in the discussions linked above. It seems that s/he has problems with Wikipedia in general and uses these discussions to vent them out. Maybe an admin might consider topic banning Dekkapai from XFDs since s/he has already been warned about this pattern of incivility some 20 days ago and again some 10 days later? Timbouctou (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC) So long as the rants aren't having a negative effect on the discussions (by derailing them, or dissuading people from contributing) then they're mostly harmless. This one was quite rightly redacted on the talk page in question because, well, it's no less offensive to use negative stereotypes of country music artists in our discussions than it is to use any other negative stereotype. If that keeps happening we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Still, seems to be a lot of drama surrounding someone who supposedly is semi-retired. However, my answer to all such rants is the same. The answer to this problem is to let the fanboys have their "cruft" (as long as it's "verifiable" cruft) and go write more "useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Hmm, it strikes me as slightly ironic for an apparent opera lover to be criticizing the words of country songs for their banality - I wonder if he's ever listened to the actual words of any operas? (I remember one I once saw had a segment of 10 minutes or so of lots of people singing about what a fine hat someone was wearing) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) If there were a strict separation between "cruft" and "useful stuff" then so be it, but it's often not that clear. It would be nice if we treated The Lord of the Rings as a seminal fictional work and concentrated on its tremendous impact on the fantasy genre, rather than on whether or not there really were Elves at the Battle of Helm's Deep, for instance. Cruftism colours one's view of what we should be about, and can taint articles on pretty much any subject if left unchecked. As for {{semi-retired}}, nothing screams "came for the content, stayed for the dramaz" more loudly in my experience. But still, unless this is actively interfering with XfD (and it would need to be cranked up with a few notches to do so) then there's nothing to do here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Well, we could always move {{retired}} to {{storm-off-in-a-huff}} and {{semi-retired}} to {{storm-off-in-a-huff-but-stand-at-the-sidewalk-and-scream}}. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Dekkappai's a disgruntled editor who's been riding the same hobbyhorse for at least four years; he doesn't accept WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NFCC, and reacted rather strongly when discussions involving his favorite subjects, pornography and erotica, especially involving the Japanese industry, turned against him. He used to cry censorship at the drop of a hat[9], but that wore out its welcome, and he became quite incensed over an extended dispute (involving me) over whether advertising copy from a porn vendor's website was a reliable source for a BLP. After a few blocks for incivility, and attempts to provoke more[10], he's "semi-retired" to a career of facetiously disrupting discussions, especially if I'm involved, as here. I'm sure he'll manage to cross the line into blockability again, but he's mostly trolling to see who he can get to take the bait on any given day. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Dekkappai is just a disgruntled, crappy ex-editor playing court jester. Ha ha. Ignore him. There are no problems here, so there is no reason to ask what went wrong. Let's carry on business as usual. Dekkappai started over 600 articles, not one of which has yet been deleted, greatly improved countless more, including an FA and two GAs, and received 15 Barnstars (including ones from BOTH the Japan and Korea projects, a feat for which he was particularly proud). This is a rather remarkable record for someone who totally rejects all Wikipedia policies regarding articles, as Hullaballoo claims above, wouldn't you say? Because Dekkappai did a lot of work in a very difficult subject area, one against which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is biased, his work was targeted for destruction, and edit-warred, with the tacit approval of the community. (Reality check: As the article on Pink film indicates-- an article almost entirely written by Dekkappai, by the way-- this genre is in no way equivalent to US porn. Sōjirō Motoki, producer of Seven Samurai had a long career in Pink. Yōjirō Takita, winner of the US Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, had a long career in Pink. Kinema Jumpo’s Top 100 (+18) Japanese Movies of All Time includes several Pink / Roman Porno titles: #31: Ichijo Sayuri: Wet Desire, #39: A Woman with Red Hair, #61: Angel Guts: Red Classroom, #69: Twisted Path of Youth, etc.) Hullaballoo has heard and scoffed at this a hundred times, of course, but denies it because he is biased against the subject. Now that he is attempting a run at adminship he has started a few stub articles, for the first time in his career at Wikipedia. What does he start? Stubs on obscure U.S. science-fiction collections, sourced to open Wikis and databases, whose only claim to notability is a passing mention in sci-fi magazine reviews. Yet he has repeatedly edit-warred out better-sourced information, and attempted to delete much-better sourced articles on Japanese films, with a much better claim to notability. So, Dekkappai finally realized it was pointless to continue contributing here, when rules can be applied in a biased manner by biased editors with impunity, as long as they appear to be doing the "right thing". I can name other formerly-productive editors who can say the same thing. Hey, has anyone nominated Hullaballoo for Admin yet? He'll certainly get my vote-- since being driven off this this project I've had a great time contributing sourced content elsewhere, while having a lot of fun looking in at the ass-grabbing nonsense going on here-- at boards like this one where Admins sit around watching good contributors driven by officious do-nothings, while tut-tutting, "civility", "NPA", etc. A big thank you to all incompetents, and all the Hullaballoo at Wikipedia! Have a nice day! Dekkappai (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Obvious troll is obvious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) As a personal observation, I won't be sorry to see the end of contributions under a username that means "huuuge breasts!" in Japanese. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC) He still won't give up. Someone block him already. All he's doing is trolling and insulting. See his edit history. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Bumping so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Please discuss Toddst's block of Dekkappai below. What on earth? I have removed the collapsing of this so-called "troll"'s reply. Is it sarky? Yes. But it is not trolling. It seems heartfelt to me. It isn't dekkappai who comes off worst to an uninvolved observer. Egg Centric 20:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Toddst1 notified ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Unblock. Blocked for a week? Agree entirely with EggCentric. I'm against this block, and I also note that Toddst1 doesn't need to make his reputation for trigger-happiness any worse than it already is. It's getting pretty close to RFC/admin time for you, Toddst. The discussion on this board does not justify the block reason you give ("WP:NPA per discussion on ANI") — unless you're talking about his adversary TPH's bloodthirstily explicit requests for a block? "Someone should put an end to his detrimental editing", "Someone block him already." ANI admins are not in the business of expediting such demands. Editors are allowed to communicate what they think (provided they don't insult people), and TPH's notion of indirect personal attacks is mere flap-doodle. ("Obvious troll is obvious", by contrast, is a personal attack.) For my part I find Dekkappai's "amusing rant" less offensive than the sour formalistic alphabet-soup post with which TPH introduces this thread. WP:POINT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT… all the dull wiki-clichès. I would like to propose a vote of thanks to Dekkappai for, whatever else he does, not citing these everlastingly quoted guidelines. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC). P.S. I correct myself. Toddst1 was getting close to RFC/admin a while back. I haven't been keeping tabs on him; nobody would be better pleased, or more apologetic, than I if he has mended his ways recently. I wish this block looked more like it, though. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC). I agree that this was an over-reaction. His comment itself was over the top, but it wasn't trolling. It was stating his position in an overly aggressive way. No matter how emphatically, or even rudely, someone states their position, it does not convert it into an attack on those that disagree. His words are directed solely towards the subjects of the article. Pointing at an essay that says his argument isn't great also doesn't make it a violation of policy. I believe the block should be removed, or at least shortened. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC) This has got to be the most uncalled for/ridiculous block. The posts are (as said above) sarcastic but it's not trolling. Ludicrous - seems to be more about over-protective feelings towards country music!!! DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I think everyone's missing the point. Dekka's done nothing BUT snark and bitch at everyone for the past 2 months. He hasn't touched article space since April, and even then it was to nominate something at AFD. He's clearly not contributing in good faith anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Seems strange to me to do anything with unquestionably talented editors who happen to be disillusioned other than to try to win them back. It's a huge structural problem of course (looking at things most prolific editors from 2006 and before have retired) and no one is expecting anyone to fix wikipedia, but let's work in the right direction, eh? Egg Centric 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. It's impossible to see how a week block was deserved, even after looking at contribs. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I trust that the unblocking admin discussed this with toddst1 first or at least assessed this discussion for some sign of overwhelming consensus against the block. Barring that or a determination that the block was so flagrantly inappropriate as to warrant an immediate reversal I can't understand why they would unblock so quickly. Perhaps we shall find out soon enough. Protonk (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Ignore me. Reading is fundamental. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Todd unblocked the account himself - citing the objections, (here?). Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC) But did he discuss it with himself first? Good unblock, as this block was much too hasty.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I unblocked the user myself based on the surprising reaction here. Surprising because of the WP:POINTy contributions and hostility displayed by this user. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Dekkappai does clearly have issues and is upset with all sorts of historic stuff and seems to occasionally return in a venting manner about it. Unless the user gets over the issue I don't see any improvement in the tea leaves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Possibly. But what was blockable in the current situation? I see some uncivil things being said and one user in particular taking offense and templeting Dekkappai with a "final warning" for NPA. IMO that kind of reaction is always counterproductive. Then after almost zero discussion here an admin blocks. To prevent more snarky comments? I don't get it.Griswaldo (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I have not looked at this specific issue, I am just commenting from memory of the general situation that is behind the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. I just think trigger happy blocking isn't a good thing. The same user who was offended is the same user who gave a "final warning" and is the one person in the discussion above who said "block him already." IMO, admins need to wait for more neutral observations at AN/I before handing out blocks, especially for civility.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, the appearance/actuality of being uninvolved is a primary objective to administrative actions. Dekappi was/is a great contributor and I hope he resolves any issues he has with the projects evolution and returns to constructive contributing, or that he goes off to new projects and enjoys himself in areas he feels happier in. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Keep blocked Reblock As I said, literally 100% of his editing since April has been bitching at other editors just to stir the pot. It's patently obvious he's no longer here to build a project, just create an angry mood. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) You mean "reblock" because he's already been unblocked. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Well you might have had some help shooting yourself in the foot there now that he's been unblocked due to objections. I'm glad to see that hasty action has not been rewarded. If this merited a block more voices were needed. Perhaps if you feel this strongly that it has been an ongoing pattern you need to start an RFC/U on the user. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC) For the past four years, Dekkappai has been rude and aggressive to those who disagree with his inclusionist views on notability. In the past few months he has changed tactics by adding pointy sarcastic comments to AfDs, including indiscriminately pasting the same comment to dozens of Playboy model AfDs. If his behaviour continues, then an RFC would be the next best step, but I expect he'll take this block as a warning. Hopefully, he won't just add "abusive" admin blocks to his things to "rant" about. Epbr123 (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Oh of course, because bitter ex-editors never find cause to complain about the administrators. I doubt that this block has helped, but on the other hand I don't think that Dekkappai is being particularly disruptive (I've seen disruptive inclusionism at AfD and this ain't it). As I said before, unless the level of disruption increases significantly the rants can probably just be ignored until Dekkappai gets bored or starts contributing productively again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Oh hi, Epr123. No, I ranted myself out on abusive admin blocks after the first one-- when I was blocked for restoring my !vote by the Admin who had removed it and had cast an opposing !vote. This latest block was mere child's play compared to that. The "change in tactics" you note in my commentary corresponds to the point at which I finally gave up on this project. (Your constant fiddling with "notability" guidelines in order to keep in just what you want, and exclude just what you don't helped that along of course. Kudos for that.) Now that the dust has settled, I note that my offensive rant quoted at the top was truncated to appear less obviously satirical... (Satirizing veiled "I don't like it" !votes, of course.) I'll have to preserve the complete version in a "Wiki-philosophy" memorabilia collection or something. Kind of a tl;dr version of WP:Wikispeak. I actually laughed out loud while writing it, and was flabbergasted that someone took it serious... Anyway, Best regards, old chum. Dekkappai (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While no action may be needed on the block request, I'm a bit disconcerted by the way so many editors have apparently blithely dismissed Dekkappai's acknowledgment that he's been WP:POINTily disrupting AFDs and related discussions that I've been involved in, simply because he objects to the fact that I've succeeded in developing consensus on points where he disagrees. It's also not helpful to see his usual line of false statements and groundless imputation of motives regarding folks who've prevailed in editing disputes with him let pass without comment here. And for all that he proclaims himself a productive editor, there are many equally productive folks who are on the other side of disputes with him. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You know... "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point"-- I've often wondered... Is it the disruption, or the point which is the offense in WP:POINT? If HW is to be trusted as an impartial observer ;-) and I actually am in violation of POINT here, then it must be the point-- accurate or not-- which is the offence. I could not possibily have disrupted Wikipedia for the past year, since I haven't even edited the encyclopedia in that time. (Oh, I should mention, I consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia project, not a chat-page project-- a minority view, I realize.) During the year I did make one AfD nomination (an article I started: AfD failed), and one PROD (succeeded). The talk-pages at which I've commented thrive on discussion, drama, etc. so if I have created more of that, I certainly could not have disrupted it. And, to be honest, I am pretty pathetic at creating drama... until this recent misunderstanding, no one has even taken much notice of my snarky comments. So we should not have a point to make when we post at these chat pages? Is that HW's position? And is it OK to disrupt Wikipedia without making a point? I'll wonder off and contribute content elsewhere as I ponder this... and listen to some opera... Dekkappai (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editors who commented here, but I hatted this because I believe Dekkappai has the good sense to quit while he's ahead. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure we'll be back here soon enough, and I imagine the result will be different. 28bytes (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with an enthusiastic deletion tagger

