Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,008: Line 1,008:
:::::::Frankly, it never occurred to me to add anything to their post (like "To Hobit" or the like), because that ''would'' be in violation of both TALK and REFACTOR. All I sought to do was to preserve conversational and chronological flow. That is what keeps the conversations from being "all over the place". Also, waiting more than a moment between replies avoids a lot of edit conflicts. :) - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Frankly, it never occurred to me to add anything to their post (like "To Hobit" or the like), because that ''would'' be in violation of both TALK and REFACTOR. All I sought to do was to preserve conversational and chronological flow. That is what keeps the conversations from being "all over the place". Also, waiting more than a moment between replies avoids a lot of edit conflicts. :) - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::More misunderstaning - my comment about discussion all over the place was about the discussion about what to do. I wasn't saying that you should have added anything to their post (as I'd agree that wouldn't be right) - merely indented it appropriately (which I believe would have been acceptable). Oh well - definitely off to bed now. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::More misunderstaning - my comment about discussion all over the place was about the discussion about what to do. I wasn't saying that you should have added anything to their post (as I'd agree that wouldn't be right) - merely indented it appropriately (which I believe would have been acceptable). Oh well - definitely off to bed now. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Not this shit again. Jack, read between the lines: when an editor ''like yourself'' did this to me many, many times in the past, I asked that editor to stop and they did not, and it led to the same complaint that ScottyBerg is making here, as you may or may not be aware. Let's just put an end to this here and now, ok? There is no need to keep upsetting people by moving their comments. In the future, please don't touch comments made by other editors unless you have permission from the original editor to do so. Thanks. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


== [[User talk:193.255.108.20]] ==
== [[User talk:193.255.108.20]] ==

Revision as of 02:53, 7 January 2011


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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. (archivessearch)

    User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

    Return of Hullaballoo again

    It seems Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) will not let go of me. More recently, he has undone several bold edits of mine which redirected unsourced BLPs of individual members of Smash Mouth — edits that I doubt anyone else would argue are in the wrong, as they seem to fall in line with WP:BAND. His edit summary called my edits "undiscussed, indiscriminate, inappropriate". The last time I tried to talk to him, I felt that I was civil enough, but he plowed right through my discussion with an edit summary calling my comments "paranoid, incompetent and inaccurate". The most recent discussion on his talk page is KWW warning him not to violate WP:CIVIL. I filed an RFC about a month ago but all we did was talk in circles and go absolutely nowhere. His edit summaries towards other users show that he is just as incivil to everyone else, although I still seem to be one of his primary targets of incivility.

    My point is: Hullaballoo has gotten away scot-free with blatant WP:CIVIL violations way too many times. Everyone keeps dropping him friendly warnings not to act incivilly, and he blatantly shuns them and goes back to his same shenanigans. I don't know why he's apparently got carte blanche now, but it MUST stop now. I think it's reached the point where a block is in order, but either way, We MUST find a way to stop his gross misbehavior. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why this doesn't fall under WP:BRD.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because every time I try to talk to him on his talk page, he just wipes out my discussion and calls me paranoid. I can't invoke BRD if he won't follow through on the D part. The issue is far beyond BRD anyway — it's not just his blind reversions of my edits, but also his outright refusal to change his behavior after umpteen warnings and his hostile attitude towards other users in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you discuss it on the article talk page he can't wipe it out. You call it a blind reversion, but it looks thought out to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified him since you didn't. I see no benefit to a block in this situation, his comments are blunt but not egregious. He has the right to remove what he wants on his own talk page, and it would be better to discuss it in a more appropriate place anyway. Trebor (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the fact that he's been doing this to me, on and off, for two years? Repeatedly calling an editor "paranoid and inaccurate" isn't an ad hominem attack to you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The examples that TPH provided don't cause me much concern: typical editing disagreement. I was concerned by this edit, which does cross WP:CIVIL.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time I try to talk on his talk page, no matter how nice I am, he blindly reverts me and calls me incompetent/inaccurate/paranoid. Every time. If that's not repeated, blunt attacking of an editor I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then focus on that, and provide us with a list of diffs. His reverts of your redirects aren't going to lead to any clear-cut consensus.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just stop commenting on his page. He obviously doesn't want you there, and any discussion of the page redirects and other edits should take place on the talk pages of the article, anyway. I'm not really concerned about HW's blanking of his talk page from you, but if he can't actually discuss things on the correct page, that would be another matter. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'd be happy enough to just start blocking every editor that starts the "stay off my talk page" garbage. It's a sign of a refusal to participate in mature discussion, and is generally a very accurate pointer as to where the real problem in an interaction lies.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well right or wrong I'd advise against that without community backing.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not normally a great sign, but we give users free reign to manage their userpages how they want. A refusal to discuss on his userpage is not the same as a refusal to discuss; obviously if he edit warred without being willing to discuss it anywhere, that would be blockable. Trebor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen him discuss any of his reversions anywhere. Check his talk page; there are several cases where he pruned references, including such reliable sources as the New York Times, without explaining why besides "they're not reliable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry: I'm well aware of the distinction between "things I'd like to do" and "things I'm permitted to do". That said, user pages are a fine place to discuss things, and forcing all discussion to article talk pages isn't a reasonable strategy when you are questioning behaviour that spans multiple articles.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unwelcome and rude (admittedly, he's right on this one)
    • Unwelcome and unwelcome — he told me "read the edit summaries" which in no way explained how he thought the sources in question were acceptable
    • paranoid ranting
    • Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
    • unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
    • unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
    • unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
    • Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
    • "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" after someone politely asked him to archive his ginormous talk page; the same editor tried to instigate an unrelated discussion about IMDb but HW bulldozed their edits and called the user rude.
    • "Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)

    And most recently, I politely asked him yet again to discuss his reversal of my redirect, and he very falsely accused me of "harassment". That one is the last straw. Admittedly I'd been rude to him before, but even when I'm civil, he makes the falsest accusation I've ever seen in the five years I've been here. My last edit was in no way harassment, and he has no right to make such a bald-faced lie and get away with it! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here is some proof that he almost never discusses any changes made to an article, and is in general very rude when he does:
    • 1.) One of my first run-ins with HW and his refusal to discuss beyond laconic circular-logic arguments was at this AFD. He argued that because it was an "Album released last week by notable group" that it was automatically notable, and pointed to listings at CMT.com and Rollingstone.com that were nothing more than track listings. When I pointed out that the "sources" were only directory listings and that the label's page didn't even mention the article, his response assumed bad faith in my source-finding abilities.
    • 1b.) In between those two sections, you'll find him being just as curt and circular-logical about his blunt removal of generally valid references from countless other articles.
    • 2.)Another time, I asked how he thought that the meager sources in the Jerome Vered article were insufficient. At the AFD, he called my comments "inaccurate" when I told him that I didn't think the trivial mentions in Google Books were enough, and refused to elaborate on his talk page.
    • 3.)The last time I saw him discuss content on a talk page, he replied to me calling a source unreliable. I said that the author "doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility" and he redacted it as a WP:BLP violation and usage of "weasel words" when it clearly wasn't. I told him that his edit summaries were vague and didn't properly explain why he thought the source was reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned HW that I will block him for refusing to discuss edits. I see that TPH has reinstalled the redirects that HW refused to discuss, and I'm not going to take action now. If he edit wars and won't discuss, I'll take action then, and I will monitor this problem.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • As an aside, I reinstated the redirects and discussed on the talk page why I think they should stay redirects. (And as an other aside, it also irks me that HW has gotten away with a 465 KB talk page and outright refuses to archive it.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that there's an active proposal to give a limit to unarchived talk pages. DGG is another "offender", but I'm not about to block him for it... It is probably about time that Hullaballoo was placed under some editing restrictions, he's been repeatedly uncivil and often edit wars and refuses to discuss edits. Can we formulate some requirements that would keep his excesses in check? Fences&Windows 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)There's a fair bit of dickery going about through all these diffs...some of which, as you have noted, involve some snippish comments of your own...but I don't think AN/I is flexible enough to deal with this sort of thing, though it would be nice for a change if it would. If you're upto the Byzantine challenge, and RFC/U along the lines of what had to finally be done with Colonel Warden recently may be the way to go. If not, then try leaving all of the discussion attempts off his talk page and on the appropriate article talk pages. If he ignores the discussion attempts there and still reverts out of hand, then that would likely gain some traction here. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already filed an RFC/U and it went absolutely nowhere. There was lots of discussion, but nothing came of it at all. I don't think another RFC/U would help, especially since the last one was about a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it obtained the necessary traction: if HW refuses to discuss an edit again, he will be blocked until he agrees to discuss edits. Does anyone really think more should happen at this moment?—Kww(talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, I had no recollection of RFCU #1, and I even commented there; maybe this is a good day to quit drinking. Well, if a bright-line "one more and he's toast" comes out of this now, then that sounds good. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree w/the above comment to the effect that if HB does not wish to discuss the matter on his talk page, that is within his rights, and I would in that situation suggest article page discussion be initiated.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • True enough, but here he is describing a request on his talk page to discuss it at the article talk page as "unwanted harassment". That's refusing to discuss it anywhere.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. The problem is that Wolfowitz won't interact with Hammer, he just reverts his actions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, if you read the link, you may have noticed that an interaction ban would prevent HW from reverting TPH's edits... T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am goddamn sick and tired of being treated like dirt here. In the last two years I've made about thirty thousand edits, none using automated tools or scripts, concentrating on BLP and copyright policy enforcement, two areas that are among the highest priorities, as established both by on-Wikipedia consensus and by Wikimedia Foundation action. These are pretty much thankless jobs these days, as my repeatedly vandalized user page and talk page evidence. Yet obviously this counts for nothing, and that quite a few people are never going to give me a fair shake because I became an involuntary Wikipedia Review poster child as a victim of admin abuse over an incident where no less than Jimmy Wales eventually weighed in support of me and the admin who blocked me, for an edit made by another user, stomped off Wikipedia in the face of criticism. It's evident that a double standard is being applied here.
    With regard to some of the specific points made:

    • TenPoundHammer claims that he filed an RFC/U against me recently, but that it "went nowhere." That's hardly accurate. The RFC, which wasn't ever even properly certified, ended up with four users endorsing TPH's position generally, five endorsing mine generally, and a dozen or so rejecting most of TPH's claims particularly those relating to stalking and harassment, but finding some of my AFD comments too harsh, in particular my comment that when TPH says he can't find sources on a subject, it's because he hasn't bothered to look for them. (I didn't participate in the RFC precisely because it was never properly certified, so the community's rejection of TPHs accusations was based only on his presentation of his case, underlining just how unfounded the accusations were.) I think my comment is accurate and within the general range of comments accepted at AFDs, but I've respected the expressed opinion of the community and have not since used that formulation. TPH does not respect the community's determination and has repeated, here and elsewhere, the accusations rejected, by a wide margin, by the community in the RFC. The RFC, focusing on my responses to TPH's AFD nominations, reflects a pretty strong community consensus that TPH's deletion proposals are too often destructive. As one admin noted in a lengthy ANI discussion regarding TPH only a few days ago, "I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. . . . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't." [1]
    • It is absolutely false that I "refuse to discuss edits." My talk page shows scores of discussions, and my contribution list shundreds of talk page discussions. What I won't do is waste my time responding to uncivil, peremptory comments that aren't made with any intent to engage in an encyclopedia-building process, but to make editing unpleasant for an editor who's disagreed with the commenter. Comments like these, from TPH:
      "Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived?" [2]
      "oh so now you're being a douche too? let's just have a big douche parade across his talkpage" (edit summary) [3]
      "and you wonder why I'm never fucking polite to you" (edit summary) [4]
      "why are you only ever this big a douche to me?" (edit summary) [5]
      "So in other words, what we have is an editor being a single-minded, bullheaded, tendentious douchebag and no one can be bothered to do anything about it." (under the heading "Wolfowitz") [6]
      "fine, Hullaballoo Doucheowitz... if you insist on undoing every damn edit I make. Undo this. I dare you." (edit summary) [7]
      "What the hell is your problem? You're labeling ALL my edits as disruptive. Whatever happened to good faith, hmm?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=387402805&oldid=387402473
      "What the hell is your problem? Every time I make a nomination you're here to bitch about it." [8]
      "You just have a grudge and a half against me don't you? I looked and didn't see anything that said "Emmy". Clearly my google-fu is abysmal." [9]
      "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer." [10]
      "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?" [11]
      "*Seriously man, do you have some sort of agenda against me? It seems like no matter what I do, you're there to undo it. And answer me already. WHAT NEEDS DISCUSSION" [12]
      "Are you gonna answer me or what?" [13]
      "*Great. So you're bulldozing all my edits AND giving me the silent treatment. Way to be civil." [14] (Note that the last five comments were posted over a 45-minute period.)
    I made repeated attempts to dialogue with TPH over at least a year. Note the extended discussion in this AFD, for example. After a long period, TPH dropped any vestige of rational conversation and shifted to summary invective. As I recall, the shift came in mid-September, after I posted a comment/warning on his talk page regarding disruptive editing practices -- in that case, reinstating about two dozen disputed redirects, marking the edits as minor, and using edit summaries suggesting he was reverting vandalism. His accusations and nasty talk page posts began almost immediately afterwards.
    • A substantial portion of TPH's editing, particularly as related to deletion/removal of content, is incompetent, well beyond the point of being disruptive. This is behavior which actively damages the encyclopedia, impairs its value to users, and drives good faith contributors away. TPH admits regularly that his ability to use Google as a search engine is deficient (his own descriptions of his competency level include "abysmal" and "I still suck". Yet he continues to make AFD nominations and create redirects, despite his awareness that his basis for doing so is unreliable. Just yesterday, taking one of the articles which provoked his post here to this AFD, only to have it snow-kept within an hour, shortly after he withdrew another AFD, where he'd claimed no sources "seem to exist", only to be quickly overwhelmed by proof otherwise (leading to his admission "Clearly I still suck at using Google, I would think a reasonable, constructive editor, conscious that his analyses were regularly misleading/inaccrate, would stop employing those analyses until they figured out what was going wrong. TPH doesn't. Two other examples are instructive: TPH nominated Jordyn Shellhart for deletion, saying that "Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources." [15] Yet the Google News search results [16] actually turn up several dozen news hits, some trivial, but many substantial, including full profiles, and showing that the article subject received national press attention for her televised performance of the national anthem at an NFL game. Only today, TPH unlinked the term "sheoque" from an article on Irish mythology [17], claiming "google doesn't know what a sheoque is." However, a basic Google search [18] immediately turns up relevant hits at the top of the search results, as well as, further in what appears to be detailed commentary by Yeats. Nor are the problems limited to Google use. In this AFD TPH claimed "I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations" for the article subject, although all he needed to do was click the appropriate link in the (already wikilinked) article on the award. Here he insists hat an album was released on a "non-notable label," even though the label had an article soundly establishing notability. And here TPH argued that HBO was a "redlinked network," on which no further comment should be necessary. This is highly disruptive behavior, and there's fundamentally no other way to refer to it other than variations on "incompetent." Or worse.
    • TPH regularly refuses to engage in discussion after I have responded to his attacks. For example, the first time TPH raised similar matters at AN/I, he refused to provide any substantive response to my reply (reproduced below). Instead, he forum shops, abandons discussions when they don't immediately produce the results he wants, then renews them in hopes of finding a more receptive audience. It's not a coincidence that his attacks on me closely follow significant complaints being made regarding his editing practices; he's trying to divert attention from his repeated and very serious misbehavior, pointing to the alleged venial sins of the Big Bad Wolfowitz because I'm not a very popular guy with a bunch of admins. TPH has never responded in any way to my previoys response, which bears repeating here:
    I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original).
    In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww. [19] TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions.
    TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his being bitchy. [20]
    TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users.
    With regard to the particular matters TPH raises:
    • My comments in the Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue [21]. It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label,"[22] precisely the standard he rejects here.
    • The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection.
    • The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer."[23] Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article.

    TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in [Atlantic Records discography RFD], where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects.[24] In [recent AFD], I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified.

    In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example:

    • TPH nominated Trey Bruce for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point.
    • TPH redirected Robb Royer to Bread (band), asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song.[25] This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action.
    • Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of CSI, including "A Bullet Runs Through It" (Edgar Award nominee)[26]; "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee)[27]; "Gum Drops" (Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list) [28]; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee)[29]; and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.[30]

    TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example:

    • Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary [31]
    • Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus [32]
    • Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty [33]
    • Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects [34]
    • Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur [35]
    • Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Concerns
    • Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries [36]
    • Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries [37]
    • With regard to certain claims of edit warring: WP:BLP and WP:BRD are inconsistent. But BLP is an important policy with strong consensus support, while BRD is an essay. BLP calls for certain classes of material to be removed "without discussion" or "without waiting for discussion"; such material is not to be restored without achieving consensus for its restoration. Similar standards apply to nonfree content. In both cases, enforcing the relevant policies is exempt from the edit warring limits. There are editors who do not agree with the current policies, and believe that BRD principles are more important. But policy says otherwise, and criticizing or threatening to sanction any editor acting under those policies is not appropriate.

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it beyond sickening that Hullaballoo has been allowed to continue his "editing" practice of constant haraassment and stalking of productive editors. Dozens of editors have been driven off this project because of the actions of this one non-productive editor. I find it laughable that he seems to be proud of his "edits" which consist of NOTHING but harrassing other editors. Hullaballoo is a huge negative to this project, and that the community tolerates this sort of destructive behavior has caused me to leave Wikipedia permantly. And in contrast to Hullaballoo, I have actually contributed something here-- including starting over 600 articles, not one of which has been deleted yet, in spite of efforts by biased trolls such as Hullaballoo. An editor as arrogant, this destructive, and totally non-productive should be banned without question. Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hullabaloo, I have no concept of what you are talking about with the Wikipedia Review stuff. That's probably good, and I will specifically not research it so that I remain ignorant. I haven't threatened you with a block for following WP:BLP or our copyright policies, I've threatened you with a block for not discussing your edits. I can promise you that if you removed material repeatedly based on WP:BLP, you could get blocked for refusing to discuss why you believed the material violated WP:BLP. Similarly with our copyright policies. Both of them encourage boldness, and both of them encourage to act before talking, but neither of them discourage talking after acting. If you are going to edit, you must be willing to discuss the edits. With everyone. You can move the discussion from your talk page to notice boards, to article talk pages, Wikiproject talk pages, AFDs, many places, but you cannot refuse to talk.

    No one believes TPH to be an angel. He's been blocked recently, and I think it's pretty likely he's going to see more of them in the future, for precisely the reasons you point out. That doesn't excuse your behaviour, and, if you keep going the way you are going, I think it is pretty likely that you are going to see multiple blocks in your future as well.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And I want to point out that this is not between TPH and Hullaballoo. This is between every editor who has a difference with Hullaballoo's edits. To my knowledge, during my almost 5 years here I never edit-warred with another editor. If I had a difference, we discussed and compromised. Hullaballoo CONSTANTLY refused to do this, always citing his interpretation of the rule-of-the-day or some other discussion to which he vaguely referred. He ALWAYS turned editing into a game of "Chicken"-- who will get blocked for reverting beyond 3RR?-- and he has stated that he believes he has the right to exceed this point. I've found putting together diffs showing Hullaballoo's bullying behavior not only time-consuming, but absolutely futile. Some of them can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#View_by_certifier_Dekkappai . Dekkappai (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point out that the people decrying HW here are the same ones' who did so on the recent RfC/U on HW. That didn't get the result they wanted, so they're back again for another bite of the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the same ones. That invalidates their concerns somehow? 'If at first you don't succeed' seems to be apposite here. Here is another collection of half-truths and lies from an editor with a deserved reputation for arrogance and bullying. If he's not going to be banned then Wolfowitz must be continually watched and challenged at every turn for the common good. --78.101.20.115 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It just might be an indication that HW's "sins" are not perceived as such by the wider community, perhaps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If non-stop edit-warring is not perceived as a "sin" by the wider community of this project, then it ought to be pointed out to any newcomer here that this is not a project interested in collaborative editing, but rather a site for power-gaming, posturing, and schoolyard bullying. As a matter of fact, due to the wider community's tolerance for this sort of behavior, that is exactly the conclusion I have come to after wasting several years here attempting to actually contribute sourced content. Hullaballoo's continued ability to thumb his nose at collaborative editing with impunity is just one of the indications that this is in fact what goes on here. Dekkappai (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since HW's block log shows a single 48-hour block two years ago for "disruptive editing", you might want to consider that your perception of his behavior as "non-stop edit-warring" might be somewhat distorted. It would be quite unusual for an editor to behave in the way that you characterize HW's actions, and not be caught at it by an admin and blocked, or reported for it to 3RR and be blocked. Since that hasn't happened, perhaps your characterization is something of an overstatement? I'm not saying that HW is a saint, and I'm certain there are aspects of his editing style that could use some adjustment – editors that I respect very much agreed with some of the statements about his behavior that were posted on the RfC/U – but I do think that it may be the case that some editors are a bit oversensitive when it comes to HW, and overreact to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the subject of my previous block is under discussion, let me republish a comment Jimbo Wales made about that dispute: The user in question was engaging in perfectly appropriate blanking of a serious BLP violation. To call someone a "spammer" is a very serious personal attack, remember WP:NPA, and he was using a (misspelling) of the real name of a known critic. The block in this case should have been handed out to [the editor whose comment I removed] for violation of policy, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz could possibly have been thanked for right action.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) [38] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And despite my own serial vulgarity and incivility, my block log shows only one such-- and that from an Admin with whom I was in dispute for restoring a !vote of mine which he had removed. In my experience with Hullaballoo, not ONCE has he been reverted without immediately instigating an edit-war despite my sometimes BEGGING him to discuss his concerns. I've seen him remove good content from articles not under my watch go unchallenged. Why? Because no one cares about those articles. And, since the "wider community" is supposedly involved here, and in light of Hullaballoo's self-righteous bragging about 30,000 edits over two years, not one of which added content, I'll point out that in just a few months, at another project, I've made nearly half that number of edits, and added sourced content with the vast majority of them. Some of these individual edits are of the size of this. Since the "wider community" apparently values non-contributors such as Hullaballoo, and would probably vote to delete that list I've started-- just one of hundreds of other such articles started & planned, and, yes, ENCYCLOPEDIC, despite what the "wider community" here says-- I can only believe that my characterization of this project as one for trolling alone is accurate. I don't wish to be incivil to you, Ken, but I just need to express the disgust for WP that the tolerance of behavior such as Hullaballoo's-- and a few other such Wiki-bullies-- has given me. I wish that this sort of behavior-- and the loss of good contributors and content resulting from it-- were of more concern to the "wider community". Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Dekkappai is casting aspersions on the admin who blocked him, I'll point out that that admin initiated an ANI discussion on the matter, and the propriety of the block was overwhelmingly (~80%) supported [39]. And Dekkappai also knows that my supposedly improper edit warring was legitimate BLP policy enforcement, since he participated in a 3RR complaint regarding the same issue -- use of porn marketing/advertising copy as a BLP source -- previously [40] (BLP trumps everything regarding notability here. You should know that, DF. No blocks here - AMIB was absolutely correct - even if he's ultimately wrong, he was right to flag a possible problem. Black Kite 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocking Admin was in conflict-of-interest, and blocked me for restoring a !vote which he deleted. Because he is one of the leading drama-queens here he has a large peanut-gallery which supports his every move. And Man in Black was a troll who was eventually de-sysopped for trolling. You lie, of course, about using porn marketing/advertising copy as a BLP source. But I do appreciate your attempt to discuss the matter now, two years too late. Have I told you to rot in hell recently? Dekkappai (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is helping himself here. Dekkapai, you know that most people agreed that the images and content you were adding to the Japanese starlet videos was inappropriate: trying to argue that HW was behaving inappropriately over that is a losing battle. Even if he was, it's a losing battle. HW, trying to act as if you are a completely innocent, aggrieved party is also a non-starter. As for Beyond My Ken's position, no, HW doesn't have an extensive block record. Continued refusal to discuss edits will probably change that.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww, the Japanese starlet-image thing was just one of the straws breaking this camel's back. In fact, years ago, when I added them, those images were appropriate according to policy here. I carefully followed policy as it was in place at the time of their uploads. Policy was changed and hours of work was lost. Once that decision was made, I discussed, I lost, and I abided by "consensus". Hullaballoo mis-characterizes sources for plot-summaries as sources for biographical material so that he can remove information on a subject for which he has a clear bias. (With TPH's deletions on popular music, Hullaballoo is an ultra-inclusionist, yet with anything faintly erotic, he is completely the opposite.) This is what pisses me off here: In spite of pages and pages of "Rules" there ARE no rules here. Anyone can do whatever the hell s/he wants, so long as they have enough allies to make a "rule" out of it. I blame whoever is in charge here-- Jimbo?-- for this situation. I am very good at following rules and procedures, but there are none here. It's a constant flux according to what editor or group of editors has the upper hand at any one moment. If what Hullaballoo is doing were set in stone by an actual authority here, and I'd read it when I first came here, I'd have had no problem. Dekkappai (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't deny that I've been rude to Hullaballoo many times in the past. That's no reason for him to continue to be rude to me. As I pointed out, I've finally dropped the rudeness with him, and yet he still insists on calling me "paranoid" again and again and refusing to discuss anything with me or anyone else. (At least he hasn't gone on another redirect-bulldozing spree... yet.) Several other users have testified that HW is outright rude and bullheaded, and is a repeated BLP blanker. And the only thing I don't have an answer for yet is... why has he not been blocked yet? As I said earlier, maybe a temp block would be a wakeup call for him, as it was for me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've finally dropped the rudeness"? TPH, you called him a "total douche" less than a week ago. And you're posting diffs from November here to try to get him blocked for civility? Seriously, you've got no business complaining about his use of "paranoid" and "unwelcome" until you start showing a little restraint in your word choices yourself. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TenPoundHammer, you probably need to drop this before the boomerang strikes. Those diffs HW gathered above don't place you in a good light, especially incivility, failure to research deletion nominations, repeated fait accompli redirects on notable topics etc. Motes, planks, etc. Fences&Windows 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fraud accusation and legal threat from user Frankkfong

    User Frankkfong (talk · contribs) accused me of fraud and made this legal threat on my talk page for having removed new content per possible wp:COI and wp:NOR at article Calvin cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user seems to have no idea about how Wikipedia works although some of the policies were explained and (i.m.o.) sufficient pointers were provided, both on his and on my talk page. I suggested twice ([41], [42]) to propose the edit on the article talk page, but it looks like the user does not intend to do this. Not knowing what to do with this threat, I wonder whether I should just ignore it and remove part of the section from my talk page?

    User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I left Prof. Fong a note which might or might not help. A little Googling shows that he was in a complicated dispute with Purdue University in the 1980's, that I'm too bleary to read right now, but it does sound like we have to be careful about COI edits and off-wiki battles that he might be fighting. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he does seem to be quite capable of reading the wikipedia policies carefully if he is pointed to them. He has some points about the fact that the COI policy does not necessarily mean that he he is not allowed to contribute that bear consideration and response. As to the possibility of a legal threat being leveled here, I would imagine that pointing him to the appropriate guideline will inform him sufficiently and that he will act in accordance with the guideline. If I have a chance, I will leave it for him myself. We all at some point knew little of how wikipedia works; it is not intuitive, and certainly our legal threats policy is not something we can expect people to anticipate unless it is brought to their attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I mentioned NLT. Did you see what I left him? Was it ok? 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing User DVdm's actions and my inquiries are as found at Message from Frankkfong and Reply to DVdm's Response. The underlying fraud issues are found at The Calvin Cycle Website. Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception, made possible by omitting Melvin Calvin, Francis K. Fong and their co-workers' original papers. It was shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission. In anticipation of his seeking your acquiescence to "ignore it and remove part of it," hours ago I emailed myself DVdm's User Page for incorporation in a report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Director Bobby Hunt, Executive Division of IRS, and Dr. France Cordova, Member, National Science Board, c/o NSF General Counsel Lawrence Rudolph. Respectfully submitted, Francis K. Fong Frankkfong (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The intervening messages above (and the one below) came in as I was saving mine, creating edit conflicts. I have no intention of taking legal action, but would suggest that you do not acquiesce to DVdm's intention to "ignore it and remove part of it." I'm in a meeting, but will respond to all the messages and notify DVdm of the above and other responses on his User Page at a later hour. Frankkfong (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is it "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission"? We require evidence of allegations of this nature. Please see Help:Diff if you are unfamiliar with the process of linking to specific actions on Wikipedia. Without evidence, our policy requires you to assume that User:DVdm and other users are operating with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The note that 67.122.209.190 left you at DVdm's talk page includes a little more detail on Wikipedia's purpose and several other points related to your notes there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Prof. Fong, I'm confident that DVdm didn't intentionally misuse any WP policies. He may have made a mistake with them but in any case, a lot of subjective judgment is involved in handling such things. Also, when he mentioned removing part of it, I read that as meaning he wanted to focus on the article issue rather than raising a fuss because you had (maybe inadvertantly) broken the NLT policy. Note that "removing" something via normal editing doesn't make it unavailable. It's just like editing an article. You can still see the old versions, including "removed" material, by clicking the history tab at the top of the page, and people do that all the time. So he was't trying to cover anything up. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: with "removing part of it", I meant indeed removing the part of the message containing the legal threat from my user talkpage. I know that I can and may do that at will, but I was wondering whether I should do that. Thanks Anon67 and others for looking into this. DVdm (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a note at Talk:Calvin_cycle#Fong_papers asking for uninvolved biology editors to look over Prof. Fong's addition and use any appropriate material from it in the article. My guess is some parts of it are usable but other parts not. The stuff from scientific journals directly about the Calvin cycle is probably fine. The stuff about the Purdue dispute really needs independent secondary sourcing, not a blog belonging to an involved party. I'm not able to look for that right now but I might try a Google Scholar search sometime later. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Because he has clarfied that he is not going to take any legal action in the above post.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal threat is still sitting there on the OP's talk page. He needs to go to that page and retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a new user with what is apparently a valid concern and who is currently in a meeting - I think it is ok to give a little leeway. I am definitely not going to take administrative action as long as his retraction of the threat here at ANI stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He may be 100 percent right from a factual standpoint, but that does not matter. Legal threats are forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment by Frankkfong regarding saving DVdm's page for forwarding to government authorities (including those related to scientific-fraud investigation and taxes) is also IMO well into the realm of WP:NLT chilling effect. Those groups have no sway over WP content and are not being indicated as reliable sources on the content. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. He should be blocked immediately until or if he retracts anything that looks like a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a brief response to ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC). I'm on a short break from the meeting, which may go on for some time. And then I'll need time to digest the input. I have no intentions of taking legal action as stated in the above post. Thanks for your sharing with me an apparently valid concern involving possibly the single most important chemical reaction on earth. Your article on the Calvin cycle was based on one, and only one, paper published in a reputable research journal, Ref. 1 Bassham, Benson and Calvin (1950), which Calvin et al in all of their subsequent publications had refuted. Frankkfong (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As the above editor refuses to fully retract his various legal threats, he should be indef'd immediately, pending an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception. — No it wasn't. Wikipedia didn't exist in 1989. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How about this:

    Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown, in 1989, by the National Science Foundation to be deception.

    . The representation that wikipedia shows of the cycle was shown to be incorrect back in 1989. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Admin. ·Maunus·ƛ·, I have now reviewed the above contributions, including the one left on Mr. Editing User DVdm's User Page by Anon67. (I have yet to read the "new messages" on my own User's Page.) Having also read, for the first time, wp:NLT, my initial reaction is that, within the meaning of wp:NLT, I never did make a threat of legal action. The sentence, which Editing User DVdm sought to delete, appears to be more in line with that part of the wp:NLT having to do with its provision:

    "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly."

    A legal problem such as defamation may have its roots in common law. In the instant case, the problem, DVdm's alleged conduct of fraud, i.e., misusing WP policies in furtherance of the "deception" - as described above by 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC) - on the other hand, appears to have its origins in the statutory provisions I cited. Moreover, in defining the "legal problem" pursuant to wp:NLT, not only I have twice affirmed that I have no plans in taking legal action, I made abundantly clear in the message to Mr. Editing User DVdm that I, individually, do not have standing in pressing a legal action in the "legal problem" I reported, in compliance with wp"NLT. If this interpretation of wp:NLT is incorrect, please let me know. Otherwise, upon further discussion in this forum, "the problem," if it exists, should be "acted on quickly" pursuant to wp:NLT. In further support, the messages immediately preceding this one by (Uncle G talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) and 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC), bring in focus the issue of "deception" germane to the subject matter on fraud, i.e., "the problem" at hand. I note, in particular, the important message posted above by Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC), which I reproduce verbatim below:[reply]

    "Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV." (link provided)

    To that end, I thank you for not acquiescing to Mr. Editing User DVdm's request to remove that part of my message, which proved to be offensive to him. I believe it's important to keep the integrity of this entire proceeding. Finally, this is going a lot slower than I had anticipated. I am a new member of a community which has a vast following. I pledge to act within the confines of its policies. These I have to learn before I set in writing each and every one of my findings of fact and concolusions of law - all within the meaning of wp:NLT. As a result, I am falling behind in my regularly scheduled work, which I'll need to attend to. After that, I will devote fulltime, hopefully no later than 6 p.m. this evening, to answering each and every one of the valuable contributions shown hereinabove. At that time, I shall anticipate making a showing of my finding of fact - Mr. Editing User DVdm's practice of fraud in furtherance of Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle, more than a decade after the National Science Foundation's finding in 1989 of its being a "product of deception" - in order for you to act on the problem in compliance with wp:NLT. Respectfully submitted, Frankkfong (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Understood. To make what you say above abundantly clear to all who read only the mention that troubles Baseball B, and not your above clarifications, you might consider placing the following around the phrase in question, which will add a "strike through" to the phrase and not leave any doubt or room for misinterpretation of your intentions ... Baseball can correct me if that is not what he is seeking ... :<s> (before, and) </s> after.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's wikilawyering over the wording of NLT; but the point of NLT is not about specific wording, it's about intimidation. If the admins won't block someone who's making legal threats, the best the victim of those threats can do is to stand up to that user and not be intimidated; to treat anything of that nature as what it really is: bluster and hot air. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • BaseballBugs, with all due respect, stop harping on that. Admins have looked, reviewed, and said their is no legal threat. Especially since he has stated twice now that he isn't threatening. Continuing to harp on that point makes you look shrill and here not to solve problems but to inflate them. Frankkfong is new, sees an issue with an article and is working through the process. He is obviously new to the world of Wikipedia and is going through the maze of policies, procedures, and "legal" wonkery that has been setup. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
          • Thanks for your comments. I always pay close attention to the advice of drive-bys. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • News flash: El K'Fong has been indef'd for making legal threats. Should I wait for the IP's apology, or should I go ahead and do the dance now? ") ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm not so sure we should take this lightly. He makes many highly inflammatory accusations on his website, including against the NSF for an alleged murder plot, and he claims to be acting under the aegis of the US Treasury to uncover "fraud" relating to the Calvin Cycle (with no real evidence of this being shown). His own work has been cited a handful of times, and his position is not accepted by any independent reliable sources. Even if he just stays the right side of "no legal threats, accusing Wikipedia editors of perpetrating fraud violates "no personal attacks". If he intends to continue trying to insert his unsupported fringe view into articles, he will need to be blocked for tendentious editing. Fences&Windows 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per Fences & Windows, I don't think we can use anything from Dr. Fong's website regarding the various off-wiki disputes he's been in, without enough secondary sourcing independent from the subject to establish notability for the issue as well as substantiate the claims. That includes the letter from the NSF official claiming (if I understand it) that the original Calvin paper from 1950 involved a deception. The letter would be an unpublished primary source that we have to be very careful about. However, Fong and Butcher's 1988 paper was in a legitimate biochemistry journal and is cited by Portis and Perry's historical survey that Fences & Windows found, so I don't have a problem adding a cite to that paper to the appropriate article. I don't know enough biology/chemistry to have any idea whether Calvin cycle is the right article for it, but it sounds plausible.

            Dr. Fong seems to show a rather serious misunderstanding of why DVdm wanted to remove that text, though. It was because the text could be read as a threat, which would have resulted in immediately blocking Dr. Fong from editing, making it impossible for us to discuss the Calvin Cycle issue with him further. DVdm instead proposed to treat the text as an error by someone unfamiliar with WP policies, and remove it so that discussion could continue. In other words, it was for Dr. Fong's benefit, not DVdm's. Dr. Fong, can you understand that please?

            Anyway, I currently don't feel intimidated. If we can resolve this issue by adding a cite to the 1988 Fong and Butcher paper and moving on, I'm ok with that. We'd have to use Portis and Perry's evaluation of the paper, rather than our own or Dr. Fong's. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • Update: Fences and Windows found a fulltext pdf of the Portis and Perry survey so I added a cite to the Calvin Cycle article.[43] People can find their way to the Fong & Butcher paper (and various other references) through it, and that seems about as good as we can hope for without vastly expanding the article. After looking at the number references in the survey, I now think singling out one of the less prominent ones in the WP article would create undue weight. The P&P article is online and pretty readable as such things go, so from my point of view this is a satisfactory solution. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin. ·Maunus·ƛ·, I address this to you, because I am working on responding to each and every one of the above comments. Here I respond in haste to Fences, who may have identified himself as being responsible for the original legal problem, that of fraud. I submit that if, on my website: 1. I did not accuse NSF of murdering Don MacLauchlan, vice president of Carbon Reduction, sponsor for my NSF Proposal No. 8822928; 2. I showed evidence of my Sec. 7623 contract with Treasury under a directive by Director Bobby Hunt, IRS EXEC, authorizing me to detect the Calvin cycle fraud; 3. I showed proof that the Calvin cycle is a fraud, the result of a work of fiction published in the July 4, 1955 issue of Chem. & Eng. News; and 4. Ref. 1 of your article on the Calvin cycle, Bassham and Calvin (1950), was refuted by all of Calvin et al's subsequent papers, beginning with Calvin and Massani (1952) and ending with Calvin and Pon (1955), all of which have been omitted from your article by Fences, in light of his sponsorship of the Wikipedia article absent the entire body of the relevent literature; then Fences will have created a new legal problem, that of slander, which you should act upon immediately. Please note that, contrary to Fences' assertion, an accusation of fraud, or slander, is not a violation of wp:Personal Attack, if it's true. Frankkfong (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. I have moved ([44], [45]) the entire conversation on my talk page to Frankkfong's talk page, with italicised and parenthesised signatures. Please continue any discussion over there or here. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, am I to understand Fong is involved in legal disputes of-wiki in relation to the Calvin Cylce? This is not entirely clear, but if it is true he should be topic banned from that subject here on the Wiki due to a conflict of interest and under the spirit of NLT --Errant (chat!) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Errant, I believe from reading the comments by other editors, admins had already ruled that there is no violation of wp:NLT. Even Fences conceded above that I am on the "right side" of wp:NLT. The entire page here is on correcting the Calvin cycle article, including the lengthy comment above by Anon67. Frankkfong (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is not for content disputes; this page is for administrative action. You need to discuss the content at the article's talk page. But you absolutely must stop implying illegal activity (fraud, slander...by which I presume you actually mean "libel") on the part of other Wikipedia editors, and you must stop lodging unsubstantiated accusations against them: "all of which have been omitted from your article by Fences". Here is the history of that article. User:Fences and windows has never edited it. Similarly, you have yet to substantiate where it is "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission". It most definitely is a violation of our policy against personal attacks to lodge "[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankkfong, I was referring to your disputes regarding the Calvin Cycle outside of wikipedia. It is my understanding from reading all the material that you are engaged in legal actions and/or extreme dispute over this topic; as such it seems inappropriate for you to be editing those topics. --Errant (chat!) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Errant and Moonriddengirl, Errant's reference to "legal disputes et etc." reminds me of the suggestion by Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC), to submit a forthcoming update to make "abundantly clear" of my clarifications on using wp:NLT to report a "legal problem." There is no "legal dispute" outside of wikipedia. Fong and Butcher (1988) is in support of the missing references to Calvin et al's original papers, which in turn underscore NSF's finding. Please read the above comments on the National Science Foundation's finding of the Calvin cycle as a fraud. Our immediate concern is how to correct the Calvin cycle article with all the missing references to Calvin's original papers in order for biologist Fences to maintain the status quo of the Calvin cycle fraud. Moonriddengirl, please await my showing of proof in support of my report of the legal problem of fraud pursuant to wp:NLT. Frankkfong (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read this entire dispute and I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing information from the article constitutes "fraud". As far as I know, Wikipedia is not legally obligated for its articles to be accurate (Biographies of Living Persons is an entirely different matter, on the other hand). If there is a content dispute about the article, move it to the talk page of the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Y2kcrazyjoker4, Moonriddengirl's comment above provides the key to my report of the "legal issue" of fraud pursuant to wp:NLT. He wrote: "User:Fences and windows has never edited it," i.e., Wikipedia's Calvin cycle article with the missing references to the entire body of literature, in furtherance of the Calvin cycle fraud. He [Fences and windows] specializes in deleting articles for inaccuracies and other faults, and knew, or should have known, that the Calvin cycle should have been deleted, or at the very least heavily edited. Here let me call time out. I request that you await my presentation in response to your statement, "I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing information from the article constitutes 'fraud.'" Frankkfong (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No one here is trying to perpetuate fraud, so please stop with these accusations. We just wish that the reports you wish to use as citations were independently published and covered by other sources. Just because something is true does not mean it is necessarily verifiable or a reliable source (see WP:RS, WP:V). That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in this entire dispute. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Please be courteous enough to honor my call for time out. It's appropriate for you to say, "I am not trying to perpetrate fraud." But you are not qualified to speak for the whole world, "No one is trying to perpetrate fraud." You and Moonriddengirl repeatedly attempt to prevent me from reporting, pursuant to wp:NLT, the legal problems of fraud and slander (libel). I will not allow myself to command you to stop doing that (unlike your and Moonriddengirl's somewhat uncouth habit for saying things, like, "YOU MUST NOT ***."); but you and Moonriddengirl are obstructing the proceedings of this admnistrative action and wasting everybody's time and resources. So may I respectfully request, again: please give me time, so I can respond to your statement, "I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing informatino from the article constitutes 'fraud.'" Frankkfong (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry if you find my method of speaking uncouth. Please understand that I am warning you. I am an administrator, as many of the people who respond at this board are, and I will have no choice but to enact administrative action by blocking your account if you continue making unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing by contributors to Wikipedia. I asked you to substantiate your first allegations at 14:14, 4 January 2011; it is over 48 hours later, and you have yet to do so. You compound this by adding new allegations about yet another contributor. You need to muster your evidence before making your allegations, not make them and then indicate that evidence will at some point be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Fong, I don't see anything that we can possibly cite for "the National Science Foundation's finding in 1989" that something was a product of deception. You've posted a private letter from some NSF person whose import (to me) is pretty unclear, and which in any case doesn't come anywhere near the level of verifiability for us to use it in an article. Your issue of "how to correct the Calvin cycle article with all the missing references to Calvin's original papers in order for biologist Fences to maintain the status quo of the Calvin cycle fraud" presupposes there was such a fraud. Obviously we cannot make such a claim without (typo fixed) a published wp:reliable source, meaning something like a scientific journal article or a press release from the NSF, not somebody's website or a private letter in their possession. Fences and Windows found a rather nice historical overview of the subject, that cites your 1988 paper, and it doesn't say anything about a fraud. The article now cites the historical overview. If you've got a different interpretation of history that you want us to cite, you're going to have to get it published in a refereed journal before we can cite it. Actual scientific fraud of the type you describe is quite rare and we need solid documentation (WP:REDFLAG) before we can write about it. See our article about the Schön scandal as an example. Your allegations will need a comparable level of sourcing. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Moonriddengirl, I doubt Wikipedia can easily correct the Calvin cycle article without my help; and honestly I suggest that you do correct it with or without me. I heed your warning; but you just minutes ago disclosed Fences and windows' role. I'd always suspected someone other than DBdm must be behind the fraud problem. Your request of 14:14, 4 January 2011 was subsequently supplanted by demands for blocking me pursuant to wp:NLT. Having cleared that up, only last evening I saw the suggestion byEpeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC) to make "abundantly clear" my clarifications, which of course, you as administrator already understood. Now only minutes ago, you disclosed the origins for Fences and windows' fantastic accusations of my alleging murder on the part of the NSF, and of not showing evidence of my contract with Treasury under Section 7623: Biologist (administrator also?) Fences and windows fraudulently left standing with all the missing references, so your Calvin cycle page can be presented to the world as true and tried. My reporting the legal problem of fraud based on your disclosure is procedurally proper pursuant to wp:NLT. So please do not, again, warn me, especially when you are a WP administrator who ought to know better than preventing me from reporting to the other administrators the significance of your disclosure. So once again, please, try to refrain from your sense of self-importance, and honor my call for time out. And I'll have my account of your disclosure explained before the other administrators, on or before 5:00 pm this afternoon. (We're on NY time.) Frankkfong (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    67.122.209.190 (talk), Thanks for you input. Mrs. Fong read your comments and thought highly of your resonable approach toward reaching an understanding. I'll have all of your questions answered, I hope, in the time-frame above stated, provided that you keep Moonriddengirl under control. Frankkfong (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Fong, Moonriddengirl's warning is entirely valid, you're operating at the fringes of NLT whenever you insinuate any type of legal impropriety on the part of Wikipedia editors, who are doing their best to keep WP's articles properly cited and accurate. You have since disregarded Moonriddengirl's warning and made a new unsubstantiated allegation that Fences and Windows committed fraud. That is completely inappropriate. Re Fences and Windows' mentioning your allegation of a murder plot: I think s/he means this (2nd paragraph). 67.122.209.190 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FKF block