Resolved

User:Assassin's Creed is a relatively new editor who has gotten very into deletion tagging - of all sorts: speedy, prod, and AfD - lately. Sometimes he gets it right on the nose; sometimes the articles are deleted but for different reasons, and sometimes they just should not be deleted at all. These deletion tags are often placed within a very few minutes of an article's creation, and may be accompanied by e.g. claims that an article is an autobiography, when there is nothing to suggest that situation. I believe AC is working in good faith, and I and several other editors have tried to educate him on better deletion practices and suggested slowing down, participating in AfD discussions, and following the edits of more experienced editors. (See AC's talk page for evidence of this.) Concern remains about his editing style, however, and in discussion on my talk page, concern has been raised about the effect on other newbie editors of his erroneous tags. I am not sure how to proceed at this point. Would removing Twinkle priviledges to slow down the tag rate be helpful/the next logical step? LadyofShalott 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur that AC may be working a little too quickly. I've picked up on a couple errors. To their credit, the two problems I raised were responded to fairly quickly, and neither were immediately obvious, but in both cases, it didn't take much investigation to see that the situation wasn't as simple as it appeared.--SPhilbrickT 22:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that the user in question seems to have an enthusiasm for achieving a high edit count quickly, and that some of their tagging with Twinkle has indeed confused and upset at least one other new contributor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just put the tags to only illegal articles you can check my tagged articles that, 85% of them are correctly tagged and had been deleted, I think actually I am new patroller and I'll be understand all tagging criteria as time pass. I really try to tag correctly as I see any issue about that article, but I don't know why it happen wrong. Now I have to work slow on it because of this issue, I'll also be experienced one day as you, I think you were also done mistakes first time and many times when you were a new patroller. As above I want a little bit to make quickly edits but it is not an issue for my this work, now what I have to do for this issue.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to blame a system that allows completely new and inexperienced users to patrol pages, and not those who use it in good faith. New Page Patrol is a trainwreck for the very reason that it is open for absolutely anyone to do - ironic when we have the completely useless user right of 'reviewer'. In spite of all our efforts to monitor, gather statistics, and evaluate it, new page patrolling is still mainly a target for very new and inexperienced users. I suggest one final reminder with a request that the editor refrains from patrolling until they have read WP:NPP and WP:DELETE, and WP:CSD. We don't have incremental warning templates for mistagging - we only have notices. I further suggest that if the editor does not make a voluntary break in patrolling, they should be warned that 3 more mistagged CS may result in a topic ban from patrolling articles. I would be quite happy to mentor this user in the use of NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