    I just blocked him indefinitely for disruptive editing, including the attacks above ("fraudulently left standing", "refrain from your sense of self-importance", "keep MRG under control"). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunate, but it seems unavoidable. Whatever justification he may feel he has, he seems unable to avoid the battlefield approach and efforts to explain our behavioral policies seem to have failed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes I wonder if people like this have any sense of reading comprehension whatsoever. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Being directly accused of perpetrating a fraud on an article I've not edited before is quite something! I think I added some categories... Fences&Windows 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is (name redacted) HIV-positive?

    Now semi-protected Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone know (her)? Do you happen to know if she is HIV-positive? Because we are saying she is. I can't be the only person who thinks that List of HIV-positive people needs permanent semi-protection. I suspect (she) would agree. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree, unless there's some kind of meta-shame above the normal BLP concerns for being portrayed as HIV positive. For at least the past few weeks, there were a few run of the mill IP vandals but it wasn't like several-a-day aside from this morning. If you were concerned about the BLPVIO on (her), why did you not revert that along with the vandalism to Arthur Ashe's name [46] prior to posting here? Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    delicate subject - semi is a no-brainer here, and done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest I don't even think such an article should exist, is there something notable about having HIV? If it has lead to notable events (like"the namesake for U.S. federal legislation that addresses the unmet health needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS") then it can be covered in the parent article, do we collate a list of people who suffer from cancer or swine flu? Rant over. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The item cited by the OP looks like an attempt to place a non-notable person, probably a fellow student, on that list as some type of prank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but shouldn't the diff linked at the top of this section be revdeleted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to the unnamed target of the BLP violation (and to you): do we revdel every time an IP or a throwaway account edits Michael Jackson and says 'Dom Frizzle is a poopy head!'? Please keep in mind that I myself am not asserting that Dom Frizzle, whoever that may be, is a poopy head by any means. Syrthiss (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and Windows has redacted that specific edit, but there are many just bad (i.e., giving a name and location) in the history (and this is only one list). I'll keep bringing these attractive nuisances here when I spot them. Thanks to Casliber for the protection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've thought to protect it, sorry. Any such list or article should be semi-protected. I have gone through the diffs applying revdel to the vandalism up until 5 years ago (Jan 2005), this is where I've got to if anyone wants to pick up the baton:[47] Fences&Windows 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the article shouldn't exist. It is not appropriate to list off known HIV cases. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This list should be deleted or shortened significantly. Being HIV-positive is not something that is relevant for the BLP of the vast majority of people who are HIV-positive. One of the few exceptions may be people who are HIV/AIDS activists. While it may be subject to debate whether there is "some kind of meta-shame above the normal BLP concerns" for being portrayed as HIV positive (and we need to distinguish whether the is actually such shame and whether we would think there should be such shame), it is probably not hard to imagine that a false report about being HIV positive, even if subsequently corrected, can be highly disruptive to personal relationships, especially to relationships which include or may potentially include sexual aspects.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The list is at AfD, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the larger point, whether or not stigma attaches to HIV is irrelevant to Wikipedia. If it's verifiable, if it's relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic, and if reliable independent sources have found it notable enough to comment on, then it's information that belongs in a biographical article, exactly the same as a public award, a well-documented sex scandal, or a long battle with mental illness would be. And once it meets that test it can be used in exactly the same way as any other fact in the article - for the purpose of categorisation, listmaking, and templating within our policies on those practices. It's not the business of Wikipedia to engage in olitical activism, protecting the interests (as opposed to rights) of individuals, or self-censorship. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLPCAT, whether or not stigma attaches to HIV is indeed relevant to Wikipedia lists and categories about living people. I have commented to that effect in the AfD.  Sandstein  00:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph you're linking at WP:BLPCAT suggests that for certain list names, a higher standard of content is required. It doesn't prohibit sensitive but nevertheless NPOV titles, and content standard isn't an issue for AfD, only content topic. Standard can be improved through normal editing. AfD is not for cleanup. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have brought the AfD to the attention of a large HIV positive online community here: [48]. In a spirit of AIDS activism I have encouraged members there to register accounts here and participate in the AfD discussion. I have not recommend they !vote one way or another on the question of deletion. Don't bother waving WP:CANVASS or any of that other stuff at me -- I don't care. MtD (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you suggest that they should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policies, because the determination of how to close an AfD isn't based on !votes and head counts, but on who cites policy-based reasons? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as such. In my OP to the thread, I linked to the article, the AfD and WP:N. I doubt many (if any) AIDSmeds forum members will bother participating in the AfD so boring them to death with a tutorial in WP's byzantine policies and guidelines seemed unusually cruel. I should add that I have not yet participated in the AfD myself. MtD (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'll see what happens. I'm just thinking it might avoid a ruckus if they knew in advance that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. If a bunch of new users show up and !vote one way or the other, and the list ends up being kept or deleted in spite of what they might see as their numerical superiority, they could get the impression that they're being ignored, or that their opinions don't count. On the other hand, if they took the time to understand the criteria by which articles are kept and deleted (which is a small subset of our "byzantine policies and guidelines"), they could express their opinions in those terms, and stand a better chance of having their views contribute to the article's fate. Letting them know of the existence of the discussion without letting them know how their opinions need to be expressed so that they carry some weight seems like its only doing half the job. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The discussion in the AM forums continues apace and as issues regarding how WP works have been raised over there, I have addressed them as best I am able. MtD (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider putting this is a box and hiding it. I saw this then I went to the AFD. The AFD warns people that voting should not occur because they were told of the AFD. This ANI post does just that. To be fair, I made a comment but did not vote keep or delete because of the warning. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The AfD doesn't say that at all, as far as I can see. The canvassing warning specifically encourages you to contribute despite being canvassed, but asks you to note that AfD isn't a vote and that you should make arguments with reference to Wikipedia's content policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stonewalling

    Not sure how to proceed with User:GoldDragon. There is a content issue on Roger & Me (see Factual Inaccuracies). The aforementioned user keeps adding low quality sources to the article (a WordPress blog and a book that nowhere mentions the film). The content issue is less of a problem than GoldDragon's stubborn refusal to acknowledge and address the problems identified on both article and user talk. This user responds instead by reproducing huge blocks of text that has zero relevance to the problems described. It seems GoldDragon has been warned and blocked for refusing to discuss contested edits in the past. Moreover, I am now being pursued to articles this user has never edited before, for the single purpose of harassing me. diff diff diff One other editor has express concern that, by refusing to engage, GoldDragon is driving new editors away. diff It would be nice if someone could offer a word of advice to said user in the hope of improving the situation. Wikispan (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My response is that Wikispan has been whitewashing articles, removing sourced material just because he/she feels that it is too critical. This is not only on Roger & Me (where Wikispan refused to acknowledge film critics like Roger Ebert as well as the CBS article), but also Criticism of Noam Chomsky, here are some editor comments who have complained about Wikispan about Chomsky.
    13:06, 12 October 2010 PokeHomsar (talk | contribs) (84,769 bytes) (Undid revision 390220469 by Wikispan (talk) you can't justify that much removal in one fell swoop) (undo)
    21:12, 3 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,501 bytes) (How are these two books and the newspaper article "self-published" sources? They both are explicitly critical of Chomsky--I do not see why he is so immune from criticism, unlike US officials?) (undo)
    01:02, 13 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,502 bytes) (Chomsky has attempted to attribute all deaths in the entire war to America, but this is inaccurate.) (undo)
    13:44, 30 December 2010 Jprw (talk | contribs) (73,268 bytes) (Undid revision 404844102 by Wikispan (talk)New Criterion is a serious publication and the author is notable) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 23:21, 29 December 2010 Chrisrus (talk | contribs) (73,090 bytes) (Undid revision 403378541 by Wikispan (talk)Please see talk and reply before undoing) (undo)
    GoldDragon (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After a cursory review GoldDragon does appear to be playing a little fast and loose here, which is surprising as he's been around for a while, and should probably know the rules by know. Gold's instigated fairly significant edit warring and likely WP:WIKIHOUNDed User:GoldDragon. This type of aggressive behavior from such an experienced editor is disappointing. Perhaps an AE might be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (chuckle) I found this sorta interesting. I'd recommend AE and move for a moderately long block so that User:GoldDragon has some time to carefully read WP:DR. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend that User:GoldDragon be subject to 1RR and be required to use the talk page to discuss his proposed edits. The user has been involved in problematic editing for many years now. I first ran into him on Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy in 2009, where he was repeatedly trying to accuse the President of the United States of bias. Also, his user talk page does not accurately reflect the number of warnings he has been given over the years, as he keeps removing them. The guy knows what he's doing is wrong, but refuses to stop. Something needs to be done. Sockpuppet allegations have been repeatedly made about this account in the past, with checkuser results coming up either negative or inconclusive. I also recommend that someone revisit that question yet again. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not use of sockpuppets, also to note that Viriditas has been stonewalling on Henry Louise Gates here on the title of "Beer Summit" where everyone else was against him on the talkpage .Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy/Archive_2#Poll. GoldDragon (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As for a problem, I've been followed around by User:69.159.10.116 for some time, and he keeps parroting all other registered users that I have a dispute with. GoldDragon (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude, you've been edit warring for more than a week: [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]. It's time for you to stop and engage in discussion on the talk page. Towards that end, I've started a new thread over at Talk:Roger & Me#Recent edit warring. I notice that your edits have been reverted by several editors, including User:Anoldtreeok, User:Cmr08, and User:Wikispan, yet you keep adding them back in through blanket reverts. Please follow the WP:BRD model now. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding this diff, GoldDragon knows that cites to Usenet and personal websites in articles about BLP's are not acceptable. That the user continues to do this after many years requires action on the part of administrators. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits are interesting: By MaxForce on 13 May 2009 [57] and by GoldDragon on 27 July 2009 [58]. And by MaxForce on 14 December 2009 [59] and by GoldDragon on 3 July 2009 [60]. In both cases, a MaxForce edit was reverted, only to be reintroduced months later by GoldDragon. Deleting Unnecessary Words (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, well, well. See intersection of edits, and their WikiChecker reports:[61][62]. A lot of overlap in obscure articles, and the times of day are almost an exact match. WP:SPI is where you should go now. Fences&Windows 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's one more. This edit by SubcommandanteM (19 August 2009) [63] was reintroducing an edit by GoldDragon (31 May 2009) [64] that had been reverted months earlier. Deleting Unnecessary Words (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good digging. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon is open. Fences&Windows 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to follow up: MaxForce has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of GoldDragon, and I've blocked GoldDragon for two weeks for sockpuppeting. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oddity with when a banned user, who got a 2nd chance, hunts the sockpuppets of one another banned user

    Resolved
     – Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is notified about being discussed:[65]

    User:Iaaasi had been blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing, in the meantime he had been made numerous sockpuppets [66] but in a magnamimous gesture of good will, he got a second chance to return. His disruptive editing was in connection with Hungarian and Romanian related issues, and that leaded to his former block for indefinite time.

    Yet, when he had spent his indefinite block,a Romanian Ip user emerged on the talk page of administrator JamesBWatson to let him know about the block evasion of a Hungarian user,User:Stubes99, and to make a demand the block of Stubes99 to be extended to indefinite time. [67] Perhaps it is important to note that Iaaasi is Romanian as can be seen on his user page. Then User:YellowFF0 commenced a checkuser against Stubes99 which resulted in having him blocked for indefinite time [68] [69] but it also came to light by checkuser that YellowFF0 is one sockpuppet of Iaaasi.[70]

    During this, Iaaasi was about to get a second chance to return to the Wikipedia and his attempts were crowned with success eventually, due to his intrepidity and the benignity of administrator Ronhjones.[71] After his return, he has also been resumed his sock hunting instead of flattening to a sequestered corner.

    09:38, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"

    09:42, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"

    22:09, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

    22:10, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

    21:28, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

    21:29, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

    11:32, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

    On 27, December 2010, Iaaasi got warned by administrator Wifione that "You call the ip a sock again and you will get a warning from me - and this will lead to a definitive block on you. How can you avoid that situation? File an SPI and list all ips/editors you believe are socks along with definitive behavioral evidence. If you're not ready to do that, stop calling editors/ips socks from this moment onwards! I cannot emphasize this more as an administrator who has already left a note on your page." [72]

    Today, on 4, January 2011, it seems that Iaaasi hasn't learned from his previous warnings as he has made 4 edits on Talk:History of television saing that

    "Note: The IP 84.1.210.189 is probably the sockpuppet of the banned user Stubes99. He edited recently the article using the IP 84.0.146.116 (Iaaasi (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC))".[73] [74]

    And perhaps it needles to say that if administrator Wifione had had any preliminary knowldge of the user, she/he would havn't warned him(=Iaaasi). Once one of his confirmed sockpuppets,User:Rogvaiv1, warned User:Squash Racket ->Reminder [75] providing a wikilink to it made by administrator Tiptoety-> [76] "Instead of blindly reverting those who you think are socks, I might suggest you file an SPI case and request a CheckUser. Thanks," as early as 29 July, 2010.

    --Nmate (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not break Wifione's advise (or at least I tried not to), I only posted a note on a talk page to inform the other contributors that the author of a particular message could be a sockpuppet - 99.9% of the premises were leading to that conclusion and the admin User:Tiptoety later confirmed my supposition. The edits of Stubes99 are very frequent and they are made using dynamic IPs, he has been evading his indefinite block for a long time (sometimes even daily, there are tens of caught socks; an admin told me that his range is too wide for a range block). Consequently it would be difficult to file a SPI report each time. Wikipedians should fight together against sockpuppetry instead accusing each other.
    P.S. I don't want to talk right now about User:Nmate's apparent battlefield mentality WP:BATTLEFIELD (anyone could check that his recent activity consists almost exclusively in making reports against others)(Iaaasi (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Everything is proven by diffs.--Nmate (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The admins will decide what is proven and what is not(Iaaasi (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Words are cheap; hard evidence is worth its weight in gold. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good one Jeske :) Now to the issue. Nmate, I appreciate your concerns. I'd wish you read the following in good faith. My issue with Iaaasi was that Iaaasi started accusing ips as being socks while leaving edit summaries on article reversions. My note to Iaaasi was purely to ensure that instead of accusing editors/ips of being socks all across the project, the complaint should be noted at the appropriate forum (Tiptoey is a checkuser and I believe asking Checkusers for help on their talk pages to identify a suspected sock is perfectly alright). You have to understand that Iaaasi's attempts (misguided in-between, but Iaaasi is correcting the same thence) have been more or less towards the benefit of the project. Therefore, I believe with good faith that Iaaasi in the future will not accuse any editor/ip of being a sock in a forum other than the forums provided for such complaints (for example, not in talk pages of articles or edit summaries and similar). Leave a note here or on my talk page for any future assistance.
    • Iaaasi, take these views with a positive approach. That is why I had not left a warning on your talk page. Rather, it was only a note. I should appreciate it if you don't view my comments as a war won with Nmate, but as a point of view of a concerned editor who has been worried about the sock issue. This community welcomes at all times any and every editor ready to contribute with a positive intent - and I see both of you being like that. Best wishes for the new year and I consider that this particular discussion is detailed enough to be closed. I'm placing the resolved tag above. Remove it in case some other points have not been discussed. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks (Re: Darkstar1st)

    Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Darkstar1st has posted an offensive comment against other editors at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, "you have shed some light on the practices of other editors here, specifically those who agree with your ideology. they often claim to be objective, yet when someone with a different view as you, breaks as many rules as you have, they try to have the editor banned. yet your violations have gone on without incident." (My emphasis, Darkstar1st is referring to Communist ideology). When I asked Darkstar1st to retract the statement, he replied, " i have informed you before your warnings are not needed. you are no longer welcome on my talk page".[77] It is extremely offensive to accuse other editors of being Communists, when they disagree. Darkstar1st should be warned or blocked. I recently brought up a similar discussion to ANI which was archived and now restore it. TFD (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkstar1st accused me in an ANI thread of "past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried".[78] I asked him to remove the personal attack,[79] and he replied that I was defending the remarks of the subject of the ANI,[80] who was accused of anti-Semitic remarks. He also made uncivil comments about the subject of that ANI,[81] which incidentally was closed without action.[82]

    Darkstar1st had already complained at ANI about my reference to ethnic stereotypes which had been made as a form of example, and the discussion thread was closed without action.[83] Darkstar1st also argued his position on his talk page.[84] He has repeated the epithets over and over again which shows a lack of sincerity in his finding them offensive and perplexing that he cannot see that there is a difference between mentioning epithets and endorsing them.