85% is a pretty horrible success rate, especially for stuff like this. That means of every 20 items you are tagging for deletion, you screw up 3 of them. That's bad. It is likely a symptom of moving to fast and being in a rush. My suggestion is to slow down. By being more careful, and working slower, you can only improve your quality of work. There is no rush to be the first to tag an article for deletion, if you are working at WP:NPP you have hundereds of colleagues who are also working there, so if you miss something there is a high probability someone will pick it up instead. Take your time, make sure you are doing it right, and if people have raised questions about the quality of your work, slow down and do less of that work until your success rate goes up. --Jayron32 02:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be too hard with our criticisms Jay. Please see User talk:Kudpung#Re:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain what parts of my statement were inaccurate? --Jayron32 02:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was inaccurate Jay. I just thought the words 'horrible' , 'screw up', and 'that's bad' were a tad OTT. The rest of your advice was excellent. FWIW the user has now accepted an NPP mentorship programme and agreed to stop tagging in the meanwhile. Please see User talk:Kudpung#Re:. I think this ANI discussion is now resolved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording was a bit strong, but it is worth pointing out to the editor that an 85% rate is not considered close to acceptable. To put it in perspective, I've seen editors run for admin and get into serious hot water with a 98% correct hit rate. Yes, we all make mistakes, but anyone interest in continuing to tag CSDs should understand that the goal should be something better than 98%.--SPhilbrickT 12:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. I hope the mentoring works. LadyofShalott 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - In my view Assassin's Creed's work in tagging to AfD has been highly unsatisfactory. Frequently there have been no reasons for deletion stated and not the slightest indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed. He should be strongly encouraged to slow the hell down and get it right. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above and (see:User talk:Kudpung#Re:), he has agreed to stop tagging. However, there are now new issues concerning his other work. I shall continue to monitor his contribs very closely, and help him as much as I can, but if his disruption continues and becomes intolerable I will be one of the the first to let him know if he is getting close to a block , and consequently block him if it persists. However, I will just add again for those who may have missed it: We need to blame a system that allows completely new and inexperienced users to patrol pages, and not those who use it in good faith. New Page Patrol is a trainwreck for the very reason that it is open for absolutely anyone to do. But that's another discussion taking place elsewhere. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University and WP:COI SPA

Can an administrator please have a look into Lorifredrics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and her WP:COI pushing of a case at the university WP:BLP issues may also apply. Mtking (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The user, Mtking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have an excessively extreme reaction to any noteworthy and well-referenced edits to this article. The matter is being dealt with via the article's Talk page, and should be resolved without further ado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think you should given your conection to the subject (see here) you should be the one adding anthing to the article, you appear to be using WP as some form of mouth piece. Mtking (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as we're discussing Lorifredrics' edits, would you care to explain this one [11], a seemingly unfounded claim which could be taken as a threat of off-wiki harassment? Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see why I should have to be subjected to personal attacks like this from this user: [12] Rangoon11 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Daywalker, so you saw this edit too. There is now evidence that has been gathered -- by whom? (Glenn Mulcaire?) -- of payments made to you -- in fat envelopes, or to one of my numerous Liechtenstein bank accounts? -- for your Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum. (News of the Screws? Weekly World News?) I found it mysterious and exciting, and curiously reminiscent of those messages I get from people with access to large Nigerian funds who require my expertise (and a small up-front administration fee). -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Er... behavioral problems of Lorifredrics aside, doesn't linking that news article present some WP:OUTING issues unless Lori posted it themselves somewhere else that I am missing? I'm not too familiar with that policy, but it seems like it would.. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at it further, I guess that posting the link isn't an outing since she is posting under a real name (I had misread a section of the policy earlier.) Kevin (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having followed the situation of Lori Fredric's husband (Howard) at Kingston University over several years now (via regular reading of the Times Higher Education Supplement), I would suggest that Lori Fredrics is really not the right person to be editing about Kingston. She is not here to edit in the normal mode, she is here with an agenda; her grievances (on behalf of her husband) strike me as quite legitimate, by the way, but it still constitutes bringing an external dispute to Wikipedia. There would be no problem in her participating on the talk page -- but I would strongly suggest that she be given explicit instructions not to edit the article (with specified consequences if she doesn't adhere to this). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I would suggest further that the same stricture be applied to Peter Scott (educationalist). Lori and Howard Fredrics quite clearly loathe Scott and have been waging a bitter campaign against him for years. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that should be the case (see below) Mtking (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Her User Page

I did ask Lorifredrics to make a deceleration of her intrest on her userpage, she has done that here however I think she has gone beyond a simple deceleration and is using it to advance her course, futher advice from an administrator would be helpful here. Mtking (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're apparently trying to use my full disclosure of the context of my associations with Kingston University and Howard Fredrics to attack me, when such disclosures are not supposed to be used for such purposes, according to WP:COI policies. Such disclosures are supposed to be used to establish good faith and should be treated as such. There is a clear disclaimer on my userpage regarding the purpose of this disclosure. Moreover, the disclosure is well referenced and therefore well-supported.--Lorifredrics (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am saying I think you are going beyond a simple deceleration and using it as a soapbox. Mtking (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways -- a full declaration of interest and a page that avoids providing a context.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)A full measure of good faith is appropriate for disclosures, but it's certainly not a blank check. It would obviously be inappropriate for someone to disclose bias on an article's subject by saying something along the lines of "I have a conflict here because I know that X is a murderer." I'm not saying your page is so egregious, but it seems borderline at best. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've simply reported relevant facts on actual events that are well documented through press and government generated reports. Nothing less/nothing more and no intent at making this a soapbox. I've not even mentioned names of individuals found to have committed proven wrongdoing, as determined in government investigations. And I've only referred to the most salient of facts needed to minimally understand the gist of the context.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree as to your characterization of your page as minimal. There's no reason at all to go into attributing blame or wrong acts to disclose that you have a conflict of interest, as shown in the example that the conflict of interest page links to. You could simply state that you and your husband are connected to Kingston University and controversial events that took place there. That is all I would need to know to understand and look out for your conflict of interest. It is not a place to trash the subject of your conflict. See my statement below as to why the "factual" nature of the information is irrelevant. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd strongly suggest someone adding {{NOINDEX}} to the user page since it is essentially publishing content which by consensus has been removed from actual articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to every single page on Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added {{NOINDEX}} -- but perhaps it should be taken further, with deletion at least of the problem bits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth asking the BLP Noticeboard for an opinion, once the page/topic ban proposals are resolved here (one way or another). Otherwise, it ends up as noticeboard overkill. A look at the assertions made by Lorifredrics about Peter Scott on Talk:Peter Scott (educationalist) might also be a good idea. Her latest edit provided a link to a copy of what appears to be a police memo about the case marked at the top "Data Protection Act - Dispose of as confidential waste" (hosted on her husband's web site). I'm not too sure whether that's appropriate even for an article's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Page and Topic Ban

That User:Lorifredrics is page banned from editing both Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt).