    Darkstar1st's use of personal attacks is disruptive and he should be warned or blocked to prevent him from continuing them.

    TFD (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like your "greedy Jews, etc." comment was totally misrepresented by the user Darkstar, either out of not reading it closely enough, or deliberately. You were listing stereotypes. Most of us could make a list a mile long of ethnic stereotypes. Citing that stuff doesn't qualify you as being prejudiced. If that's all he's got, he had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First, in general I think such complaints first should be brought to Wikiettiquette notice board, but I guess since they happened here... Re: this diff mentioned by TFD where Darkstar1st attacks me, it seems a bit odd that Darkstar1st attacked me for criticizing any political leader who sends people to war when that's the kind of thing we libertarians do all the time and Darkstar1st and I usually debate on the Libertarianism article. But I guess he's revving up for when the Libertarianism article is opened up again for editing in February. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is simple harassment, and Darkstar1st needs to stop it immediately. ClovisPt (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I really can't believe that DarkStar1st is still at this. He was harping on this "greedy jews" stereotype analogy months ago, and was repeatedly told to stop misrepresenting TFD's post by just about every single editor who became involved in the conflict. The misrepresentation is clearly deliberate, because there is really no possible way that he could be misunderstanding what the statement actually meant after having it explained to him in so many different ways, by so many different people. DarkStar1st has been continuously disruptive ever since he began obsessing over the libertarianism article. He should cut out the personal attacks, or be blocked for it again, and since he has disrupted the article for months at this point, I recommend that he perhaps should take a break from libertarianism-related articles, because he seems utterly unable to work in a civil manner on the topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rereading Darkstar1st's comments in the thread I closed, they're at least borderline blockworthy for the WP:BATTLEGROUND degree of misrepresentation involved in facilitating personal attacks. If there is any other recent behaviour of this type a block should be hard to avoid, and an WP:RFC/U considered. Rd232 talk 09:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And he's now canvassing users' opinions of the 7-year old offsite remark [85] [86]. At some not-too-distant point, continuation of this behaviour may qualify as harassment. I'm not familiar with the WP:AE terms for the topic - they may have some relevance too. Rd232 talk 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkstar1st has not been as active in the last several weeks. However, in response to Jehochman's question to Carolmooredc whether she was an "anti-Israel activist", Darkstar1st replied, "Carol in the past proclaimed herself an "activist" (for a different movement unrelated to Israel) on her home page. when i brought this up in the conflict of interest noticeboard it was buried".[87] The specific complaint was that Carolmooredc was "writing a bokk and using wp to make her pov". No one saw a COI and the alleged POV was anarcho-capitalism.[88] TFD (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The attack account User:EveryoneLookAtMe,I'mCarolMooreDC! popping up there seems to have a fair probability of being Darkstar1st, given the context of its contributions and content of the deleted userpage. If it is, that would certainly be enough of a pattern to justify some action. Perhaps a passing checkuser could confirm. Rd232 talk 18:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that it is a sock of banned User:Karmaisking, and it is probably too late to perform CU. That account commented in the COIN discussion.[89] Karmaisking has provided extensive advice at Darkstar1st's talk page beginning here and most recently has invited him to join the Mises Institute wiki.[90] TFD (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    TFD is not without sin. The comment where TFD took umbrage was aimed at an interesting editor "Prairiespark" who appears to be the subject of some discussions elsewhere. The comment It's just completely absurd that this article should exist at all - unless one is an anti-communist agenda driven fanatic, like Mr Griffin. is, to my mind, far more of a direct personal attack than anything raised here. By all means do a CU fishing trip on Darkstar, but be well aware that it is a fishing trip. Collect (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference is to Prairespark and other editors. I in fact placed a welcome message on Prairsspark's talk page after he began editing and informed an administrator of edit-warring on the page. Another editor has started an SPI. Also Darkstar1st writing is part of a continuing pattern. TFD (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas - I can find no inference in your complaint at the start of this section to corroborate "the reference ..." I did find a specific complaint about Darkstar. Collect (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    N.B. "Prairiespark" et al have been determined to be socks, and blocked accordingly. Making this section quite moot indeed. Collect (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes it all the more offensive that Darkstar1st has accused other editors of agee[ing] with [his] ideology. If you have difficulty understanding why someone would object to being compared with a sock, then I would prefer to explain it on your user page, because most readers would understand anyway. TFD (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    lol at tfd denying his own political ideology. i am not accusing you of being a sock, simply pointing out how the critics of the article may reinsert material multiple times without raising an objection from some editors, yet when a supporter of the article does the same, he is reported. the same editors also claim to be unbiased. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not accuse people who disagree with you of being Communists. The disagreements over the article relate to issues of neutrality and original research. TFD (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    New RM discussion after only two weeks

    Can someone please speedy close this RM discussion about moving an article that was moved just two weeks ago after a WP:RM consensus decision and a proper close by an admin? We can't just resubmit proposals over and over until we get our way. In this proposal, there are no allegations of improper closing in the last decision. Perhaps the proposer overlooked the previous discussion? Regardless of motives, I believe six months are supposed to elapse before consensus is checked again, unless there is evidence of an improper close.

    Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be "Ann Arbor, Michigan", as per the way U.S. cities are commonly named. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue here is the procedure, rather than the substance. The discussion should be taken up again either after several months, or, alternatively, after a possible change or clarification of the relevant guidelines. I'd therefore suggest to close the current move discussion with an explanation to that effect.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Business-to-Customer has indicated he's willing to devote years to this battle, so a few months will be no big deal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is this six month rule?   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I've seen the 6 month rule mentioned, I believe by GTBacchus, but I can't find it documented anywhere. It might be undocumented. Anyway, it makes sense. Otherwise, why not submit new proposals for all the U.S. cities that have had discussions recently held and closed? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous move was undertaken with only 3 supports and one oppose, but it goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United_States. The previous close looks dodgy to me, because it counts heads rather than weighing arguments, and I support the opening of a fresh RM to allow a wider discussion on whether editors really do want to create an exception to the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous move discussion took place during the pre-holiday period, when things are generally slow. It should have been re-listed for further input rather than closed. Also, no policy-based reasons were provided for the move from the supporters, whereas the lone opposer cited a specfic policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the previous close is being disputed, a discussion on the appropriateness of the close should take place, and a discussion on the content-related question (the move itself) should take place after the discussion about the previous close has been finished.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mentioned the debate neutrally at both of the relevant WikiProjects, WikiProject Michigan and WikiProject Cities. I'd suggest we leave this open to allow full debate as the previous debate was not very well attended. Fences&Windows 01:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cs32en: WP:BURO. The substantive discussion is underway, and has already attracted more contribs than the previous one. Wider discussion allows the formation of a more stable consensus, so it should be welcomed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This would indeed be a somewhat bureaucratic approach if there wouldn't be an ongoing RFC on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#RFC: United States cities. Because of this, the previous move discussion close should be invalidated if found to be inappropriate, resulting in moving the page to the previous title. The substantive discussion should continue on the naming conventions talk page, and any specific discussion about Ann Arbor, or Ann Arbor, Michigan, should take place after the guideline has either been confirmed or changed.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B2C probably figured he could slip this one through, it being Christmas weekend, and GTB, with typical blinders-on to a given situation, went ahead and did the move despite the fact it was obviously inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of conjecture is highly inappropriate, BB. I can't speaking for GTB, but I had nothing to do with the original move, didn't even know about it until after it was closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your intention to take years, if necessary, to impose your will on the naming conventions, is what's inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well these moves certainly have the markings of some personal vendetta but it wasn't B2C. The same person who did the original Ann Arbor request during the holidays also posted several other [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] requests around the same time. While B2C is very vocal in his views, he seems to mostly focus on changing the guideline at WP:PLACE. These numerous page moves during the holiday, in circumvention of the guideline, seem far more disruptive. AgneCheese/Wine 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then they should all be reverted immediately as being bad-faith moves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of them were closed as "No consensus" and a couple are still being discussed. I do think that Krauseaj's RMs seems a bit pointy and he should be more circumspect about filing such requests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...there might be more to the story. When I went to notify Krauseaj of this AN/I thread I noticed User_talk:Krauseaj#Green_Bay where it seemed that B2C was encouraging him to do a RM instead of taking it to the guideline's talk page. AgneCheese/Wine 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What you see there is that when I noticed an apparent newbie was trying to move a page by copying text [97] [98], I advised him to go through WP:RM instead, and showed him how. What do you mean by "taking it to the guideline's talk page"? There is no requirement for that, and it's rarely done. In that case, it didn't even occur to me. God forbid I ever actually do something inappropriate, you guys are so anxious to hang me. Kind of pathetic, really. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see there is that you used a newbie by giving them incomplete info. Even though you were well aware of the existence of a relevant naming convention, which you should know is explicitly authorised by policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, you chose not inform the newbie of the existence of that guideline. You chose instead to leave the newbie with the impression that it was all up for grabs.
    I have just replied at the RFC to a post of yours in which you claim that the existence of the guidelines creates instability, and I pointed out that the instability is created by editors who set out to ignore a guideline they don't like. You have just provided a perfect example of you doing exactly that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied at the RFC, but here I will add that you conveniently ignore that I had nothing to do with that user's inclination to move the article in the first place. Have you seen his edit summaries, like, "(I want to make Green Bay a page like Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, or Detroit. These cities are so well-known that they don't need the state to be identifiable)" [99]. I have no idea what prompted him, but I know I had nothing to do with it.

    As far as notifying him of the guideline, at the time all this was going on, the RFC survey had been open for some time and it was already starting to become clear, not only from the vote count but also from the comments and wide array of arguments, that the current wording in that guideline no longer had consensus support. The fact that some contingent of mandatory comma convention proponents apparently have to be alert to pounce upon any innocent and well-meaning newbie who naturally wants to contribute by moving articles to more concise titles the way most articles in WP are named should tell you there is something very wrong with the situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    B2C, your assertion that "the RFC survey had been open for some time" is demonstrably untrue, and ANI is not a good place for that sort of crude attempt to blatantly misrepresent reality. Your comment to that editor was on 17 Dec; but you RFC opened the RFC on 19 Dec. So at the time you advised Krauseaj to open an RM, there was no RFC, and no vote count.
    Even if there had been an open RFC, it is not for you to decide to set aside a long-standing guideline on the basis of your lone interpretation of where it was heading.
    We have tons of guidelines which newbies may not be aware, and which they need to be politely informed of (not "pounced on", per WP:BITE). Most of us do it routinely as an essential part of ensuring that consensus is upheld. You choose not to do so in this field, because you prefer to push your own campaign to maximise the number of RM discussions by having everything left open to flexible general principles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My response is below indented at the same level as this comment. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, I already explained above in another thread how you misread my statements. Search for "misread" on this page to find it. Please stop misrepresenting my position and views. If you want to know what it is, I have nothing to hide: see User:Born2cycle/NamingGoal.

    The Krauseaj situation is exactly what I'm referring too. As long as unambiguous titles are unnaturally disambiguated, people like Krauseaj will show up and will want to fix it. That's why the situation is made inherently unstable by a guideline that requires unnecessary precision. Like Agne says, I spend most of my time trying to get the guidelines fixed to be consistent with WP:TITLE and to indicate titles consistent with WP:TITLE. It's people like Krauseaj who innocently and naturally just want to fix things so all naming in WP is consistent. But if you want to believe I'm the problem and if it wasn't for me the situation would be stable, suit yourself, but I assure you, anyone who thinks that is not being realistic. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The normal way U.S. city names are given, except maybe for the very largest cities, is "city, state". You can argue your conformist theories all day and all night, but it won't change that simple fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like "New York, New York". Doc talk 07:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point being... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "simple fact" is exactly what's disputed, Bugs, and your saying it is a simple fact is not especially convincing to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether wikipedians should impose a global "standard" in defiance of common usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bugs, it certainly is in dispute, as dozens of editors (myself included) have commented at the RFC stating we prefer the simple Ann Arbor approach. That discussion belongs there, not here.
    @B2C, much as I would like the Ann Arbor title to stand, I can't find any policy that would support speedy closing the second move discussion. I suggest you withdraw this request and let us focus our energies on discussion it at the RFC, where the discussion belongs. Will you withdraw your request for speedy closure, so we can close this section? 28bytes (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be "in dispute" for those who don't live in America and are ignorant of the common usage here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that (1) I live in America, and have all my life (2) I'm quite knowledgeable about the common usage here, and (3) this ain't the place to debate it. I'll be happy to argue about it on my talk page or yours, but let's not waste the administrators' bandwidth here, eh? 28bytes (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As it happens, the U of Michigan fired their coach, and the report in the Chicago Tribune website, to no one's surprise except maybe a few editors here, says "Ann Arbor, Michigan".[100] There's a worse problem, though. By doing all this tomfoolery of changing, for example Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor, you will need to retain Ann Arbor, Michigan as a redirect, otherwise you'll break every link in any article that says "Ann Arbor, Michigan". And with the redirect, editors will start changing the articles to say Ann Arbor, Michigan, to avoid the redirect. So by trying to foist this European/conformist "standard" on American cities, this will balloon into a huge busy-work project that is of absolutely no use to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for fucks sake who cares. There's only one fucking Ann Arbor anywhere. We don't need to title the page "Ann Arbor, Michigan" because the American press's standards say so. If there's only one place with that name, putting anything else in the article title is not necessary. How many Kalamazoos are there (so there's one in WV, but our article only has one sentence)? How many Tallahasees? How many other cities are there that they're the only page with that name but we disambiguate because the AP style book says to?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain to me how this elephantine busywork project is going to serve the readers even one iota. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [This comment is intentionally indented to this level to correspond to the comment to which I'm responding, the one from BrownHairedGirl posted 07:45, 5 January 2011].
    BHG, you're right of course about the timing. My bad. I was under the impression I started that RFC over a month ago. I guess it just seems like it's been going on that long... I'm sure you'll agree I've done at least a month's worth of commenting on it...

    I didn't set aside any guideline. It is not for me (or you) to judge why someone wants to move an article, or to dissuade them from starting a discussion about it. Need I remind you of the 5th pillar?

    The simple fact is that he was move warring, and I encouraged him to find out if there is consensus support before moving. There is nothing wrong with that; I did the right thing.

    I agree that we have tons of guidelines that newbies may not be aware of, but I submit that they don't really need to know about them because they are mostly consistent with common sense. It's like traffic laws. Even cops don't really know all the rules, but if you follow common sense you should be compliant. That's why Americans and Europeans can fly across the Atlantic, rent a car, and probably do fine, pretty much without looking up a single law (except maybe whether right on red is allowed, and what some of those funny signs mean). That's why regular non-compliance is arguably an indication of a bad rule (e.g., it's one of the strongest arguments in favor of repealing marijuana prohibition, in my view, by the way).

    The only reason newbies need to know about the idiosyncratic U.S. city guideline is because it is (currently) idiosyncratic, at least with respect to unambiguous concise titles. The guidance it gives is contrary to the guidance that applies to the vast majority of articles in WP with concise/unambiguous titles. That's not common sense. I know how to fix that... User:Born2cycle#NamingGoal.

    By the way, I, for one, find the absence of rejoinder to this total annihilation of your argument posted by John K to be telling. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    B2C, the substance of the matter doesn't belong here, and lambasting someone because they have not responded in 11 hours is juvenile (there is a fairly simple and obvious answer to John K's point, which I will post later). Applying language such as "annihilation" is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, just like your swamping of the RFC discussion with 122 posts (as of last night).
    Back to the procedural issue which at at stake here: you did half of the right thing. You told the newbie to stop move-warring, but instead of reminding the newbie of the existence of a relevant naming convention, you encouraged them start an RM discussion without encouraging them to read up on the convention.
    In your case, that omission is not a good-faith oversight, but a handy ploy in your single-purpose mission to remove naming conventions. You clearly have a generalised gripe against Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, the policy which explicitly permits naming conventions, but instead of seeking a consensus on the policy and centralising the discussion per WP:MULTI, you are wasting the energies of other editors by pushing the same argument in dozens of different venues.
    You play little or part in content creation, but your sprawling efforts to pursue a single objective at multiple locations causes a missive diversion of the efforts of other editors away from content. Instead of this forum shopping. please centralise your efforts and try to settle the central issue without creating so much drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My "annihilation" remark was made in the context of commenting on an argument made in a civil and friendly debate, not a person.

    But now that you mention WP:BATTLEGROUND, I suggest you're the one making this a personal battle which "goes directly against our policies and goals", not me. Perhaps I'm misreading, and I hope I am, but the language you use in your comments about me seems to be dripping with animosity. Am I misunderstanding?

    Anyway, I have no issue with Wikipedia:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions, which clearly and wisely advises, "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names". I agree with that, and see no clear benefits to having, for example, Ann Arbor at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Do you? In fact, the only real reason given in support of that move is... compliance with the idiosyncratic rule. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    By moving Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor, you've created a second entry with the same name, and you have to keep the redirect or you'll break links. So just what does such a move accomplish? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B2C, if you think that "annihilation" is part of "civil and friendly debate", you make my point well.
    You say here that you support existing policy ... but on your own userpage you explicitly make a blanket rejection of the existence of specific guidelines: "the natural law of Wikipedia is clear: if naming stability is sought, disambiguate only when necessary; otherwise, use the plain natural concise name of the subject. I know of no reason for this natural law of Wikipedia to not apply to any article in Wikipedia".
    As requested on your talk page, please open an RFC on your broader objective, rather than forum-shopping it across multiple locations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BHG, thank you for identifying the source of the misunderstanding. I'll notify you on your talk page (just a short note, I promise) when I get that clarified on my user page. Also, it is not uncommon in English to refer to arguments as being destroyed or annihilated when they are shown to be utterly baseless; I meant nothing personal about it. It was a comment strictly about the soundness and thoroughness of John K's rebuttal to your argument, not about you.

    BB, what the move of Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor accomplishes is greater compliance with the principle naming criteria identified at WP:TITLE. Namely, it accomplishes a more concise title, and a title that is not "more precise than is necessary", which "Ann Arbor, Michigan" is. The benefits of following this criteria in our titles as much as is reasonably possible is presumed to be understood, and explaining that is way beyond the scope of this ANI. See WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How do 2 entries for Ann Arbor, instead of 1, benefit the wikipedia readers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because then either one takes a user entering either to the article being sought.

    Anyway, either way, we have two entries. Either the article is at Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor, Michigan a redirect to it, or vice versa. I don't understand why you think one way there is one entry and the other way there are two. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delicious Grapefruit (still)

    Delicious Grapfruit was recently blocked after a tirade on my talk page that included "FUUUUUCK YOU", breeching 3/rr, and all sorts of fun while he was blanking the Glenn Beck article. I get that he is not happy with it but we need to be done putting up with his trouble. One of his first comments back from his block was to comment on a contributor in an obviously disruptive way (while disregarding that his forum shopping actually got some good fresh eyes on the article) by saying that I was acting like his boss.[101] This was done while he still had a talk discussion open in another section. Enough is enough with this guy. Someone needs to mentor him or he needs to be banned from the Glenn Beck article until he has learned a little bit more about the process here. Saying that I am acting like his boss may not seem like a big deal but he has been warned by an admin for personal attacks and I have explained to him that it is not OK to comment on contributors like that over and over again. He has returned form his block intent on starting trouble.