• Support as proposer. Mtking (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Oppose" as subject of proposed ban. Clearly this ban is being proposed in response to a full disclosure made in good faith in relation to alleged COI . I have not made further edits on these pages since being asked to take such matters to a Talk page prior to editing. A ban is clearly excessive. --Lorifredrics (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this proposal was made a full 2h 50m before you made your full disclosure. You have also made a number of edits after being asked to take the discussion to the talk page such as this and this, a ban is clearly NOT excessive. Mtking (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Clear conflict of interest, as she's admitted and does not automatically mean a ban. But it seems necessary given concerning behavior. Her only Virtually all of her contributions have been on these topics and she has reverted 4 separate users on these pages, including one where the summary said: "Have taken to talk page, but am leaving article posting due to immediate importance and relatively non-controversial nature of edits." Assuming as much good faith as I can, labeling the addition of material supporting your husband as being of "immediate importance," for me, leaves little room for doubt that you had something other than improving the article in mind when you made the change. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 06:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Her only contributions have been on these topics." -- that is simply false. Please see:Belt (Music) and Trio for Violin, Horn and Piano (Ligeti) as ex's of other topics. Immediate importance referred to the timely relevance of the recent (July 7, 2011) Parliamentary Speech. The nature of the most recent edits were purely factual (e.g. changing 'acquitted' to 'no case to answer,' an important UK legal distinction) and non-analytical in nature (hence non-controversial), relying solely on accounts of events described in reliable sources.--Lorifredrics (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I've corrected my statement. I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand what you mean by immediate importance referring to a recent action. The recent nature of information hardly makes it more important. All information on Wikipedia should be factual, that does not make it non-controversial. Whether or not it is appropriate and neutral to include on a page is a matter of discretion on which consensus must be reached. But my major concern is that you were reverting other editors. Editing articles where you have a conflict is discouraged, but reverting other editors in an area where you have an interest is never appropriate except in the case of vandalism, which was not the case for any of your revisions. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy makes the point clear: "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit." ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support unless the editor voluntarily pledges to restrict herself to proposing and discussing edits on the talk pages for these topics. Three relatively minor edits to other articles are irrelevant, and one of them was really most inappropriate in terms of her edit summary. The edit-warring, coatracking, and attacks on at least two other editors [13], [14], who have opposed her crusade on behalf of her husband are very disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that the user's "attack" on me (if that's what it was) didn't disrupt my activities in the slightest. Indeed, it had considerable amusement value. However, it did waste some of John's time and quite a lot of Mtking's, and this I regret. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, in itself the declaration of a CoI is good. And yes, some people who have conflicts of interest can improve articles. This person's list of contributions provides no such assurance. She'll still be able to suggest edits, and the suggestions can be considered on their merits. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunate Support Making a COI statement is great, but it is not a blank cheque to make wholesale changes/deletions contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and that clearly hold WP:POV. I laud the addition that talkpage additions/suggestions can be made so that someone on the inside can continue to provide valid input. The other benefit is that the editor has other interests on Wikipedia, where they can use a lot of their energies there in order to better our knowledge of the subjects. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The COI statement is more of a political campaign. A real COI statement would be "I used to work here and my husband was involved in a controversy". A period of only being able to use the talk page would be beneficial on both articles. The COI report on another editor, without any evidence at all was the clincher for me --Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support and propose that the ban be extended to the article talk pages too. As can be seen below, Lorifredrics has continued to use the other Wikipedia pages to make unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of an editor. Frankly, given the obvious COI, and her unwillingness to use pages for the intended purpose, I can see no reason to let her make any further comments. Regardless of what happened concerning Kingston University, the abuse of Wikipedia facilities to engage in soapboxing has to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- even with this ANI discussion on-going, LoriFredrics continues to engage in repeated reverts to push her preferred version. Enough already... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - What finally pushed me over to support the topic ban was the violation of 3RR at Peter Scott (educationalist) in the midst of this discussion. -- Atama頭 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, this way her voice can be heard on the talk pages without the need to block for COI edits. Dayewalker (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Access to the talk pages is enough for this editor. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the several conclusive argument already raised, adding text (diff) suggesting that the "rightful registrant" of a domain based on the name "Sir Peter Scott" was the editor's husband (see here) exhibits a COI that cannot reasonably be handled by other editors. I further propose that all links to the website be removed from Wikipedia (see here, namely editor's user page)—such promotional activity is way outside Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. C'mon, after me, let's all have a pile on and to hell with natural justice! Any page/topic ban proposal should say why. This proposal demands Lorifredrics be banned from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott pages -- but doesn't give reasons. Related comments elsewhere on this page are not an inherent component of this proposal, so as evidence has not been presented in this proposal it must fail. Moriori (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is very clear why it has been proposed in the main part of this section. Mtking ^(edits) 09:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given my opinion here in this section which you titled Page and Topic Ban. I have not edited the Kingston University and WP:COI SPA or Her user page or Misuse of the COI noticeboard by User:Lorifredrics sections. In this Page and Topic Ban section there is no evidence given to support your proposal. Any proposal anywhere in Wikipedia should be able to stand by itself. Still, if you think that's fair, pile on. My 2c. Moriori (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a sub-section of the main "Kingston University and WP:COI SPA", so I think you are splitting hairs on this. Mtking ^(edits) 10:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You personally, who have been in conflict with this editor, have proposed that this editor be page/topic banned. Your proposal does not contain a skerrick of reason why. And you think I am splitting hairs. Heaven help Wikipedia. !

If nothing else, a summary will help the closing administrator (something has to be logged at WP:RESTRICT if the ban is confirmed) and anyone else who is giving an opinion here. Mtking, you created the proposal so it would be best if you did so. -- Atama頭 16:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support because Lorifredrics appears to have a serious conflict of interest. She is continuing a feud with the sometime employers of her husband and herself on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of the COI noticeboard by User:Lorifredrics

As can be seen, Lorifredrics has continued to make unsubstantiated attacks on Rangoon11's integrity here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rangoon11. Can I ask an admin to close the COI/N section, redact the allegations, and extend the ban on Lorifredrics to any discussion of other users supposed COI not explicitly backed up by diffs which clearly demonstrate such? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur, I just came to make the same suggestion --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree -- Diffs are not the only way to provide evidence of WP:COI. I believe I have provided enough to justify concern, whether or not others may or may not agree with that concern. Clearly some have, as evidenced in my list of external links and other sources of evidence provided in the COI report.(e.g. her edits in the [redacted] article.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, did Rangoon11 reveal her personal identity on Wikipedia, or declare herself to be the author of that material? If not, that is WP:OUTING and is instantly blockable. I've redacted it for now, the way the ANI board is I felt I should do it right away before I had to revdel 50 edits. -- Atama頭 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, now I see what you linked to, it's a mirror of Wikipedia. You should have just linked to Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section. I don't see why you feel the need to link to a mirror, not Wikipedia itself. Anyway, never mind about the outing, sorry.

No problem. Sorry for using a mirror, but that's what came up in my initial google search on the matter. Most certainly, no outing was intended.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, for Andy, I'm watching the COIN discussion and if it gets out of hand I can close it, but I don't see any reason to at the moment. -- Atama頭 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that the above section is merely a topic ban ... Lori seems to be itching for something more permanent/widespread (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly as she is continuing to edit the Peter Scott page... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. She said she won't edit the page any longer, then edited it later in the day. I don't think a voluntary withdrawal can be trusted, and a topic ban would be necessary if the community does not want her to edit those pages further. -- Atama頭 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit was quite minor and was put before other editors on Talk page, but they did not address the merits of the proposed edits, so sensing no controversy, therefore, I enacted these edits, which were mere factual corrections/additions of references.--Lorifredrics (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And it should be noted that one of the 'references' is to what looks like a copyright violation: an image of an article in the local paper, hosted on the contentious 'www.sirpeterscott.com' website. I will of course remove this link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, you put your proposal on the article talk page, waited 4 minutes, then decided that since nobody had objected yet that it would be okay to add the info. That's not acting in good faith to seek consensus for an edit. Again, you're hurting your credibility here by claiming one thing and doing another, again and again. You also can't say that a ban is unnecessary because you haven't edited either article since concerns were raised, and then proceed to edit (and revert people when they object to the edit). I haven't weighed in on whether to support the proposed topic ban, but you're convincing me that I should. -- Atama頭 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Atama, that is not quite correct. This proposed edit was initially put forth for discussion at 23:53 on July 14. No one bothered to address the elements that I ultimately and more recently enacted/reverted to. --Lorifredrics (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, I have really been trying to assume good faith, but you seem to think we are incapable of actually checking on the things you tell us. To say "they did not address the merits of the proposed edits, so sensing no controversy" is, at the least, misleading, and closer to an outright lie. Three separate editors explicitly disagreed with your proposed edit, and then you did it anyways. You cannot propose a paragraph of text, have it objected to on the whole, and then claim specific parts were non-controversial. To the extent your later comment specifically addressed this issue, you put it there and then waited a little over 2 hours, after other editors had made clear they disagreed with what you wanted to do. As I stated above, quoting from the conflict of interest policy, any objector makes it controversial. But I don't need to quote policy. There is no way you could have reasonable believed this was not controversial. You were also reverting another editor, which is problematic for the same reason I stated above. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mahewa, specific objections to aspects of the paragraph were made. Individual components not objected to were then reverted to by me, since no one had objected to those elements of the paragraph and no one seemed willing to address the substance of the proposed edits, which clearly seem entirely non-controversial. I challenge you to find any controversy in simply including a factual difference -- the issue of 'no case to answer' vs 'acquittal' and the addition of a published reference to fully clarify it. We're really splitting hairs here, and I am beginning to feel that this sort of nitpicky and punitive approach is far disproportionate to issues at hand, and that it borders on editorial harassment. Please try to get a grip on the bigger picture here. If someone has a problem with the CONTENT of my edit, please let me know.--Lorifredrics (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit consisted of 3 things: a link to the WIPO document, a link to a copyright violating article on a page made for the purpose of attacking the person you have a disagreement with, and a change which made the article a little more specific, but wasn't really needed (the page was just as correct as it was, when a judge says there is no case to answer, he directs acquittal of the defendant). In terms of the second part, yes, I have a problem with the content of your edit. While the first and third may seem benign, if you had any desire to act as though you take the concerns on this page seriously at all, you could have just suggested them on the talk page and hoped another editor would agree. There is no reason the edits needed to be made, especially after you said you would no longer edit the page. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

She has also breached WP:3RR while going about it, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lorifredrics reported by Mtking (talk) (Result: ) for dif's. Mtking (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Her apparent response to this is to threaten to report a user who has no more than 2 separate reverts in a 24-hour period. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that if a user has 2 reverts in a 24 hr period, it is reasonable to warn them to avoid a 3rd revert in that time period. If I am mistaken about that practice, I apologize.

--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not mistaken Lori. It's reasonable to warn an editor about edit-warring after 2 reverts. An edit war isn't defined by making more than 3 reverts on an article. And your message was a threat to report if more reverts occurred. I don't think there was anything wrong with the note you left. -- Atama頭 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is substantially less reasonable, unreasonable, I dare say, when those two reversions were of your 3rd and 4th reversions in a 24-hour period on an article you have a conflict of interest in, have agreed to stop editing, and have been undone by two other editors. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 04:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I still wouldn't say it's unreasonable, but the warning is fairly toothless if nothing else. -- Atama頭 16:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Just as an FYI, Lori has agreed to drop the COI allegations against Rangoon11 at WP:COIN and I've closed the discussion there. -- Atama頭 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The charge is that Lorifredrics has continued to make unsubstantiated attacks on Rangoon11's integrity here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rangoon11 and that this is misuse of the COI noticeboard. I'd say instead that she questioned Rangoon11's integrity there. As part of the questioning, she insinuated that Rangoon11 was being paid. That was neither pleasant nor justified, but I don't see that it's necessarily an attack. Also, there's a non-trivial attempt to provide reasons for the questioning. The reasoning didn't convince people, and it doesn't convince me; some of her follow-up comments seem timewasting -- but this does not all add up to "misuse of the COI noticeboard". Let's not indulge in pile-on. ¶ What is a bit alarming is her comment near the end that The issue of paid editing is one that is near and dear to my heart, and I shall continue to remain vigilant in my questioning of those who appear to be paid editors who don't openly acknowledge as much. She doesn't promise to present more convincing evidence for any future claim, and (simply because they're already bored by the thread?) nobody demands that she does so. While her COI-related utterances can be amusing, they have so far been a waste of other editors' time; if she continues to make feebly-backed allegations then she should be blocked as disruptive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Further allegations lacking sufficient evidence, especially against the same person as before, can be considered as personal attacks. I tried to make that clear to Lori. I closed the discussion there because she agreed to no longer push the issue at this time, and discussing Lori's COI at the noticeboard would be useless because it's already being discussed here, and she isn't denying it. -- Atama頭 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that you did and say. And I also agree that this was a poor use of the COI board. I disagree with AndyTheGrump, not you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, my vigilance means that. But that doesn't mean that I intend to make unsubstantiated allegations. As before, I raised genuine and legitimate questions for other editors to comment on, and did not make allegations, even though some may have chosen to interpret them as such. I will be sure to come armed with strong evidence of the sort suggested by Atama when I make actual allegations, you can rest assured. I happen to believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask any questions that come up when one's alarm bells are triggered, whether or not other editors bells are triggered by said warning signs.--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Lorifredrics has once again chosen here [15] to make unsubstantiated allegations of "editing harassment/bullying by some editors". Isn't it high time we told her to take a hike? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No. She prefaces her (rather mild) allegations with "may", "appears", etc. This doesn't mean that I agree with them or even that they're reasonable. I might tell her to put a sock in it. But for us, plural, to tell her to take a hike? No. Topic-ban her from articles (not talk pages), treat her like an adult, argue back where necessary, and be patient. (And yes of course, patience should have its limits. When it breaks, try enforcing a 31-hour vacation.) Who knows, she may even turn into a constructive editor on voice technique, etc. ¶ Or are we so very sensitive to unwarranted allegations? Me, in my time I've been accused of all sorts of things, including serious neurological damage. I shrug or laugh it off. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary here in that even though my patience is running low here, I think that we should give the page/topic ban a chance (maybe with a short trip to the cooler), I would like to think it would have the effect of stopping any article disruption and bring her to the discussion table. That said I fully understand AndyTheGrump's feelings.Mtking (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify. While I can understand why Lorifredrics is keen to expose what she see as an injustice (and very possibly others too - it is less than clear that justice has been done), she seems to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is an appropriate forum to seek a platform for the issues raised. When others have pointed out that this isn't what Wikipedia is for, she has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks - all phrased in such a way that a cursory inspection may give the impression that she is merely asking whether her suspicions might be true. This sort of weasel-wording might (just) stand up in a court of law, but Wikipedia requires (or at least asks for) a higher standard: WP:AGF. To expect other editors to contribute meaningfully in an environment where any dissent it taken as evidence for maybe being a paid agent of (...fill in the blanks...) isn't conducive to cooperative discourse. While Lorifredrics continues to see Wikipedia as a platform to continue her battle against Kingston University, Sir Peter Scott etc, etc, she is likely to run into conflict with Wikipedia policy and standards. On this basis, I suggest that there is actually little to 'discuss', and to continue a dialogue with her might give the false impression that she can 'win' her arguments here. At best (from her perspective) she might get Wikipedia articles to reflect her point of view, but this will achieve nothing much for her cause, and even less for our reputation (such as it is). I honestly think that if she is intent on pursuing the issue, she would be better off doing it elsewhere - and so will we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible threats of violence

Resolved

 – Off-wiki drama, I will watch the page in case of future trouble. Manning (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A somewhatly overzealous user canvassed posts similar to the following: [16]. I told the user I'd post here, in a rational way, what his concerns seem to be revolving around. It appears that the root of the post is that someone may be making threats of violence related to the article of interest, Pearlasia Gamboa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and that those threats might be being reported on off-wiki venues (as the links might be pointing to). I, personally, have no idea what the whole background story is, so I'm tossing it to ANI. Feel free to take it from here. --slakr^\ talk / 03:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The user is alerting us to threats that are being made off-wiki (see here), so they don't concern us directly. As we don't know who is making the threats we can't apply sanctions or take any action. I'll start watching the page in case any on-wiki drama arises. Regardless, it's a very impressive rant - violence, legal threats, invocations to Satan, the works. Manning (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The threats are being made to WP editors who have email accounts posted at WP, so it is not exactly "off Wiki". The threats are by PG, and the Wiki article editing related threats were copied to US Attorney Timothy Lucey in San Fran, and PG responded that they are "metaphorical threats", yet the Swedish press says Bo Stefan Eriksson (the egent of her colleague User:Warriorboy55 aka Kimball Dean Richards of Allied Artists International, actually cut someone's hands into pieces for writing about their crime ring. Claiming a threat of physical violence is metaphorical is part of the crime ring Modus Operandi.