    Recently archived discussion

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


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

    User:Deliciousgrapefruit and I have not been getting along. I recently (today) reported the user at the edit warring noticeboard and he reported me a few weeks ago at Wikiquette alerts. I stopped making personal attacks since I was warned. The user continues to comment on the contributor and not the content on an article. This has been discussed over at Wikiquette but the user has now attempted to post my real first name on Wikipedia.[102] That is outing. I am concerned he might attempt more since he said he was researching me on Google.[103] He needs to be blocked now. WP:PRIVACY.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Take it to wp:Oversight, don't draw further attention here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the diffs you provided are troubling, and I think Deliciousgrapefruit really needs to disengage and do something else for a while. But I don't agree that a block would help the situation, in fact I think it would further inflame the matter, and possibly be seen as punitive rather than a preventative action. What's done is done, and should you require a revdel that option is available for you upon request. At this point User:Deliciousgrapefruit should be formally warned about wiki-hounding and only if it continues shall it require a block. -- œ 03:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My first name being possibly mentioned is really not that worrisome. It is a little but what is done is done. But a warning would be appreciated since I don't want him going a step further and mentioning a last name or employer if it can be found. BTW< he was already warned by an admin for personal attacks and keeps it up so a final final warning that really means something would be great.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Grapefruit was created on the 6th and immediately went after the Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" debate. Methinks there is hosiery afoot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    where else would you wear your hosiery if not afoot? Maybe I shouldn't ask. --Jayron32 04:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On your head? -- œ 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    depends on which head...--Jayron32 04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The responses to this Grapefruit situation are getting fruitier by the minute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just nuked that first diff, FWIW - Alison 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbanks Ali, good call. -- œ 04:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In my defense I didn't out anyone. I employed a slang term that means "buddy" or "Pal" that also happens to be a name. Had no intention of outing anyone, nor did I ever threaten to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And I would just add, that while Cptnono has stayed away from personal attacks since his warning, he has continued to bully edit, and continued to treat me like a subordinate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Baseball bugs, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please feel free to explain your editing history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It's always interesting when brand-new users pop up on AN/I and seem to know considerably more than would normally be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Him being a sock has crossed my mind. He has shown a lack of knowledge regarding process so I doubt it is a long time abuser of socks if that is the case. Not sure though. And I know this is the exact opposite of AGF but I do not believe the user when he says there was not an attempt to use my name. It was one of the only edits to my talk page and the user said he was looking me up on Google. Just seems more likely that it was a veiled jab and not the use of something like "pal" that is hardly ever used and does not show up in their vocabulary in other discussions. But as long as it doesn't happen again I am happy. Does this come across as being a bully? Don;t no and don't care as long as there are no more personal attacks from the editor.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cptnono, I never said I was looking you up on google. Nor am I sock puppet. I don't see how my editing history indicates that I am one. What I think is going on is there are a small circle of editors who pretty much run things on these pages. Bully editorsDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not refactor other's comments! I provided a diff and you changed it. Completely out of line.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Disregard. I misread the tabs open. Link is here where you say you have been googling me: [104]Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's see... He said he wasn't googling you, and he said he wasn't a sock. The part about not googling you was untrue. Any bets on the other part? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough is probably enough with his recent actions: "Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU." and blanking of the entire article.[105] Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And he has crossed 3/rr in his second blank of the page.[106]Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3 blanks of the page now. Epic meltdown. I've been in the same boat before. We do not do cool down blocks but there is certainly a level of disruption that needs to stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours for now. Feel free to change the length either way without letting me know. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    48h sounds good. I didn't examine the person's contribs but based on reading the user talk page, I see an extremely frustrated newbie who stumbled into a crappy region of wikipedia and got into standard wiki-conflict without having the skills to engage in it. I left some advice encouraging the person to come back after the block, but find a new area to work in. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He hasn't touched the article itself since being blocked, and I don't see any personal attacks or other serious problems with his talk page edits since the block. Your assertion that he must "learn the rules or get out" on the other hand... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When he comes on to the talk page and starts throwing accusations around then he needs to learn or go away. Enough is enough with this editor. Notice that I actually posted it on the talk page then removed it a minute later after thinking it would be better on his talk page. So although being contrary is fun, an editor who might have tried to out another editor, starts screaming FUUUUUCK YOU on my talk page, forum shops, refuses to get it, then blanks the article multiple times (c'mon: [107][108][[109][110]) should have little leeway. Like I said, anyone want to mentor him? If not, then he should go edit on other articles like several others have suggested. Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see that anything DG has done since his block merits discussion here. TFD (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If him saying that I act like his boss on the talk page is acceptable then so be it. I thought it as a repeat of previous behavior but maybe I am overreacting to the past stuff. I will make sure to return the favor, of course. No worries if someone wants to close this out.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered being pointy and calling him a brat on the talk page then though better of it. So if this is closed out, anyone want to make a friendly bet (images of money? :P ) that he will keep on doing it and we will be back here within a week? I would love to be wrong but I don't see it happening. But I don't mind waiting and seeing.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cptnono: I haven't even edited the article, and this kind of rules enforcement is what I mean when I say bullyedit. I feel like you are reporting me for simply expressing opinions and concerns about the article and about the need for more third party intervention. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I also think its worth pointing out, as a third party editor has pointed out to me on my talk page, that Cptnono is enforcing consensus incorrectly. I've read the rules on building consensus multiple times, and I believe they are not meant to be used the way Cptnono is using them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeed, if a user feels you are bullying them and then you report them to ANI over stuff they did before they were blocked and they haven't repeated any of those actions, you pretty much made their point for them. I don't care at all for the tone of the diffs provided from before the block, and I do think the block was justified, but I also think it appears to have worked for once and the user has corrected the problem with their behavior and is now attempting to work in what is clearly a hostile environment on the Glenn Beck page. This isn't the place for content disputes, perhaps an WP:RFC to identify and repair the problems with the article is in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It does look like he went back to his old behaviour. See this edit and this edit. Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him based on that first edit. Clearly not here to contribute constructively. Nakon 21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be good to put the squeeze on the user and do a sock-sweep. His behavior from the beginning has seemed oddly familiar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that Grapefruit continues to post "libelous" or at least BLP-violating comments after his block,[111] you might want to consider revoking his talk page privilege, or at least warning him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Arilang1234

    Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)

    I am becoming concerned with the long-term editing behavior of this particular user, and wish to bring to to attention of the ANI.

    Name calling

    Arilang has persisted with name calling and bad faith attacks on other editors, such as on the Mao Zedong article, where he indirectly accused them of "50 cent party" and being paid by the PRC government [112]. He also inserted edits on the respective article referring to Mao as a "mass murderer" [113], and suggested that wikipedia is the PRC's propaganda department [114].

    He has previous issued personal attacks against myself over a content dispute at Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, suggesting that I'm an employee of the "50 Cent Party" [115], that I am burying my head in sand [116], and that I "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept" [117]. When I raised concerns, he claimed that is simply a "friendly message telling me to improve my work skills" [118]. When another user raised similar concerns, he claimed that being a 50 Cent Party is nothing to be ashamed of.[119][120]. He did this again recently at the talk page of the Great Leap Forward article [121], claiming that I am "always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points".

    Arilang is also known for his anti-Manchu views, and issued numerous racial epithets against Manchus, being raised by another user [122][123], who he called to "improve his English" [124], and asked him to "read more books" [125]. On the Boxer Rebellion article, he claimed that the Boxers were "barbarians and stupid to the extreme" [126], that the Manchus are also "barbarians" [127], and said he will personally throw eggs on (pro-Manchu personality)'s face [128]. He even changed the lede of the Boxer Rebellion article, calling the Boxers "gangs of xenophobic, anti-Christians and ignorant bandits that had no political consciousness" [129]. He has previously created an article named Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, deleted for original research, as a well as several other linking Manchus to massacres [130][131][132], including a deleted article named Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers.

    The issue has been raised by other since he started editing Wikipedia, [133], where he indirectly compared another editor to "holocaust deniers"[134], [135], that the editor is attempting to "paint a rosy picture of these barbarians" [136] and called the Manchus "the most murderous barbarians of them all". He later offered an apology, claiming that the name calling "are just jokes". [137]

    Removal of sourced materials

    Recently, Arilang removed large amounts of sourced material from Great Leap Forward [138] [139]. He justified the removals because one of the authors is Mobo Gao, who he claims is an employee of the Confucius Institute, thus his views equal to those of the PRC government. He also claims “PRC sources on the GLF are all propaganda” [140], despite the fact none of the sources he removed even comes from the PRC government. I addressed these concerns on the article talk page, and he replied with a snide remark using a propaganda poster. [141]. He also removed sourced material from Li Miqi, who he claimed is "the modern version of Edgar Snow[142]

    He repeated his soapboxing on the talk page of the Mao: Unknown Story article [143], using original research from another Wikipedia article [144], suggesting that because Gao worked for the Confucius Institute in Adelaide, he thus is an employee of the Chinese Communist Party and his views should be instantly dismissed. He called Gao “the biggest 50 cent party of all” with no justification [145]. Quigley pointed out his fallacies, and he replied with an overriding comment asking Quigley to read a certain book [146]. He also had removed critical material from the article in the past [147]. Another editor raised concerns about his behavior on the BLP noticeboard, and he claimed that the labelling "is not a big deal" [148]

    Other concerns

    Ariliang1234 has a habit of introducing external links, while I believe is in good faith, nevertheless appear to violate WP:EL, [149] [150][151], which consists largely of Google translations of dubious Chinese language forums and blogs. [152][153][154][155][156]--PCPP (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    hmmm... Arilang talk 10:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • This guy needs to be topic-banned for a lengthy period. Some of his comments are so mind-bogglingly racist I'm amazed he hasn't been reported before. Check out this comment on his Talk Page "Beside computer languages, serious science subjects such as Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Rockect Science, Genetics, just wouldn't be there without ENGLISH. Chinese language's contribution? None." No rocket science without the English language? lol! No MATH without English?! This guy has some serious issues. LaoZi81 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re to PCPP. I do not see anything urgent here. If you have serious concerns about a long-term contributor (like Arilang1234), you should file an RfC about him and discuss the problems if any. Biophys (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing urgent about using racial epithets??? That alone warrants a ban, does it not? LaoZi81 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any "racial epithets" at all. The user is talking about the individual Wikipedia language-specific projects, as in the English Wikipedia versus the Cantonese Wikipedia. To say a Wikipedia project has not contributed anything on serious science subjects, whether it is fair comment or not, is hardly a "racial epithet". There is nothing to force Wikipedia editors to praise a particular Wikimedia wiki's achievements on the rather dubious argument of cultural equality. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Apologies. I misread the comment. He wasn't talking about the Wikipedias; he was, however, talking about the English versus Chinese languages. Still, my original argument stands; there's nothing particularly racist debating the merits vs. disadvantages of particular languages as goes particular fields of academia (irrespective of how spurious the discussion may be). I haven't seen the user say anything to state that Chinese people haven't contributed anything to these fields. I cannot help but wonder about the motivations of the complainants, however, given the lack of substantative erroneous conduct; and whilst I am going to assume good faith, I can't help but see this as rather deliberate muckraking in defence of China's prestige. Whilst Wikipedia isn't the place for the debate, it takes sensitive skin to consider this racism. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look again Turnbull. If said user had been referring to Black Africans or Native Americans as "barbarians" and "savages", I'm sure your response would be very different. That you're not familiar with the Chinese language or anti-Manchu sentiment should not affect Wikipedia's tolerance of racial vilification. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you have a grievance, LaoZi81; however, I would remind you that you are required to be civil. I am simply an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator reviewing this AN/I request; I am not a disputant in the Chinese language debate, nor do I have any need to have any wider knowledge of whatever this dispute concerns. I see the user being complained about has made some uncivil comments in comparatively isolated circumstances (and has made some strange article edits); but this conduct is at least matched, if not exceeded, by the attitude of the pro-Chinese editors as well; nobody comes out very well from this, at all. In short, what I see is an ongoing mutual disrespect and incivility marked by the pro-PRC versus PRC-critic editors on these article topics, which I suspect is being worsened by one or more conflicts of interest on both sides. I think everyone needs to just get on with article editing, and grind their axes somewhere else other than the English Wikipedia. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Turnbull, you're way off here mate. Look before you jump. The user IS Chinese (I, for the record, am not - which makes your insinuations of being a CCP stooge rather amusing!) - no one's accusing him of being an anti-Chinese racist. The racism is in reference to the anti-Manchurian remarks (See Diffs 145-149). I quoted his "theory" about the English vs Chinese language in an attempt to show how bonkers he is - I guess I should have made that clearer. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't insinuate you were anything at all, actually; I just said I felt there was a conflict of interest at work somewhere. I don't think what I wrote above could reasonably be interpreted as such and I invite you to seek the comment of other editors as to whether I was "insinuating" anything at all. I refuse to be drawn into this and, frankly, your combative attitude does not help me identify what you want me to do about your grievances. Therefore, I will be taking no administrative action. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I don't have any grievances - I am also an uninvolved editor, just giving my 2 cents. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry for the conflation, then. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering this discussion is getting heated, I suggest, as an outside viewer, that people read Wikipedia:CIVIL and Wikipedia:TALK before they reply to each other. That is all! ;).--Graythos1 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggested resolution

    I believe the most amicable resolution of this issue would be a community ban along the following lines:

    Users editing topics relating to the People's Republic of China and the Chinese language in 1) a combative or tendentious manner or 2) in repeated violation of Wikipedia policies may be indefinitely topic banned by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator. A list of users subject to this broad community editing restriction shall be maintained at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any users to whom this ban is applied who continue to edit these articles may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in enforcement of this editing restriction. Users subject to this ban include Arilang1234 (talk · contribs), PCPP (talk · contribs), and any other disputants identified by Wikipedia administrators prior to enaction of this editing restriction. Users to whom this ban is applied may request community review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
    • Oppose. That kind of discretionary sanctions is normally introduced only by Arbcom. The idea is to look carefully at all issues. This is not a proper place. Biophys (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Makes sense to me. Same should apply across all areas of WP that are continuously the subject of edit-warring and dodgy practices LaoZi81 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as uninvolved. That's a huge swath of articles, and we haven't seen a major problem with it across those articles the way we have with the Troubles, Scientology or Israel/Palestine. At the moment, this needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - requires more discussion and details of major issues regarding multiple users before such a broad brush is required or applied. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like most of the above editors, I think that the need for such a wide-ranging restriction has not been convincingly demonstrated here.  Sandstein  21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. All China-related articles? That's an large range of articles, and an action that's usually reserved for Global Warming-level disputes. I think Arilang is guilty of some civility issues, but a cautionary warning should suffice. Let's not go overboard here.--hkr (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While the PRC politics article can use some oversight, I don't believe that the entire series of China articles needs editing restrictions.--PCPP (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Break 1

    I've interacted with Arilang on the Boxer articles as a third party editor, so I can verify that disputes on China-related articles are very heated, although not as much as the Israel/Eastern Europe disputes. Like many Wikipedians, Arilang is very opinionated. He is steadfast in the promotion of his POV, but he has a tendency to lose his cool when disputes escalate, which results in the incidents listed above. As Turnbull mentions, this occurs often with editors that deal with controversial topics, but it should not be encouraged. And I strongly disagree with Turnbull's tit-for-tat defense of Arilang. The incivility of one POV side is not a valid excuse to justify the incivility of the other's.

    As for a response, I think an official warning and a slap on the wrist will suffice, Lao's (a sockpuppet?) call for a lengthy topic-ban is excessively severe. If Arilang's behavior continues to decline, I think a more severe response could be merited, but until then Arilang should be allowed to edit, with a reminder that he should edit more cautiously, and in consideration of neutrality, civility, and consensus.--hkr (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Uninvolved) Alright, that sounds fair enough. Arilang, will you be willing to take this into account? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    First and foremost, I like to say a big "Thank you" to user NicholasTurnbull spending so much precious time in supporting me, and I think user hkr's comment is very fair, I like to say "thank you" to him, and also a big "thank you" to all the editors who care to post comments here, including Lao(sockpuppet?). I also appreciate hkr's comment:"China-related articles are very heated", so I always try to add some "cool" comments here and there, trying to take some "heat" away. Unfortunately, some editors could not appreciate my style of humor, like on the case of user PCPP, whom had been called a 50 Cent Party many times by me. Seriously, to me, the label of being a 50 Cent Party does not carry any offensive nor degrading meaning at all, and if PCPP feel bad about it, I hereby offer my sincere apology to him. Arilang talk 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another false accusation against me is that I am racist because I call Manchus "Barbarians". Calling Manchu "Barbarians" must be seen in the correct historical context, the best way to understand it is to look at the Tianxia concept:
    Graphical representation oftianxia thought, showing the Emperor at the center, surrounded by major and minor officials and then tributary kingdoms and "barbarian" tribes.
    Throughout China's 4000 years history, whoever became Emperor of China would automatically regards smaller kingdoms along it's border "Barbarian states". That means when Han Chinese was Emperor, Manchus were regarded as Barbarians, and when Manchus was Emperor, Japaneses, Koreans, were regarded as "Barbarians". Arilang talk 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The British once held the same views. The simple answer is that rather than calling Manchu people barbarian, why not call them 'Manchu'? Am I missing something here? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This response sounds too much like a non-apology apology. It is extremely antagonistic, and not "humorous", to repeatedly accuse editors with whom you disagree of being agents of the Chinese government with no proof. Instead of adding "cool" to "heated China-related articles" (which are generally pretty calm), such accusations, both against PCPP and cast broadly as a conspiracy theory, actually poison the atmosphere of China-related articles and drive out editors who try to compensate for the lacking internet access in China and add balance and perspective to the articles in the field.
    In addition to some of the questionable race-related comments above, Arilang has used an article talk page to inform us that "[the] average Chinese male is inferior to an average Caucasian male." I struggle to find the "humor" in that. Quigley (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one line that itches me quite a bit:
    >Unfortunately, some editors could not appreciate my style of humor
    I assume you're not yet aware of the recent incident involving a United States aircraft carrier captain who was demoted, who used more or less the exact same excuse. I'm not saying that there should be "no fun allowed" on Wikipedia, but there are limits to what can and can't be done, right? Would you travel to Compton, California and use the N-word, and then argue that "some people might not be understanding your humour"? And how is calling someone a 50-cent different from calling someone a Jew or a Gook? "50-cent" is a disparaging term that labels someone as a communist-sympathizing lackey and a political web-warrior. It doesn't quite cut it for me. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 09:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said was:"Well, physically speaking, average Chinese male is inferior to an average Caucasian male", stress the word "physically", not mentally, sexually, intelligence wise. What I meant was, give a pair of boxing gloves to an average Chinese male and an average Caucasian male and put them inside a boxing ring, more than likely it is the average Caucasian that would be the winner. An average Chinese male just does not have the same muscle and bone mass of an average Caucasian male. Mind you, I am only comparing the "muscle and bone mass", nothing else. Arilang talk 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, would you mind scaling back your attempts at humour in future, and scaling back those things which could be construed as racism? This sort of thing can easily escalate into a topic ban, which is the last thing we want. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK user Chase me ladies, I shall be extra careful from now on, and refrain from throwing offensive comments around. Arilang talk 08:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone with Manchu heritage, I find some of Arilang's "humor" deeply offensive, alongside his numerous name calling suggesting that I am a stooge of the CCP. Nevertheless, if he is sincere in his apology to me, and is willing to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA (maybe WP:EL as well), cease his name calling, and actively engage in talk page discussions, I will assume good faith and accept his apology, and would have no problem working with him.--PCPP (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from civility problems, there are other issues involving Arilang that generally concern me, practices that he should be cautioned to avoid. His tendency to use Chinese language sources, often of questionable reliability, when perfectly available English language sources exist is problematic. Especially if you consider his comments that editors on China-related articles must be able to read Chinese, which doesn't matter on the English language Wikipedia as preference is given to English language sources.