User:Warriorboy55 is also emailing threats to WP editors as email nick BobWashere55 (the name of "the snake" in David Lynch's Mullholand Drive)

Please keep in mind that the identity of the ip is unknown. An unknown person is posing as a living person and making, or linking to threats. On that basis the edits of the ip have been suppressed under the Biographies of living persons policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the IP identity for the posts I restored. He/she has been threatened for editing at WP, and is using a multi-shared remote IP now.

Fred - I'd posted the link to the offensive material above, redact as you see fit. Cheers, Manning (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fred, I'd certinly hope the IP isn't just posing as a living person. - SudoGhost™ 07:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I intend to make lots of edits to Wikipedia and various discussion boards from the afterlife. I would assume they have a WiFi hotspot in whichever place I'm - if not, there's a Starbucks everywhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take this crime ring seriously and stay safe.

Not in Australia - they went bankrupt. There are only a handful of stores left in the country. Manning (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Good thing too (being Australian myself), people can go back to supporting the local cafes where the coffee is ten times better. --Blackmane (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an Italian cafe in Burwood (Sydney) that still only charges $2.00 for a cappuccino. Heaven. Manning (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How does that help me when I'm either knee-deep in excrement in the underworld OR lounging on a cloud playing the harp and need a few minutes to edit WP:BLP's from a WiFi hotspot?

It helps because if you are good, then you get to go to heaven - also known as Australia :) Manning (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You have no idea how many times I get asked about why I moved to the UK when I came from heaven... talk about falling :p. Oh and there's a delightful little cafe just past the Coca cola sign in Kings Cross when you're driving towards Rushcutter's Bay which does its own beans and is open all night. I'm a espresso or long black drinker myself (and don't you evil people read too much into that) so I'll have to pop down that way (since my house in Sydney isn't far from Burwood) when I next return home. =D --188.220.173.91 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

[Redacted: I may not know much, but I think I know a massive WP:BLP violation when I see it.] --Calton | Talk 04:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC) - PPdd (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Darwinek continues to make controversial moves to titles with diacritics

Resolved

 – a whole bunch o' nuthin' going on Manning (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Darwinek is continuing his well established and disruptive pattern of moving biographical articles to titles with diacritics. In the past day alone he has unilaterally moved Petr Vondráček, Katalin Móni, María García (canoer), Emilio Merchán, Éva Kóczián, Gábor Gergely, and Lívia Mossóczy. Darwinek is well aware that such POV moves are controversial, and that holding a discussion per WP:RM prior to such moves is required. Darwinek has been warned to stop making such moves without discussion [17], and has been the subject of the subject of previous ANI discussions on this issue.[18] [19] A page move ban should be implemented as it is clear that Darwinek is not able to control himself. Dolovis (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Question: What is POV about these page moves? NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. How does this violate NPOV? - SudoGhost™ 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, why are you accusing an established editor like Darwinek of POV edting? Secondly, both WP:ANI threads that you link to were initiated by you. Also, the diacritics subject is highly controversial, meaning that there is no real agreements with regards to diacritics. HeyMid (contribs) 07:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: When you say he was warned, you should be clear that he was warned... by you. When you say there have been two previous AN/I discussions about him, you should be clear that you have initiated two AN/I discussions about him... and both of them were archived with no action. Given that you were just banned from pages moves of this nature, this report seems like an attempt to end-run around that by preventing "the other side" from making the sorts of page moves you are no longer allowed to do. Frankly, there have been way too many noticeboard discussions involving you and diacritics, and I think you and the project would be much better served if you just forgot about diacritics entirely and moved onto another area of interest. 28bytes (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, you are the only one who brought me here repeatedly. Your ANI reports, on the other hand, were initiated by multiple different users. As for the "case", which you have raised. Several mentioned articles (Merchán, García) already included references with relevant names. For the other ones, I have provided references afterwards. I would like to mention that User:Miller17CU94, editor who created several of aforementioned articles, gave me a barnstar in 2009 for exactly the same thing you are accusing me of. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add, that User:Dolovis had initiated a libellous sockpuppet investigation against my person, and it seems to me, that his ANI reports are a part of continuing offensive campaign against my person. - Darwinek (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To avoid sounding like you are making a legal threat, you may want to simply call it incorrect, rather than labeling it libelous. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. It's best to avoid using cartooneyisms like "libellous" when discussing the actions of other editors. Even "my person" sounds a little "cartooneyish". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman - there is tremendous truthiness to your words. Manning (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In wiki-correct political language then, how about we address the wikistalking that Dolovis seems to be engaged in, targeting Darwinek? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the page move ban was just earlier today (the 15th, I haven't gone to bed yet), I think? This is definitely a case of trying to prevent "the other side" from making page moves he disagrees with. Nothing less. Maybe more; it might even be wikistalking, which if I recall is a Wikiquette issue. CycloneGU (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I note the SPI was closed as "inconclusive". Absent a confirmation of sockpuppetry, I have to assume good faith. Good faith, however, doesn't extend to excusing WP:FORUMSHOPPING, which is what that SPI filing feels like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Twinkle abuse ('cause I made him mad) can someone have a quiet word please?

Resolved

 – sorted itself out Manning (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So, my obvious talent for pissing people off without meaning to do so strikes again.

Hm2k (talk · contribs · logs · block log) clearly has his back up, first edit warring over a section heading in an AfD, first revert, second revert. In my ham-fisted way I suggested this was sub-optimal. (When I'm too formal, they get mad, when I'm informal, they get mad. Seriously, I need a cluebat.) He's reverted me once with twinkle and the "vandalism" edit summary, and (ham fists again) reverted my suggestion that that too was sub-optimal with a second "vandalism" edit summary. Can someone who can speak to humans please explain why this is not good, and give me a kick to the head for not knowing when to leave well enough alone, please? This is a small, stupid thing that my involvement with has not made any better. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And I've obviously not notified the user of this note, since even I know where I'm not welcome. Eventually. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

He used Twinkle to remove comments you left on his talk page - that's his right so there really isn't much we can do/say about it. Of course, his labelling your comment as "vandalism" was a bit OTT, but that's hardly actionable. Are you sure that it wouldn't be easier to just let this go? Manning (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just over the top, things like wrongful edit summaries end up in arbitration. I don't want wailing and gnashing of teeth, I just want someone who can actually communicate with him to explain why he shouldn't be doing it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, mark as resolved, this appeared to have been all the communication required, he's now stopped using the word vandalism when reverting. Going to bed now. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, I hit rollback instead of the contrib button when I looked at the history log. I'm not exactly helping matters either. Bedtime for me too I think. Manning (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, since the recent Twinkle rewrite, it is no longer technically possible to remove access short of blocking the user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that intentional? That seems more like a bug than a feature. 28bytes (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The feature was apparently left out of the rewrite per the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#New Twinkle blacklist proposal. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

...and BTW, I have finally notified User:Hm2k of this thread

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A note on section headings in AFDs

I know this thread has been marked as closed but Hm2k was spot on about section headings in AFDs. They really clutter and messs up the view of the log page they are transcluded on. I would rather that section headings not be used at all but if one must use them they should be limited to ==== H4 headings ====. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User changing athletes' heights without sourcing

124.182.10.125 (talk · contribs) is going around changing the heights of a large number of athletes without any sources for the changes. I asked them once to please stop without providing a source for the change, but they continue. The rest of their edits do seem reasonable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Problem is always (often) that unverified information is changed without verification or explanation. Still, possession is 9/10 of the law. I reverted one or two of their edits and left a templated warning, which may, possibly, make more of an impression. I don't think there's much we can do right now--while that "changing height" thing pops up in Recent changes, I don't think there's a consensus that such unverified changes constitute vandalism, for instance, or even disruption. I'd love to hear what the various sports project editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the blocking. Making repeated unsourced changes to personal statistics (DOB, height etc) in BLPs after the relevant policies have been clearly pointed out to an editor is disruptive and blockable if it continues. If the changes are unsourced, challenged, and continue without discussion or explanation, they are disruptive. That being said, the IP has not edited in hours. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of athletes, where a ton of articles lack appropriate, complete, or reliable sourcing, it's hard to argue that a BLP violation occurs if the previous information was just as unverified as the new information. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The majority of athlete articles include at least a link to the player's online profile which can (and should) be checked to confirm whether the editor's changes are valid. I would never block an account for making stat changes in sports articles without checking to see if the changes matched the official profile (and usually a quick Google check is sufficient when the article lacks a source). In the situation I mentioned above (unsourced, repeated, and contested stat changes with zero communication after multiple requests) then a block for disruption would be appropriate. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not a BLP violation to change information without a source that didn't have a source in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. It would be like one person vandalizing an article by saying "Jenny is a slut", then someone else comes along and changes it to say "Jenny is a whore". Both editors are equally culpable, and if for some reason the first edit slips under the radar and isn't removed, that doesn't give a license for the second one. I'll concede that changing unsourced info isn't quite as troubling as introducing unsourced info from scratch, but I think it's dangerous to completely give people a pass on it. This is especially true when an editor is doing this in a widespread fashion, to numerous BLPs, and continuing after being asked to stop. -- Atama頭 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Atama. This sort of thing goes on all over the place. I'm coming round to the view that if anyone materially alters any existing information in an article, they must have got the new information from *somewhere*, and at this stage in Wikipedia's life there's no reason not to politely ask them what their source is. Anyone contributing in good faith would be only too happy to respond, so if there's no response in a reasonable time then undoing the edit is the logical step to take - with warnings etc. to follow if necessary. —SMALLJIM  21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I always revert, automatically and instantly, when an IP changes a number without using an edit summary. Other types of changes I examine, but those changes I simply revert. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• In cases like this, it's usually best to notify the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce so that we can keep an eye on the user and do checks on whether their edits are correct. It's why the taskforce was created in the first place, to deal with changes of height info, game stats, dates, and the like. Silverseren^C 03:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• One main problem with this is that athlete heights can be different in different sources. Let me give an example: Steven Stamkos. One source (which appears to be 2006-07) lists him as 5'11". Another lists him as 6'1" (two others, including the Sting profile for him from when he was in the OHL, match this). Yet another - this time a video, probably from around NHL draft time - lists him as 6'. The weight also varies between the sources (though again the three from the second case match the weight exactly). Since some sites will not update their information about a player who may have left their league, outdated information is out there. Maybe it's the correct info; a quick search of "PLAYER NAME player profile" turns up multiple results (depending on the player name) and they can be checked for when they were updated, and so on. For instance, the most updated information on Stamkos: 6'1", 196 lbs. What's in the article? 188 lbs. and unsourced. CycloneGU (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Now they're changing the heights of actors. I've issued a blp4 warning. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When someone changes a height, a date or other random statistic in an article, which has been stable for a while, it is appropriate to revert and ask the editor to provide a source, even if the information was previously unsourced. "The new number might be correct" is not a valid reason to allow an unsourced and uncommented change to stand. It is too often subtle vandalism, and is far more damaging to the project than blatant vandalism. If the someone is unhappy that some number is unsourced, he can tag it as needing a reference. Edison (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A user is posting spam in talk pages of others, possibly a malware link!

Resolved

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the user User talk:Ahmad4d is posting messages to random users asking them to translate an "article" to some language. The link he posts is obviously not a wikipedia page, nor does it have anything to do with any sister projects. Please review this immediately! Sentient Planet (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of any malware at the link. What he's doing is spammy and perhaps not appropriate, but it looks like he might genuinely be wanting people to help him with translations - there's already English and Arabic at the site -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I know we should assume good faith, but he (or it? possibly a bot?) acted very suspiciously. Sentient Planet (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked indefinitely. He's trying to get people to do translations for his website as B!sZ says. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the block at first, but now I think that Ironholds made the right decision. We don't want people to come to Wikipedia and randomly solicit them for off-wiki assistance (and it would have to be done off-wiki to avoid copyvios). Whatever the intention, this is spam. -- Atama頭 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

vandal users

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.

whoop, whoop, whoop, *whack*. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) take a look of this user's contribs please, acting vandal tacticks. Being Greeks from all over the places, doesnt mean nothing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebetiko&action=history --94.69.234.5 (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG. (The IP, not FPaS of course.) -- Atama頭 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Disappearance of File:Lowell milken.jpg

I'm trying to find out what happened to the image File:Lowell milken.jpg. It is used in the article Lowell Milken and was valid at least through June 15th. It's gone now, and I'm not finding an entry in the deletion log for it. The article currently shows a "200px" redlink for the image.

The history at Lowell Milken shows Commons Delinker bot working with that image.[20] So presumably it was transwikied to Commons. From the Commons Delinker message, someone may have replaced it with another image with different capitalization, but I can't find that image either. Commons claims to have a page by that name [21], but if you actually try to reference it there, there's no such page.

I didn't upload this image, although I've edited that article. A new editor uploaded it, was going through the ORTS ticket system to justify its ownership, and was trying to figure out the proper procedures. See Talk:Lowell Milken#Photograph. I suspect that somehow, too many routine actions resulted in a loss of the image. But why isn't it in the deletion log? --John Nagle (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On Commons deletion log, it seems to have been deleted as a scaled down or duplicate of File:Lowell Milken.jpg, which itself has been deleted on Commons as Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons (OTRS) - provided I'm reading this correctly!--Kateshortforbob _talk 20:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a rejected ticket, or what? Did someone contact the uploader? The uploader is, by their own admission, Lowell Milken's "web coordinator", and after some previous edit problems with overpromotion, has been very careful to obey Wikipedia rules. The image was taken by a professional photographer, and they were in the process of buying all necessary rights and reporting that through ORTS.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably have to take this up with the deleting admin on Commons. Nothing we can do about it from here. Since the admin referred to OTRS in the deletion log, I assume they are the one who processed the ticket and discussed it with the uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki (email) legal threat

I have received an off-wiki legal threat in an email from a user; the threat is against a third user whom xe is having a dispute. The relevant quote is, "What I can assure you is this, I have made copies of the screens and ongoing acts by <username redacted> will simply be sent to my attorney. I personally have better things to do with my life than to be cyber attacked and threaten with arbitrary and capricious standards." I am unclear how I can proceed; the LT should result in an immediate block, but I'm not sure that I can send/post the e-mail per privacy issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When I think about it more, I guess that technically WP:NLT doesn't apply, since the user didn't actually attempt to "chill" discussions, since it was made strictly off-wiki, unless the user also sent the same email to the third user as they sent to me. Still, this does seem like a problem that should be dealt with. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be actionable, as threatening you with a lawsuit anywhere still chills discussion. (Why'd you want to discuss it if you might be sued?) However, if I were the blocking admin, I'd probably ask for some proof in private of the email in question, to prevent a block solely on word-of-mouth.

This is all just me speculating, of course. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I'm not the one being threatened with a lawsuit, it's a third editor. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm next on the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's off-wiki I'm not sure what you expect an admin to do about it. Admins have no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

NLT states: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing". The legal threats in question need not be on Wikipedia itself, so long as the dispute is related to Wikipedia. We've blocked for off-wiki activities plenty of times, in particular harrassment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you like to fwd the email on to me. As thumperward says, it is probably something we would block for. I do not think there is a privacy issue here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a bit of an over-reaction, and I'd like to make sure it doesn't jump up and bite us. "I'm going to contact my attorney" sounds like bluster, but I don't view it as a legal threat. "I'm going to sue" does qualify, but that isn't what was said. Access to legal counsel is an important right; suggesting that someone can be blocked simply for contacting an attorney might be construed as an unreasonable threat by us. I don't have a problem with the notion that we block is someone actually takes a legal threat, the theory being that the legal remedies should be pursued but not on wiki, however, I think we should take at face value that a statement about contacting an attorney is an attempt to determine if there is a need to pursue a legal course, not the start of a legal course. I really think it is bluster, and I'll bet that any decent attorney will respond that the editor has nothing actionable, but absent an actual intent to start legal proceed sings, I'd prefer not to inadvertently provide fuel to a fire by blocking for merely indicating an intention to talk to an attorney.