    Arilang should also be careful of BLP concerns, and of adding controversial or critical material into articles without discussing it on the talk page, when he knows that his additions are prone to provoke a reaction. The content disputes will likely not escalate if you calmly discuss the controversial material first to establish consensus with other users, before directly adding the content to articles.--hkr (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As PCPP noted in the "name calling" section, Arilang1234's edits have been disturbing. Whats even more disturbing, is that in some of the edits noted, the apologies he offered previously were worded in the exact same manner as his apology now above in this section, sounding sarcastic and claiming its all "jokes".
    Another comment by Arilang1234- [User:Дунгане has certainly spend huge amount of time and effort in reading all my past editing records, I would take it as a compliment towards my contribution on Wikipedia, which began in Sep 2008, about 26 months ago, and during this times, many editors offered me a helping hand to improve my writing skill as well as my English. I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all those who help me along the way. "User:Дунгане is saying nothing on his(or her) user homepage, but looking at his pigin English, all I can say is, User:Дунгане does need a lot of help from other more experienced editors"]
    previously, he "doubted" my chinese speaking ability- "User:Дунгане, I am asking you one more time, Can You Read Chinese? Just a simple question, and I am still waiting for a reply"Дунгане (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    somehow for arilang1234, my ability to speak chinese and english flip flopped for him when it was convinient, as he spammed the talk page with massive blocks of simplified text.Дунгане (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid Arilang1234 has a history of offering insincere apologies. He pushes his insolence to the limit, and then suddenly "apologizes" and backs down when his account is on the verge of being reported and blocked. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians Arilang1234 first went into hate filled rants against Mongols and Manchus, not just calling them barbarians, but personally attacking editors like Madalibi, accusing him of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action", of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!),
    Arilang1234 then offered an "apology", saying- "take back my comments on calling other editors (including user Madalibi) twisting the rules, if ever other editors think that my comments were of personal attacks, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone's delicate feelings and I shall apology to them with all my sincerity, and I solemnly promise that there shall not be a second time. On me calling User Madalibi various names, "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action"Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation,"denying the holocaust all these names calling are just jokes
    If we look at this incident, which happened January 2009, and his current apology, you will see him conveying the same, insincere, sarcastic message.Дунгане (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Campaign of Deletion" against the Transformers Wiki Project by NotARealWord and TFWiki.net

    The Transformers wikipedia project has recently suffered from a glut of sock puppet attacks and deletion nominations. I recently came across posts by user NotARealWord on a fan wiki (he posts as Item42 there, but since he publically admits to that, I think it's okay for me to say so here). In it he talks about the current "Campaign of deletion" he has going here. I also noticed several of the people who talk to him are also voting for deletion nominations, and some even admit to having sock puppets on Wikipedia. He did this after I told him how anti-Wikipedia sentiments on the tfwiki are. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive47#Some_Wikipedia_user The tf wiki even brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Wikipedia I was wondering if this amounts to canvasing or even instigating some of the sock puppet attacks. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly some of the participants are dicks and violating policy, but multiple established editors have also initiated and participated in these AfDs, merges, redirects, etc. None of these happen without multiple people chiming in, and final evaluation of the merits of arguments about the articles are rendered by established administrators. Perhaps this calls for closer scrutiny of new(ish)-user initiation and participation in AfDs (which I think has already happened), but nothing more. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual cases of possible sockpuppetry can be investigated, but my experience of the Transformers AfDs have generally been that in spite of some occasional questionable nominations and/or !votes, the right decision is usually reached, as genuine editors weigh in and sockpuppets/SPIs are exposed and disregarded by the closing admin. I can't claim to have any understanding of what happens on tfwiki but I'm disinclined to try and understand who is who and who has done what on which wiki, as I don't really see the relevence.--KorruskiTalk 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question about whether the deletions were done correctly isn't the issue. It's about NotARealWord's tactics in seemingly canvasing from anti-Wikipedia groups about his nominations. He even brags on how many Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. He would seem to be abusing the nomination process. Since he joined NotARealWord has been about article deletions. Maybe he should take a break and do something else with his edits for a change? (Note: This is Mathewignash at a terminal at my work.) 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I'm not seeing evidence of canvasing per se. Can you point to a specific divdif? You might interpret his statements as bragging, and I agree that referring to it as a 'campaign' is a little unfortunate, but I don't see it as particularly inappropriate. If you found me talking on another wiki about my 'campaign to improve citations in BLPs on Wikipedia', I don't think anyone would be complaining. And yes, in the end, the question about whether the deletions were done correctly is the issue. If no damage has been caused, then any further discussion is really just drama for no good reason.--KorruskiTalk 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Failing to see an issue here, particularly with activities at TFWiki; whose members seem perfectly happy and content and quite accepting of our policies (it is, after all, what TFWiki exists for....). This just comes across as an attempt to get some action against NotARealWord. Mathewignash doesn't seem squeaky clean in all this; WP:BOOMERANG --Errant (chat!) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • From Wikipedia:Canvassing "Stealth canvassing - Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages." People there had already said they were wikipedia editors when he started telling them about his "Campaign of Deletion". He did it off site with the clear intent of gaining support. He provided a link to his talk page which has a link to his nominations for deletion. He clearly attempted Stealth Canvassing to gain support for his nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide a link or two to a diff of him asking folks to chime in at AfDs, or pointing folks toward a specific AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As said in my comment above, which you have not responded to, difs would be useful as currently I see no evidence of the 'clear intent of gaining support' that you are claiming. Incidentally, I have informed NotARealWord of this discussion, as you seem not to have done so yet.--KorruskiTalk 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merely notifying those who are clearly on one side of an issue is is canvasing. It would be no different from me notifying only those who voted with me in a previous deletion cases that there is another deletion nomination. Doing it off site is stealth. He provides a link to his talk page on Wikipedia, and tells them about the nominations. I don't know of a requirement that he provides a link to the nominations in his posting, he does link to Wikipedia and tells people who are admitted members. They know to look in the Transformers Wiki project for current nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You might have been within spitting distance of a point if NotARealWord actually solicited anyone to come participate in an AfD, and if any of the TFwiki users were considered some sort of hotbed of Transformers deletionists. But he didn't say anything like that at all, and the TFWikipeople seem largely ambivalent/dismissive about Transformers articles on the Wikipedia, preferring their own content and methodology. I read through a few articles, and it is much more of a fan-oriented and humorous approach to the subject matter. If Mathewignash has a bee in his bonnet about how people talk about him off-site, there's really not much to be done about that. Similar complaints pop up time time time regarding the Wikipedia Review, where the response is (appropriately) "tough cookies". Tarc (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that the TFwiki's page about Wikipedia makes a joke about how it now has fewer Transformers articles is proof of it's deletionist tendencies. We don't need proof he asked them one way or another, he informed those he clearly knew off site to be of one opionion about deletion nominations. That's stealth canvassing. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Guys, stop asking for diffs. They don't exist. Mathewignash is making things up. Ego sum a atrum militis (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm confused. How can he? canvass people after the !vote? Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (ec)It is not "stealth canvassing" if nothing is actually being, y'know, canvassed. Again, at WR there are regular discussions about problematic articles, but there is no sort of bloc response that results, now is one expected. Same for the TFWiki place. They are dismissive of TF Wiki articles in general. Dismissive != deletionist. And I really don't put much stock in the point of view from single-purpose anon IPs anyways, so this will be the last of this side tangent. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Tarc, you haven't read the discussion so far before joining in. 198.51.174.5 stated three edits above who xe is. And even without that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathewignash makes this point clear. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Ahh, so I missed one line of one post of Mathewignashs'. My mistake, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of the commentary. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The long and short of the issue is that there's only a problem if pages were inappropriately deleted, which does not seem to be the case. The spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia: No damage means that this is a non-issue. Besides per Mathewignash's own link(very bottom) at the top of this page, the stated purpose of this "campaign" is to improve the encyclopedia. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't think there's much cause to worry. Administrators are not, in general, members of the ranks of the terminally stupid; they will not simply delete nominated articles that have evidently been vote-stacked despite the appropriateness of the nomination. In fact, people can nominate articles for deletion until they are blue in the face, but articles won't get deleted solely because they are nominated -- the nomination must also have merit, and the votes must be reasonable plus representative of a consensus. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to this, please note that my "campaigning" was already addressed by Dream Focus (see here) a few months ago. And no, the fact that TFWiki "brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia" has nothing to do with me. The bit that says "Wikipedia is also a real website. It has many articles on Transformers—though not nearly as many as it used to", has been around long before I started making AfDs. I started around August 28. Also, I don't think TF Wiki is actually involved in this deletion very much, I only noticed like, 2 people from there commtning on my AfDs. One of them was already blocked as a sockpuppet. NotARealWord (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In an interestign turn of events, a message board thread run by the tfwiki is monitoring this thread, a thread where NotARealWord has posted as well, and one member, Blackout, admits to "wasting" one of his sock puppets to post against me here. Meanwhile I see blocked editor "Editor XXV" has attacked this thread. Blackout is Editor XXV, a known mass sockpuppeteer, and Blackout is a major contributor to the tfwiki. So basically we know for sure one of the many sock puppeteers is a major TFwiki member. Mathewignash (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point? -Blackout-/Editor XXV/whatever's acounts have been blocked. I'm pretty sure only the Divebomb account was created as a result of this. And, that was a "good hand" account which has already been blocked. Also, that thread is not really "run by the tf wiki" NotARealWord (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously Ignash, this feels like a rehash of a previous thread you started last year.

    This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making.

    NotARealWord (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and looking back at that incident, it ended with us discovering that one of the editors making massive deletion nominations was a sock puppet nominator. So that complaint was VALID! Mathewignash (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That one was helpful, this one isn't. Not really sure if it was "valid" though, since you weren't actually complainin that you suspected sockpuppetry at first, you were just complaining about AfDs and the sockpuppets popped up. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as a regular on TFWiki (under the name JW), I am not aware of any anti-Wikipedia sentiment more organized than, "It would be nice if their rules were more like ours, and it would be nice if they had more Transformers articles, but [shrug] whatever." TFWiki's article about Wikipedia is not much more than an idle grumble (and mostly just about Wikipedia getting mentioned in a Transformers magazine, anyway). I believe this basically boils down to a disagreement between Mathewignash and NotARealWorld. 38.111.35.2 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I find it odd that anyone thinks there's a TFWiki campaign to delete TF Wikipedia articles, when I got the impression that a significant reason some TFWiki people are disgruntled with Wikipedia is because they found it annoying that articles and info they put effort into kept getting deleted or changed around due to Wikipedia rules. As such, making a campaign of encouraging said deletion would be... rather contradictory. --67.252.49.31 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus there is the minor detail that at least one tfwiki regular member, user:Blackout, is an active sock puppeteer disrupter on Wikipedia (user:Editor XXV). Something he told NotARealWord just before NotARealWord told him about the current "Campaign of Deletion" he was running on Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In full disclosure, there are currently two SPI cases about this: one where Mathewignash accused NotARealWord of being a sockpuppet, and one where NotARealWord accused Mathewignash of using an IP. What a mess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a blooming clue of what's going on here. We don't even have a list of which TF article are being AfD'd or any diff for the accusation of canvassing to get the un-indentified TF articles deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's probably because they don't exist. As EEMIV pointed out above, and as I pointed out the last time (hyperlinked-to above), there are in reality several distinct groups of people here. Alas, one group comprises malicious pot-stirrers, who have observed Mathewignash's reactions to other people nominating articles for deletion and set out to deliberately get a rise out of Mathewignash. But those are not even the majority of the people involved, let alone the entirety. There are, for example, people such as BlackKite (whom I pointed to last time as someone trying to get Mathewignash to cite sources and address multi-subject articles over a period of years) who most definitely do not fall into that category. There are also, as EEMIV points out, ordinary good-faith editors who have come along and expressed their concern at articles that AFD has drawn to their attention. There isn't some giant imagined "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" here. There are a lot of different people, with different motivations. Quite a few of them, it appears, are people acting in good faith to get some articles fixed that they'd like to see fixed. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    156.26.118.77, Jordan-related articles

    156.26.118.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making a large number of edits to Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other Jordan-related articles, which I had been assuming good faith — until the most recent bunch of edits on Jordan, which included POV-pushing and introduction of a false fact (listing JK as an ISO code for Jordan in addition to JO with no evidence that is the case). However, there are some parts of his/her edits that appear to be at least potentially factually accurate. Should all of his/her edits be simply rolled back as I am tempted to since I have lost confidence in the integrity of his/her edits? Thoughts would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Make a "cost-benefit analysis". In this case, it looks to me as though the ratio of potentially correct edits to insertion of factually dubious (and unsourced) information is not a particularly good one. I would think a temporary block is in order if the user has already been suitably warned, and the user may as well be topic banned from editing Jordan-related topics since there is evidently a fixation. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. It's the shared IP for Wichita State University. I suggest therefore it get a short block at best and, since the edits may be originating from multiple users, you may as well err on the side of caution regarding reverting anything relating to Jordan (perhaps I might suggest a topic ban of IP editors from WSU editing Jordan-topic subjects?) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the time span in which the edits were made, I think it's clearly from one single editor. I think I'm going to err on the side of caution and revert them all for now. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After further thought, I decided to give a one-week topic ban to 156.26.118.77 on Jordan-related articles for one week and reverted all of his/her edits. I wrote a note encouraging him/her to edit other articles in a positive manner during the one-week span, and explained that the Wadi Al Seer-related edits (which, again, appear to be actually positive edits but the integrity of which I can no longer have confidence) may be reinstated if he/she proves trustworthy. We'll see. --Nlu (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No here to contribute + Sock puppetry

    is a trans-wiki spammer of original research. Also with the same logins in the french wikipedia. See here Thank you. --Epsilon0 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All  Confirmed except the first one, which is stale, but I think that's also an obvious sock. –MuZemike 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Anybody to block him and to blacklist his three sites 1, 2 ? 3 ? --Epsilon0 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked and tagged. The blacklist is something I'd rather not touch, though. Courcelles 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-opening Weiterbewegung, Maurice J. Halton and revocation of licensing for posted text

    This was raised at the end of December WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Weiterbewegung.2C_Maurice_J._Halton_and_revocation_of_licensing_for_posted_text but was auto-archived without any resolution - or any response by the user involved. (Please read if you're not already familiar.)

    Today has now brought the same problem back, on three four five more articles:

    As previously, this editor (who is generally assumed to be Maurice J. Halton) has helpfully posted large parts of his theses, but now flagged these same additions as copyvios. As before, that's an attempt to revoke an irrevocable license of this text, as clearly explained on our edit pages. The alternative (they're not the author) would be that their contributions represent a serious bulk copyvio.

    Action is needed here. Obviously the project is harmed by this sort of addition and reversion. Several editors have already wasted time on dealing with this and, more seriously, it's difficult to justify working on these articles in the future if they're to be under perpetual threat of deletion / major content removal in the future.

    This is made worse by the editor's refusal to engage in any discussion of their actions. Their carping at anyone and everyone else is irritating, but no worse than the usual trolls that we have to suffer.

    What is our action from this point? Rollback of all of this editor's additions? An indef block and ban to prevent it happening again? Doing nothing, as last week, doesn't seem to be a viable option. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would humbly suggest that Weiterbewegung is asked to suggest a solution, as treating experts with respect and trying to understand their Weltanschauung is often more productive than to assume conflict. He may be in a position to get Maurice Halton to give a OTRS statement of consent for his work to be used in this way: thus satisfying WP conditions so he in all conscience could then remove the copyvio tags he 'rightfully' placed, and we would all be in a more secure position. I am very keen to have this resolved as I have a to do list of other Manchester machine tool companies that need to be written up, and I am hoping that the eminent scholar has copious reams of notes on these companies that he may be proud to share.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    His theses are copyrighted. They are copyrighted the moment he published them. He cannot just paste them here, because we don't know if it's really him. There are two possible courses of action here: either we remove those contributions as copyvios, or he provides permission to use his theses through the OTRS system. If he does the latter, we can keep the text. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy Walsh, I think that the issue is wider than the original premise. However, to address your comment: it seems to make the assumption that the user in question is in fact Maurice J Halton & can therefore grant permission. To be honest, and based on other events not directly related to the copyvios, my suspicion is tending more towards trolling. Of course, I cannot prove this and, which is worse, I'm too green to know how to demonstrate it using diffs (I can see them but not use them!) etc. Take a look at my own talk page and that of the Churchill Machine Tool Company (+ history of that article). If he is not MJH then he has in legal terms himself breached copyright, and arguably also "passed off", and is in as much hot water as WP as an organisation; if he is MJH then by putting the stuff up here in the first place he has granted rights to use it. All I can add to this is that (a) I have been subjected to his general attitude and find it combative and reductionist at almost all times; (b) he does not seem to be learning even though other people much more experienced than me have tried very hard to deal with that attitude and accepted on good faith that as a noob he will not be entirely familiar with how things operate; and (c) his last resort seems always to quote WP:AGF, to the point where he is actually working *against* AGF by repeatedly using it as, for all intents and purposes, a defence. I for one am on the verge of walking away. I've fettled in quite a big way a couple of what are now big-ish entries here and have spurred those entries on to better things than I could hope for because they gained attention from people better than me (and massively so on the issue of polishing things up). In theory I could keep doing that quite easily. But "am I bovvered" when faced with someone who seems to me at times to be more difficult to deal with than a WP vandal ? I am genuinely sorry about this and feel bad as I type it, but I had to sound off. I also freely admit my limitations and ineptitude with regard to certain aspects of WP. It is not my intent to cause trouble or to seek attention. I've got a heap of stuff on the backburner for Farmer, Norton Ltd, which should exist as an article, but frankly am reaching the point of not caring less with regard to WP. And now I have probably breached all etiquette, but forgive me please because I've not been involved in this sort of thing before. Sitush (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sitush, thanks for posting. I'm afraid you misunderstand the essence of the issue here. Whether he really is MJH is irrelevant—he cannot grant permission to use copyrighted work just by posting here, precisely because we cannot verify who he is. If he really is MJH or has access to him, he must grant permission through the OTRS system. That's really all there is to say about the copyright issue. His behavior and whether or not it constitutes trolling should be treated as a separate matter. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK Andy. My apologies for misunderstanding & thanks for clarifying. I'm afraid that my frustration is getting the better of me. Sitush (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at the postings which are alleged to be copyvio, some, which were added by Weiterbewegung, give references to other works so it might be that rather than a copyvio it's more a copy paste requiring rewrite. Also what is the copyright status of the doctoral thesis? It is available online here http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/his_theses/1/ and if the whole document is downloaded please see the statement at the bottom of page 1 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History: Theses by an authorized administrator of UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact ubir@bolton.ac.uk. There is also the policy statement relating to the repository here - http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/bolton_policy_template.pdf which suggests to me that the copyright status of the thesis is not as clear cut as it might first appear. As an email address is available I would suggest that contact is made with the university to discuss this. NtheP (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the next question is, how much of the thesis has been used? If it's a straight copy-paste, then their rules against commercial re-use would seem to apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really the issue here. The boilerplate there is (not surprisingly) quite restrictive, and the use that was made went far in excess of that. However the claim here was different: that the content was specifically licensed to WP (under the general GFDL requirement) by the act of posting it. Provided that the editor was entitled to license it in that way (and generally the author of a thesis would still hold rights to do this), that is why WP might have rights to do so, not from some general boilerplate for all artefacts held in a repository. In this case it seems impossibvle to prove that it was correctly licensed (even though I still believe it would have been), because the editor is now refusing to confirm that they're the author. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @ClemRutter - good idea. What's his view of a future direction?
    @AndyWalsh - you're right of course. It seems unlikely that an OTRS solution would work (even though that would be the best result), whether that's because the thesis wasn't his to give, or because he's since changed his mind.
    My main concern is what happens in the future. I just don't want anything about engineering history to be under this indefinite shadow of getting slapped with a future copyvio claim. We must get to a point where there is no more of this editor's work still extant without a clear grant of rights behind it - whether that's by clarifying the rights (which their edits do after all claim to have granted to the project), or by rolling back all of their work forthwith. Of the nine(?) articles involved so far, one has already been deleted entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a special case here—we treat it as any other copyvio. If he makes contributions and we can make a reasonable assumption that he is writing new text from sources (even if it's his own thesis), there is no problem there. If his text is demonstrably a copy/paste from his paper or any other source, we revert it to a clean version. If there is no clean version, we delete it outright (as was the case with at least one of his articles). --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, treating the editor as a serial copyright violator, we'd usually block. That's a bit harsh in this case, as no-one seriously believes that they were.
    My real concern is with the editor's ongoing behaviour. They refuse to engage in any real discussion, they continually attack other editors and they also drop these bombshell copyvio claims onto fairly important articles like Ferranti. It was their action that caused it - they should be at least a little contrite, not swinging around the black template o'death as if they were an aggrieved rights holder. If they openly discussed that the theses used had to go, then editors could clean up as needed without such drama. John Musgrave & Sons is now being cleaned up in much this way.
    As they're an editor who has run right off the end of AGF, I'm unhappy to see them left with editing access without at least an acceptance of what has happened - I would support an indef block (NB indef isn't infinite) or at least some form of restrictive edit ban, just to ensure it doesn't happen again. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't reviewed all of his contributions yet, but has he actually marked something as a copyvio yet that's not really a copyvio? The answer to that question will go a long way toward deciding if he's actually being disruptive. I normally block only as a last resort. Even if he's ramping up to WP:POINT, I'm not sure the best solution is to block. I'm going to try to engage him on his talk page and see if we can sort it out. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The content they've marked is AFAIK correctly scoped as being that from Maurice Halton's theses, content which they've added. However we shouldn't regard this as a copyvio against the uploader, because the likelihood is that they're the rights holder to it. We can't prove this to keep it, but nor can we disprove it to treat them as a copyright violator. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We err on the side of removing it if we can't prove ownership. It can always be restored if an OTRS ticket is received. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    @Andy Dingley: I will ask then.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Weiterbewegung: Sehr geehrte Herr Doktor, können Sie uns erklaren, was, in Seine Meinung werde dem besten Weiterbewegung. (oops wp:en not commons so in translation)- how do we progress?) Interesting issues of plagiarism, copyright, legal identity have been raised- but the Christmas tree has been taken down, and the mince pies finished- to the plus side Churchills is now a nice piece of work. With you we have two extra editors working on industrial history. So an opinion sir! --ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Any German speaker: corrections to my talk page. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (/edit conflict)
    This seems to be the only response so far, to a similar question I asked on his talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if anyone wants to try a dialogue after that, all I can say is good luck. Meanwhile we still need to determine if the copyvios are indeed copyvios. I see that Kim D-B has taken a brief look at L. Gardner and Sons and doesn't think that the whole article is a violation. Does the same exercxie need to be undertaken with the rest of the articles mentioned? NtheP (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately they're a fairly recent editor, and their edits (that I've seen) are mostly large expansions of a few articles. It isn't too difficult to roll everything in this list (a dozen?) back to before they edited, then to carefully hand-reapply any other editors' relevant changes since. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kim, that seems like a pretty fair analysis, and does gives us a lot of insight into Maurices Weltanshauung- and also gives us a fairly large tick lisk for areas that need to be improved. As one integrates into the Wikpediacommunity, one tends to brush off the irritations and develop strategies to attain your goals. Maurice, has set out quite clearly why he attempted to join and with that in mind, we can see how minor changes to the system could have prevented alot of the reason-free obstacles. ( Yes, I have issues with the mindless deletion on Fair Use images, 60 or 70 years old when it obvious the copyright owner was a company that is now defunct- by wiki-dalek who has no body of work to their name- and no experience in the world of cast iron and steel. ) It is an undesirable characteristic of WP, that discussion decends to argument and then to personalising. Most of those comments would be best left unsaid. I also think that Maurice is used to the world of peer review and objective argument, and we are behoven to debate at the same level. It would help if his comments were seriously considered, and his expertise was harnessed to achieve one of his identified aims: that of improving the quality, and indeed putting onto the internet for the first time the historical significance of these engineering firms. His comments about triangulation is very relevant. However, we need to stop patronising Weiterbewegung by impying he is a newbie- no way, he has been round the block a few times- consequently we can expect him to read WP:BITE and ask him to stop savaging timeserved Wikipedian who for reason of anno domini or lack of opportunity are less familiar with academic ways (the senior common room!). Weiterbewegung can obviously be asked to point out potential copyvios on each article and sugggest legitimate work arounds. And for the sake of sanity- can we slow this down a little so folk have time to formulate a reply before posting it- and get out to work as well.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ClemRutter, I must disagree, except regarding the issue of images and bots regarding which my bet is there are thousands who get frustrated (incuding myself). The Wikipedia community *is* a community, just as is the academic (MA/PhD etc) community or the local pub or works canteen. There are rules of conduct and expectations of standards, but the expectations and standards differ. That is life, and we must all interact with many communities with different levels or else perhaps choose to become become hermits. No offence to hermits intended. He *is* a newbie, to WP at least and that is where we are. And he seems not to understand the rationale nor be willing to take it on board however much his critical faculties might disagree with it - that's the compromise we all have to make in any community of which we wish to be a member: to challenge but not to destroy. The one WP rationalise he does understand is AGF, but he appears to use it as a bludgeon, a panacea for all he does & thinks is right & thus actually abuses it. One thing I regret very much about WP is the problems associated with verifiability and NPOV. As an example, I have recently added a verifiable/primary source point to the Churchill Machine Tool Co entry which I nonetheless would like to expand on but it would not meet standards: yes, the company did advertise 4 addresses in 1899 but this doesn't mean that it was at that point a notable business: accommodation addresses, agents etc were as much the norm then as now but I cannot easily verify this without copious examples, which would swamp the page and therefore cannot say it, which might lead some to the wrong conclusion. "Maurice" took me to task on an even more academic point which effectively related to triangulation. In a very high level academic environment (think Maurice Cowling, with whom I studied and who produced not a lot of actual output in his life) he would be correct but I am afraid that it is an extremely niche area and not conducive to the dissemination of knowledge. Rather like dissing as useless every car except a Ferrari (or whatever). You will not read many books on historical subjects that rely entirely on seeing the original sources and never quote the work of someone else with suitable footnotes etc, the works of Marc Bloch and Cowling aside. The key is whether the someone else who is quoted is reliable, but without this "standing on the shoulders of giants" little will progress anywhere because we (the world, the species) will be continually chasing the tails that we no longer have. I have queried the reliability of a source Rolt regarding a specific point on the Talk page of the Churchill article I have been working on: that is the correct place to do it, I feel. Anyone who believes everything they read (even on WP) is silly. The key is to understand the limitations of that which you are reading. WP is imperfect but that does not mean adopting a destructive stance, which certainly is my experience of "Maurice". I was also surprised to see his statement of absolute truth: any trained historian knows that there is no such thing and that interpretation always gets in the way even of how a primary source is formed; any trained scientist knows that truth is but a hypothesis. Those that know neither, please try to find the time to read Thomas Kuhn <g>. I have read that which he contributed elsewhere than the Churchill article but I suspect people are overemphasising the value of someone who seems unwilling to collaborate and is often obtuse when his opinion differs. The copyvio issue really is NOT the important issue here, I feel. We can get round that if only by starting over. I promise you, if one person can do it then someone else can do it, and life is a marathon etc... I've done it on one article to a reasonable standard: it wouldn't be what I would write for a thesis but it fulfils the community expectations and provisos, and most importantly it adds to knowledge in a selfless way. In particular, my recent contributions lack style and do resemble merely a list of (verifiable!) facts, but that is the compromise you make both while digging around for information/building an entry and also later when you realise that the constraints of NPOV etc actually prevent elucidation/interpretation of history. You are placing far too much emphasis on what is now appearing to be a single source (the copyvio thesis, splashed around in bits over many entries and my bet is including a lot that is actually subjective opinion, because that is the point of original thought) and a person whose attitude seems generally to be negative. I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a really nice person in "real life" but there have been a lot of people giving to him and very little taken by him in this entire farrago, and so perhaps he is just not suited to the environment. Nothing wrong with fish, nothing wrong with air, but fish and air do not work. His constant quoting of AGF only goes so far. I don't want to see him go because there is little doubt that he knows a lot about, well, something but even if he stays the copyvio is an issue and I doubt that it will go away unless he comes round to understanding the community, which looks to me to be extremely unlikely. It was an issue from the start and those who seem to think it is the only issue are really missing the point: it is in fact a symptom rather than the cause. The cause is the person. Although one good thing to come out of all this is that the Churchill AfD resulted in a "keep" as a direct consequence of "Maurice" desiring to see it gone because it was incapable of being expanded. Perhaps he is the perfect WP Devil's Advocate? Tramadol kicking in, off to bed, end of far too long essay. Apologies to all, including "Maurice". Sitush (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jose Maria Siles, Jose-Maria Siles, et al

    Resolved
     – Done

    The article, originally deleted through AfD two years ago, keeps being recreated after each speedy deletion, under at least three different names that differ only slightly. The vandal uses a different account each time. Evidence:

    [157]

    [158]

    [159]

    The article has been deleted a total of eight times, twice on AfD, and I just put it up for speedy again.

    I strongly suggest that each spelling variety be salted. Qworty (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's Al, and how is he involved? HalfShadow 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Al got eaten. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you see "AI"? I'm not familiar with all of the potential socks that have been participating in this vandalism over the years. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a joke. Et is French for "and"... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool; my first bafflement of the year. HalfShadow 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean to say that I'm actually being trolled on the AN/I board, of all places? What are we going to do about this Siles problem? Qworty (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are already salted. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't come here to be trolled!" "Where do you usually go?". Fences&Windows 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "et al." is actually from Latin - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/et_al. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like what I like to call an inter-lingual pun. Like in the 60s when a potato chips ad asked, "Et one, Brute"? Or if a German user is indef'd, I might say "We gave him das Boot." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On January 1st, after discussion on BLP/N (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans), a consensus was arived at that this article was in breach of WP:BLP policy, in that it gave unsourced assertions of (a vaguely-defined) ethnicity to living persons. user:John lilburne accordingly moved the unsorced entries to the talk page. Since that time, user:SamEV has repeatedly reverted the article to its unsourced state, while at the same time acepting that it is in breach of policy (see talk page), suggesting that he will deal with the issue, but only if the list remains on the article page. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to why this is necessary, but none has been forthcoming. Instead SamEV has responded with comments about it being 'my turn' and otherwise refusing to engage in constructive debate. Can I ask uninvolved parties to look into this. I will of course notify SamEV (and John lilburne) of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    From the outset I don't think these ethnic 'roots' lists serve any useful purpose, but at the very least if someone is on one of these lists then it should be RS on the list itself, one shouldn't have to hunt through some other article in order to find the reference. If user:SamEV wants the list back then (s)he should find the source for each person. The unreferenced ethnicity lists were similarly moved to the talk pages for British x Foreigner. John lilburne (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURDEN. Also, as this is a BLP article the usual practice is to remove unsourced material and add it back in sections as it is sourced. That is the approach that should be taken. --Errant (chat!) 13:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't even know where to begin with this editor. Just looking at their contributions makes my head hurt. Can someone have a talk with them? 63.131.4.149 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornixtalk 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know who this is a sockpuppet of, but I woke up this morning to find a long-winded screed on my talkpage, which I blanked and which was later added again. I checked this IP's talkpage and edit history, it seems all they are here to do is create contention and be right at all costs. Scads of editors have told them to cut it out, which they have then blanked, giving the next editor the impression they may be dealing with some poor newbie. Can an admin have a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, someone got here before me and reported this IP!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they have a long Talk page history which they keep deleting. They are not a newbie, they've been editing under this IP account for almost a year, with the same problems. Corvus cornixtalk 04:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Don't tell me how I should leave you a message, a "rant" is your opinion. You ranted. You are acting very immature. And I'm no sock puppet, I just don't like people being unfair on here. Not practicing what they preach.


    Your attitude is out of line. You are attacking an editor and that is not acceptable! You named called, lied, assumed and belittled. Your opinion and perception are not facts. You are way out of line. My first message was nothing of the sort, you are just mad I don't agree with you and confronted you. As a result, I will report you for how you spoke to me and handled this. You are not my parent, my God or my wife. You have no right to talk to me with that attitude. I did nothing wrong, you are just a hot head and it doesn't belong on here. Please grow up, and school yourself. I am much wiser about this than you and that upsets you. You aren't the King of Wiki and you will not ever speak to me like that again! Check yourself... Oh, and your talk page is what this is for, to discuss disputes. Your talk page isn't the Holy Bible. Get over yourself! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: my history, it is editors like you putting petty stuff on it. My edits are good, check them out. How do you know I'm not working with Wiki to find out which of you aren't consistant. I'm not even using the user anymore. I don't need to. Goodbye, and watch yourselves! 63.131.4.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh-oh. You got him all angry at you. HalfShadow 04:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just great, ain't it hey, when they come here and add corroborating evidence to the complaint? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that sounds like a threat to me. What does that threat mean? What are you planning on doing? Corvus cornixtalk 04:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we're all going to be reported. I dunno to whom.. Corvus cornixtalk 05:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Citizen's a-ray-ust!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit he claims to be leaving wikipedia, so maybe this is all moot now. He also claims to be some kind of "secret shopper" hired by wikipedia's "owner" to report on all of us, so maybe up is down and left is right. *shrug* Zachlipton (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I doubt it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... Doc talk 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So why isn't that cat blocked yet? Or is it too much fun watching him go ballistic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    48 hour time-out. There's some egregious stuff there that clearly deserves it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Two whole days! That's telling him! Until the next time... Wikipedia, so easy it practically vandalizes itself! It's easy! It's fun! Bring your friends!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for trying to follow the usual standards for escalating blocks. I'll just indef everyone I come across in future, then? Or perhaps I'll just ignore this kind of thing in future if I'm going to be snarked at for it. Tell you what. Run an RFA, and then you do it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2 days was good for a start, to pretty much shut the guy up until things could be investigated further. IP's cannot be indef'd, in general. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's disappointing. It seemed like he was at least trying to play by the rules, until right at the end -- I'm not sure Doc's 6-month-old diff above is really valid, since we don't know that's the same editor at the IP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we do know it's the same, the writing style and the martyr complex are the same. And no he wasn't playing by the rules, he was gaming them. Too much AGF going around for him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's an old diff for sure: but the IP was editing (e.g.) MC Hammer before the diff, throughout its history and pretty recently too. I was more trying to point out that anyone that would leave that diff could hardly work for "Wiki owner/creator" ;> Doc talk 06:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, good point on the MC Hammer editing -- I hadn't checked in that much detail. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NP :> Doc talk 06:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It it helps any, I have revoked the user's talk page and extended the block to 1 month. User was making minor edits with some patently disruptive and harassing edit summaries, all of which I have RevDeleted. –MuZemike 09:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Make it a 3-month {{checkuserblock}}-hardblock. This is clearly the same person during the past 3 months that has been persisting for a long time. –MuZemike 09:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "You just made the list, buddy." ;> Doc talk 10:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This man cannot resist stalking me with this kind of unnecessary POV edits. OK, no rudeness in the language this time, but the highly questionable motivation for the edit itself can be seen as continued harasssment. Sorry, I feel I must continue to complain. Is there any administrator who can help? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • He reverted an edit of yours? Seriously? Pieter Kuiper shouldn't, if he has been, monitoring your contribs to see what he can undo or whatever, but nor should you be reacting to such a minor incident by starting another thread here. There is nothing realistically than an admin can do in response to this. I understand this is a long running issue. I would suggest keeping note, off-wiki, of any incidents like this which you feel are relevant and then consider WP:RFC or similar to try to resolve this. We don't need, nor is it helpful, for ANI to be used to provide a running commentary regarding the latest pretty trivial development in long running disputes. Adambro (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)I don't see why this is POV or harassment. Surely it is a content dispute? I see that you have raised the issue on the talk page, which is the right thing to do, but you appear not to have waited for any kind of response before bringing it to AN/I. Personally, I know of Harald exclusively as Hardrada, and never as Harald III of Norway, so I can certainly see a justification for Pieter's change, which suggests it's not motivated purely by a desire to harass you.--KorruskiTalk 13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a "minor" incident - it's a spill over from Commons, where there's considerable history and ill feeling. As there are also blocks at Commons (relatively rare) for PK, he now seems to be shifting venue to one where he's less well known. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps neither one of you neither one of you before Dingley is aware of the fact that I just recently asked administrators here to help me and Kuiper stay away from each other, but hardly an administrator responed through all the decimeters of debate that took place. His many more-or-less serious attacks add up to harassment, as I see and feel it (for years now). He knows I feel this way but continues to hound me anyway with no other real intent than that. Since I wrote this, he has added a false accusation of edit-warring worded with his usual contempt. Please help! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, you aren't coming across as the innocent victim. The last time, Pieter Kuiper called article content a hoax and you cried "I'm being personally attacked.". This time around, Pieter Kuiper observes on a talk page that your dispute had been with Nidator (per this edit) and that he had agreed with Nidator (and indeed the Norwegian Wikipedia), and you're here again, crying "usual contempt".

      If there's anything "usual" here, it's that you keep doing this, and this is your usual response to pretty much anything at this point. You are not looking like the victim at all, here, in light of the many times that you've done this at this noticeboard. You're looking like someone whose approach is to come to this noticeboard every time that something happens to involve Pieter Kuiper, crying "personal attack" or "contempt" or something else that plainly isn't so.

      You need to apply some sense of perspective, and only talk about personal attacks when someone personally attacks you (rather than talks about article content) and only talk about contempt when someone actually says something contemptuous (rather than that most people in the world don't know what numbers apply to some kings). At the moment, you're crying wolf when there's no wolf, and it's getting tiring. This is why you'll find that no-one is taking any action. Every time that you do this, it adds another datum to people's model of you, which is rapidly becoming "SergeWoodzing just overreacts to pretty much anything, on the basis of a long-standing dispute on the Swedish Wikipedia that none of us really care about or want to be involved in, and xyr claims don't turn out to have any substance when investigated."

      If you want people to think that of you, keep coming to this noticeboard with imagined slights and petty grievances again and again, as you currently are. Most sensible people would not want that to be thought of them, however, not least because they know what would happen as a consequence when a genuine grievance arose in the future. Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you. This is Woodzing's third report about me here in three weeks. This time he even failed to notify me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators? Is it crying wolf to continue to complain about persistent hounding and harassment? I have no other problems worth mentioning on WP than Pieter Kuiper and his incorrigibly abrasive and cruel behavior, and I don't plan to have any either. Why can't somebody just ask him to stay away from me? SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • He's not doing anything to warrant an interaction ban. The "Hardrada edit" he made was quite correct, that was you applying your idiosyncratic naming once again. Pay attention to what Uncle G wrote above: you are indeed crying wolf. Fences&Windows 02:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Too involved to block?

    I've been removing massive non-free violations from Spanish football articles recently (basically, editors were including non-free logos for TV stations in the sections for every single game in a football season - dozens of non-free images in a single article in some cases). One editor, User:Raul-Reus, was rather annoyed by this, and reverted me, leaving a rather intemperate message, and reverted me (accusing me of vandalism). Because the user obviously doesn't have great English, I explained again on his talk page, in more length this time, why we can't use non-free images like that, and this time received this lovely message (I'm quite proud to be the best motherfucker around). OK, so far so bad, but at least he didn't revert this time. Instead, an IP began undoing my edits, starting from the top of my contribs. I blocked the IP as vandalism-only, and then realised it geolocated to Spain and therefore was almost certainly the same user. I've reblocked it without anon-only, but clearly the editor needs a block for vandalism, socking and (although I'm not particularly bothered about this bit) NPA. Since I'm possibly too involved to do it, I'd be obliged if someone else would oblige. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 14:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Edit - a new IP from the same ISP has now reverted the Spanish football article and restored the non-free images. I don't think I need to wait around now - I have blocked the user indef. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two more IPs targeting my contributions now - I have protected the userpage as well, as the IPs are removing the block template. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good call, I think. Per WP:INVOLVED, of course, your acting as an admin does not make you involved. Not even if you've taken some abuse for it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-free content violations

    I have nuked a section of Canadian Forces Land Force Command (removing all non-free content) for violation the non-free content policy specifically #3, #8, and WP:NFLISTS. Can someone please assist in giving the users in question who are insisting to violate policy a review of said policies? ΔT The only constant 14:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • For those thinking that this was referring to non-free prose, as I did: This is referring to the gallery of pictures of rank insignia in the article. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing content clearly contrary to our NFCC (as this is...) is explicitly exempt from the 3RR. Telling editors to play nice is all well and good, and assuming good faith is all well and good, but the point is that this content is contrary to policy, no matter who is edit warring over it. I get that enforcing the NFCC isn't particularly cool or exciting at the moment, but imagine if they were edit warring over negative, unsourced material about a living person? Would there be the same "play nice, shut up" attitude then? J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The exception applies only to "content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy", my emphasis. Since there is at least a fair use rationale on the images for this article, and I imagine that there are plausible arguments for the position that the use of rank insignia images in an article about the ranks of the Canadian Army is a valid use of non-free material, this exception does not apply. Whether these images may be used in this context or not (or whether very simple geometric constructions like File:Army sleeve LCol.png are even original enough to be copyrightable) is something that must be settled through discussion, not edit-warring. So, yes, "play nice, shut up" and blocking the edit warriors is the correct administrative approach. And in view of [160] the reimposition of the conditionally lifted community ban of Δ (previously Betacommand) may need to be considered.  Sandstein  19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no. The images are already used in the main article on Canadian army insignia (which is a whacking great NFCC violation in itself). Have you seen how many non-free images there were on that article? One of the most obvious NFCC violations I've ever seen - a complete violation of NFCC#3a. Whether they've got rationales or not is irrelevant. If Beta is sanctioned for upholding a core Wikipedia policy we might as well all give up and go home now. Ridiculous. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This could be better handled by "Revert once and escalate to WP:MCQ" which is where ALL discussions regarding issues of this type should be handled. In general, you would be right, but in this one specific instance, Betacommand/Delta has shown to have lost the community's patience with regard to interacting with other users over this specific issue. It's only a specific problem with Betacommand/Delta and he could avoid problems merely by escalating or enlisting the help of others. Yes, NFCC is a thankless area to be working in, however there are avenues to getting help, and Betacommand could do well in enlisting the help of others rather than taking the "lone ranger" stance in this issue. Yes, his position on this appears to be in line with policy, but his tactics have, in the past, left much to be desired. --Jayron32 19:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll say it again. If he was removing obvious BLP violations, rather than obvious NFCC violations, would we even be having this conversation? Or would we be having it if it was me, J Milburn, Hammersoft or one of the other active NFCC enforcement editors? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron, you say Beta/Delta should be "enlisting the help of others"- in posting here and elsewhere, that's exactly what he was doing. And he was told to "shut up and play nice". J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sort of. He came here after multiple reverts and a warning template about breaking the 3RR rule. When faced with threatened sanctions, he begrudgingly escaleted to this (which is note, is the wrong board to deal with these issues, the right one is WP:MCQ.) I still note that a) Betacommand's position is substantively correct regarding the use of the gallery in that article and b) that Betacommand's behavior is in error in light of his prior sanctions and troubles in this area. One can be correct in opinion and wrong in behavior, it happens all the time around here. And I should note that, if a user WERE specifically sanctioned to avoid using multiple reverts to enforce the BLP policy, then yes, it would be handled the same way. Betacommand is not the average user in this case, he's a specific user with a specific history which includes specific prior sanctions. This isn't a general situation. Other users would probably not be questioned regarding multiple reverts in enforcement of NFCC. Betacommand is not "other users". The analogy to BLP is faulty in that it ignores the specific history regarding Betacommand's involvement in this area. --Jayron32 21:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What, precisely, is this board for if not to request help in enforcing policy? (And I am not sure I agree with you that we should have different rules for different users, but there you go...) J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We have sanctions and editing restrictions on editors all the time. It's pretty common when we have good and productive editors that just can't behave well in one context or another. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Except in this case they're behaving perfectly. They're removing part of an article that completely fails one of our core policies (to such an extent that there's even a 3RR exemption on it), and when they're reverted they ask for help from other editors experienced in the area. There may well be editors that need to be sanctioned here, but they definitely don't include Beta. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect request