I'll go further. An indication that someone plans to talk to an attorney should receive a response like "Please do, they are likely to let you know that this isn't a legal matter. In the case that they do tell you there is an actionable claim, and you choose to pursue it, then it must be done off-wiki. Let us know if you plan to pursue a legal action, in which case you will be blocked per policy so that the resolution can continue off-wiki."--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't immediately explain the consequences of what would happen if such a pursuit is made (otherwise he'll obviously say he's not pursuing anything and could be hiding behind the truth). I'd indicate that if it is stated that he is pursuing legal matters. Also, regarding the jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia comment: it IS within Wikipedia. It was done using Wikipedia e-mail functions sent to an e-mail address of a registered user on Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Everyone has the right to consult a lawyer if they believe they have the need to, but no one has the right to tell others they are doing so, and continue to edit here, since the only possible purpose in doing so is to attempt to gain some sort of advantage over another editor, typically in some kind of dispute. We just don't allow it, it's a fairly bright-line offense. Talk to a lawyer if one must, but don't broadcast the fact on-wiki (or thru-wiki), because a block will be forthcoming (or should be). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removal of tags

We have a user here, Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs), who has taken the liberty of quoting 9th and 10th century primary works and presenting his own WP:OR as undisputed facts in articles on early Islam (around 80 articles under Category:Battles of Muhammad). While the OR tag could be used, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Hadith also suggests using the Template:hadith authenticity tag on such articles:

"Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity."

which I did and explained in the edit summary and this article's talk page. Misconceptions2 responded by removing the tag twice (here and here) without any sort of agreement, claiming that it's not a WP policy and claimed that those primary sources have not been verified. We actually do have many works on verifying the works he cited, but consider what he's saying: that because we don't have any verification of those events , then let's just assume they did occur and present them as facts, because, they were never verified !

Given his history of getting blocked for edit-warring, systematic bias and misrepresentation of sources in Islamic articles which got him banned multiple times (one of which was indefinite) and given my recent experience with him (here and here where he repeatedly removed POV and OR tags I added (here, here, here)), I urge the admins to do more than just saying "sort it on the talk page". I've been creating talk pages and raising my concerns there, but Misconceptions2 doesn't seem to respect that.

Note: those primary works narrate events that allegedly occured at the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions; each single event is reported with its chain of narration (the men who transmitted the reports) which is later used by hadith scholars to assess the reliability of the report (authentic, sound, fabricated or weak). In summary, Misconceptions2's edits are problematic not only because of the clearly WP:OR issues, but also in the way he attributes those events to the medieval writers as if they approved of everything they had written down. It is known that medieval Muslim scholars included the list of narrators when reporting an event so the reader can later check it's assessment (using the principles of hadith studies).

Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Misconceptions2 has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and socking - not for any of the reasons given by Al-Andalusi, which are essentially a content dispute relating to the use of particular sources. Nobody is going to block an editor because they have differing views on the use of Islamic scriptures. Also, Misconceptions2 has a point - if there is a question about the authenticity of a source, just tagging the article is pretty useless. Address the issue in the article through secondary sources that discuss it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather unhelpful complaint which does not require admin intervention. The two editors just need to learn how to talk to each other without winding each other up. Al-A attempting to win the debate by bringing up past block logs is not really acting in good faith. The "Template:Hadith authenticity" issue isn't presented honestly either: as Al-A quotes, the page says (my bold) "consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity". Al-A didn't do this - he simply tagged a large number of pages, which were linked only by M2 having created them (I think). See Template_talk:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad#Hadith_reliability - Al-A has been asked several times exactly why he thinks all these articles should have been tagged, and doesn't provide any satisfactory reply William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But I do agree that the articles grouped around Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad aren't really satisfactory William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost users Rlevse, BarkingMoon

Unfamiliar with Admin things, I don't know if this is the right place to post a late comment to the archived so-called investigation. Wikipedia lost a promising contributor over this, BarkingMoon. What I read hardly deserves the name investigation. I remember Wikipedia losing another valuable contributor, Rlevse. Both have in common that they went out of their way to support my work. The dialogue with both was completely different, though. You can investigate my talk, if you like. But even if the mind behind the two was the same, I wouldn't see a problem. - Back to content. I wish I could notify the subjects of this. I miss them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can perhaps e-mail BarkingMoon, that is still there. Reading what happened on his page, however, makes me sick that we are badgering a great contributor over something that he says he has no involvement with. Was an SPI really that necessary? CycloneGU (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! "Makes me sick" is well said. No, I can not e-mail BarkingMoon, but keep the talk updated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your kind thoughts and deeds Gerda, but I don't think there's really anything that can be done here. I suspect that neither editor has any desire to return to such a hostile environment at this time. We have a few folks that delight in keeping the elite "status quo", and spend time bullying folks off "their" pedia. Sad as that is, I just don't have an answer to it. I suppose we just work on the things we enjoy, and try to ignore what can't be changed, and try to change the things we can. You are of course always welcome to ping me if you need a hand with something (although your knowledge of classical music is far above mine.) .. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Giornorosso redux - more of the same and then some

• Giornorosso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous discussion threads:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#Requesting_block_for_editor_making_overtly_racist_edits
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Overtly_racist_edits_redux
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giornorosso/Archive
4. User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_32#User:Giornorosso_IP_still_not_blocked.3F
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive685#Question_regarding_overtly_racist_editor_and_recidivist_sockpuppeteer
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive155#85.162.27.170_reported_by_Severino_.28Result:_Rangeblocked_1_week.29
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive702#User:Thonos.27s_offensive_userbox

I am still puzzling over why the IP of a user indef blocked for pushing a racist POV was left unblocked even after being checkusered as part of a sockpuppetry investigation, but User:Tiptoety, the checkuser, seems to be on an extended break. The IP was blocked for a week only after my direct request to Tiptoety and then subsequently blocked again for 3 months following a second sockuppetry investigation. That block has now expired and it is evident by the recent contributions that the same user is still in control of the IP.

The IP asked admin User:Thryduulf to edit a semi-protected article on their behalf. That request was done without question. Without meaning to suggest any wrongdoing on Thryduulf's behalf, I find it surprising that an IP with a block log such as this can so easily get someone to proxy for them. Note that User:Thonos, who is identified as a Giornorosso sockpuppet, participated in a talkpage discussion] related to that exact edit, as did an IP (User:196.216.56.18) who shares Giornorosso's obession with rape statistics.

Would someone mind giving User:90.177.208.162 a long block? I would suggest that a checkuser look for new accounts created from this IP. Thanks. Incidentally, User:Dezidor (who was briefly blocked as a sockpuppet for making identical edits to Giornorosso) is quite evidently pushing a similar viewpoint, albeit with slightly more subtlety. This edit is particularly telling (note the misleading edit summary as well). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

“beating people over the head”

Four days ago User:TenPoundHammer nominated the article lump sum for deletion.

Fair enough. But when a good faith contributor suggested the article could be improved, their response was mocking and counterproductive, they wrote: “Improve with what? Hope the Article Fairy sprinkles her pixie dust on it and turns it into an FA overnight? Get a grip on reality.”

After four days they did withdraw the nomination. But, in doing so, they congratulated themselves, writing: ...once again I have to beat people over the head to get an article fixed.

I don`t think any of us should feel they should start by “beating people over the head”. I don`t think this merits self-congratulation. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)