    There seems to be a recurring problem on this page with an IP inserting non-RS supported material which appears to be a coatrack for YouTube links and the views of a radio talk show host concerning Al Gore. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • For information:
    • Semi-protection was applied before, and doesn't seem to have worked. Indeed, looking back through the article's history and discussion on its talk page, I observe that this dispute has been on-going since at least 2008 (example edit from 2008), has not been discussed extensively on the talk page, and was the reason for the past two semi-protections, one in 2010 and one in 2008. So I've gone with something different this time: one year's pending changes. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions enforcement 2

    Resolved

    Given that Wikidea (talk · contribs) was just blocked for the exact same thing, and given that even before that block, there was a community sanction forbidding Wikidea from commenting on or interacting with me "directly or indirectly," I'm going to complain about this, too, since the editor makes it clear that he's going to keep disregarding the community sanction. THF (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this violates User:Wikidea/Community sanction, notified to the editor at [161]. Because the violation occured on the user's talk page during an ongoing 72h block for a related problem, I am blocking them for a week. I am also warning them that their talk page access will be removed and the block duration increased if they continue to violate the sanction on their talk page while blocked.  Sandstein  16:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arran56 making disparaging remarks and legal threats

    In this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Kopstein, Arran56 (talk · contribs) makes several ad hominem attacks against another editor who had edited an article Arran had written, and proceeded to make legal threats against Wikipedia if his demands were not met immediately. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked unless he retracts those attacks and the threat. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's always amazing to see people threaten to "go public". What on Earth do they think they are doing when making edits on a wiki that the entire planet can read? What possesses them to think that what they are doing here to start with is private? Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inexperienced people do behave foolishly at AFD and make fallacious ad hominem arguments based upon falsehoods and name calling. (The question that one so often wants to ask is: If Wikipedia editors were "vindictive and high-handed", what would that make you, a Wikipedia editor?) That's usually a cue for some education to address ignorance of how Wikipedia works and who Wikipedia editors are. But yes, the statement of intent to have a letter from a lawyer is an unambiguous legal threat, which is a quite different matter. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a blatant legal threat; good block. I just don't understand these people... Editors are making the article more encyclopedic and less likely to be deleted, but because it's not a vastly overdetailed example of hagiography it's been "destroyed," the editors in question are all irresponsible and being reported for their intransigence (to whom, we're never really sure)... oy. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Image undeletion

    Resolved
     – Restored by User:Djsasso

    Please undelete the image referenced in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Volunteer_response_team#Backlog.3F. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Erpert's use of NAC

    Following on from a proposed topic ban in August 2010, I have concerns about the recent actions of Erpert (talk · contribs). Erpert started an AfD at on 31 December 2010; another editor started a seperate AfD about similar articles on 5 January. Within just 20 minutes, Erpert had closed this second AfD and bundled the affected articles in with his own nomination. Despite concerns raised by myself and MelanieN (talk · contribs) on the first AfD page, Erpert refused to acknowledge that his actions were wrong; he also refused to revert his edits. Can an admin intervene please? Many thanks, GiantSnowman 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I already reverted his closure and bundling. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I noticed after I started this thread, thank you. However, the underlying issue remains, I feel. GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to say let this one slide: it's been almost five months since the last ANI and unlike previous issues, Erpert wasn't trying to shut down a discussion here, he/she made a misguided attempt to amalgamate two discussions. Also, Erpert has been making good, uncontroversial, closes: [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167]. They're exactly the kind of closes non-admins should be making. I suspect Erpert thought this would be uncontroversial but was mistaken. There's an obvious improvement/change in approach since August, even if there may be a bit of a way to go. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Erpert's judgment about non-controversial closes has been improving overall; I'm inclined to let this one go as well. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I'm willing to assume good faith for this situation. GiantSnowman 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lorenzo Cappiello

    Obroak (talk · contribs) and Arolks (talk · contribs) both created the hoax article Lorenzo Cappiello or similarly titled articles. Later on, Lorenzo Cappiello (talk · contribs) created the hoax article Lorenzo Cappiello (2008 album) and a fake biographical article on his user page. The latter got blocked for sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lorenzo_Cappiello/Archive. Most recently, Cappiellorenzo (talk · contribs) created another "Lorenzo Cappiello" article, this time saying that he was an Italian TV host for a show that turns up no hits outside Wikipedia. I would think that since his name is "Cappiellorenzo", this is a clear-cut WP:DUCK. Please block Cappiellorenzo (talk · contribs) as a blatantly obvious sock. (ETA: There are also Minterne (talk · contribs) and 82.56.157.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose lone edits are removing the AFD tag.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some SALT may be in order too, and possibly an edit-filter if it keeps up. ArakunemTalk 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed the following:

    New article needs investigation

    An article on Plague immunization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created about 2 weeks ago by GenOrl (talk · contribs), who is mainly active on ru-wp. The first edit created a 38k article with 112 references, which clearly raises a few red flags. It also shows some signs of being a machine translation, but a fairly exhaustive search through GenOrl's global contributions didn't reveal the source. I'm out of ideas for how to find where this was copied from, and perhaps more importantly, what should be done with this article. Any suggestions? SnottyWong prattle 19:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC) first edit[reply]

    I don't have time to do a thorough investigation at the moment, but a lot of the article is copy/pasted from the "Vaccine" section of this page, which bears a copyright notice at the bottom. Deor (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch, I didn't see that. It looks like the parts of the article with good grammar are almost all copied from that source (both the Vaccine and Bacteriology sections of the source). Not sure if that's enough to G12 the whole article though. I'll keep searching and see what I find. SnottyWong comment 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's enough, I've speedied it. The wording was verbatim. We need zero tolerance for copying and pasting from copyrighted sources. It can be started again properly, probably at a better title. Fences&Windows 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He also took wording "Certain fractions of antiplague ... therapeutic characteristics are expressed ... " etc. from this source. I think we may need to examine all of his contributions. Fences&Windows 23:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit introduced copyright material to Plague (disease), also a later edit. I've removed the text, not sure whether to revdel all subsequent revisions. Fences&Windows 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, all removed. He hasn't contributed many articles or substantive edits, so luckily this report nipped this problem in the bud. Any repeat of this should see him indef blocked. I wonder if Simple Engish Wikipedia is also affected? Fences&Windows 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dala11a continuing to include WP:OR in cannabis-related articles

    User:Dala11a has repeatedly [169][170][171][172][173][174] tried to insert original research that contradicts multiple academic sources into the article War on Drugs, in spite of being told not to do so by multiple editors.

    He has reverted my latest removal of his OR as "vandalism", and I don't feel like getting into an edit war with him. (I would also ask that someone explain to him not to throw around the term "vandalism" lightly, as some people would consider it a personal attack) Wikipedia sourcing policies have been explained to him enough times by now, that I don't feel that it's plausible to claim that he doesn't know what he's doing. I'd also note that, judging from the looks of his talk page, his editing history seems to be generally problematic, especially in cannabis-related articles. His edit history shows that he tends to focus almost exclusively on this topic, and is including the same type of OR across a variety of articles (e.g. hemp, Marijuana Tax Act, Jack Herer, etc.)

    If someone else can step in at this point and make him stop, I would appreciate it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing any egregious NPOV violations. The writing could be improved, but he is including reliable sources to back up everything he's adding to the article. He even added a few sentences which show that hemp is not a good substitute source of paper when compared to well-managed forests. If he were truly trying to push a pro-marijuana POV, he probably would have left that part out. SnottyWong confabulate 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that there was a WP:NPOV issue, nor did I say that he's "trying to push a pro-Marijuana POV". I'm saying that it's a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:RS issue.
    Dala11a is taking sources (many of which fail WP:RS, such as primary documents written by Anslinger) that aren't talking about Hearst, etc. at all, and using them to imply that the academic sources regarding Hearst are wrong (using phrases like "In reality...", "The last claim is in clear conflict with...", "This theory is contradicted by...", etc., followed by claims backed by original research from historical economic data.) But none of the sources actually make the claim citing them -- i.e. that they contradict the previous theory. None of the sources cited even mention Hearst, so we shouldn't be saying the Hearst theory is "contradicted by [insert original research]". To quote WP:OR:
    "[Original research] also includes analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by or detailed within the sources."
    We've got reliable scholarly sources making a claim, and then original research from historical economic data being cited as a "refutation" -- a claim which none of the sources make themselves. This is the essence of WP:SYNTH, and is unacceptable. (It also happens to be a logically faulty conclusion, but that's not what I'm concerned about here.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The above article has recently had a weasel words template removed three times by two editors. I would appreciate any input from any independent editors here whether the template is justified. I would also welcome any comments on the talk pages from such editors about the addition and removal of the template, and the reasons given on the talk page and in the edit summaries for both. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that I have already advised John Carter about repeatedly adding this template with a 3RR warning here. The latest reversion is likely to be a WP:SOCK here. Ovadyah (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFLOL indeed that John is surely a sock.[sarcasm] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User:John notified The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is to acknowledge that I, as well as John, am aware of the ridiculous allegation made above. If other editors are so incapable of reviewing editor's history as to make this allegation, or are unaware that John is actually a fairly common name, even though it actually isn't mine, they might want to review just how common the name is. As I've said elsewhere, my birth name is Arthur, Dudley Moore jokes and all, which is why I went for the more common one of a fictional character I like. I do wish some of the more recent comments made regarding this article weren't quite so similar to the drunken statements in the Moore movie, but it is good to have a laugh once in a while. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dammit. Every time I get a decent sock account going I get busted like this. Oh well. Seriously, does somebody with CU access want to assure Ovadyah that John Carter and I are not socks? --John (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already apologized for this mistake on John's talk page, so let's get back to the issue at hand. Ovadyah (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Get your ass back to Mars!" HalfShadow 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Without reading Professor Pine's essay ("The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source") myself, I cannot be sure if he quotes or refers to other historians/academicians/scholars within it. On the face of it (and with no direct quotes from the material to support the implied 'more than one' of the word 'some'), it seems to me that the phrase 'some scholars argue' is only referring to the Professor. Since this section of the article is referring to the history of the article's subject and history is usually taken to mean a record or consideration of events (either written or oral), then why can't the writer who has this particular opinion be mentioned by name in the article? After all, other writers and historians are mentioned within the article by name including Justin Martyr, Origen and Epiphanius of Salamis. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted to remedy the problem by removing the ambiguous "some scholars" and explicitly identifying the five scholars that hold this majority view. Thus the original point of the "weasel words" tag is moot. Ovadyah (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And in the process you added material, specifically including a prejudicial statement of "most" scholars, which I believe cannot be justified by policies or guidelines, and have made several comments on the page, none of which seem to actually directly respond to the points raised, and some of which seem to specifically imply that for whatever reason you are not obligated to do so. I am specifically requesting any and all editors who see this thread respond on the article talk page regarding the points raised there. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out previously on the talk page, you were requested by the mediator to come up with sources (even one) that contradicted this view, and you either refused or could not. Therefore, it represents the majority view of the scholars who have studied this problem, until you can produce an even larger list of scholars that advocate an opposing view. Ovadyah (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving noticeboard comments

    I know, this is petty, but it is annoying, and this is the first time I've encountered a situation like this. I read WP:TALK as prohibiting an editor moving talk page (or noticeboard) comments as here.[175], especially when done two more times.[176] [177] I was responding to Hobit, not to Jack Sebastian, and this totally changes my meaning. I think the usual practice is to leave comments alone in such situations. If I'm correct, can someone please move it back and advice Jack Sebastian of the protocol on this? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A background note on this: This issue started as a content dispute at The Circus (film) and has turned into an edit war on several fronts with these 2 editors reverting each other several times in several minutes on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard as well as each other's talk pages. Since tensions seem to be running higher by the second between these two, asking them to temporarily refrain from contact between each other may be a good idea. Not to mention that the edit war at the noticeboard is one of the lamest I've seen in a while. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit to the "lame," part, but the reversions commenced when my comment was moved. That's the totality of the edit warring, and I self-reverted my last reversion, so as to bring it here. Rest assured I have no interest in interacting with said user. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I am the editor in question (watchlisted the reporting user, and not notified, as per guidelines). I did indeed moved ScottyBerg's comments - which (s)he shoe-horned in the middle of my reply to another user - to after mine, following chronological order. ScottyBerg's doing so altered the meaning of my comments, making it seem as if I were replying to SB and not another user. I only moved the comment - which the user indirectly admits are out of order by indenting as if it were after mine. I changed no text or meaning of the post at all. The user has reverted this show-horning back in three times, at which point I was about to report them for 3RR (the user self-reverted their fourth revert), and saw this in their contributions.
    Despite my reservations with the user (based upon comments made by himher to other users), I made several attempts to advise the user how to better use our indenting format and identification of reply posts. ScottyBerg has - since my first comment to the user back in November, removed my posts without response. His behavior in article discussion is both attack-y and sullen in nature. I therefore suggested that the user consult with an admin to get some advice. I guess the user thinks the best defense is a good offense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressing the original complaint here, I think ScottyBerg is technically in the wrong here as his initial comment was placed out-of-order with the series of talkpage comments. ScottyBerg, why didn't you place this comment after Jack Sebastian's comment where it would usually go? NickCT (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin commment) On the particular point in question I agree with ScottyBerg that comments on a talk page should not be moved like this as it's against WP:TALK and my udnerstanding off how talk pages work so I've reverted the edit and put the comment back where it was originally left. Dpmuk (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think placing comments out of strict chronological order is not unusual on talk pages. I was responding specifically to Hobit's point on BRD, and was trying, in fact, to avoid interacting with Jack Sebastian given the aggressive tone of his posts. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Dpmuk, I would point out that it was my post that was moved in the first place - a post wherein I was explicitly responding to another user's comments. If dor example, I had wanted to reply to a post out of order, I would have identified the target of my reply, and put it at the end, which is what we all do here. Why does ScottyBerg not have to follow the same guidelines that the rest of us do? Being a relatively new user only excuses so much, esp. when they are repeatedly advised on how to better accomplish simple tasks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also of the impression that posting out of order is not exactly uncomment on talk pages. If a thread gets long it's awkward for everyone involved if a direct reply to a comment is much further down the page (see also my comments at User:Jack Sebastian). But to a large extent that's irrelevant - WP:TALK makes it clear you should not move other people's comments if it changes there meaning. Your move clearly did this as it made it look like they were replying to you rather than Hobbit. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also point out that your post was not "moved" - they merely inserted a comment in a place to make it clear who they were replying to, which is normal practice. By keeping the indentation somewhat sensible they also ensured it stayed clear who you were replying to. Dpmuk (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (2x) I would just point out that how I just handled my previous post - identifying the target of the post in the beginning of my response as well as noting such in the edit summary - is not only the accepted format we all use, but simply polite.
    Re: Scotty's defense of stating he was avoiding my "aggressive tone", I would imagine that sticking his posts before mine, disconnecting my conversation doesn't seem - on its face - the best way to avoid confrontation. I'm trying to AGF here, but that doesn't ring true. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dpmuk, I agree that inserting comments is not out of order per se, but I would suggest you look at the inserting post edit again. Note that my comment was specifically to another editor. By inserting their comment in between them more than twelve hours after the post, ScottyBerg made it seem like I was replying to them instead of the original target. I would submit that the user did so to accomplish precisely that, and to initiate a confrontation. Why didn't the user simply state in their post - again, 12 hours after the fact - by simply identifying who they were replying to? Why did they feel the burning need to interrupt a discussion I was having with another user? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Copied from your talk page - "I completely disagree - by making sure their reply was indented enough they made it clear that your reply wasn't to them but rather to Hobbit. As such I don't think they violated WP:TALK as it was still clear who you replied to and so it didn't change the meaning of what you wrote. Your change changed who it appear they replied to and so did change the meaning of what they wrote which is in violation of WP:TALK." Dpmuk (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    {Just for clarity's sake, these are your comments on my talk page, not mine}. I appreciate your efforts to resolve the problem, but I still don't think I did anything wrong here. I am understand WP:TALK, but I'd warrant that WP:REFACTOR is more on point here. The user did it to disrupt a conversation I was having with someone else, and then fought to preserve that little 'f.u.' that excluded me from my own conversation. Again, the user is tryingt o reframe the issue. You've proposed a solution which would satisfy me, as it follows TALK, but I don't think they will accept it, as it undoes their action. Give it a whirl. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, this conversation is now all over the place. Personally I wouldn't have had a problem with your refactoring if you'd done it in such a way it still made it clear they were replying to Hobbit - it's that change that I think violated WP:TALK not the fact that you refactored, and it's also because of that change in meaning that I reverted. Hopefully they're go with my suggestion and we can move on from there. Dpmuk (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, it never occurred to me to add anything to their post (like "To Hobit" or the like), because that would be in violation of both TALK and REFACTOR. All I sought to do was to preserve conversational and chronological flow. That is what keeps the conversations from being "all over the place". Also, waiting more than a moment between replies avoids a lot of edit conflicts. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More misunderstaning - my comment about discussion all over the place was about the discussion about what to do. I wasn't saying that you should have added anything to their post (as I'd agree that wouldn't be right) - merely indented it appropriately (which I believe would have been acceptable). Oh well - definitely off to bed now. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not this shit again. Jack, read between the lines: when an editor like yourself did this to me many, many times in the past, I asked that editor to stop and they did not, and it led to the same complaint that ScottyBerg is making here, as you may or may not be aware. Let's just put an end to this here and now, ok? There is no need to keep upsetting people by moving their comments. In the future, please don't touch comments made by other editors unless you have permission from the original editor to do so. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an uninvolved admin please look at User talk:193.255.108.20 and see what if anything you think should be done about the rantings there? The IP editor is currently under a week-long block that I placed for making a legal threat and for which Kuru declined to unblock. The block will be expiring soon, but I am concerned that the rantings on the talk page are indicative of a problem beyond a user angry over a block. LadyofShalott 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved the polemical stuff to a subpage for now, and added a note to that effect. Good faith notwithstanding, I would regard that as a last chance before a more substantial block is enacted. Bottom line is that the editor either gets it, or he doesn't. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Noclador

    This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Noclador said several times that I'm a sock puppet of a general and others. He reverts my edits here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nikolayevka. There is a way to stop this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How fast a novice user, who can not even sign his comment finds this notice board - amazing! Anyway: User:Generalmesse used a group of socks to insert pro-Italian bias into articles regarding Italian units and battles in WWII (see: here and here) His favorite source were communiques of "Radio Berlin" broadcast to the allied nations and then reported in the New York times... examples regarding the article mentioned above: [178], [179], [180], [181],... and now out of nowhere comes an IP and inserts the same Radio Berlin propaganda: [182] - a 1 to 1 example:
    • "However Berlin Radio claimed that in the fighting on the Middle Don "troops of the Twenty-Fourth German Army Corps and the Italian Alpine Corps particularly distinguished themselves." (The New York Times, January 31, 1943)"([183])
    • "However Berlin Radio claimed that in the fighting on the Middle Don "troops of the Twenty-Fourth German Army Corps and the Italian Alpine Corps particularly distinguished themselves." (The New York Times, January 31, 1943)."([184])
    there is no doubt in my mind that this IP is a reincarnation of Generalmesse, but seeing his latest edit [185] I think no action is needed at the moment and I believe it will be best to observe if his future edits will be constructive or again strong pro-Italian POV tainted. noclador (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This user appears to be committing what seems to me is a clear case of POV pushing by adding unsourced info and what looks like hearsay to 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (United States). I reverted the first change and warned him, but he undid my revision and continued adding (here) He claims on his userpage his edits are justified because what he is saying "is a fact" (here) I'm not going to break 3RR, so someone uninvolved please come in and settle the dispute. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted on their talkpage and included a military analogy - perhaps that will help. Exxolon (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent outing

    User:Kimpatriciabax, recently blocked for disruptive editing, appears to be using her talk page to [186] another editor. I have no idea if it is accurate or not, but it probably warrants admin attention. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]